Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Wednesday, 13 March 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

List Member Vacancy

List Member Vacancy

Mr SPEAKER: I have been advised by the Chief Electoral Officer, pursuant to section 137 of the Electoral Act 1993, that Carol Ann Beaumont has been declared to be elected as a member of the House of Representatives in place of Charles Pierre Chauvel. I understand that Carol Ann Beaumont is present and wishes to make the affirmation. Would she please come forward to the chair on my right.

Members Sworn

Members Sworn

Carol Beaumont was presented to the Speaker, made the affirmation required by law, and took her seat in the House.

Motions

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—20th Anniversary of Ratification

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate, noting the 20th anniversary of New Zealand ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

METIRIA TUREI: I move, That this House note that today is the 20th anniversary of New Zealand ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that it is the most well-supported human rights treaty in history, that it committed this country to consider the best interests of the child in all activities and make children’s rights known as a priority, and that the House recognises children as full citizens of our nation, deserving of our most ardent attention to make the world fit for them to inherit.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Government Financial Position—Financial Statements for 7 Months Ended 31 January 2013

1. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Last week Treasury released the Government’s Financial Statements for the 7 months to the end of January. They show that the Government’s financial position continues to track slightly better than forecast in the half-year update. The operating balance before gains and losses for the 7 months was around half a billion dollars smaller than forecast in December, and the operating balance including gains from Government investment funds actually shows a surplus of $4.2 billion, reflecting recent strengths in financial markets—around $4 billion better than expected.

Hon Tau Henare: What were some of the reasons for the slightly better financial results for the 7 months to 31 January?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Really, the main factor over which we have control has been the control of Government spending. The Public Service and public servants across New Zealand deserve credit for the diligent way in which they have managed Government spending, such that it is running slightly below what we forecast. The other factor is improving revenue. Core Crown tax revenue was $486 million above forecast. We are starting to get some of the benefits of a broad based - low rate tax system, which means it is more efficient and is actually taxing a broader range of income.

Hon Tau Henare: What approach is the Government taking to managing its finances so that it remains on track to achieving a surplus in 2014-15?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The approach we have taken is considered and consistent change over time on Government expenditure. So Government departments and services such as health and education have now, for 2 or 3 years, had clear constraints within which they are operating. They have taken the time and the trouble to understand how their delivery of services must change, and they are enrolling their staff across the board, particularly front-line staff, in making those changes. This has enabled us to deliver a good restraint on expenditure that will help us get to surplus at the same time as improving the quality of public services.

Hon Tau Henare: How does the Government’s financial position compare with the situation faced by other developed countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are in a relatively strong position. All developed countries have faced similar pressures since the onset of the global financial crisis. However, in many of them their gross borrowing continues to grow and will grow for quite some time yet. When we reach surplus in 2014-15, then Government borrowing will be able to stop increasing. Secondly, we have been able to avoid large-scale, drastic changes to our public services, such as we are seeing in Australia, where Australian states have in recent times made tens of thousands of public servants redundant. We have chosen a more moderate and therefore more successful pathway of change.

Ministers—Confidence

2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, they are competent and hard-working Ministers.

David Shearer: What responsibility should the Minister of Finance take for the increase in Solid Energy’s debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government, in its first term of office, had a look at State-owned enterprises’ balance sheets and made a decision that many of them could carry more debt in a way that would enhance the performance of the companies. It did make a decision to allow Solid Energy to take on more debt.

David Shearer: In a letter dated 28 May 2009, did the Minister of Finance approve increased debt ratios for Solid Energy that led to debt ballooning from $13 million to $300 million between 2008 and 2012?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, there was such a letter, signed by myself and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. The decisions about how much debt to incur were made by the board, but we inherited a range of State-owned enterprises that were badly run, overspending, and over-investing, and we took a whole range of measures to lift their performance. In the case of Solid Energy, it has turned out that a company that is operating in the world coal market, which is now so volatile, would have been better with no debt. In retrospect, that is easy to see; at the time it was not.

David Shearer: Why did the Minister of Finance require Solid Energy to increase its dividends and debt at a time when he knew that coal prices were declining?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the time, it was not clear that coal prices were declining. In fact, the best advice from the company—with which the Government ended up disagreeing—was that coal prices would continue to rise. But, as I said, that decision was made in the context of the mess that the previous Labour Government left with the State-owned enterprises.

David Shearer: I would like to table a letter from the Minister for State Owned Enterprises to Mr John Palmer on 20 May 2009, copied to the Minister of Finance, where he insists that State-owned enterprises increase their gearing—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—[Interruption] I think I have got enough information. Leave is sought for the tabling of that letter. Is there any objection to that? There is none. It may be so tabled.

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

David Shearer: How can he have confidence in his Minister of Finance, when he put pressure on Solid Energy to increase debt at the same time as he was telling New Zealanders that controlling debt was his top priority?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, having State-owned enterprises carry more debt simply shifts the debt around the Government balance sheet—either they carry it or we carry it. Secondly, it is one of the completely normal commercial means by which owners of companies put pressure on companies to perform. The fact is that the State-owned enterprises had been under no pressure to perform under the previous Government, and we expect better value for the taxpayers’ investment. I would have to say that we were successfully able to improve the performance of most State-owned enterprises over that period. In the case of Solid Energy, a sharp drop in the coal price and a loss of export markets put it into financial difficulty.

David Shearer: Was his Minister of Finance advised that such an approach to increase dividends and increase gearing at a time when coal prices were actually falling would stretch State-owned enterprises and “may not be realistically achievable in the short term without inflicting undue harm on the credit rating and/or investment plans”; if so, did he accept that advice?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that if it was good advice then the Minister did accept it. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It is opposing asset sales because the Government is giving away dividends, and now it is opposing measures the Government took to get dividends out of State-owned enterprises.

David Shearer: Does he have confidence in the Minister of Finance, given that he thought it was right to take a $30 million dividend in September 2011, when it was apparent then that Solid Energy was in financial trouble?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with that. Bear in mind here that this was a company valued at over $2 billion paying almost no dividends. Opposition parties have been saying that these companies should never be sold, because we are giving away big dividends. In fact, at the time, it looked like billions of dollars of value with very little return for the taxpayer. What is the point in owning a company like that?

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister censure his Minister of Housing for saying yesterday that the metropolitan urban limit has contributed very negatively to housing affordability in Auckland, when the Minister’s own official documents show that he is wrong?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, he certainly will not be censuring the Minister of Housing, because that is not what the document shows. What the document shows is that the Auckland regional strategy failed. It was meant to create densification in the city. In fact, there is less new building going on in the city now than ever, and more of the new development in Auckland in the last 10 years has occurred out on the urban limit. We have got ongoing discussions with the Auckland Council to try to get a sensible outcome that will give New Zealanders who live in Auckland, which is a big proportion of them, a reasonable opportunity to get access to reasonably priced housing, even if that does not fit with the planners’ dreams about ideal cities.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that sometimes an explanation is needed by Ministers, but the Standing Orders are very clear that answers should be succinct, and I would hope that you would see those rules as being correct.

Mr SPEAKER: It certainly was a very lengthy answer. It has now concluded. Has the member got further supplementary questions?

Metiria Turei: Is it therefore acceptable to the Prime Minister for his Minister of Housing to intentionally misrepresent the facts of housing to the public?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister did not misrepresent the facts. In fact, I would advise the member to read the report, the most stunning conclusion from which is that where Auckland Council said there were 15,000 sections ready for building, it turns out there are 2,000 sections ready for building. That is why so many middle and low income New Zealanders cannot afford houses in Auckland. That member might like it that way. We think it is a bad outcome, and we want to change it.

Street Racing, Illegal—Results of Legislative Changes

3. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister of Police: What trends have been seen by Police since laws were changed in 2009 to combat illegal street racing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): In 2009 we introduced new laws to crack down on illegal street racing and send a strong message that the dangerous behaviour of boy racers will not be tolerated. Between 2009 and 2012 the number of infringement notices issued by police for illegal street racing fell by 35 percent. Over the same period the number of 15 to 24-year-olds killed on our roads fell by over 38 percent.

Ian McKelvie: What changes were made in 2009 to deter illegal street racing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The 2009 law changes gave courts the power to seize and destroy the cars of repeat offenders, allowed councils to outlaw boy racers cruising the streets, and made it easier to impound vehicles caught racing. Of the 8,765 offences since 2009, only 172 offenders are on two strikes. This shows that these law changes are having a strong deterrent effect and are reducing reoffending. But the number of young lives lost on the roads is still too high. Police will be continuing their crackdown, and boy racers should be warned that if they do not change their behaviour, they will be dealt with by the police.

Job Creation—Government Performance

4. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being very poor and 10 being outstanding, how does he rate the Government’s performance on job creation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): I have given this question quite a lot of thought for the member, because I think it does require a considered judgment, as he is, of course, asking for an opinion. On the one hand, the number of people looking for jobs is higher than we would all like. On the other hand, compared with other OECD countries we are doing relatively well. Of course, we have had to deal with the impact of the Christchurch earthquakes on the New Zealand economy, as well as the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis has, of course, resulted in higher savings by New Zealanders, which I think is broadly acknowledged as a good thing, but this has limited job growth in areas like the retail industry, which is a traditional source of larger numbers of lower-skill jobs. In terms of the Government actions we have, of course, a comprehensive Business Growth Agenda of 300 different agendas, which will lift new investment and jobs in the New Zealand economy. On the other hand, we have seen some people propose some more radical options, which are a bit panicky, and would in all likelihood—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think I need to give my point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

Hon David Parker: Length!

Mr SPEAKER: It was—

Grant Robertson: It was a very specific question.

Mr SPEAKER: No, it was not. That was the difficulty. It was not a specific question at all, and it was very much an opinion question, but it was certainly a very lengthy answer. I accept that, and I think that now we can conclude. I assume that the Minister has concluded.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the problem is the question, and if, in fact, members keep asking these questions—how he rates the Government’s performance, etc.—and then asking for a rating between one and 10, they could expect only that the criteria the Government might use to make such a rating would be explained to the House. So I think it would be unfortunate if the question stands, but the answer is constrained.

Mr SPEAKER: As I said, I disagree with Grant Robertson. It was not a specific question; it was a very general question. It sought an opinion. It was a lengthy opinion, but it is now concluded, and I certainly invite—

Grant Robertson: A number? No, we haven’t had an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: And it does not have to have a number given in the answer. It is an opinion question, and your own colleague cut the Minister down, not wanting him to complete his answer. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was accepted, and it begins with the statement: “On a scale of 1 to 10”—

Mr SPEAKER: Correct.

Grant Robertson: —so your office has accepted that as a question. Therefore, there must be at least some reference—

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Grant Robertson: —to that scale.

Mr SPEAKER: And I appreciate the member’s position. I took some advice from the Clerk after noting the question, and it is an opinion question that does not require an answer to be given in a range of one to 10. The essence of the question is how the Government rates job creation. A lengthy answer was given. There is the ability for the member to ask further supplementary questions if he so wishes.

Grant Robertson: How does he then explain that 69 percent of businesses recently surveyed by Ernst and Young rated his Government’s performance on job creation as “average to very poor” or “less than 5”, or, as the Sunday Star-Times called it, a fail mark?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, the Sunday Star-Times has always been a massive fan of this Government, but I note that the survey—which had a sample size, which, interestingly, was not mentioned by the newspaper, of around 200—said that five out of 10 or better was around 52 percent, as I recall. There were also other surveys that, of course, the member probably is not interested in hearing about because he likes to talk the New Zealand economy down, and one of them, of course, is the BNZ Confidence Survey, which has a net 40 percent positive for the New Zealand economy. There is also the ANZ survey, which was also very positive about the New Zealand economy, and there is also the Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion, which rates business confidence the highest since 2007, at 19 percent positive.

Grant Robertson: What credibility does that answer have when the same Ernst and Young survey shows that 71 percent of businesses rated his Government’s ability to develop and execute a Business Growth Agenda as being five or less out of 10, or, in other words, a fail mark?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, again, that same survey said that five out of 10 or better was 50-something percent. So I actually think that although we can always do more and although we are always facing the challenges of the global financial crisis and the Christchurch earthquakes, one thing we could be sure of is that if they surveyed “Which Government would you prefer, this one or the last one?”, they would say—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: Which of the following does he think is the main reason that 70 percent of the businesses have given his Government’s job creation record a fail mark: 163,000 people unemployed, youth unemployment hitting 30 percent in the last quarter, a 23,000-person increase in those young people not in education, employment, or training, or just the 30,000 jobs that were lost last year on his watch?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think there are about three issues with the suppositions that the member raised there in terms of actual facts. But, nevertheless, in terms of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda, we are, in fact, proceeding very strongly. We have just released, for example, the East Coast oil and gas study, we have announced further reforms of the Resource Management Act, we have announced the draft decision in favour of the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway, we have announced $25 million more in research and development grants, we have announced that the mixed-ownership model is proceeding, which will boost New Zealand’s capital markets—all of these things in just the last 10 days.

Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware that only two businesses in the survey rated the Government’s performance on job creation as outstanding, and when will he be calling Cameron Slater and David Farrar to thank them?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a pathetic question.

Climate Change—Drought Conditions and Government Response

5. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, in relation to drought-stricken farmers, that “I wasn’t referring to climate change. It’s just that if it turned out that there was a succession of droughts, there’s no amount of government assistance that can offset that effect on farming”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. Although the Greens think they own climate change, in fact climate has been fluctuating for ever, including in the last 40 or 50 years, and farmers have several times had to change their farming practices according to longer periods of drier or wetter summers, and that is the point I was making. Government assistance for droughts is in no way intended to take pressure off farmers to adapt their farming practice if that is what is required by weather patterns.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the Government’s own research body the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) when it states: “Droughts are projected to become more frequent and more intense under climate change.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to question the scientific effort that has gone into that, although there is always uncertainty about these predictions. I recall similar predictions made by similar scientific bodies in Australia just 4 or 5 years ago and it has not stopped raining since.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that human-induced climate change is real?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It may well be, but I am not sure what that has got to do with this particular question. The fact is that the Government is assisting farmers with short-term emergency-type assistance through a drought. If there is a succession of droughts farmers would need to change their farming practice; Government assistance will not protect them from the consequences of it.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he understand that what it has to do with this question is that if climate change is happening and it is human-caused, we will face more droughts and more intense droughts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That could turn out to be the case. The point I am making is that fluctuating climate is not new to farmers. It might be a recent discovery by the Greens as a way of making political points, but farmers have for a few hundred years, actually, been adapting their farming practice according to relatively short cycles of weather change. In the 1970s there was a run of droughts. Later on in the 1980s there was a run of quite wet summers, and farming practice changed significantly. It may have to change again.

Dr Russel Norman: If New Zealand is facing more droughts and more intense droughts because of climate change, why is his Government doing nothing to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions, and, at an international level, why is it undermining international efforts to cut greenhouse emissions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the member is simply wrong. I could run through the whole range of initiatives, including the Government continuing to implement the emissions trading system, which the Greens were part of creating. The result, of course, is quite striking. When the Greens were supporting a Labour Government emissions were going up rapidly; since that Government went out, emissions have flattened or dropped.

Dr Russel Norman: Why has the Government undermined international efforts to take action on climate change by refusing to make commitments under Kyoto II?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We just do not agree with the member’s interpretation of that. I have to say, though, that the New Zealand Government is happy to be judged by what it does. Climate change is a policy area where there is an awful lot of rhetoric, including coming from countries that have not taken anything like the decisive actions that the New Zealand Government has taken, but we are happy to be judged by what we have done and there is quite a long list of it.

Dr Russel Norman: Is he aware that the New Zealand Government is being judged internationally and that as a result of the decision of his Government to not make binding commitments in the second Kyoto period, New Zealand has been condemned internationally for undermining efforts to address climate change that causes more drought and more intense drought?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know what the member is referring to, but I have to say sometimes I am a bit taken aback by the willingness of the Green Party and its global cohorts, but particularly the New Zealand Green Party, to condemn New Zealand Government policy from the safety of offshore conferences where everyone thinks that they agree the same things about climate change. The fact is that being condemned internationally by a handful of NGOs is not going to influence New Zealand Government policy.

Dr Russel Norman: How is it consistent on the one hand for the Minister to say he cares about droughts and the impact of drought on farmers and on New Zealand, when on the other hand in terms of climate change policy this Government has watered down the emissions trading scheme very significantly, and in terms of international negotiations has made it much harder for international cooperation by refusing to make commitments under the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, we think it is quite consistent to make the statements that I have made about our concern about drought and to continue to advance New Zealand’s contribution to reducing emissions. I might say that if the measurement is actual reduction in emissions then New Zealand is in a much better state 5 years on from the change of Government than we might have imagined even just 3 or 4 years ago. If the measurement is rhetoric about climate change, then I accept the member’s criticism. We do not go on about it, do not boast, and do not try to inflate what we are doing.

Dr Russel Norman: If climate change is having an effect on the New Zealand climate and producing more droughts and more intense droughts, and the only way to really resolve it is through global action, surely the Government should be leading in global action to address climate change instead of being dragged behind, which would mean that New Zealand farmers would benefit from the actions of his Government instead of suffering as a result of them.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Bill English, in so far as there is a question there.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think if the member compares the actions of the New Zealand Government over the last 6 or 8 years, actually, with almost any other Government in the developed world, you would find us near the top of the list for sensible climate change policy, and near the top of the list for the actual change in emissions, which, ultimately, is the measure of whether we are getting anywhere.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a NIWA report on climate change scenarios for the Building Research Association of New Zealand study of the built environment—

Mr SPEAKER: Are NIWA reports available to members readily?

Hon Members: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Then leave will not be put.

Apprenticeships—Reboot Scheme

6. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What progress has been made with the Government’s Apprenticeship Re-boot?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): In late January the Government announced a raft of changes to simplify and strengthen industry training to ensure more New Zealanders have the skills and qualifications they need to set them up for their working lives. To lift the participation in apprenticeships, we set up the apprenticeship reboot initiative, which will provide the first 10,000 new apprentices to enrol a grant of $1,000 towards their tools and off-job costs, or $2,000 if they are in priority trades. Employers receive an identical payment for each new apprentice they take on. The apprenticeship reboot initiative was due to start next month on 1 April, but due to its popularity with employers and with industry training organisations I am very pleased to announce that it has been brought forward a month and is now under way.

Simon O’Connor: What reports has he seen on the reboot’s popularity?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, of course, it is very early days, and official numbers are still being collated. I can report that in just 1 week, since the reboot initiative was brought forward to last Wednesday, approximately 350 young people have signed on as apprentices in the building and construction sectors, while around 60 have signed up already in specialist trades such as plumbing, drainlaying, roofing, scaffolding, and rigging. These enrolments are in key trade sectors that will support increased demand in Canterbury and Auckland. Although we expected the first 10,000 reboot places eligible to be available for 18 months, I have now seen reports that 10,000 could sign on within 12 months. That is very good news for industry training, young people, and employers.

Income Gap, Parity with Australia—Wage Statistics

7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: By how many dollars has the gap between New Zealand and Australian average weekly wages grown since December 2008, based on the methodology tabled by Hon John Key on 28 July 2010?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I cannot actually answer the member’s question on the actual dollars for two reasons. One is that the Government has never updated that table, because it believes the methodology has proven to be flawed, and I will explain why. The wage series is not an official measure. The calculation did not take account of tax cuts, and the purchasing power parities that are used are quite volatile. Nevertheless I understand that the Parliamentary Library has a series that attempts to replicate it. Based on those numbers, the member put out a press release claiming that “The median weekly wage gap with Australia has ballooned by $60 to $180 a week”. That refers to the median weekly wage rather than the average, and that is the other reason that I cannot answer the member’s question, because he has made a mistake by confusing average and median.

Hon David Parker: Can he then confirm that the median wage gap with Australia on a purchase price parity basis has increased by NZ$60 a week—50 percent more than when he took office—and now sits at $180 a week; and does he agree that the Government will not achieve its aim of closing the wage gap with Australia?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I cannot confirm it, because I think the member is comparing an average with a median, and that is not a valid way to compare statistics. What I can tell the member is that I believe we are making progress in closing the wage gap with Australia despite the fact that Australia has had higher economic growth rates than we have had through our recession. Real after-tax wages have grown 12 percent in New Zealand under this Government. In the same time in Australia real after-tax wages have grown 9 percent, so we are closing the gap on real after-tax wages.

Hon David Parker: Is he aware that the gap between the take-home pay of Australians and New Zealanders has not closed, once Labour’s 2008 tax cut is removed from his calculation and once National’s 2010 GST increase and its ACC increase are included?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I am not aware of those calculations, but what I can tell the member is that, obviously, when Australia was growing at 3.5 percent and New Zealand was in recession, it made it harder to close the gap. New Zealand went into recession under the Labour Government before the global financial crisis. We have made every effort possible to dig New Zealand out of recession and get New Zealanders’ wages growing again, and the good news is they are growing again.

Hon David Parker: Has he seen the Treasury advice that was provided to the Government in 2010 that stated that the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia grew by 50 percent in the 1990s under National and shrank by 9 percent during Labour’s 9 years of Government; if so, why does he think that New Zealanders do so badly under National Governments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did see the advice. The reason New Zealanders are doing better now is because the Government is making moderate and considered change over time consistently and it is focusing on everything that can be done to get businesses investing and employing. That has been difficult in the face of recession, earthquakes, and now drought, but the good news is that the New Zealand business community is much more resilient than the Opposition believes, and we are beginning to close the gap on Australia.

Hon David Parker: Given the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow Mr David Parker’s supplementary question to be heard.

Hon David Parker: Given the Minister’s reference to the difference on the basis of average weekly earnings in one of his earlier answers to questions, is he aware that when comparing average weekly earnings on a purchasing power parity basis with Australia—not the median—the gap has grown from $121 per week to $179.94 in the period since he took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I am not aware of that. But even if I was, it is not the relevant measure for take-home pay for New Zealanders. Real after-tax wages—that is, pay adjusted for inflation and for tax—have grown 12 percent in New Zealand since 2009 and they grew 9 percent in Australia. So real after-tax wages, which is what people pay their bills with, have closed the gap between New Zealand and Australia.

Skycity, Problem Gambling—Host Responsibility Programme

8. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he intend to take any action about the failure of SkyCity Auckland to prevent access to the casino by people with gambling problems as recently reported in the media?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Action is constantly being taken to ensure casinos’ harm minimisation obligations are met and are being updated. The Gambling Commission is already reviewing the Host Responsibility programme in place at Skycity to ensure that it continues to be enhanced. The Department of Internal Affairs is also looking into the issue to see whether any further action needs to be taken.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister believe that it is consistent with their responsibilities to prevent problem gambling for the holder of a casino licence to encourage the return of high-spending customers by the use of incentives such as free parking, free meals, free drinks, free hotel stays, and free tickets to sponsored sporting events, as described in the New Zealand Herald article yesterday?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I acknowledge that like many businesses in New Zealand, Skycity makes use of incentive programmes. These incentives are weighed up by Skycity to ensure consistency with its Host Responsibility obligations. The Gambling Commission is reviewing its current Host Responsibility programme, and my expectation is that the review will identify and resolve any issues at Skycity.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister think that any of those incentives are, in fact, free, or does he think that they are, in reality, a shrewd marketing investment by Skycity to encourage gamblers who have already lost a lot of money to lose even more?

Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: I acknowledge that there is a financial cost to these incentive programmes, just as in many other businesses across this country that provide incentive programmes to their customers. But casinos’ Host Responsibility programmes include sections on responsible marketing, and harm minimisation issues are addressed by Skycity as it develops its marketing campaigns.

Health Services—Expectations and Delivery

9. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident that the Government’s initiative to provide Better, Sooner, More Convenient health care is meeting his expectations, if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The Government has high expectations of its plans for better health services for patients, and in many services I am confident that we are meeting those high expectations, but in some other areas we need to do better. I say this because despite tight times we have put an extra $2 billion into the public health service, with the OECD reporting in its latest report that New Zealand had the third-highest increase in health spending of developed nations.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, is 86-year-old Mrs Margaret Mollring of Hastings receiving better, sooner, more convenient health care after recently being discharged from the hospital following heart failure and pneumonia, who cannot walk across the room without becoming breathless and now has been told that her home help will be slashed to 1 hour a week and that her showering is threatened to be cut to just 3 days a week?

Hon TONY RYALL: What I would be able to say to that member is that if she could please provide the circumstances and the reference to that information, then I will check it out. But I can certainly tell that member that we have put significant new money into the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. It looks to me to be over $60 million extra under this Government. I can also say to that lady that it is generally a very good service provided by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and we do not cull patients off waiting lists, like we did when that member was in Government.

Hon Annette King: Has he been told that because Mrs Margaret Mollring’s home-help carer was unable to complete all her housework in the 1 hour allocated, Mrs Mollring went out and brought in her own washing, fell over twice, and is fortunate that she was not seriously injured; and does he think that with all the money he has put in, and all his bluster, that is better, sooner, more convenient health care in the Hawke’s Bay?

Hon TONY RYALL: That word hurt them last week, did it not. What I am aware of is that there have been some changes to home-care services in Hawke’s Bay. My understanding is that this is so that services can be better targeted at other people who have been discharged from hospital—that they do hope that they can help more people with that money—but I say to the member to please bring that case to my attention, and I will make inquiries on behalf of her. But what I can say is that we are putting substantially more money into the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board, we are providing more services, and we do have an elected district health board in the Hawke’s Bay, which is quite different from when that party was in office.

Hon Annette King: In the light of that answer, did he read Mrs Mollring’s letter, sent to him and to the Prime Minister, about her plight before he passed it on to Jo Goodhew—none of you have answered her letter—and is that the way the Government can claim it does not get any complaints in health? Nothing to see here?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to verify those facts from the member, but I am absolutely sure that if they have been passed on to Mrs Goodhew, they will be looked into. What I can tell the member is that more money is going to Hawke’s Bay—they want to help more people. But, actually, if the member brings the facts to my attention, we will endeavour to deal with the case.

Hon Annette King: Did he tell the people of Hawke’s Bay, when he signed off the annual plan, that the level of service provided and the standard of some services “may have to be modified”, and that meant there could be reductions in the amount of care the elderly would get in Hawke’s Bay?

Hon TONY RYALL: I do not think there will be any reduction in the level of service that the elderly will get in Hawke’s Bay. I think you will find that spending in core services for the elderly is increasing in the Hawke’s Bay, not the least of which is in the amount of elective surgery for the people of Hawke’s Bay, which mainly benefits the ageing population—a very significant increase, and far more than when that member was culling 30,000 people off waiting lists.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has he received in relation to expectations of the New Zealand public health service?

Hon TONY RYALL: As it happens I have received a copy of a very important, prominent report that clearly lays out the expectations of the New Zealand public health service. These expectations were shockingly low. In fact these expectations were depressing, explicitly saying that New Zealand’s health system “is not rich enough to have the kind of health service found in Australia, Canada, Britain, or the United States”. The report further declares that “There is a growing understanding, I believe, in the wider community that no Government can meet all New Zealanders’ expectations about health.” That was a comment made by a new health Minister last century—the Hon Annette King.

Overseas Investment Rules—Farmland in Foreign Ownership

10. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Minister for Land Information: How much of New Zealand farmland is foreign-owned?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information): The Overseas Investment Office does not keep statistics on current ownership—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why not?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —of farmland in New Zealand. I will get to that; just wait. The role of the Overseas Investment Office is to approve applicants based on the criteria set down in the Act and the regulations. Absolute statistics of foreign ownership are impossible to produce because, one, foreigners are free to sell their land to New Zealanders without any notification; and, two, many foreign owners eventually become New Zealanders by way of citizenship.

Andrew Williams: How can that information be correct, when independent analysis by economist Bill Rosenberg last year—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to have his question heard.

Andrew Williams: How can that information be correct, when independent analysis by economist Bill Rosenberg last year put the real figure of foreign ownership at more than 1.2 million hectares, or 8.7 percent of all farmland in New Zealand?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I repeat, as I said in my answer to the primary question, it is not possible to know that, because many, many foreigners who do buy land then become citizens after several years of being here, so they are now New Zealand owners. Secondly, many foreigners, after having bought land here, have then sold it to a New Zealander, so they do not need to notify anybody and it is not possible to track those statistics. I would suggest that Mr Rosenberg’s numbers are a bit shonky.

Andrew Williams: I seek leave to table the report by Bill Rosenberg, entitled “Overseas Ownership of Land Far Greater Than the 1% the PM claims”.

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

Andrew Williams: Given the huge discrepancy between the independent analysis of Dr Rosenberg—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the supplementary question. I apologise to the member. Could he start again.

Andrew Williams: Thank you. Given the huge discrepancy between the independent analysis of Dr Rosenberg and that of the Minister’s office, how can he have any confidence in the quality of advice he is receiving from the Overseas Investment Office; or is he just skewing the figures?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The member is trying to get me to choose between that terribly impartial economist Bill Rosenberg and the fact that the Overseas Investment Office says it is not possible to tell the actual status of each owner of each land title because of it having been sold on to a New Zealander and not being recorded, or them becoming a citizen. So I do not quite know where the member says there is a discrepancy. The Overseas Investment Office says it cannot do it. Bill Rosenberg has got some magical crystal ball or a Ouija board and has come up with a number.

Andrew Williams: Why does his office and the Overseas Investment Office continue to skew the figures and the information of foreign ownership by excluding all land purchased—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Andrew Williams: Can I start again?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, the member can start again.

Andrew Williams: Thank you—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If there is not going to be an opportunity given because of interjections being thrown across the House, then I am going to have to ask a member to leave the Chamber.

Andrew Williams: Why have his office and the Overseas Investment Office skewed the figures of foreign ownership by excluding all land purchased prior to 2002?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The Overseas Investment Office has not skewed anything. It will publish figures back as far as the member likes. This graph here shows the amount of land sold to foreigners under the last Labour Government relative to the land sold under the 4 years of the current National Government. I have to say that in just 1 year, 2006, a year when the Hon Winston Peters was a Minister in that Government, 383,000 hectares—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Maurice Williamson knows full well that New Zealand First had signed a confidence and supply agreement, not a coalition agreement, with the Government, and I was a Minister outside of Cabinet—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the member for his contribution, but that is not a point of order. Supplementary question, Andrew Williams. [Interruption] Order!

Andrew Williams: The last is the best one. In the interests of transparency and good policy-making, will the Government consider an official land register, which is being released as a New Zealand First policy today, which would allow the public to see once and for all how much their country is being flogged off; if not, why not?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: No. Consideration to such a scheme has been given in the past. We have also had a look at it. It would become so problematic to actually identify the information, because you would then have to make every ordinary New Zealander somehow keep reporting back to a registry if they were selling their land on, or if they had been a foreigner and became a New Zealand citizen you would have to have their citizenship status changed. So, no, I do not believe it is that serious a problem, and we certainly would not do it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table the evidence that the greatest number of declines and refusals of the Overseas Investment Office was when I was the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Could I just have the source of that evidence, please?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Me.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am not putting that.

Hospitals, Intensive Care Units—Reduction in Infections

11. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Associate Minister of Health: What progress has been made in reducing infections in intensive care units?

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): In 2011 about four to six patients per month in New Zealand intensive care units developed a bloodstream infection called central line associated bacteraemia or CLAB. The rate of this type of infection has now reduced to between zero and two patients per month.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why is it important to reduce this type of infection?

Hon JO GOODHEW: People who develop this type of infection are very ill, have to stay in hospital longer, and have more medical complications. In addition to the personal consequences for patients and their families, each case of CLAB costs about $20,000. Reducing infection rates means this funding is able to be spent by district health boards in other areas of health care.

Dr Jackie Blue: How has this progress been achieved?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Since October 2011 the Health Quality and Safety Commission has been running a national project to reduce the number of these infections, focusing on compliance with best practice and improving data collection. Clinical leadership within district health boards and at regional level has been vital, and I thank clinicians for their increased focus on preventing these infections. This successful project is now planned to be extended to other clinical areas.

Housing, Affordable—Auckland Plan and Metropolitan Urban Limit

12. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Housing: What specific actions, if any, does Auckland Council need to take to avoid Government intervention, given his reported statement that “the Government would use the reformed RMA to intervene in Auckland”, if Auckland Council doesn’t change its planning practices?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The Government is already intervening in the council’s planning process with the Resource Management Reform Bill. This bill is currently before Parliament and provides for a board of inquiry to consider the Auckland Unitary Plan with limited appeal rights.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hon David Carter to His Worship the Mayor Len Brown setting out the Government’s support for key elements of the Auckland Plan.

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

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

Phil Twyford: There appears to be none. Thank you—it is an excellent letter, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a letter of reply from the office of the Mayor of Auckland, Len Brown, to the Hon David Carter.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the response to that letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Phil Twyford: Why is he now blaming Auckland Council for the housing crisis, when only 4 months ago his Government said that the Auckland Plan is “broadly consistent” with the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on housing affordability, and that “The Government recognises the need to continue working with Auckland Council to support the implementation of the Auckland Plan.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The people I principally hold responsible for the huge challenge we have of housing affordability in Auckland are those who set the policy a decade ago around the metropolitan urban limit, which did not work, and, secondly, the last Government, which endorsed that plan and saw house prices double, section prices double, and interest rates go up in almost every year it was in Government.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table the Government’s response to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on housing affordability, where it confirms that the Auckland Plan is consistent with the—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

Phil Twyford: What reports has he received that show that if the Auckland Unitary Plan takes effect in September, as Auckland Council has requested, new greenfield land would be available by 2015—2 years after he stated in the House yesterday—and that under his scenario, changes to the Resource Management Act, new land would not be available until 2017; and will he correct the statement he made in the House yesterday?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The statement I made in the House yesterday was absolutely correct, and it is this: if the unitary plan takes effect in September, then it would still require the formal notification of new subdivisions. I will seek the leave of the House immediately to table the legal advice from Roger Blakeley, the head of the planning department at Auckland Council, to share that advice that is consistent with yesterday’s answer.

Mr SPEAKER: So is leave being sought?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table an email from Roger Blakeley, the manager of the Auckland Council’s planning department, setting out the process—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave—

Hon Annette King: To whom?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: To my office.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

Phil Twyford: I seek leave of the House to table advice from Roger Blakeley, the chief planning officer of Auckland Council, that shows conclusively—

Mr SPEAKER: Whom is the advice to?

Phil Twyford: It is advice from Auckland Council.

Mr SPEAKER: It is Blakeley’s advice to the Auckland Council, which you have a copy of?

Phil Twyford: I have a copy of it.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that advice from Blakeley to the—

Phil Twyford: Mr Speaker, can I just say what is in it?

Mr SPEAKER: No, that is all that is—

Phil Twyford: It makes no sense, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The House can make a decision on whether it wants that information tabled. It is a legal opinion from Roger Blakeley to the Auckland Council—

David Shearer: What about? Transport, housing, hospitals—

Mr SPEAKER: No, on housing affordability, we are assuming.

Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member a minute to explain it further.

Phil Twyford: I would argue that it makes no sense to ask the leave of the House—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I am giving the member the opportunity to further explain it.

Phil Twyford: OK. I seek the leave of the House to table advice from Roger Blakeley of Auckland Council that shows conclusively that the scenario that Mr Smith has proposed would take 2 years longer to bring in new greenfield land than what is being proposed by the Auckland Council.

Mr SPEAKER: OK. Leave is now sought. Is there any objection? There is.

Alfred Ngaro: Is the Minister concerned that even with the council having only half the greenfield residential land that its own development strategy requires, this development strategy relies on a massive building programme for high-density housing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am. The council’s plan requires the building of 4,000 new apartments and compact townhouses per year for the next decade, and 10,000 per year for the two decades thereafter. We should be reminded that last year 1,000 houses of that same category were built. The metropolitan urban limit was set a decade ago on the assumption of massive intensification that did not occur. We should not repeat that mistake again.

Phil Twyford: Does he support the views of Federated Farmers Chief Executive Officer Conor English, who says that Auckland needs to stop sprawling across the countryside, “gobbling up productive land”, as well as to deliver more investment in public transport, more affordable housing, and more intensification, which sounds very much like Len Brown’s plan for a compact city?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not agree. Let me tell you why. In the Urban Technical Advisory Group report it points out that if all of Auckland’s population growth over the next 20 years was on quarter acre sections, it would require less than 0.4 percent of New Zealand’s agricultural land. Agricultural production in New Zealand is improving its productivity by between 1.5 and 2 percent per year, so over a 20-year period the effect of Auckland growing in that way will have negligible impact on New Zealand’s productivity.

Alfred Ngaro: Can the Minister specifically state how many greenfield sections are available at each stage of development in Auckland, and how does this compare with what is required?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report I have released today shows that 1,900 sections are ready to be built on now. That compares with previous claims of over 15,000. The report also shows that in terms of land ready to be subdivided there are 14,500 sections, when the council’s own development strategy requires 32,000. In the category of land in the pipeline for subdivision there are 54,000 sections, when the council’s development strategy requires 103,000 in that category. What the report shows is that we have less than half the land available than even the council’s own strategy requires, and it reinforces the view that more land is needed for residential development.

Phil Twyford: Is he satisfied that the approach he took with ACC and local government—shonky numbers and blaming other people—is a constructive approach for—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Phil Twyford: —dealing with the housing crisis?

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Hon Nick Smith happy to answer it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think it is interesting for the member to talk about shonky numbers, because the Government’s report shows that 2,000 sections are available today to be built on, when claims were made by members opposite and by the Auckland Council that that number was 15,000. I invite the member opposite to actually read the technical report by the Auckland Council officials and the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment released today, so that he can be better informed. I seek leave of the House to table the report Housing Affordability: Residential Land Available in Auckland, published by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment today.

Mr SPEAKER: It is available on a website?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it has just been publicly released today.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it on the ministry’s website?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I am not sure whether it is on the website yet. I publicly released it today.

Mr SPEAKER: It will be on the website.

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

Debate on Budget Policy Statement

TODD McCLAY (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): I move, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2013. The Budget Policy Statement for 2013 outlines the Government’s plan for Budget 2013 and subsequent years. We heard from the Minister of Finance at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that the Government intends that Budget 2013 will focus on a number of key priorities: managing public finances responsibly, building a more productive and competitive economy, delivering better public services within tight financial constraints, and rebuilding Christchurch.

The statement reiterates the Government’s commitment to controlling spending tightly and returning the public accounts to surplus by 2014-15. I quote from the select committee’s report: “A modest surplus of $66 million is forecast for that year, increasing thereafter, provided there is no further deterioration in world economic conditions.” The Government is focused on getting our books back to surplus by 2014-15, and we will do this through more responsible spending of Government funds, delivering more for less, and looking out for taxpayers and their best interests.

I want to commend a number of Ministers in areas of policy where this is evident to all New Zealanders: Tony Ryall in the area of health, where more people received operations in this financial year than in any time previously under any other Government; and Hekia Parata in the area of education. Hekia Parata has more passion in education than any Minister of Education from the party opposite has had. No member opposite when Minister of Education has had more passion and determination for New Zealand children. She is a Minister who has built on the great work of Anne Tolley over the 3 previous years.

I commend Judith Collins in the area of law and order. She has helped the move forward with reductions in reported crime throughout New Zealand in all electorates, which is good for New Zealanders, making them safer in their homes. I recognise Anne Tolley as our Minister of Police for the great work that she has done delivering more on behalf of New Zealanders, and I recognise the great work our police officers do every day on what is important for Kiwis, making them safer in their homes and safer in their streets.

In this Budget, the Government’s focus will continue to be, as it has been for the last 4 years, on doing away with the wasteful and economically frivolous policies of 9 years of a Labour Government, which caused all sorts of disaster for New Zealand. You see, in the 9 years Labour was in Government it had $20 billion worth of surpluses—$20 billion worth of surpluses—and, as David Clark so often likes to say, it left us with a mess of long-term unproductive spending commitments, some of the worst commitments in 50 years.

I want to quote from the committee’s report again: “Core crown expenses are forecast to fall to 30.3 percent of GDP by 2015/16, having peaked at 35.1 percent of GDP in 2010/11 as the Government sought to cushion the impact of the recession,”. When we came into Government in 2009, the forecast for Government spending for the 2012-13 year was $76.1 billion. The actual spend is forecast to be $72 billion—a $4 billion saving. In 2009 when we came into Government, the forecast for Government spending in the years 2014-15 was $83.3 billion, and the actual forecast today is $73.6 billion. That is tens of billions of dollars of recurrent spending that the Labour Government recklessly put in place that would harm New Zealanders—spending associated with these forecasts under Labour that would be dangerous and reckless for New Zealand.

This Government is about less borrowing, more fiscal discipline, and greater focus on what is important. One need only to turn up to this House on any given day and listen to the drollery from the other side of the House to realise that New Zealanders know this and they get it right. This is a busy Government with a busy economic programme, including reinvigorating and reforming our capital markets, and the mixed-ownership model. Almost 300,000 New Zealanders over the last 2 weeks have expressed interest in these shares to be offered. [Interruption] I say to my colleague the hard-working MP for the electorate of Rodney that that is 300,000 New Zealanders in a 2-week period.

We will be investing in productive assets for New Zealanders with the funds that come from the mixed-ownership model. Can I say that at a time of drought when we find good use for our water it is more apparent that we need to free up funds to invest in productive assets on behalf of New Zealanders, and not to borrow more as parties opposite would have us do. Through the Business Growth Agenda we are working closely with businesses. Work is under way detailing large initiatives across six areas. They include export markets—members opposite do not like it—innovation, and they do not know what that word means; skills; and safe workplaces. There is rhetoric, but not a lot of work on their side. They oppose everything the Government brings forward. The initiatives also include infrastructure, natural resources, and our capital markets.

Where have we come from? We had the global financial crisis. In a speech yesterday we heard that the members opposite in the Labour Party are global financial crisis deniers. We have a recession that saw the worst economic conditions in New Zealand for 50 years. We inherited some of the worst financial outlooks of 50 years—[Interruption] The former member from—what is the electorate that you beat that member over there in?

Hon Kate Wilkinson: Waimakariri.

TODD McCLAY: Waimakariri. You remember where that is, Mr Cosgrove. The member from Waimakariri says that it is embarrassing. Well, what is embarrassing is what was left to New Zealanders after a $20 billion surplus over the period of time you were a Minister in that Government. We were faced with many years of large fiscal deficits and rising debts. We have had the Christchurch earthquakes, we have had droughts, and we have ongoing international uncertainty. I am proud to stand here today as part of the John Key - led Government and say that New Zealand is making good progress. Our economy is growing and we are on track to surplus. Business confidence is improving. Companies are more competitive. Wages are growing. Inflation is lower. Net household disposable income is around 20 percent higher than it was 4 years ago, when we inherited a mess from those members opposite, who seem proud of that here today.

Compared with mid-2009 there are 60,000 more Kiwis who have jobs. Unemployment is dropping but it is still too high, and we on this side of the House are willing to recognise that. Here is another 50-year experience for David Clark. Interest rates are at a 50-year low under this Government, saving New Zealanders thousands and thousands of dollars on their mortgages and on their loans. The $30 billion Christchurch rebuild is now well under way. We are investing in high technology.

We are exporting, and we are negotiating free-trade agreements. We are working for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreements that will bring more jobs to this country. We are attracting investment to this country, and I say to members opposite that we are not ashamed of investment from foreigners, creating more jobs in New Zealand. Billions of dollars are being spent on infrastructure: roads, rail, ultra-fast broadband, and rural broadband—members opposite do not know about that because they do not have any rural seats, but rural broadband is important to an important part of this country.

We have 14,000 more apprenticeships over 5 years. Since we launched our new scheme for apprenticeships a few weeks ago, 2,500 young New Zealanders have signed up for apprenticeships straight away. This is a hard-working Government that is focused on what matters: a strong plan for the country and a strong plan for the economy. I commend this report and I commend this Government to the House. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I must have been at a different committee from that man Todd McClay. I sit on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the committee that I was on heard that 180,000 people have gone to Australia, that we have had rising unemployment, that the wage gap has increased between New Zealand and Australia, that the Government has not rebalanced the economy towards exports, and that the current account deficit this year is the second-worst in the developed world after Greece, and that next year, by the IMF’s calculation, it will be the worst in the world. That select committee heard all of that. Where was that member? I thought he was meant to be chairing it.

Do you know what? New Zealanders are disappointed in this Government, and I want the Minister of Finance, when he stands up, to apologise to New Zealand for failing to meet his undertakings to the electorate time after time. In 2008 he was elected on the promise to close the wage gap with Australia. What has happened? It is going up. It is going up and, indeed, now it is so large that an Australian works for 4 days to earn what a New Zealander has to work for 5 days to earn. It has gone up by 50 percent, from $120 a week to $180 a week. Even when you use the measure that the Deputy Prime Minister now uses, which is not the measure that the Prime Minister used to use, but even when you use his recalculation, when you take into account the increases in GST and when you strip out the tax cuts that were already coming in from the Labour Government—even on an after-tax basis, when you do it properly—that wage gap has got bigger.

Why should the Government apologise? Because it is mismanaging things, including in the Minister’s own department, Treasury. There has been egregious mismanagement of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme, where for the first 5 months after the Government gave a guarantee to finance companies, it did not even ask one question as to whether they were increasing their lending and their deposits by hundreds of millions of dollars on the back of that guarantee at the cost of the guarantor taxpayer—did not even do it. Then, last year, we had scandal after scandal. We had ACC, we had Dotcom and the Prime Minister having his brain fades, and we had the Deputy Prime Minister forgetting to talk with the Prime Minister, so he was beset with that issue rather than managing the economy. We had the Banks donation scandal, and it is scandalous that we have a member in this House who broke the law in respect of campaign donations to try to get elected. That man, who, of course, supports the Government, tripled council debt when he was last Mayor of Auckland. We have had the Skycity bungle, where some parties had the inside running—crony capitalism, where the insiders got the deal—and everyone else did not know about the deal, and so the Auditor-General found that it was not fair. What is the impact of the Government dealing with scandal after scandal instead of doing what it does? The economy is not doing as well as it should.

The latest scandal is the Government trying to say that it is not its fault that Solid Energy is as far in the shtook as it is. I have got a letter here from the then Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Simon Power, to Solid Energy in 2009. First off, it noted that there is a “significant decline in forecast coal prices,”. So this is the Government acknowledging in 2009 that it knew of that issue—2009. Then it said: “I would like all SOEs to increase their gearing from current levels,”. So the Government wanted it to borrow more. Solid Energy had, we heard in question time at that time, debt of $12 million or $15 million, and in the period after that, at the request of the Government, it borrowed an extra $300 million—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

Hon DAVID PARKER: —$300 million, Mr Peters; an astounding amount—with the approval of the Government, knowing that the coal price was going down. It was putting some money into things like lignite, which we had the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who opened the lignite?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Well, they actually took the photo op. That was after Gerry Brownlee was elected, saying “sexy coal” in that pre-election video, pushing Solid Energy into further developments, despite the decreasing price of coal. The Labour Party—and it is a matter of public record—was quite opposed to the lignite development. The Government ripped the rug out from under Solid Energy on biofuels, which it had invested in, by Gerry Brownlee changing the legislation and completely ripping away the market, but the National Government says that that is not its fault.

The incompetence of this Government in economic matters can be judged from the fact that its central economic agenda for this 3 years is selling off the electricity State-owned enterprises. Selling what already exists does not increase New Zealand’s output. It is this lack of an economic plan, this failure to do what it promised to do, which was to move New Zealand towards an export-led recovery and export jobs, that is at the heart of New Zealand’s problem. Government members refuse to do what everyone agrees they need to do except for them. We need a capital gains tax to encourage people to invest in our productive enterprises rather than in speculative land banking or whatever is happening in Auckland. We need people to be saving more through a universal KiwiSaver scheme. That would grow the economy, but, no, National will not do that. We need to change monetary policy. There was a good article, I thought, today by Colin James. In his syndicated article he was saying that it is time for the Government to wake up and realise that the rest of the world is intervening for the benefit of their exporters and New Zealand should be too. But, no, the National Party members have got themselves into a corner on everything.

They are left doing little things. Some of them are good; actually most of them are Labour Party policy. You know, we have got them coming out in the coming Budget with something that other parties in this Parliament agree with, like a warrant of fitness for rental houses. They are actually now saying that they are going to do something with Government procurement—too little, too late, and absolutely inconsistent with what they have done in respect of closing Hillside railway workshops and their other refusals to support local manufacturers and local IT providers, but none the less adopting at least a small part of Labour Party policy. They are adopting loan-to-valuation ratios after they said that that was just silly. That was just silly a year ago—

Hon Annette King: Did they say that?

Hon DAVID PARKER: They said it. In fact, the sorts of things that are now being done were described by Steven Joyce as voodoo economics. Of course, he is “Mr Fix-it”. If you pronounce it like Simon Bridges would, it would probably describe it, because what has he done to ultra-fast broadband—3,000 connections? Four years into his period in office and we have got 3,000 connections. We have got them trying to rewrite the regulatory framework, we have got them making money off poor people in poor suburbs to line the pockets of the shareholders of that company that is not doing as it ought to, and is the Government enforcing that contract? No.

I want an apology from the Minister of Finance for not meeting the undertakings that he gave to this country in advance of the 2008 election. Why is it that we keep having downgraded forecasts of growth? We now know, because today we have got a letter at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, that Treasury admits that a third of all growth—modest though it is—is coming out of the Christchurch rebuild. They claim that is a problem, yet it is a third of all growth. That is only the first-round effect. Treasury would not tell us what the second-round effect was. This Government is failing in its economic duties.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Well, I think Labour is learning that until it apologises for its mess, the public will not take it seriously. That is becoming increasingly evident. Labour thought it was going to bounce back into the start of the year and start looking like an alternative Government. In fact, it is struggling to look like the alternative Opposition at the moment. It is still the Greens ahead of Labour by a long neck in the Opposition stakes. So that would be my advice to Labour: first, apologise so that the public know that Labour understands why it was thrown out, because it still has not acknowledged that 5 years on, and, second, put a bit more effort into trying to head off the Greens on credible economic commentary, credible education policy, credible climate change policy, and credible views about just about anything else the Government is doing.

That is the job the Labour Opposition should be putting itself to, and I will just tell the House a bit about the job the Government is putting itself to. In the light of the pretty extraordinary economic circumstances that have occurred around the world, the Government has set out in the Budget Policy Statement four pretty straightforward priorities: first, to responsibly manage the Government’s finances; second, to build a more productive and competitive economy; third, to deliver better public services within tight financial constraints; and, fourth, to rebuild Christchurch, which is, after all, our second-biggest city.

This programme comes from the Government following a couple of rules of thumb. The first is that we should focus on those things we can control. It is easy to get diverted and confused by the many events around the world that are intriguing and interesting and relevant to us but over which we cannot have any control. A most recent example of that, which has upset prospects for Europe, is the result of the Italian election—something over which we can have no control whatsoever.

Secondly, the Government is continuing on a pathway of moderate and considered change. Too often it has been the case in New Zealand that Governments have rushed into changes of one sort or another, lost public support, failed to win the arguments, and seen those changes undone, simply not accepted by the New Zealand public, or accepted very reluctantly. The effect of that has been the country deciding that change is not good for us and that we need to go back to where we were. That is one of the things that have underpinned our patchy economic performance compared with Australia over the last 30 years. This Government has been determined to advance change as required in the economy at a pace and of a kind that can be broadly supported by a New Zealand public, who, in my view, are more understanding of the economic circumstances and more understanding of the need for successful and profitable business than I can recall at any time in my adult life. So that is the context in which we have set out those four priorities.

I will not go through all of them, but I will focus on a couple of aspects of the Government’s priorities as set out in the Budget Policy Statement. The first is the Business Growth Agenda. There is much loose talk about jobs—a kind of magical thinking that somehow if the Government wanted jobs enough, there would be a lot more of them. Well, of course the Government wants jobs, but wanting them is not creating them. The Government creates jobs by employing, and, of course, we are restricted in whom we are going to employ by our finances and by the fact that we are finding that, actually, with a few less people we can offer better public services. So when the Government is not employing people, someone else has to, and that someone else is the private sector. I know that businesses are regarded by the Greens and Labour as nasty, exploitative, profit-wrenching people who should be punished if at all possible, particularly if the value of their business goes up. That is actually where the incidence of a capital gains tax would fall: on successful businesses. That is who would pay it, because housing is, to a large extent, exempt from the capital gains tax.

There is only the Government and the private sector to employ people. We are limited. In fact, we are shedding numbers very gradually, so it is up to the businesses. The Business Growth Agenda focuses on a very simple decision: the decision of a workplace to employ another person and invest another dollar, usually investing the dollar first and employing the person who comes with it. There is no silver bullet to make that decision a whole lot easier, particularly when our export markets are not in great shape, our exchange rate is relatively high, and New Zealand consumers have been pretty careful with how they are spending their money. It is just not easy to create jobs in that environment, and plenty of people would like to. They would like to see their business expanding.

The Business Growth Agenda sets out in the most transparent way possible every policy move, every policy idea, and every policy decision the Government is taking to focus on making it easier for businesses to invest and employ. The publication of the documents laying out those 200 or 300 different items is an open invitation to the workplaces and the businesses of New Zealand to tell us the next thing we can do, in addition to what is already on the list, to make their workplace more successful and more likely and more able to employ another person.

A couple of aspects of that have been highlighted recently. One is the tidying up of the apprenticeship scheme, which was left in a disgraceful mess by the previous Government.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the Labour Government was actually training dead people—it was training dead people. It was paying for dead people. It was paying for tens of thousands of young New Zealanders who got no qualification credits at all—not just a handful. There were a lot who got a handful, but there were tens of thousands who got none, after the taxpayer had spent millions on training them. So out of the savings we have made from tidying up that system we have been able to relaunch 14,000 new apprenticeships with a $1,000 or $2,000 bonus to assist with the purchase of tools and to encourage employers to take on young New Zealanders.

Another example that has flowed out of the Business Growth Agenda is the Government’s determination to address the longstanding and complex policy problems around the Resource Management Act and, more important in the long run, the management of water, because water is New Zealand’s most important strategic asset. Previous Governments have either not addressed it or failed to address it. We are now probably about halfway through a 5 to 6-year process that is going to give New Zealand the tools to manage its water for both environmental and economic benefit.

One other initiative I will mention in this context is Callaghan Innovation, which is a new attempt—and I believe that it will be a successful one—to work with the business community to reshape the Government’s intervention and support for innovation in business in a way that focuses it more on enabling new investment and new jobs, because much of the spending has not been focused tightly enough on that objective.

We are also managing the Government’s finances responsibly. As a member who spoke recently pointed out, if you compare, for instance, the expenditure forecasts for 2014-15 back in 2009, it was going to be $83 billion. In that year we are forecasting to spend $73 billion. Public services will be better—significantly better—even though less money is going to be spent, because the way we have approached the spending of taxpayers’ money has empowered and enrolled the whole Public Service in doing a better job with the resources it has. It has risen magnificently to the challenge, as has the rest of New Zealand.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That was the National Party leader who achieved the worst result of any National Party leader in our history that we know of—

Dr David Clark: In the last 50 years.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —no, no, in excess of 50 years—in 2002. I will tell you what is hilarious about the Budget Policy Statement. Bill English was so desperate to get some support for this document that he rang up his brother, who works for Federated Farmers—the National Party in gumboots—and said: “Come on, bro. I need somebody to put a submission in to support this.” And what did we have? We had one submission from the National Party in gumboots, Federated Farmers, in support. No one else even bothered to submit—no one else. I say to that member his brother did a good job.

I say to that member I do not know what the strategy of the National Government is apart from asset sales and unleashing the dogs of war on the poor and unemployed at the same time that Joan Withers, the chair of Mighty River Power, and her board get 1,200 bucks a day, as Solid Energy’s directors get another 30 grand, as does Meridian Energy, and as do others. These guys are great, of course, at looking after their own, but when it comes to the poor and unemployed they will try to scratch out $10 here and $10 there. But, my word, they will look after their own. So what we have got is flogging off the family silver, taking a bit of tax off paper boys, stealing a few of the shift workers’ car parks—that is a cracker, is it not, and even John Hayes knows it is a loser, an absolute loser—and selling assets. That is the strategy. That is the strategy over there. They unleash the dogs of war on the unemployed. They say to the unemployed: “Get a job.”, and unemployed folks should get a job, but the problem is there are no jobs created by this Government. There are 163,000 people unemployed, and 90,000 young people not in work, not in training, and not in education. That is the legacy. There are 1,000 people a week going to Australia. Remember the political campaign ad? What was it, Eden Park or somewhere? You know, John Key, ambitious for New Zealand, was going to fix all that. There are 1,000 people a week going across the ditch. He was going to close the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand. It has widened.

Nothing has happened with this Government. It tinkers. Bill English actually admitted it himself. He said: “We want to maintain the support of mainstream New Zealand, so basically what we are going to do is we are not going to do anything bold. We are not going to make any major reforms. We are just going to keep the ship of State paddling along. At some point some magical hand will come and prevent it from crashing into the rocks.”, as we are doing now. We are second to Greece in our current account deficit and soon to be first.

So that is the legacy of Bill English. That is the strategy. He should apologise, as David Parker said, for all the promises he made to all who are ambitious for New Zealand. He should apologise today because he has broken his promises. He has told porkies to the people of New Zealand. Is this guy hands-off? This guy is so relaxed that he is horizontal. He is hands-off in terms of Solid Energy. Not his problem. An award-winning export company for 9 years under the last Government, and it is a basket case under him and Tony Ryall. He knew everything that was going on there, with month-to-month reports. Now what happens? The poor old taxpayer is up the kazoo for $389 million—that is the legacy that Bill English has left the people of New Zealand. An award-winning exporting company is now a basket case while that man over there and Tony Ryall, with his limp answers, were asleep at the wheel, as was Steven Joyce, of course, the Associate Minister with delegation for State-owned enterprises. But it is everybody else’s fault. So I say to Bill English: apologise, apologise, and apologise again to people.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I want to use my speech to talk about three particular areas that I think are important areas on which to judge the Government’s performance. One is around external imbalances and looking at the challenge that Bill English set himself in order to rebalance the economy—the external accounts. The second one is around sustainability, and the third one is around inequality. I think those three areas are good areas to judge how the Government has performed.

If we look at the external imbalances, Bill English rightly said that New Zealand had a major problem in its external imbalances. Essentially, that is manifest in the current account deficit. The current account deficit is running at about 5 percent of GDP, or $10 billion a year. The way that we finance the current account deficit currently is that we borrow more money from overseas collectively as a country—not just the Government, but the whole country—and we sell assets, such as land, in order to cover that large current account deficit. Bill English identified that this was something that needed to be dealt with, and yet what we are seeing now is that the current account deficit has become large again and it is projected to keep growing. It will keep growing upwards to at least 6.5 percent of GDP, and possibly more. So on the Government’s own terms, which are dealing with the external imbalances in the New Zealand economy, it has failed. That is why the Government does not like to talk much about the external imbalances problem.

If we were to take just a microcosm, if we were to look at, say, oil imports, in 2002 New Zealand spent $2 billion importing oil—for transport, basically—which was about 2 percent of GDP. In 2012 that had increased to NZ$8 billion, or about 4 percent of GDP. So what we have seen is a doubling of the relative cost to the overall economy of importing oil for transport. That is why a strategy of reducing our oil dependence not only makes sense in terms of greenhouse emissions but also makes sense in terms of the external imbalances. We are having to spend more and more of our export earnings importing oil to pay for our transport oil costs. According to the IMF, the International Energy Agency—you name it—oil prices over time are predicted to increase. So in New Zealand, as a result of the Government’s policies to lock us into road-based transport systems, our imports of oil are likely to increase.

That will put further pressure on our external imbalances as we have to pay for that imported oil, and more and more of our exports will have to be spent importing oil. That is one microcosm of where the Government has got this problem fundamentally wrong. It has got it wrong in terms of the external imbalances, so we have seen a big growth in the external imbalances around oil imports for transport, but it has also got it wrong in terms of sustainability. Obviously, in terms of greenhouse emissions, increasing our oil dependence increases our greenhouse emissions.

Another way to cut the external imbalances is to look at the value of the New Zealand dollar, which is radically overvalued compared with other currencies. The Green Party has put out various proposals around this. The export sector and the tradable sector are saying with one voice that the Government should be intervening to lower the level of the New Zealand dollar. The options on the table include a lower official cash rate. To make that possible, we need to de-link housing market inflation from the rest of the larger inflation issue, so that there is more space for the Reserve Bank to lower the official cash rate. That means using complementary measures to control house price inflation, which the Greens have been talking about since at least 2006 and probably earlier. There are such things as loan devaluation ratios. There are such things as capital adequacy ratios, which try to target housing market inflation and so enable the Reserve Bank to have a lower official cash rate, because the housing market inflation would be being controlled separately.

Another option on the table is the use of quantitative easing, which most of our trading partners are using. They are using Government-created money in order to drive down the level of their currencies in order to make their tradable sectors more competitive. Most of our trading partners are doing this, and the effect is that the New Zealand dollar is getting higher. We have opportunities to use quantitative easing or Government-created credit in order to pay for the Christchurch rebuild. It is, of course, exactly what Japan is doing in order to pay for the rebuild after the tsunami and earthquake up there, so this is a very mainstream policy internationally. Of course, when you look at all of this together, what you realise is that we have a major problem in terms of our external imbalances, and the Government has simply failed to grasp the nettle. As much as I think Bill English genuinely wanted to deal with this issue, he has failed to do so.

The second area I want to just touch on is around sustainability. There are a number of dimensions to this, but climate change is probably the right one to start with. This Government has championed coal and lignite, which of course have very high greenhouse emissions. The Government has lowered the proper price on carbon. By continually weakening the emissions trading scheme, it has withdrawn from binding commitments under the Kyoto II agreement, and, of course, it is subsidising fossil fuels and transport. The effect of all of that is that instead of de-linking our economy from greenhouse emissions, we are actually linking it much more closely to greenhouse emissions, and that is a major problem. When you look at New Zealand and you think how vulnerable we are to drought because a large part of our economy is agricultural, New Zealand and the New Zealand primary sector have a specific interest in addressing climate change, and yet this Government is doing the exact opposite. So it is undermining efforts internationally to deal with climate change and it is reducing its own domestic efforts to deal with climate change.

If we were to look at water, of course it is a terrible story. New Zealand under the Yale University study, which the Prime Minister used to quote a lot, has gone from having the second-best water quality to the 43rd-best water quality. That is under the Yale University study, so the Government has now stopped quoting from the Yale University study. So whether you are looking at external imbalances in the New Zealand economy in the performance of this Government or whether you are looking in terms of the sustainability indicators, like climate change or water quality, it is all going in the wrong direction, and it is all going in the wrong direction pretty rapidly.

The third area I want to touch on is inequality. Inequality is important. It is important both economically and also, I think, morally. We have one of the most unequal societies in the OECD now, and our inequality rates are rapidly increasing. The Ministry of Social Development’s report from August 2012 reported that New Zealand now has the highest level of inequality ever recorded. That has happened over the course of this Government. What it reported was that middle and lower income workers saw incomes fall sharply, while the top 10 percent saw their incomes rise sharply. You know, that was in part a result of the Government’s tax cuts, where the rich got a very big tax cut and the poor got virtually nothing. We have seen this big increase in inequality in New Zealand. So that is what the Ministry of Social Development’s report found when it looked into it—the Government’s own report. Of course, this is reflected in the fact that we have a quarter of a million children living in poverty, which is a shameful statistic about our country.

So when you are looking at inequality, the reason why all of this matters—aside from it just being wrong that we have taken a strategy that has resulted in this massive inequality in our society—is that it also has these downstream effects. Unequal societies have more crime. They have more ill-health. You have all these impacts in terms of education. More unequal societies have less movement and less social mobility, so the more unequal a society, the harder it is to move from the bottom decile to deciles higher up. In some of the most unequal societies on the planet, such as ours or that of the United States, it is very difficult to move between the different decile units because the levels of inequality are so high. Having a more equal society gives people the chance to get ahead on their own efforts. Of course, this is one of the ideologies that the National Party promotes, yet it is specifically introducing policies to stop social mobility, so it is very difficult for those at the bottom of the heap to get ahead under the kind of policies it has introduced.

I think, really, after 4 years, there is no more blaming the Labour Government for the record of this Government. Obviously, National has made a great deal about blaming the previous Government, but I think now, after 4 years, we can actually look at the record and judge the Government. The external imbalances have got worse under this Government. Sustainability indicators have got worse under this Government. Inequality has got worse under this Government. So whichever particular criteria you choose to use, the Government has failed. I think that is sad for this Government, because there are some good people in there, but it is particularly sad for New Zealand that we have a Government that has been unable to address these critical issues for our future, and it is why we need a change of Government.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I was very interested to hear Russel Norman, the previous speaker, talking about social mobility. I would have thought that the best way to achieve social mobility is to grow the economy. That is how you give people the opportunity to get on to the ladder of work, to make some money, and to get ahead. Everything that that member’s party stands for seems to be against economic growth, and so, by my reckoning, is against economic and social mobility.

This Government retains the support of so many New Zealanders at a time when many Governments around the world are struggling, because it has maintained a strong and consistent economic policy. The pillars of that policy are, first of all, returning to surplus and getting this country’s books back in order. The Budget Policy Statement we are looking at today forecasts a modest operating surplus in 2014-15 of around $66 million, which is a huge achievement, taking it back from the $18 billion hole we had 2 years ago. That means we will stop borrowing for operational expenditure and we will be able to start repaying debt before too long. Why is that important? Because countries that meet spending and debt problems head on, with control, inspire confidence amongst investors. That reduces the costs of borrowing over time, it increases the chances of investment in New Zealand, and it better positions this country to grow. So I am very pleased.

I am also very pleased that the bulk of the work in returning this country to surplus has been achieved by constraining the size of government and Government spending, which is forecast to drop from a peak of around 35 percent of GDP down to 30 percent of GDP over the next 3 to 4 years. It is worth remembering that the previous Labour Government lifted us from Government spending of about 29 percent of GDP in 2003-04 all the way up to 34 percent by 2010, which is what we inherited. This was during the upturn of a cycle.

We had a bit of a debate this morning with David Parker in the Finance and Expenditure Committee, where he questioned those figures and claimed that most of the increase in Government spending was due to the earthquake and to Working for Families tax expenditure. [Interruption] I am hoping, Mr Bennett, that you might listen to my speech. We were debating about the effect of Working for Families. What I would like to point out to Mr Parker is that I checked the figures, and even if you take Working for Families tax expenditure out of it, core government spending had increased from 28 to 33 percent during the time of the Labour Government, which was a 5 percent increase. Putting it another way, Labour grew the size of the core government by 18 percent, or by nearly a fifth, over only a few years. So that is the sort of thing that you do.

I think that if anybody was going to apologise in the House today, it should be the Labour Government for that massive increase in the size of government. Why is that important? Because basically I think the economy is divided into that part that is based on voluntary decisions—that is, the private economy, where people choose to either buy something or buy a service—and that of the State part of the economy, which, essentially, is based on compulsion. I believe that we should be having a smaller State than we have got at the moment, and this Government is very focused on getting it back to a reasonable balance, after having an ever-expanding Government, such as we had in the 2000s, that was appropriating for itself the funds that entrepreneurs could have used to grow the economy. That is what we need in this country.

We have talked about the other areas, about rebuilding Christchurch and about getting better value for our public services, but, more important, the fourth pillar of the Government’s work is building a more productive and competitive economy through a wide-ranging programme of microeconomic reform, which we call the Business Growth Agenda. Also linked with that are the welfare reforms, which are not meant to be mean or to save money, but are there primarily because we believe work is a good thing—that seeing people getting out there and working and having earned success is an essential part of fulfilment in life. That is to free people from the dependency that FDR used to call “a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” So welfare reform is one of the most important things that this Government is doing.

Secondly, when we look at the Business Growth Agenda it is ultimately about breaking down barriers to entrepreneurship. All of this is designed to give businesses the confidence to invest, to grow, and to create jobs so that we can build a more productive economy.

So let us have a look at the sorts of things we are doing. Well, funnily enough, we hear from the Labour Party all about the crisis in manufacturing and the lack of jobs. I spent last weekend down in Hamilton, celebrating the 75th anniversary of Gallagher Group, one of New Zealand’s more successful manufacturing exporters. In fact, it is a group that I wrote a book about, before I was in Parliament. That company has a very interesting story. It is doing very well in a difficult time. It is continuing to succeed in an export manufacturing business, despite the high dollar, and is not complaining. It is getting ahead.

When you look back over its history, it went through massive times of transition from the 1970s and 1980s, when, as an exporter, it basically paid no tax—in fact, it received tax back from the tax department in the late 1980s—until a sudden transition in the late 1980s and early 1990s to a situation where it began paying the full 33 percent tax on its profits. So the Gallagher Group survived that transition, and now it goes on dealing with a fluctuating dollar, which is something that exporters face all around the world. It has learnt over the last 15 to 20 years how to handle those fluctuations—to be careful, to hedge internally, and to make sure that there are a lot of components bought in US dollars. It all makes it possible for the company to survive.

So when we look around, despite the stories of gloom in the manufacturing area, there is actually growth going on in manufacturing in New Zealand. There are plenty of companies that are doing well and plenty of jobs are being created. We have just to look at the food manufacturing area, for example, where there are more than 1,000 jobs in constructing, and working in, Fonterra’s new Darfield milk-processing plant. There are 300 new jobs at Tegel’s new factory in west Auckland. Yashili New Zealand Dairy Co. Ltd plans to create a Chinese-owned milk-processing plant in Pōkeno.

So there are lots and lots of manufacturing jobs being created in this economy right now, and this is why I have every confidence in this Budget Policy Statement. It reflects a Government that is thinking very carefully and guiding this country safely through a difficult period, on to what will be a brighter future round the corner for all New Zealanders. Thank you very much.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. Is it not interesting to speak after the person who will be the next member of Parliament for Epsom when the National Government finally pulls the plug on the ACT Party and sends it off into political oblivion? That particular member of Parliament might stop interviewing his typewriter and might stop looking in the mirror for his answers. He might actually go out and not just interview people like the Gallaghers, whom he wrote a book for, but, as we have in Opposition, sit in the likes of Christchurch, Dunedin, Wellington, and Auckland and listen to real manufacturers and real companies that are having a real problem in this economy trying to survive and trying to keep their workers in jobs—not the Gallaghers of this world, who basically pretty well have the market all to themselves.

Is it not interesting that this Budget Policy Statement—it is not about what is in the policy statement, but it is more about what is not in the policy statement. Is the Novopay shambles, the omnishambles of the Novopay debacle, in the statement? No way. It is not in the statement. Is it, as the honourable Todd McClay would say, as he is leaving the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

ANDREW WILLIAMS: —delivering better public services within tight financial constraints? Is the Novopay system delivering better public services within tight financial constraints? I do not think anyone in New Zealand would think this is a Government that is delivering that.

How does the manufacturing sector in decline contribute to building a more productive and competitive economy, which this Government continues to talk about? The manufacturing inquiry has revealed in stark detail the crisis in the manufacturing sector. What has been left unsaid also is the stealthy tax hikes that are planned in order to achieve the miserable $66 million surplus in 2014-15—$66 million, which is almost below the smallest margin of error. In an economy turning over some $200 billion a year, a GDP of $200 billion, $66 million could literally go in a quarter of an hour if the wrong button is pressed. But that is what this Government is hinging itself on.

It is hinging itself on finding money, little scraps of money, wherever it can, such as was announced this week. It is looking at imposing a fringe benefit tax on company car-parks in Auckland and Wellington, and on iPads, for goodness’ sake. It is starting to try to tax the fringe benefit of having an iPad. What an absolute nonsense. We hear that it is going to cost companies perhaps up to $30 million in compliance costs in order to pay the Government something like $17 million or $18 million in the car-park tax. It is just a complete nonsense, and, again, like the schoolboy and schoolgirl pocket money tax last year, it really is showing a desperate Government that is grasping at straws.

There is the latest Solid Energy debacle—what a debacle—of hundreds of millions of dollars. Where is that all being factored into the Government’s books for 2014 in this Budget Policy Statement? Certainly, when Bill English drew it up some time ago, they had overlooked what was happening in the likes of that State-owned enterprise.

New Zealand has not had a balance of payments surplus in nearly 40 years. What a disgrace that this country has not had a balance of payments surplus in 40 years. Given the current policies of this Government, when will we ever return to a real surplus in our balance of payments? What is missing is any real indication of the progress, if any, that has been made in reducing the level of New Zealand’s net international indebtedness.

The Government relies on things such as the Christchurch earthquake. We heard today at the Finance and Expenditure Committee Treasury saying that a third of the small growth in the New Zealand economy was as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. Well, just imagine, if this Government had not been let off the hook and there had not been an earthquake, how much worse off it would be in terms of the books if it did not have the Christchurch rebuild to assist its fiscal position.

At the end of 2012 almost 90,000 New Zealanders under the age of 30 were not in work and not in training—almost 90,000 New Zealanders. The number of people receiving the unemployment benefit has gone up a staggering 74 percent in the past 4 years. If it were not for the 50,000 people leaving each year and going to Australia to live, imagine what the unemployment figures would be today. Again, a bit like with the Christchurch earthquake, this Government is thanking its lucky stars that so many New Zealanders are leaving to go to Australia, otherwise the unemployment figures would be really, really, really grim.

New Zealand First is looking at new measures, and we will do this by ensuring that New Zealand companies are first in the queue for Government contracts. Our New Zealand First “Buy New Zealand” Government procurement policy will create a legal requirement for all Government departments, all State-owned enterprises, and all local authorities in New Zealand to give first preference to New Zealand companies when they tender for supply, based on the overall financial impact report that is given in terms of that tender. Why should there be a situation where the New Zealand Transport Agency gives a $2.5 million steel contract to China to build the new steel bridges for the Waitaki River—a tender price that was only 5 percent cheaper than tenders from local New Zealand steel contractors, and no consideration was given to the amount of tax the Government would get from that contract, the amount of PAYE that the workers would pay, the number of people it would employ, and the number of subcontractors who would be employed? No consideration was given by the New Zealand Transport Agency to all of that. All it did was take a price 5 percent cheaper than those of the New Zealand suppliers, and all that money—$2.5 million—that could have been spent in the Canterbury area and the North Otago area all disappeared off overseas.

Why did the Government not step into KiwiRail and look at ways of keeping the Hillside railway workshops open? It is the largest foundry in New Zealand, the largest workshop in New Zealand, and was keeping the capability, the expertise, and the knowledge of heavy, heavy engineering in this country going. Why did it not look into, as was suggested again—and members over there would have heard it had they been at the manufacturing inquiry in Dunedin on Monday—that, for instance, there could have been a joint venture with the Chinese suppliers and it could have been done in a flat-pack arrangement, as was done on the old days in New Zealand with CKD—complete knock-down—construction of cars. The heavy steel could have been produced in China. It could have been produced in such a way as to be sent to the Hillside rail workshops for them to then physically put the carriages together and put them on the tracks, commission them, weld them, and send them out. That was not done. The total tender went offshore. We have discovered this week at the manufacturing inquiry that the steel welding of many of these railway wagons is insufficient—apparently a lot of the welding looks like bubble pack—and the brake system on these railway wagons is technology from the 1970s that they stopped putting on railway wagons in the 1970s in this country but that is turning up on the Chinese wagons. All this sort of nonsense is going on.

We also heard at the manufacturing inquiry that the broadband roll-out in this country is being supplied out of Sweden, and all the cabling—including even the plastic outside cabling, which can be produced in this country—is coming from Sweden. So these billions of dollars that have been rolled out to put broadband through New Zealand by this Government spending all this money are all disappearing offshore.

The Inland Revenue Department is spending up to $2 billion on a computer system to update the antiquated inland revenue system. Again, it is all going to France. The whole contract is going to France when we have some of the smartest IT people in New Zealand and they are missing out. It goes on and on and on.

I can assure members that when New Zealand First returns to the Government benches, or is in a position to influence the Government, we will bring in measures to look at all these aspects, including overhauling the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, which has not been looked at in 26 years.

David Bennett: Remember all those pamphlets you got done in China?

ANDREW WILLIAMS: In 26 years, Mr Bennett—your Government has not looked at the Reserve Bank in 26 years. That will be reviewed so that the New Zealand dollar can be looked at in terms of making it more competitive for New Zealand exporters to operate around the world, so that New Zealand companies can get back on a proper footing and get jobs back into this economy, get proper growth back into this economy, and get New Zealand moving again. New Zealand First has policies that will work in this area. This Government does not.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): Twenty-six years ago that last speaker’s leader was part of a Government led by one R D Muldoon, who took this country to the top of a financial cliff. If we listen to what he said this afternoon in this House, it is clear he wants to take us back to the days of a command economy: “We’re going to run railways. We’re going to put plastic on wires. This is what we are going to do.” Well, I am really sorry, but since you have come down from Auckland you seem to have—

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

JOHN HAYES: Since the member has travelled down to Wellington, from Auckland, he seems to have lost touch with the fact that in this economy the Government sets the rules for everybody to operate under equally. The Government is not meddling in the business community; it will not do that.

Let us go back to 2008 when this party, the party led by John Key, came to power. At that point New Zealand was struggling out of a recession because we discovered when we got into power that, actually, the recession had been going on for 2 years before that. Guess how it was camouflaged? The then Government, which that member’s leader was a party to, was busy employing more and more civil servants, using borrowed money to do it, and camouflaging what it was up to. We did not know it at the time, back in 2008, but we were soon to be hit by the devastating Christchurch earthquakes. That member says: “Oh, yes, but if it wasn’t for the earthquakes your economy wouldn’t be moving forward.” I have to say to you that that is nonsense. Where does the $30 billion come from that is repairing the damage from those earthquakes? It is substantially from taxes. This was absolutely unexpected expenditure.

Although the global economic situation remains uncertain at best—and I make that judgment having been to Europe late last year and I could see what was going on there—here in New Zealand we are making really good progress. The economy is growing and we are on track to surplus by 2014-15. Business confidence is improving and our companies are becoming more competitive. [Interruption] Come to Metalform in Dannevirke. I have told you about them before. Metalform exports locally produced wheelchairs that sell in the States for US$25,000 each. It is selling wind-generator motors into Turkey, and doing all sorts of interesting things.

Wages are growing and inflation is low. Net household disposable income is around 20 percent higher than it was 4 years ago. Compared with mid-2009, over 60,000 more Kiwis have more jobs, although I agree that the unemployment rate is still too high. Interest rates are at 50-year lows, and I am old enough to know that, and households are saving more. In Christchurch there is $30 billion on the rebuild, which is well under way. Over the past 4 years the Government has embarked on a huge range of sensible economic and fiscal management options, like investment in infrastructure, like rebuilding the Rimutaka hill road.

We have identified the ingredients needed to attract the productive investment required to support jobs and higher incomes and help families get ahead. Your command economy, Mr Williams, will not do that. We have chosen a moderate but a persistent pace of change that has allowed us to take the community with us. Furthermore, this year the Government is going to move to make significant changes to the Resource Management Act, it is going to introduce new housing policies, and it will implement a new framework for water management.

There has been criticism of the Government in the House this afternoon. What I can say is that it has come from people who were not at the Central Districts Fieldays, because if they had been there they would have found amazing resilience amongst our farming communities, despite the drought. If you talk to any of the businesses that were selling there, you will find that they came away, by and large, with record sales.

The drought is going to have an impact in my electorate. It is probably going to knock incomes by about 20 percent. About $60 million of that will be from the Tararua district, about $60 million of it will be from the north, in Central Hawke’s Bay, and about $60 million of it will be from the south, around Masterton.

Andrew Williams: A resilient economy would be growing anyway.

JOHN HAYES: I know that the New Zealand First Party has no support or contacts there, so I am bringing this to the House for your information, so that you know a little bit about some parts of New Zealand other than Auckland.

I am really impressed by the resilience of businesses in my electorate. I was in Ōringi on Monday—you would remember the freezing works there closed. There are now more people employed at the old Ōringi works than there were in the days of the freezing works. There are more people employed because they have set up a whole lot of businesses there. Look at Fonterra. It is about to expand its operation in Pahīatua, creating 300 new jobs. There are brilliant things happening in my electorate. There is forestry. On Monday night I was driving down here from Dannevirke and what did I pass? A huge train carrying logs from my electorate through to Napier. These things—getting our logs on to rail and off roads—are very good. Yes, it would make a lot of sense to have more forest being processed in my area, but we are up against the Greater Wellington Regional Council, which is busy trying to sell off forest-cutting rights because it is broke. When it took the South Wairarapa forests it had no debt, and now it has a $16 million debt. That is an absolutely terrible outcome for a facility that was given to it without any debt at all. We need to keep those assets in our communities. We need to attract foreign investment to grow jobs. It is important to point out that the labour market is very dynamic. Every year in New Zealand there are around 250,000 jobs created and 250,000 lost. There are a number of indicators as to what is currently happening in the New Zealand labour market. All the surveys point to job growth.

This is a very good Budget. I congratulate the Minister of Finance and John Key on leading us through these very difficult economic circumstances very sensibly and very stably into new, calmer water. I can tell you that we are doing better than any country in Europe—

Andrew Williams: It’s called a stagnant pond.

JOHN HAYES: —as we go forward with this economy. We are doing better than Japan, and we are doing better than the US. I am just disappointed that the member from New Zealand First does not have the intellectual capacity to understand how well this economy is growing. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): On the question of intellectual capacity, we will now see day from night. I would like to acknowledge the contribution made by that former foreign affairs official, John Hayes, who does have certain redeeming features. However, that is for another day and many drinks later.

I would like to direct our attention to a few facts. We had the unedifying sight recently of the joystick of the National Party, “Mr Joyceification”, saying there were five things that he was responsible for to drive forward the economy. No. 1 was improvements to the Resource Management Act. Of course, he did not refer to the fact that the current Minister driving that reform, the Minister for the Environment, will turn into being the most unpopular, ill-prepared, and insulting politician who has ever held that portfolio. The first thing that she did was that she broke a longstanding constitutional convention and attacked personally the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, who reports to this House. That person is a noted academic of international repute, and Amy Adams took it upon herself to try to stigmatise and demean not so much that woman but her position. That is reflective of how hopeless and highly personalised she will be in taking forward this reform. That is the first thing that “the Joystick” has claimed credit for.

Second, he says that there is a new borer that will make a tunnel in Auckland. That reflects the mole-like impression that he leaves when his head is in the wrong position. That project, Waterview Connection, was started by no one other than my senior colleague on my left, the greatest Minister of Transport to have graced the corridors of this institution, the Hon Annette King. But the notion is that the arrival of that great big piece of machinery—German patented, apparently, and made in China—is somehow going to change the fortunes of the New Zealand economy. That boring machine is going to drill further down so the proverbial head of this ostrich-like Government goes where it belongs.

Third, it has been pointed out to us that the Prime Minister has been in Latin America. I do observe the convention that when the Prime Minister is away, irrespective of what partisan hue he wears, he represents the interests of the country. I am prepared to abide by that. But then his colleague the Prime Minister in waiting says that, because our leader is away with the agriculture Minister and is actually too busy to come home and talk to the long-suffering Kiwis about the drought, somehow that trip is going to turn the fortunes of the country round on some sort of agricultural basis alone. Mr Joyce has left only one thing out: the dung beetle. I am surprised that he has not sought to own the new sudden scientifically positive qualities of the dung beetle. There is a certain resonance between what he contributes and the capacity of that beetle to chew through refuse.

There is very little in this Budget Policy Statement that is actually going to change the fortunes of the people from Kaitāia right through to Invercargill. The large economy of Auckland, we are prepared to accept, has its own dynamic. But go to Whangarei, Tūranga-nui-a-Kiwa, Ngāmotu—otherwise known as New Plymouth—or Invercargill and see that people down there have been neglected. People down there have been forgotten about. National is a party that holds those constituency seats and believes that the voters down there are like chooks—a few bits of wheat now and again and they will always vote in that direction. Without a doubt, that is a dangerous and repulsive approach to take to regional New Zealand. Regional New Zealand, our main settlements and our main centres there, not only need an injection of capital and of ideas but, most important, need a friendly face that is willing not only to take on board their priorities but to change the priorities of the Government so that it serves the needs of those regional areas. We govern for the entirety of Aotearoa, not just the narrow caste of economic tsars hoping to profit at the troughs of these State-owned enterprise sales, but the entirety—the nurses, the farmers, and the schoolteachers, who are, unfortunately, all about to become Baycorp. This is a hopeless document and a grossly inadequate attempt to turn the fortunes of the country round. Wait. Taihoa. Help is on the way. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): We know that Shane Jones is back in this House, because he gave us a glorious speech in which he was going to go through five points, but he did only three. What happened to the other two? What about that, Shane? Leave the House now—I know, he cannot remember the other two. He does not know what the other two were. The Labour Party does not know what the other two were. It got through only three. That is about the limit of the Labour Party at this time. It is good to see Shane back. Shane is—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member knows that he must use the member’s full name or his title.

DAVID BENNETT: It is good to see Mr Jones back. He is a respected member of this House. It is just that we want to hear the full plan, Mr Jones, not just part of the plan, the next time you get up to speak.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! The member is now bringing the Speaker into the debate. He has been here long enough that he should know the Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders.

DAVID BENNETT: But he did say one thing that was very interesting. He said there needed to be an injection of capital, ideas, and a friendly face. He is talking about the Labour Party when he is saying that. That is actually about the Labour Party. It needs an injection of capital, ideas, and a friendly face. Mr Jones knows that. He knows what the Labour Party needs. He has been on the backbench. He has seen what it needs. He knows what the Labour Party needs, and he said that today. He talked about three things today: the Resource Management Act, roading, and Latin America. The Latin American bit—once he got on to the dung-beetle, that was the end of the speech. I know that that is about the limit of it, but, you know, good on the Labour Party for at least trying through Mr Jones in that speech.

We heard from the New Zealand First Party. The New Zealand First Party wants to bring in its own form of communism, where everything in this country is made by the New Zealand First Party, everything is done by the New Zealand First Party, and New Zealand is self-sufficient in every way and in every manner. Is it not glorious to have a New Zealand First Party that can deliver everything for everybody all the time, and not have to pay for a thing?

And with the Green Party, well, we have not really heard much from the Green Party today, but that will be coming up in the next speech, I would imagine. The Green Party is the party of the Opposition parties in this House that actually says what it thinks. The Green Party, out of all the Opposition parties, actually comes up with an idea. The Green Party comes up with the idea of printing money. The Green Party goes out there and says that we can print money and it will solve our problems. Why not? The Japanese are doing it. The Spanish are doing it. The Portuguese are doing it. The Greeks are doing it. Why not do the same as all those countries that are in the poo? Why not do that? The Swiss are doing it, and that is all we need. The Swiss are doing it. We should do it because the Swiss are doing it.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Afghanistan’s doing it, too, I think.

DAVID BENNETT: Is Afghanistan doing it? It probably is—printing someone else’s money. In essence, the Green Party has a plan. It is dodgy, it is wrong, but it has a plan. The Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party are going to support that plan because they do not even have a plan. The New Zealand public understands that that plan is wrong and they understand that it will not work.

The National Party, on the other hand, has a plan, and the Budget is where we put that plan out.

Andrew Williams: A cunning plan.

DAVID BENNETT: And it is a cunning plan. If we have a look at that great city of Hamilton—that great city that is booming in this country—it is a great example of that plan. It is a plan where we have delivered the infrastructure for that city—the link to Auckland. The growth that you see in the north of Hamilton is the result of the infrastructure this Government has delivered for the people of Hamilton.

Andrew Williams: Best thing to come out of Hamilton is the road to Auckland.

DAVID BENNETT: That is the road to Auckland. The road to Auckland is the link to Auckland—this member from north Hamilton, it is very good to have you in this House now. That is the essence of growth: a Government that provides the infrastructure and provides the environment for people to grow and to prosper. That is what we are doing in Hamilton and that is what we are doing for the whole of New Zealand.

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What about the houses?

DAVID BENNETT: There is a lot of housing going on in Hamilton, and it is great. Come and see the electorate and you will see that growth.

New Zealand has a good plan. It is a plan delivered in this Budget. It is a plan that is working. New Zealand is in the best position of many of the Western countries in the world. We are doing well. The public knows that and they support this. The Opposition does not and it does not have any plan. There is nothing you can find on the Opposition side. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dr David Clark. Just before the member stands up, I inform the House that this is a split call, and I will give the member the bell with 1 minute remaining.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): Well, that speech was certainly a triumph of style over content, and that is certainly saying something. This Government has the worst economic record in 50 years. That is something we need to put on the record right from the start. We have this picture building of a Government with an awful, awful, awful record of achievement. We see the unemployment rate up to the highest levels it has been at since the 1990s. We had 30,000 jobs out of the economy last year, and we have 1,000 New Zealanders a week leaving for Australia. The statistics will be worse for that.

Why is it not working, we ask. It is because this Government does not really seem to have an economic plan, and that was laid bare in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We saw a Government whose only plan currently is to sell down our best revenue-generating assets. Treasury says that will take us backwards by $100 million a year. That is its plan. Its previous plan was to mine national parks. That is gone. It does not have any ideas, so it is selling off farms, it is selling our assets, and it is trying to do crony deals for pokie machines. It is cronyism that really sits at the heart of this Government’s economic policy, and it simply is not working. The facts show it is not working. The wage gap with Australia is growing. It has gone from $120 a week to $180 a week in the last 4 years. So this Government is simply not meeting its promises. It is disappointing New Zealanders. But that cronyism that is their economic policy, it seems, is something that is being laid bare.

We know that there has been a very cosy relationship and a costly relationship between this Government and its State-owned asset in Solid Energy. We know—we know—that the shareholding Ministers had facts at their disposal and they did not intervene. Either they trusted too much or they did not ask the hard questions or they thought that if they threw a bit more money at it—at the directors’ fees—it would go away. What we know is that they did have a very cosy relationship. They are not talking much about it now, but this picture tells us that they had a pretty cosy relationship. Here we see the Minister of Finance with the then Chief Executive of Solid Energy, Don Elder, developing one of the now mothballed projects. At the same time, it was borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars—hundreds of millions of dollars—at the taxpayers’ expense. I am picking that tomorrow, when the State-owned enterprises come in, when Don Elder comes in to talk to the select committee, we will see New Zealanders asking then whether Bill English will be sitting with him and whether Bill English will have his hand on Don Elder’s tool tomorrow. That is what New Zealanders will be asking.

So we see this cosy, costly relationship with the State-owned assets. We see a Government that is failing to deliver jobs, and there is no hope. We have got an economic development Minister who is no better, and a Ministry of Economic Development that does not even have a Minister in charge of it. The closest thing we have got is Mr Joyce, who is called the Government’s “Mr Fix-it”. If you say that with a strong Kiwi accent you get a lot closer to the truth, I reckon. This is not delivering jobs. This Government is not delivering jobs, and Kiwis are feeling it. Kiwis in the regions are really struggling right now and they know that this Government is not delivering. Despite it promising to close the wage gap with Australia, that has grown. Despite it saying “Your loved ones won’t go offshore”, the number leaving is 1,000 a week—record numbers to Australia. It is a short-sighted and petty Budget that it has delivered, picking the pockets of paper boys and increasing class sizes. But it has no new ideas to grow the economy. That is why it is going wrong. That is why it has got the worst economic growth record of any Government in the last 50 years.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that the Budget is about choices. All Government policy and spending makes trade-offs that reflect its priorities. This Government has some very clear priorities. It likes to pretend that any criticism of these priorities is simply saying “No”, full stop. But that is not the case. The Government has, in choosing its priorities, said “No” to many sound, sensible policies that would lead us to develop a smart, green economy that works for all New Zealanders. My question to this Government is: why is the Government not prioritising a smart, green economy that works for all New Zealanders?

John Key and Steven Joyce are not governing in the interests of all New Zealanders or the wider New Zealand economy. In fact, they are mismanaging the economy and blaming the global financial crisis. It started several years ago with tax cuts that largely benefited top income earners, which cost billions and contributed to growing the deficit. Now the Government is using Government debt as an excuse to sell off public assets. This is another example of a wealth transfer from all New Zealanders to just a few. Most likely, the sell-off is going to result in large amounts of foreign ownership of our strategic energy companies, and it will, according to Treasury’s own numbers, leave the Government books worse off.

Instead of looking after our “clean, green” brand, John Key and Steven Joyce and their Nat buddies have said “No” to investing in clean technology and harnessing the power of our public State-owned energy enterprises to develop green jobs that would allow New Zealand to respond to growing global demand, to respond to climate change, and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This was a proposal that the Green Party put forward before the last election, but the Government would rather say “No” to creating green jobs and then sell off our public assets. That will not even leave the New Zealand Government books better off, but it will enrich the Government’s mates—the top income earners who have the spare cash to buy shares in these companies.

The Government is not looking after all New Zealanders or our “clean, green” brand, but it is happy to lay out the red carpet for big international mining and drilling companies by offering tax breaks, tens of millions of dollars in free research, maintaining low royalty regimes, and refusing to put in place decent protection of our coasts in case of a catastrophic spill resulting from risky deep-sea drilling. The mining and oil drilling business will create very few jobs for New Zealanders, and it certainly will not make us more wealthy, but it will put our “clean, green” brand at threat. Drilling and fracking will worsen climate change and will actually undermine our transition to a “clean, green” economy that works for all New Zealanders.

This is a Government that claims to be about building a competitive economy, when action after action shows that it is systematically protecting its mates, like Skycity and Fletcher’s and the private bus companies, from having to compete. Any economist can tell you that what is good for private monopolies is not good for the economy.

Finally, if I could get to rebalancing the economy, the Budget Policy Statement clearly shows the account deficit worsening. It is going to be much worse, according to Treasury’s forecasts, in 2017 than it actually is in 2013. There are at least two Government policies that are directly contributing to the worsening of the current account deficit: firstly, this Government’s high dollar policy, which is effectively killing off our manufacturing sector and reducing the number of good jobs for New Zealanders; and, secondly, its insane transport policy.

This Government talks a lot about investing in infrastructure. What is clear is that it is building big motorways that have no business case. We know from the New Zealand Transport Agency’s own numbers that these projects are not going to result in any economic benefit over their cost. Here is this opportunity to apply rational economic theory to transport and actually get better outcomes, but do we see this Government pursuing rational economic policy when it comes to transport?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind the member on my right that backbench interjections on each other in close proximity to each other, which is across benches, actually have an effect on the microphones. The member is out of order—Speaker’s ruling 63/1.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am on your right but it was not me.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am well aware of that, Mr Henare. I did not use any names. One could say that we think he still doth protest too much, but I will not.

JULIE ANNE GENTER: This Government’s transport policy is not backed up by rational economic analysis. Unfortunately, it is not even going to benefit road users and it is not going to benefit the economy; it is just going to benefit its mates at Fletcher’s.

So, once again, we see that this Government is about protecting its mates from having to compete. It is about shifting wealth from all New Zealanders to just a few. And we are certainly not going to see a transition to the “clean, green” economy that works for all New Zealanders, which the Green Party is working towards. Thank you.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I am very proud to rise to take a call on the Budget Policy Statement, and I am going to concentrate in my call today on the outstanding environmental and conservation policies that this John Key - led Government has put forward. We understand only too well that this economy needs to grow, and that these Resource Management Act reforms and also the discussion document that we released at the Bluegreens forum at the weekend—and I have got both of them here in front of me and have read them carefully—are the things that will promote growth. Earlier, the Minister of Finance, Bill English, laid out the Business Growth Agenda, and in his call he mentioned the importance of the Resource Management Act reforms and the vitally important water management. That is what is important to the economy long term, and job growth—as we know, and as the Opposition benches are clueless about—emerges from a strong economy.

In my electorate on the North Shore, the Resource Management Act process, I am told by my constituents all the time, is cumbersome, costly, and time-consuming. I get a lot of feedback from the North Shore. It is a part of the country that encourages businesses. These people are business-friendly. They know how to grow their businesses. They tell me that the Resource Management Act system is difficult to understand and use, and that they believe that it is actively discouraging investment and innovation, and I agree. It is no surprise to me at all that when it comes to customer satisfaction, Resource Management Act matters rank the lowest of all public services in the Kiwis Count report. Why is that? There are just too many occasions where the view of one well-funded party manages to derail the decision of a community.

Looking at some of the things that have gone wrong has been something that this Government has done carefully. We have had plenty of examples for those dark 9 years where Labour predominated on the Treasury benches. Over and over again we have seen with the Resource Management Act process, in particular, planning happening almost by default, as decisions are fought over on a consent by consent basis, blow by blow. It is a big waste of time and money. Fundamentally, the reforms that Amy Adams, the Minister for the Environment, outlined at the Bluegreens forum on the weekend will help to resolve that. They will provide greater confidence for business growth and creating jobs, greater certainties for communities to plan for their areas’ needs, and stronger environmental outcomes as our communities grow and change. There is no time today to list all of the reforms, but I would recommend that you read these documents, to be familiar with them, and to make submissions on them. That is a cry to the public. I am absolutely wholeheartedly behind our Resource Management Act and water management reforms. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Budget Policy Statement 2013.

Ayes 63

New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Noes 57

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill

Third Reading

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui): I move, That the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a third time. It is my privilege to have been the bill’s sponsoring MP, as the local member of Parliament for Whanganui, including the South Taranaki District Council area, and to bring this local bill before the House. I recognise that it is a bill that has had its controversy—during the select committee deliberations particularly—and I recognise the various positions taken by parties in the House. I recognise too that they are divergent. In some ways, some parties were never going to vote for this particular bill, and others always were.

I acknowledge the spirit of cooperation and understanding that pervaded the Local Government and Environment Committee during the course of listening to the evidence, but most of all today I congratulate those members of the community around Te Kiri in the Ōpunake area, who years ago saw the opportunity to lift production on their farms and to secure a viable and potable water supply for their homes and for their stock, and who took advantage of a scheme that existed at the time under the Government to be able to get a dollar for dollar subsidy from taxpayers, provided that they met certain production increases.

It was at a time in New Zealand, which some members will remember, when interest rates were incredibly high and penalty rates for late payments were even higher. It was not unusual for young farmers getting started in that particular area to be paying up to 22 percent in penalty rates and a normal mortgage rate of about 18 percent in order to buy their farms or their stock or to get working capital for those farms. So they invested in this Cold Creek water supply scheme and, in doing so, raised production on those farms manyfold.

Today it services about 300-plus consumers, and by a previous piece of legislation passed in the early 2000s there was a restriction on the ability of the South Taranaki District Council to vest the scheme back with those who had built it, maintained it, and paid for it, because of the fact that it was potable. Other schemes locally that were not potable were able to be vested back, so it was recognised very early on that there was going to need to be a local bill for this to be able to happen.

Looking back over that period of time, it is interesting to note the changes that have been made in respect of, for instance, one of the issues that arose, which is consultation with iwi. The local district council, the South Taranaki District Council, has an iwi liaison committee, and on it are a number of representatives of local iwi. They truly felt that they were doing the right thing in consulting with iwi via this iwi liaison committee, and expected that the representatives on that committee from the local iwi would take the issues back to iwi, that they would be discussed, and that the views would then be brought forward through this particular forum.

As was raised by iwi during the course of the select committee process, they did not consider that to be consultation, and this far down the track, more than 10 years after the instigation of this vesting process, I do not believe that any district council would leave such vestment of an asset over to be done in that particular way. However, I think everybody accepts that they did so in good faith at the time.

The iwi’s position is that local iwi are still going through the settlement of their assets, so no assets should be sold until that process has been finished with the Crown. They also have an issue around their place as Treaty partners with the Crown and whether they should be dealing with a district council or whether they should be sitting with the Crown and deciding the distribution of water rights, which at the moment is delegated to the Taranaki Regional Council. These are principled positions and they are well understood by both the consumers and the owners of the water supply and the South Taranaki District Council. However, there has not been a meeting of the minds there, albeit the select committee process was put on hold in order to be able to get round the table with iwi representatives and to understand where each of them are.

It is important to note too that the local people constructing the water scheme hooked on to the water scheme, without any charge, a number of local amenities, including local marae, the schools, the community halls, and other facilities that were community owned and operated—without any charge whatsoever, albeit, as I said earlier, it was a time of great financial stress. The buy-in for those schools, halls, and marae included the ability of the local Ōpunake township to be able to hook on in emergency circumstances to the Cold Creek scheme.

There had been an issue for some years that problems on the slopes of Taranaki meant that in heavy rainfall the water supply to Ōpunake township was not potable and was not safe. That meant that water had to be delivered to local homes, and the quick institution of a branch from the Cold Creek scheme meant that local Ōpunake residents were able to access clean and potable water straight off the Cold Creek scheme. By agreement, that facility exists today and will continue on into the future, albeit it is no longer required, because the South Taranaki District Council has spent a lot of money on ensuring the constant water quality for Ōpunake residents.

I guess the question then asked is: “Well, who paid for it?”. This is a question that has been debated around the select committee and around this debating chamber for some time. The point is made that mainly farmers put up the money for the construction of the scheme and actually built the scheme themselves. There was a dollar for dollar taxpayer subsidy—not ratepayer but taxpayer subsidy—that went with that on a condition, as I said earlier, that production was lifted as a result of the scheme. That has happened many times over, so the taxpayer has been repaid many times over by the increase in tax that was taken from these more successful businesses, mainly dairy farms.

There was a period of time when the South Taranaki District Council serviced the Cold Creek scheme by way of some monitoring, and when it was challenged to find a single cent that had not been covered by repayments from the Cold Creek operators back to the council, it was suggested that there was some time when inspections were done when they were not charged for diesel or travel costs. That was the only money, although it could not be quantified, that could possibly not have been covered by the Cold Creek scheme.

It is important to note that even during the discourse over the last decade or so between the council and the Cold Creek consumers, every expense the council has gone to, including legal fees in contention with the points being made by the consumers, was paid for by the consumers. So we are able to say today that we cannot quantify any money whatsoever that would be outstanding to the South Taranaki District Council ratepayers.

I want to just cover off, before I finish, a point that was raised by New Zealand First, which put forward Supplementary Order Paper 179 suggesting there should be a referendum across a South Taranaki District Council - wide constituency, and in the event that that did not pass, New Zealand First would not be voting for the bill, in spite of an earlier assurance that it would be. The point remains that the initial legal ownership of this scheme was vested in the Egmont County Council, which later was amalgamated into the South Taranaki District Council. If that Supplementary Order Paper had passed, the referendum would have been held of all constituents from Ōkato, which is about 20 minutes south of New Plymouth, all the way down to Maxwell, which is about 20 minutes south of Wanganui, albeit that those people have absolutely no interest in this.

It is important, finally, to mention that this is about the vestment of pipes and concrete on 1 acre or so of ground in rural Taranaki.

I am very pleased that we have reached this point today. I commend this bill to the House, and look forward to its passing, given the intimations from other parties of support that it will have across the House. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak in this third reading debate on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I acknowledge my colleague Chester Borrows. I disagree with him on at least one point, and that is when he says that he is just the sponsor of this bill. I want to correct the record and say that Mr Borrows is more than just a sponsor. He is not some sort of passive champion of this cause. He has played an active role both before this bill arrived in this House and ever since. His role started with going along with his colleague Shane Ardern and Mr Ardern’s brother and heavying the South Taranaki District Council into supporting in principle the transfer of the ownership of this water supply system.

If there is one point I would like to make and to be on the record in this third reading debate it is that although Labour will support this bill, let us not overlook that the process that has brought the bill here leaves a lot to be desired. It is not the way a local bill ought to be progressed or ought to be sponsored or supported by a member in this House. I think it is right and proper to note that there are people in the local community out there around Ōpunake and in the old Egmont County Council area who have expressed to me their concern about exactly what has happened here. There is very little to recognise in this bill from the respective contributions of the public and the private.

This scheme is being transferred into private hands. There was a 50 percent capital input paid for by the taxpayer, and although Mr Borrows said there is no record of any cost incurred by the council that has not been reimbursed by the subscribers to the scheme, the reality is that there was much support and maintenance work done gratis by the council because it was easy and convenient to do so. The council had the expertise to do it and it wanted to support the community, and that was done. A lot of that was engineering advice. The civil engineers employed by the council assisted the Cold Creek subscribers in the maintenance of their scheme.

There is still a live issue today in relation to consultation with iwi. That has not been conducted well, and that will remain an ongoing issue. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say that the property owners understand it but there was no meeting of the minds. The truth is that the property owners have seen an opportunity and they have taken it. The iwi representatives who have tried to engage have met with considerable frustration, if not, indeed, obstruction, and that will have an impact on their Treaty settlements, which are forthcoming.

There is a redeeming aspect to this bill, and it is the fact—and it was added in during the select committee process—that there will be a referendum, even though it is confined to only those who are serviced by the water scheme at the moment or to properties that are capable of being serviced by it. There will be some public input into that.

The other redeeming aspect is that there has to be consultation with the local public health officer. That is appropriate and fair and that is right, but I do note that even though there are assurances that this scheme will be available as an emergency water supply for the people of Ōpunake, who have relied on this scheme in the past, we need to see that that is made good in practice. So all eyes will go on the Cold Creek supply scheme subscribers to ensure that they are good to their word and that when the water supply of the people of Ōpunake is imperilled, they will not be deprived of the water that comes out of this scheme.

So with those caveats and with those riders, and noting that this has not been a particularly smooth process and not an ideal process, nevertheless, Labour will support this bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am very proud to rise and support my colleague Chester Borrows in this third reading of the bill that the Hon Chester Borrows has brought to the House, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. It is interesting, is it not, that, once again, Labour members feel they have to oppose this bill? They are really not quite sure why they have to oppose it, but they feel they have to oppose it. I think that is a shame, because I would have thought they would support the promotion of anything that enables good, productive farming, wherever it is in New Zealand. Whether it is in Ōpunake or whether it is in Ranfurly, it does not really matter.

Todd McClay: What about Rotorua?

JACQUI DEAN: Even Rotorua—yes, Rotorua. This bill is about enabling the local authority to take the necessary steps so that the committee of the Cold Creek rural water supply can take over the ownership of its rural water supply, which not only provides water for agriculture but also has elements of town supply as well. It is a pretty small water supply. I have not got the figure right to hand, but there are something like 220—forgive me if I have not got it quite right—subscribers to this rural water scheme.

It was put in back in the day, in much the same way that a number of rural water schemes were put in in my area of New Zealand in North Otago, South Canterbury, and Central Otago. What happened was that groups of farmers got together and identified that there was a water source out of the local stream or, perhaps, aquifer. They got into the tractors, they got their shovels out, and they laid the pipe and put in the infrastructure.

In the Cold Creek case it was a fifty-fifty subsidy from the then Government of the day that enabled it to happen, but, effectively, from around the year 2002 the water committee has run the Cold Creek water supply as an entity, and has been doing it very well. It now wishes, for reasons that it explained to the Local Government and Environment Committee, to transfer the assets of the scheme to the company and away from the local authority. That is where members across the House have a problem, because they cannot see and do not understand how those farmers who put in the rural water scheme, who are maintaining it, and who are therefore providing employment and prosperity to their region could possibly own the rural water scheme. Well, we on this side of the House and Chester Borrows can, so this bill will bring that into effect.

In this third reading of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, I want to acknowledge the work not only of Chester Borrows but also of Nicky Wagner, chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, and all members of the committee. I think we have produced a good bill, and I commend it to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Malo le soifua, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I have not sat through the public submissions on this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, on the Local Government and Environment Committee—

Maggie Barry: Well, sit down then.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —but I have read through the reports, contrary to what that member might want to say, and I think there are some things that need to be clarified.

Contrary to what the previous member, Jacqui Dean, has just said, the Labour Party is supporting this bill—let us be quite clear about that. We are supporting it because it is about the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme, which is vested in the council, being transferred into a company owned by the farmers who put up 50 percent of the money to establish the scheme in the first place. The other 50 percent, we should remind that side, was put up by taxpayers.

I understand that this scheme has been going on for quite some time, and there have been some discussions on it, but the transfer of the scheme includes the real and personal property of the council. It includes the intake structure, the treatment plant, the land on which the treatment plant is situated, the in-ground covered reservoir, two waste discharge ponds, the pipes and pressure-reducing valves, other valves and supply point connections, all water meters for the scheme, and the electronic control and monitoring equipment, but does not transfer water rights, and I think that needs to be on record. It also, according to clause 4, is amended to clarify that in the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme, everything is sold as I have outlined, except for “the cross-linkage pipeline (beyond the connection point) used for the purpose of providing water to Opunake residents in certain emergencies.”

I am pleased to note also that clause 5 has been amended to provide an opportunity for authorities representing iwi whose rohe wholly or partly encompasses the scheme distribution area to be consulted. I think it is quite sad when you have a group of people who, for one reason or another, did not consult the local iwi of the area, and I am pleased to note that that committee saw fit to amend clause 5 to include the consultation. I think just because that clause is in there, it does not mean that I have confidence that they will carry it out, and I think that is the point that we are saying—we are supporting the bill, but there are concerns that have been raised by the public, that have been raised by the local iwi, that we have got to continue holding this Government to account for. So my word, really, to the council is that the council has got to be vigilant and make sure that the local iwi are consulted not just when they are needed but there is ongoing engagement and ongoing discussion about issues before conflict occurs.

Clause 8, I am pleased to say, provides that if a property within the scheme’s distribution, and so on, were to be transferred or leased to another person, the company assesses ability and commitment, including the supply of water to Ōpunake in emergencies.

Finally, I just want to raise this, because in a report by Richard Woodd on 27 August 2009 entitled “The battle for Cold Creek water”, the author makes reference to a regional medical officer who raised concerns about waterborne illnesses. I think that is the point we are trying to make here—that although the scheme is being transferred, the council still has a responsibility to ensure that quality water is provided and, in the case of emergency, that that water does not give rise to these particular illnesses. I raise that because I would hate for anything to happen, and if it did, we would put the blame squarely on this Government. Thank you.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I will take a short call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill because the reasons for the Green Party’s opposition we have talked about more extensively in both the second reading and the Committee stage. We will continue to oppose the bill and the process that it establishes by which the South Taranaki District Council can privatise a community water supply scheme that draws water from a stream running off Mount Taranaki.

We voted against this bill and will continue to oppose it because the scheme was built with a significant Crown grant of $1.28 million, so it is a significant community asset that should stay in public ownership and continue to deliver benefits to the wider community. It has never been clear as to what the benefits would be of privatisation—just why it is needed now. It seems to have come from a discussion about a decade ago and an agreement made then. But ratepayers, as other members have noted, have contributed to its operating cost and it was created and built with public money.

One of the other reasons for opposing it was the significant concerns that iwi have raised about the lack of consultation and the implications to incorporations like the Parininihi ki Waitōtara Incorporation and the limitations potentially on their ability to access water within the scheme area. Taranaki iwi have suffered some of the most serious breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi at the hands of the Crown. The very poor consultation that the district council did in relation to this bill and the potential effects on Māori reserve lands that are held and administered by the Parininihi ki Waitōtara Incorporation are a major reason why we are opposing the bill. That is because the privatisation would affect the value of the incorporation’s rental return from leases in perpetuity over Māori reserve land in the scheme area. That is because the scheme is currently part of the unimproved value of the land, but with privatisation the value of the scheme potentially passes to leaseholders, which will mean that the incorporation will not be able to increase the rents, as they may well have done without privatisation.

The incorporation is also concerned that there is a very real risk that their landholdings within the scheme area may be denied access to water in future, because the streams are already at their allocation limit, particularly in droughts like we are having at the moment, and there is not the capacity to take more water from them. So if you have a private company controlling access to water, it is able to shut people out. Certainly, there may be only 360 users of the scheme at the present time, but in 50 years with changes in land use, changes in subdivision, there may well be more people wanting access to water in the scheme. Where you do not have it controlled by a local authority, where councillors are accountable to the community through the elections every 3 years, you will not have the ability to influence the way in which water is managed by the company that you would have if it was managed by the council.

The other major concern we have is the fact that the referendum applies only in the scheme area. As submitters pointed out, it is effectively allowing those who benefit from the privatisation to have the vote. I am very disappointed that Government members and the bill’s sponsor did not support the Supplementary Order Paper in Andrew Williams’ name, which said that the referendum should be carried out over the whole of the South Taranaki District Council area. What is the problem that this Government has with democracy that it has denied democracy in Canterbury and here it is denying democracy again by having the referendum limited to a very narrow area? Those are three of the reasons why we will continue to oppose the bill.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is my privilege to speak in favour of this South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill—

Hon Member: Have you read it?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes, I am, thank you. This will specify the process that the South Taranaki District Council must follow to enable the transfer of the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd, and provide for certain related matters if the scheme is transferred to the company. I think, and this Government believes, that this is a practical and a fair solution. It may not be a significant economic asset, but to the farmers who use it it is very significant. Those farmers are the shareholders, and they are the only ones who are affected by and who benefit from this scheme.

This is about pipes and concrete; it is not about water. We do not need to get distracted with long and argumentative discussions and deviations on that matter; we need to focus just on the simple aspects of this scheme, which is about the pipes and the concrete in order to get water on to farms. It is something that has been set up by the community over a long time with the involvement of a number of farmers.

This bill enables community ownership of an asset built by the local community. Just briefly, I want to traverse some aspects of the history of this scheme for the interest of the House. It was between 1984 and 1987 that a group of farmers and residents living near Ōpunake built a water-race scheme on the Cold Creek catchments to supply farms and homes with water. It was overseen by the Cold Creek rural water supply committee of the Egmont County Council, which was comprised of both council members and local farmers.

The thing that I would like to say here is that this scheme was financed by a Government subsidy and dollar for dollar contributions for those using the scheme. At the time the Government insisted that the legal title of the scheme be vested in the local entity, so it was vested in the Egmont Plains Community Board. However, the ratepayers of South Taranaki never paid towards the purchase, maintenance, or otherwise of this scheme. It is totally operated by the residents of the scheme, therefore they want ownership vested in them under the Cold Creek Community Water Supply company.

This company has indeed managed the scheme, including finances, operations, and maintenance of the water reticulation network, since 2001. Way back then the South Taranaki District Council agreed to transfer the ownership. However, the Local Government Act 2002 means that a water supply cannot be privatised, therefore a local bill was the best way to make that transfer possible. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is tidying up this matter, which has been a source of continual frustration on the part of these people. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. It is very timely that this bill is in the House today discussing water supply when on the front page of the Dominion Post today we see that the capital city has about 20 days of water in reserve in the dams in the catchment areas of the Wellington area and that they will have to start drawing on the water from the Hutt River in order to supply the capital should the dams reduce in volume much more in the coming weeks with the ongoing drought conditions. It is a timely reminder of the importance to every community of their water supplies, and of the importance of maintaining the integrity of their water supplies and ensuring that there are contingencies in place for that important supply of the most basic human need: water.

In this respect, the Cold Creek rural water supply is there to supply, in particular, rural properties and farms in the Cold Creek area of South Taranaki. It goes back historically several decades to when it was put in under the old Egmont County Council in conjunction with the local farmers and people of the district, and it did receive a sizable grant from the Government in the order of $1.3 million to help install the water supply system. Therefore, public money has been expended to help that particular district council both to provide for its rural water and also to supply the township of Edgecumbe in terms of—I think it is Edgecumbe. Was it Edgecumbe?

Aaron Gilmore: Wrong side of the island, mate.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: No? Well, it provides one of the small towns nearby with its emergency water supplies. A small town nearby also depends on it as an emergency backup for water in the event that its own supplies run out. Therefore, although this whole scheme has been put forward by the Government and by the member Chester Borrows in terms of being, particularly, a scheme by the farmers, for the farmers, on behalf of the farmers, and for the sole benefit of the farmers, it does supply an emergency benefit to that local urban community as well in times of need. That need—you do not know—could well be in the near future, because we are experiencing increasing drought conditions in this country.

New Zealand First also has a problem with this bill in that originally we were of the understanding that there would be a referendum in the bill to make sure that it was kosher and stood up with the community, only to find when the bill actually came through its full paces that the referendum was going to be for only those local people in that catchment area affected by the water supply. So it is almost like asking for turkeys to vote in favour of Christmas. You have got a slightly vested interest by asking the very people who are attached to the water supply: “Do you want to control the water supply yourselves? And do you want it in your own ownership, under your own company?”. Therefore, it was not seen by New Zealand First as being a true and genuine referendum of all the people who had a vested interest in it.

Because there has been taxpayer money go into this over the years—there has been support from the district council in terms of technical support, in terms of administrative support, in terms of resources from the local district council, and in terms of making sure that the water supply in that particular catchment supply did continue to operate—there has been a local interest involved. We believe it should be the greater South Taranaki District that has a referendum to say: “Do you want this to remain in public ownership”—in the hands of the South Taranaki District Council—“or do you feel that this particular area of Cold Creek rural water supply should be handed over to those particular farms and particular people in that locality?”.

Again, we have heard other speakers this evening ask: “Well, what is the Government really worried about?”. It seems that every time the Government is faced with a question about democracy, it shies away from it. We have seen that it does not want to face democracy in Canterbury with the regional council down there. It did not want to face democracy when it came to the question of creating the super-city in Auckland, where that was railroaded through without any democratic vote by the people of Auckland on whether they wanted it or not. It just seems to be that every time something comes up where there is a question of: “Well, let’s ask the people what they think.”, this Government always seems to just take the attitude: “We don’t want to know what the people think. We don’t want to know what their opinion is. We will just do it how we want to do it, and blow the opinions of the local people.”

Maggie Barry: We win elections, though, don’t we?

ANDREW WILLIAMS: National thinks that by winning an election with a very, very, very slim margin—and where its margin is in place because it holds on to the reins only because it has the likes of the ACT Party propped up, the United Future party propped up, and the Māori Party, sort of in there hanging around the edges, propped up—it has a mandate to do this, along with the sale of State assets as well, when, in actual fact, a huge, huge number of New Zealanders are saying: “We’re not that happy about this. We’re not that happy about our democratic rights in this country being undermined.”

It is undermining the rights of the people to have a say in what is determined for them—to have their vote. Therefore, New Zealand First cannot support this local bill as it stands, because it simply is depriving the people in that area of the right to say: “Should this water be under our control or should we take it out and privatise it?”. That is a slippery slope in this country. If this goes through without the input of the local democratic rights of people there, there is a slippery slope as to what will be the next scheme. What will be the next scheme in New Zealand where a similar thing is brought to this House and it is going to be put through by the slimmest of mandates, the slimmest of majorities, and the people will be told: “Well, that’s the next scheme that we’re going to privatise.”?

In that respect I think it is time that National started listening to the people out there, because increasingly people are saying this is an arrogant Government. It is a Government that is not listening to the people. This week it is being deserted by its business mates in Auckland and Wellington, who are crying and screaming blue murder about their company car-parks having a fringe benefit tax imposed on them, and, quite frankly, this Government is starting to run out of friends. It is starting to run out of friends. When even the likes of its business mates are saying that these are dumb decisions, poor decisions, and clueless decisions, then you do start to wonder whether it truly has a mandate to put through bills such as this.

So New Zealand First will not be supporting this bill. We implore the Government to look seriously at changing this bill and to have a wider referendum—ask the people, stop being afraid of the people, stop being afraid of hearing the opinions of the people of New Zealand, and let true democracy reign in this country.

MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the third reading of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. The sponsoring member of this bill, the Hon Chester Borrows, outlined very eloquently earlier the history of this bill and why it is needed, and I would like to echo his sentiments. The people of this area—there are 162 members, 400 individual people, and 162 connections, just to be specific about it—have been working on this for about 12 years, and it really does need to progress. Why did they want to make this change in the first place? I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee that heard the submissions, and we have discussed it and argued it through. The people of Cold Creek, those 400 members, went to all of this trouble and fought for 12 years because it is a common, sensible approach. They want to run their own water supply and, in my opinion and in the opinion of the majority on that committee, they should be allowed to do so because it is an excellent idea.

The other point that Chester Borrows made earlier today in his earlier call that I think is particularly useful—and, again, it comes back to representing a group of people and being a good local member of Parliament—is that this is a broad philosophical situation that we are looking at here. The investment that was made, they felt they wanted to own it. They felt that that point came across loud and clear in the submissions. They felt they wanted ownership of something they paid for and were prepared to look after—to share with the fire authorities, for example, if there was a broader community need. This is all a very useful, well-thought-through, cooperative, and collaborative approach.

As far as the iwi is concerned, Ngā Ruahine Rangi, they have advised us that they are not interested in acquiring the asset as any part of any future claim. These were issues that did need to be resolved, and it was appropriate that, as Chester Borrows outlined earlier, they sat down around the table and discussed it in some detail. The iwi have, according to the Opposition, felt marginalised. This was certainly not the experience of the iwi that came to speak to us and the nature of the submissions that they gave us. According to that evidence that came before us, they are very happy indeed with the arrangement. They reaffirmed that they were not interested in acquiring the asset. They were consulted and there was enough accord within this to make it an excellent community initiative. I personally believe that this is a piece of legislation that should proceed through the House directly and without further opposition. I commend it to the House.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I would like to contribute briefly to this third reading of the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill. I have only recently got on to the Local Government and Environment Committee, but I speak on this bill because the area that is covered by it is part of my old tūrangawaewae, and therefore it is important to me. I just want to make two points about the bill. Clearly the purpose of it is to transfer, or to specify a process by which the South Taranaki District Council can transfer, the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd. That means that there will be some security around the provision of water not only to farmers in that area but, as I understand it, to an emergency supply to the Ōpunake township itself.

There are two objections that I have heard to this bill that I would like to dispose of. One has been the cry from the Māori Party that iwi have not been consulted. I would like to draw the Māori Party’s attention to clause 5 in Part 2 of the bill, which specifically spells out the transfer process, which includes the holding of a referendum conducted under section 9 of the Local Electoral Act using the first-past-the-post system, so it has got to be more than 50 percent of the votes cast. The council complies with the provision in the process as long as it has consulted on the proposed transfer with, amongst other people, “every iwi authority in relation to each iwi whose rohe comes, wholly or in part, within the scheme distribution area;”—in other words, all iwi whose rohe are affected by the delivery of water through this scheme. So in order to get to a referendum, the South Taranaki District Council has to have demonstrated, reported on, and “made publicly available in a balanced and timely manner”, the legislation says, the results of consultation with every iwi.

The second thing I would like to say is that I am very puzzled by the party that wants to rule by referendum finding opposition to this piece of legislation. If one were to follow New Zealand First’s logic, every piece of legislation would go to referendum, which would be a crazy way to run a country. But when there is an opportunity for a referendum by local communities to vote on whether or not this particular water scheme should be transferred to the ownership of those who will be using it, then it does not seem that that is sufficient. So I am puzzled by that. The Labour Party supports this bill, and I commend it to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I want to add just a few comments to those made by my colleague Eugenie Sage, which, clearly, I endorse wholeheartedly. [Interruption] Yes, thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch—this is a split call. It was interesting to hear Mr Little in his contribution earlier note that the Labour Party is supporting the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply Bill), but it is supporting it despite the process. A lot of the process issues underlie the Greens’ opposition to this bill, as well as some of the inevitable outcomes associated with it.

Consultation has been a major concern, and I would remind us that we have now got 20-odd years of case law, of precedent, about what constitutes consultation through the Local Government Act 2002, the Resource Management Act, and environmental law of all sorts. In consultation, one of the key propositions is that consultation involves a statement of a proposal not yet decided upon, listening to what other people have to say, considering their response, and then making decisions. Clearly, that has not been the case in this instance.

The comments from the member who just sat down, Maryan Street, are interesting. It is true that local iwi will be consulted on the process of alienating this or changing the ownership—the transfer process. That is a bit like completing the architecture and the construction of a home, finishing the building, and then offering people a right to be consulted on the colour of the house or the furnishing of it. The proposition we heard from Maggie Barry is that iwi generally are happy with this deal. There may be one iwi that is in support of it. I would point her to the submissions made from Parininihi ki Waitōtara Incorporation, who are seriously concerned about the likelihood of their income from leases in perpetuity being threatened by the passing of this legislation.

I would quote from the Ngāti Ruanui submission: “As kaitiaki, Ngaati Ruanui opposes the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Water Supply) Bill in its entirety.” That is a fairly obvious and clear statement of opposition from two significant Māori bodies—one iwi and a trust—in that area. According to Ngāti Ruanui, the bill provides no regard to the ongoing protection of the water and its importance to the wider community that it serves.

Not only is the iwi particularly concerned with its local interests, with the admittedly quite contained concerns about this quite small scheme, but it comments on the fact that it could represent a sea change if this bill is allowed to proceed, which, it seems, inevitably it will. It may indeed set a precedent that allows land that is under claim, where there are significant and very legitimate Māori concerns about ownership of land, resources, and, in this case, water, to nevertheless be alienated into private hands despite the fact that it is currently under claim. There are serious and unresolved concerns from kaitiaki from iwi and hapū in this area.

So for those and other reasons—the failure to acknowledge genuine democracy, the precedent that it will serve, and the failure of the process at many points—we will continue to oppose this legislation. Kia ora.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I want to make just a few brief comments, really, about the Cold Creek rural water supply, which this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, is dealing with. The Cold Creek scheme is up on the south-western slopes of Mount Taranaki. It serves an area of about 7,600 hectares between Kaponga and Ōpunake. It was built between 1984 and 1987 by Egmont County Council with a 50 percent Government subsidy and the farmer users of the scheme paying the other half. It serves 162 dairy farms, two marae, and 530 resident consumers. The main use is for dairy farm wash-down and trough supply, and it is all gravity-fed, apparently.

Well, listeners will know that Labour is supporting the bill, and I wanted to just comment again, really, on the position that the Green Party has taken on this bill. It reminds me very much of a recent debate we had, I think on the last members’ day, about Jacqui Dean’s bill, which transferred land in Ōāmaru, or clarified the ownership of some land in Ōāmaru. In that debate the Green Party registered its opposition to the bill on the basis that the quality of the consultation by the Waitaki District Council was inadequate. I do not dispute the sincerity of the view or even the opinion that the consultation carried out by the council was inadequate, but I do question whether that is a logical and valid basis for an objection to this bill. If you believe in local democracy and if you stand for the ability of local communities to exercise their rights within the law, then I do not believe that that objection—the one that we heard from the Green Party member David Clendon—is a logical and valid basis upon which to oppose this bill.

Possibly there are other bases for objecting to this bill, but I do not believe that that is one of them, and I do not believe that it is consistent with the position we have heard from the Green Party and many other members in this House about the rights of local communities within the law to look after their resources and make decisions about their own affairs. That is all I will say. Labour is supporting this bill at the third reading.

AARON GILMORE (National): I rise to support the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill at its third reading. I want to just touch on a couple of things that have not been mentioned here in summing up this bill, which I look forward to being passed so that the people and users of the scheme can finally, after nearly 30 years, take ownership and control of the scheme, as they desire to do.

About 2 years ago, in October, the council voted 6 to 4 in favour of the transfer of the scheme and undertaking this bill, which Chester Borrows, that fine member from Taranaki, brought to Parliament in October 2011. I think it is important to note that this is the end of a long-ranging process that has occurred for many months and many years, throughout this Parliament as well.

I think also that one of the strange things that has not been touched on, which I would like to touch on quickly, is that this scheme actually feeds 21,000 cows, which I discovered in a bit of research—21,000 cows use the water from the scheme. That contributes well and strongly to the economy of South Taranaki and to New Zealand generally. I think it is important that we understand the importance, not only to the people of South Taranaki but to the people of New Zealand generally, of the milk that those 21,000 cows produce and the export earnings it provides.

I believe that this is a bill with a good process in place. It deals with the problems that have been put forward by the members who had been voting against it. I do not believe that the strange so-called referendum put forward by New Zealand First is in the best interests of either the users or the council, or the people generally in South Taranaki who use this water, or those in the wider area, and it would be a complete waste of time and money. Look, I think this bill is one of those ones that, we understand, brings local users in to own the local assets in a way that is best for them and best for the wider community, and that is something that this Government supports wholeheartedly.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I rise also to support this bill, the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, at its third reading. As we finish this reading I want to thank the Hon Chester Borrows for his work. He is a very hard-working and effective local MP. I also want to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee. It debated this in full. The committee went through all the details with a fine-tooth comb. Finally, I thank the submitters for being involved in the process.

But I want to just clarify that this bill is not about transferring the Cold Creek rural water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd. It is about establishing a process that must be followed—a process for the South Taranaki District Council to make that transfer. This transfer is from the council to the local people who built the scheme in the late 1980s with a taxpayer subsidy, and these people are the ones who still use the scheme. It was a community collaboration to provide quality water, and the community has managed it and paid for its operation since 2001.

This bill prescribes the process required to make the transfer. It requires that before any transfer is made the council must consult with the medical officer of health for Taranaki and every iwi authority whose rohe comes within the scheme’s distribution area, and make their views publicly available. Then a transfer plan must be prepared by the company, and this must include analysis of the contractual arrangements with the council and an estimate of likely future capital and operating costs of the company. It also has to make an assessment of the company’s ability to maintain and operate the scheme for all residents—even if those properties change hands or they are leased to others in the future—how much it is going to cost, and its ability to maintain and operate the scheme for the next 30 years. As well as that, the company must agree to provide water to the Ōpunake residents in certain emergencies. Finally, it has to prepare a protocol that provides for the appropriate consultation by the company with every iwi authority in the scheme’s distribution area.

Then they have to have a referendum. That referendum covers eligible voters who are residents in the properties that are serviced by the scheme or capable of being serviced by the scheme, or within the scheme distribution area. Then the transfer can occur only if 50 percent of those people vote in the referendum to support that transfer. This is a case of local people committing to their community, of local people working collaboratively for nearly 30 years to create a community asset. The bill provides a process requiring significant local consultation and a community referendum so that the voters can have their say about their community. I commend the bill to the House.

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 third time.

Ayes 96

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 24

Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill

In Committee

DARIEN FENTON (Junior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill to be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 12 of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 12

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I take the opportunity to speak at this stage of the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. This is a bill that the Labour Party will be supporting. I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this is a very important right, or set of rights, that we are dealing with in this bill—in fact, it is one of the most basic rights. It is a protection against the arbitrary detention of citizens by the State. This is an area of the law that forms part of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and it is unusual, or difficult in fact, to intervene in the court’s exercise of its powers in this regard. So when we are legislating for this, then we need to tread very carefully.

The member who is the sponsor of this bill, Chris Auchinvole, I think has shown the appropriate sobriety and caution in championing this piece of legislation. He has followed to the letter the recommendations of the Law Commission, and perhaps one day Mr Auchinvole might find himself sitting on that august body, but not today as he shepherds through this bill. The point I would make in that regard—my respect for Mr Auchinvole aside—is that this bill ought to have been one brought to this House by the Minister of Justice. But she has not done that. She has been busy, closing courts. She has been busily destroying the effectiveness of the Auckland Family Court. But we are left, with the assistance of Mr Auchinvole, to consider this very important bill and the very important rights under it.

What this bill does is take away what is presently a mandatory requirement of the High Court, when faced with an application for habeas corpus, to give it urgency, and to give the court some discretion on managing it. I have to say that this is a very sensible measure in that regard because it means that other urgent and important applications that the court might have to consider can be managed in accordance with the priority of those applications and the court need not be totally hamstrung by these sorts of applications, important as they are. I do not think they lose any sense of importance with the measures that are proposed in this bill.

The other important thing that the bill does is to allow the management of applications by video technology, which is a pretty modern step in the 21st century. As I say, these are sensible changes. What is not sensible, and I will conclude on this point, is that this bill comes here, being championed by a member using his rights as a member of this House. An important piece of legislation like this is not brought here by the Minister, and it is important that in future we see a Minister of Justice doing what she is meant to do, not relying on members exercising their rights as members of this House to bring such important legislation. Notwithstanding that, Labour will be supporting this bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I would like to acknowledge Mr Andrew Little. Thank you very much indeed, Andrew. In some ways—we have worked together on committees and things—you have been a little bit of a mentor to me in legal process and the way you use your knowledge and experience has been good.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Steady on, steady on!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, no, it is fair, because when I stepped in to pick up this Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill and bring it in as a member’s bill to this Government, I was taken aside by someone who knows a lot more about the law of legal process than I do, and he said: “By gosh, you are being brave. You are being brave because you are stepping into holy ground and there will be people there lurking in hedgerows and pathways and you will easily be caught up.” Hence my—

Denis O’Rourke: And you were.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —I will come to you in a moment, sir—hence my care and reliance on the Law Commission. If we go back to the genesis of this, I have been asked to comment on what my eureka moment was: when did I leap out of the bath and rush along, saying I would do habeas corpus? It goes back to the Justice and Electoral Committee. When I was put on the Justice and Electoral Committee I did ask the current Attorney-General why that had happened; I am only an ordinary justice of the peace from the West Coast. He said to me that it is very important that we have people on the Justice and Electoral Committee who perhaps are not lawyers, so that they can give us an understanding of what we are saying.

Scott Simpson: You’ll be welcome back any time.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you very much. It was a period that I really enjoyed. I did listen to Sir Geoffrey Palmer when he said: “We are dependent on members picking up our bills and bringing them into Parliament because otherwise we have revived them, refreshed them, and they sit there at risk of nothing happening.” So I said: “Well, I will do that.” And I am glad I did—I am glad I did.

I have just reflected back through all the first reading and the second reading. I noticed that in the first reading New Zealand First thought it was a really splendid bill—it was magic, it was brilliant. In the second reading I was castigated like I have never been castigated before—hung, drawn, and very nearly quartered. Oh, the cruel cuts of the man’s vocabulary! But, in fact, then I found, because he was highly critical of what had happened to the bill at the select committee, that he was on the select committee. Then in the second reading, he voted against it, thereby voting against what the select committee had done. I find his logic very, very difficult to follow, but I am sure we will have an opportunity at some stage, perhaps over a malt, to reach a better understanding.

Hon Maurice Williamson: I thought you could only be castigated once?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, no. No.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Oh, sorry, I’ve got the wrong one.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, you have. At the second reading members did express deep interest in this bill. In fact, everybody has treated it very, very seriously. I have been asked: “Well, why was it so necessary to do?”. I think it is because the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is, as the earlier speaker Andrew Little said, a very fundamental and very significant part of the law. It is one I learned about in civics when I was in the fourth form and it was always highlighted as the common man’s protection against legal entrapment or anything else. It is the King saying “My citizens should be free”. It is all of those things. I do not know whether it is unique to Commonwealth countries. Does it happen—

Andrew Little: It’s widespread.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: It is not unique, it is widespread. OK, thank you for that. But every now and again when I had this critically examined—a clause by clause analysis with someone who really knows their stuff—they said it is actually a very tidy little bill and it is necessary just to do these tidying bits. It is not tweaking, it is tidying and it is just bringing it into the modern era so that it is as effective now as it ever was.

What I have done is get a couple of examples of how it has been—not abused—misused. A prisoner in Auckland had, in the space of 2 years, brought six applications for habeas corpus on his own behalf, four on behalf of other prisoners, and two arising from care and protection issues involving his son. All of the applications were without merit. A number of them were subject to appeals to the Court of Appeal and applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. They cannot do that any more. In a number of cases the habeas corpus procedures appear to have been used in an attempt to gain an early hearing, although the cases should properly have been brought as a judicial review application. Again, a misuse of it. Some attempts appear to have been made to use habeas corpus applications to bypass detention review processes in other legislation, such as in mental health and immigration.

I will not take the time of the House in giving even more examples, but perhaps I could close by thanking and expressing my deep appreciation to all who have spoken on this bill. It has been an exciting thing for me. I do not resile from bringing it forward from the Law Commission. Getting smooth operations in the courts is what we are all about. I guess I am very, very happy that we have reached this point thus far and I look forward to the third reading. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to, first, respond to the criticism of my speech in the second reading of this bill, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, by the Green Party, and also now by the honourable member Chris Auchinvole, the sponsor of this bill, of the National Party. The criticism was that having welcomed the bill on its introduction, I and New Zealand First are now opposing it. Initially, the bill appeared to be making a practical improvement to the way habeas corpus applications were dealt with by the courts, so I and New Zealand First supported the bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee for scrutiny there. That scrutiny has shown the bill as introduced to be significantly defective, so New Zealand First will not now support it. I do not see anything at all illogical about that. In fact, I would say that the Green Party’s criticism and National’s criticism both appear to be a rather pathetic excuse for the fact that both of those parties now have no good argument to continue to support this bill. In the end, the bill in fact does next to nothing to improve the habeas corpus procedure. It is now amended almost out of existence. In fact, the bill is a substantial waste of the House’s time, I believe.

There are five major defects. First of all, clause 5 of the bill has been amended to ensure that only a judge would have the power to direct that another matter take precedence over a habeas corpus application, or an appeal in respect of one. As introduced, the bill would have allowed courts or their judges to make decisions, so the amendment is now that because of the interpretation of the word “court”, only judges are able to do that. That is hardly worth a special bill in this House to do, because there is no real change from the status quo.

Secondly, subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 5 of the bill as introduced have been removed so that we now retain the 3-day time frame within which habeas corpus applications must be heard. New Zealand First, of course, supports that. The bill as introduced would have allowed a judge to extend that period, but the select committee found that: “there is little evidence that the current timeframe is problematic.” Having looked closely at the issue as part of that select committee process that the member referred to, I can only agree with the committee’s conclusion. What that means is that the basis for the bill has really proved to be completely unnecessary. In other words, the bill should not really have been considered in the first place.

Thirdly, as the select committee said: “extending the timeframe could expand the court’s jurisdiction regarding habeas corpus, potentially leading it to determine matters that might be more appropriately dealt with by another procedure. This could have the unintended consequence of removing current rights of appeal …”. So again, instead of what the bill says, the select committee actually recommends the status quo. So again the bill has been found wanting in a very fundamental way.

Fourthly, clause 6 has now been removed, because as introduced the clause would allow a judge to convene a conference of the parties to determine how proceedings would advance, including whether appearances would be made by remote means. The Justice and Electoral Committee found that: “In effect, this provision restates the High Court’s existing rules”. So once again the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill actually is a complete waste of time, adds nothing in that respect, and achieves nothing new.

Fifthly, clause 8 of the bill has been removed and replaced by a new clause to the effect that the provisions of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 apply to habeas corpus proceedings, which, of course, is the case anyway and is precisely why the Act was passed in 2010. I have to wonder whether Mr Auchinvole actually knew that that Act had been passed, because if he had then why would he be including in this bill something that was already achieved not long ago in 2010 by way of the Courts (Remote Participation) Act? Therefore, the inclusion of that provision in this bill was, yes, just another waste of time. The select committee said: “we think that having different requirements for audio-visual links in the principal Act and in the Courts (Remote Participation) Act could lead to confusion”. This provision in the bill is actually counterproductive and should not be supported. So it is not just a waste of time, but it is actually retrograde—actually undoing some good.

In the end, we see that all of the main provisions of the bill are actually removed. Clause 5 has been amended to clarify that a registrar cannot make the decision under section 9(1) of the Habeas Corpus Act. Well, big deal, no real change. Clause 6 has been removed because it restates the existing High Court Rules—again, big deal, no real change. Clause 8 has been removed because the Courts (Remote Participation) Act 2010 has been passed. So we are actually left with nothing much at all in this bill as it now stands. Only clause 7 now stands, simply to confirm that the High Court can refuse an application because habeas corpus is not the proper procedure. In fact, that is something the court can already do.

In the end, the bill has not really proved to be worth Parliament’s time. New Zealand First supported the bill’s referral to the select committee because we think it is fair and proper that a member’s bill, where it appears it may have some value, should be scrutinised by a committee. But the committee has effectively amended it out of existence. New Zealand First was part of that process, so rather than resile from it—as Mr Auchinvole suggested I perhaps should—I embrace it. I was part of the process, I assisted in finding these defects, and therefore now, on behalf of New Zealand First, I say that it is no longer necessary to have this bill at all. The correct procedure, then, is to vote against it, so New Zealand First will now vote against it as it is a substantially unnecessary piece of work.

A party vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 12 be agreed to.

Ayes 113

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 7

New Zealand First 7.

Clauses 1 to 5 and 7 to 12 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Bills

Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 February.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I support this bill.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): First, I rise to congratulate Dr David Clark on getting his bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, to this stage. It does not happen often. On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. This bill is about recognising days that are unique to us as New Zealanders. We recognise other public holidays and Mondayise them, so really we should be doing this for days that are important and unique to us.

Many of the reasons that members ought to support this bill have been outlined in the previous weeks by many speakers. This bill is a good deal for workers and businesses alike. The reality is that people no longer work a 9 till 5 day or a Monday to Friday job. It has been that way for quite some time, so it is reassuring to us to see that proposed legislation that reflects this reality is being progressed through the House. The majority of businesses, according to the Mind Your Own Business survey, indicate that they are either unfazed by or quite receptive to the intent of this bill. The bottom line is that long weekends usually bring about far more domestic tourists than there are on other days. We know that urban dwellers will often head on short journeys into provincial New Zealand, and, of course, inject some much-needed funds into those struggling communities. Likewise, rural dwellers will often head into the cities or go to some tourist spot that they previously have not visited. We must applaud that, and in this way the bill is very good for businesses and particularly for those in the tourism sector. I know that I have actually been down to the Chateau at odd times on a long weekend, and it is not often that I go down into the snow.

In New Zealand First we firmly believe that public holidays are very important to us as New Zealanders and as a country. They help define who we are, where we are from, and all of the traditions that we value collectively. They are very important dates, on which we commemorate the numerous aspects that bind us all together and make us New Zealanders. Our public holidays are times to be sociable. They are times to spend with family and friends, and quite often we have not got that sort of time. Whether we are hearing about old war stories and looking at old war medals of elderly relatives or we are learning of the iwi and the dignitaries at the signing of the Treaty, Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are now times of reflection.

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

BARBARA STEWART: As I was saying prior to the dinner break, New Zealand First supports the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. It seeks to Mondayise both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, which basically means that if Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fall on a Saturday or Sunday, the holiday is actually held on the Monday. We know that twice in every 7 years Kiwis do not get 11 statutory holidays but 9, due to the way that both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall at the weekend. The report from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, as I was saying prior to the dinner break, found that small to medium sized businesses actually support or are neutral to the planned Mondayisation. We are aware that businesses in the tourism sector are actually embracing this proposal, because they know that many people will be travelling to other destinations when there is a holiday on the Monday. So they are definitely in support of Mondayisation. That is a great flow-on effect for those small communities, often in rural New Zealand, that are focused on tourism.

As it currently stands, New Zealand First believes that Waitangi Day and Anzac Day are given a second-class status among our list of public holidays, particularly when they fall on the Saturday or the Sunday. This inconsistency across public holidays can be problematic and it is quite confusing for families, employers, and employees alike. We need to ensure that all public holidays are treated in the same way. They need to be consistent. We want our special days to be the same as Christmas Day, Boxing Day, and New Year’s Day. It is important.

This member’s bill is a very, very good one, and we are pleased to see it come to the House. It is timely that this issue is actually addressed. It is not something that will put undue financial pressure on the Government or taxpayers. I was quite interested to read that the Government officials actually admit that their cost statistics are likely to be overestimated. Fancy overestimating the cost to businesses—quite interesting! But this small change—quite a large one, in actual fact, I believe, Mr Clark—will inevitably benefit families, communities, and many businesses. It is for this reason that New Zealand First is very pleased to support this bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I rise to speak in opposition to this Holidays—

Hon Members: Oh!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —but wait, there is more; there is more—(Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I do so because I believe that this bill has received a fair hearing from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and I would like to say that it has been particularly well articulated by Dr David Clark, who has articulated his argument singularly well.

Hon Tau Henare: Who?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Dr David Clark. In spite of that, though—he gave it his very best shot, and I will be the last to criticise a member for giving his best to his own bill that was drawn out of the ballot. He has done it extraordinarily well, but, in spite of that—in spite of his prowess—I still find he has not argued a reason to support the bill, nor does the select committee support the bill.

It is a pleasure always to follow Barbara Stewart as a speaker. She speaks fulsomely and fervently. But having just experienced my own attempt to accompany a bill through the House, and having been unnecessarily savaged by Denis O’Rourke, from New Zealand First, I am going to be only nice to Dr David Clark.

But the bill, in fact, will have very little substantive effect on days that matter a great deal—and these days really do matter a great deal to New Zealanders. The substantive effect, other than in quite rare situations, really does nothing to address the real issues facing employees and employers, but it is a good sort of wallpaper job. National is focused on ensuring our employment relations framework is fair and flexible. We need to provide businesses with the confidence to take on staff, while ensuring the rights of employees are well protected. This bill, although very nice sounding—very nice sounding—does not address an actual substantive issue in the economy or the employment market. I kept looking for those bits in it—I kept looking for those bits in it—but, no, they were not there.

Dr David Clark: Productive, rested workers.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, yes, but—you know. Anzac Day and Waitangi Day have special significance for every New Zealander. For most New Zealanders, Anzac Day is an occasion to formally pay tribute, to remember all New Zealanders killed in war, and also to honour returned servicemen and servicewomen. It is a day of commemoration and memories, and a time to give honour to those who gave so much. I really treasure the Anzac Day commemorations that, as an MP, one is fortunate enough to get invited to. They are really wonderful occasions. What is great is that the new generation is coming in ever greater numbers—ever greater numbers. That is wonderful to see. It is a tribute to the modern generation, but also, of course, it is a tribute to the historical role played by our soldiers in New Zealand.

So too is Waitangi Day an occasion to remember our nation’s history, including its formation, its great advances, and the things we have done together in a bicultural sense and now in a multicultural sense as a nation. It is a time of fresh considerations. I have seen it in so many moods. I used to live in the far north, in Hokianga, and going across to Waitangi—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Didn’t quite fit in there, either.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —was always a pleasure. Say it again.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Didn’t quite fit in there, either.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Ha, ha! Oh, I do not know about that. I really gloried in my Hokianga days. But we would go across to Waitangi and we had seen so many different styles. They used to have picnic days and they were always good fun. Then there was Norm Kirk’s pageant. That was a remarkable event for those of us who are old enough to remember it. Then we entered the difficult times of dissent and sometimes despair. It is an ever-changing socio-political day.

This bill, with all due respect to Dr Clark, will not increase the importance of these days at all, nor does this bill seem to understand why public holidays exist. It will create an extra day or two where businesses are forced to close or work under reduced hours. But it will not do anything to grow the weight of history that makes these days worthy of being so important that they require people to stop their routines to reflect, which is, after all, the reason we have public holidays, so that we can remember, pay tribute, and teach the next generation why we as a nation are where we are, and what was sacrificed to get us here.

This bill also will not culminate in a dramatic increase in days off for workers, even though it might be painted that colour. That is not going to be the effect. The next time both holidays fall on a weekend is 2021. Waitangi Day alone falls on a weekend in 2016. Anzac Day falls on a weekend in 2015.

Hon Tau Henare: Why aren’t New Zealand First calling for a referendum?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well, it might be calling for a referendum, Mr Henare. It may well call for a referendum. A referendum is something you call for when you cannot make up your own mind. That is what I was always taught. That is maybe the style that New Zealand First likes to work to.

But this bill will not culminate in a dramatic increase in days off for workers. Despite David Clark saying that this will mean that all workers now get 11 paid holidays, David, that is not quite true. If you actually do not work on a Monday anyway—let us say on a shift basis—well, you will not get Queen’s Birthday or Labour Day on the next working day. So—

Dr David Clark: You can negotiate it in your employment agreement.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No, I think that little one slipped past you. It is for these straightforward reasons that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, chaired responsibly and reasonably by my colleague David Bennett—

Scott Simpson: Hear, hear!

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, he is worthy of a “Hear, hear!”. He chairs the meetings well. We really did, Dr Clark, treat your bill seriously. You gave a very articulate presentation, and we responded to it responsibly. We took it seriously, but we did recommend that it not be passed. To do so would achieve so little—so little.

However, if the House decides that the bill should proceed, then the committee recommends that it adopt the following amendments, just to help it a little bit. We would like to amend clause 2, or suggest that clause 2 should be amended, to specify 1 January 2014 as the commencement date. Public access to legislation is improved by the inclusion of a specific commencement date. The first day that would be affected by this legislation is Anzac Day in 2015. This recommended commencement date would allow a full year for the public to prepare for the legislation—for example, revising contracts and other legal instruments that include “working day” or “business days”. These are important aspects of suddenly introducing—well, you cannot suddenly introduce things; you have to allow the public to prepare. We would amend clause 5, which inserts a new section 45A—section 44B in the bill as introduced—by amending new subsection 45A(2) to make it clear that an employee would not be entitled to more than one public holiday for Waitangi Day or Anzac Day. There are a few other new clauses we would introduce. Consequential amendments to various court rules would also be required. By convention, these are made by Order in Council after consultation with the Rules Committee.

Although these amendments do not resolve the overarching issues of the bill—it being wholly unnecessary, accomplishing very little, and arguably not improving the economy or the job market—they would make the bill more workable. We are elected to legislate. This is how the Opposition has chosen to put forward this bill, and it is free to do so. We encourage the Opposition, and we endorse the efforts that Dr Clark has made. The National Government in this case chooses differently. Thank you.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I rise to speak against this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, but in doing so I do acknowledge the work that Dr David Clark has done. At the heart of it is that my concern is that this bill uses Anzac Day and Waitangi Day as an excuse for a holiday. If we want to talk about more holidays, then let us talk about that, but this is talking about using Anzac Day and Waitangi Day as an excuse for a holiday.

I would not dare to put words into the mouths of men who fought and died in Gallipoli. I am going to use my speech to allow them to speak for themselves. I have been looking over the diary of George Bollinger. He was born in Taranaki in 1890. At the age of 24 he headed off to war. He did not return, but he left us his diaries, and in them his experiences and his thoughts live on. He arrived at Gallipoli the day after 25 April 1915, which, incidentally, was a Sunday. He described the Monday following—the very first Anzac Day—as follows: “Monday 26th April 3.15 am. ‘Packs on’ was roared out. Torpedo destroyers are alongside to take us ashore. 9.40 am. On shore in the thick of it. The first casualty in our company was in my section. Just before dawn we were on the destroyers waiting for surf boats to take us ashore. Stray bullets were landing around us and suddenly Private Tohill who was standing just in front of me dropped with a bullet through his shoulder. Immediately after, Private Swayne was shot in the forehead. It was a relief to get ashore. The Australians were frightfully cut about effecting a landing yesterday. They say there are at least 6000 casualties. They did heroic work and the whole world will know of it. We are in a gully immediately behind the firing line and will be called in to relieve at any moment. Two New Zealand battalions were in last night and got cut about. The Turks have overwhelming numbers and it is a perfect wonder how the Australians captured these heights.”

He goes on: “In landing as many as 49 were killed in one boat and a whole regiment was practically wiped out. The din and roar and whistle of the missiles is awful. As we sit here the ambulance are passing with wounded on the stretchers. 5.00 pm. We climbed heights to take our place in reserve, to firing line. We are right in the fire zone and saw some awful sights.”

That was how the first Monday after the first Anzac Day was spent by the people we commemorate each year at dawn. The days that followed were no less harrowing. The lieutenant goes on: “Tuesday 27th April At daylight this morning a terrific artillery duel raged. The Turks put hundreds of shells onto our landing place. At 10.00 am we were marched north along the beach, and as we got under heights we met crowds of wounded coming down. Oh how callous one gets. Word rushed down from above for Hawke’s Bay and Wellington-West Coast Companies to reinforce at the double, as our fellows were getting massacred. We threw off packs and forgot everything in that climb up the cliffs. We fixed bayonets on reaching top and got into it. The country is terribly hilly and covered with scrub from four to five feet high. On we rushed against a rain of bullets and our men began to drop over, before they fired a shot. We started to get mixed and were everywhere amongst the Australians. Our men were dropping in hundreds.”

Darien Fenton: Tell us about your Government’s own legislation that allows the day to be transferred—

SIMON O’CONNOR: This might be inconvenient to some in the House, but these are the words of the men from the first Anzac Day.

Darien Fenton: What about your Government? What about the Holidays Act 2010?

SIMON O’CONNOR: It is a terrible, inconvenient truth that those members want to shout down. I find that a terrible thing.

The lieutenant carries on—and the House would do well to listen—“Wednesday 28th April We were relieved about 8 o’clock. Mostly our nerves were gone. We retired back and tried to rest: our casualties were very heavy. We manned the trenches again at 6 o’clock.”

Denis O’Rourke: What’s the point of all this? Which bill are you talking to?

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Which bill is being described to us?

SIMON O’CONNOR: I am going to pause there for just a moment. Again, I know that it seems a terrible inconvenience to the House that they must listen to the history and the purpose of what we talk about around Anzac Day. It is very easy to try to turn this into a discussion of holidays and days off and how we might have a barbecue and so forth, and yet you take a war diary of a man younger than just about everyone sitting in this House and you utter his words in this House, and it is so inconvenient that the contempt of heckling begins.

The diary continues: “Wednesday 28th April We were relieved about 8 o’clock. Mostly our nerves were gone. We retired back and tried to rest: our casualties were very heavy. We manned the trenches again at 6 o’clock. No sleep and nothing to eat, just a craving for drink, and the wounded always empty our bottles. The Turkish trenches are now on a ridge about 200 yards away. Our warships are shelling them, but unfortunately have also accounted for a number of our casualties.” Second Lieutenant Bollinger survived Gallipoli and he went on to fight on other battlefields. He was wounded at Messines on 8 June 1917, and he died of his wounds 2 days later. Lieutenant Bollinger was just 27.

I have read this because if one wishes to increase the number of paid holidays in New Zealand, then let us have a conversation about that, but let us not dishonour the horrors that befell so many people on 25 April 1915 by turning it into nothing more than a long weekend. Anzac Day is not a holiday, and it should not be used as an excuse for a holiday. May they rest in peace.

Brendan Horan: Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member calling? I could not hear him.

Brendan Horan: I am sorry, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Brendan Horan.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): It appears my microphone was not turned on, but it is now. How lovely it is to hear National speakers—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, Mr Horan. My apologies. I just wish to advise the House that this is a split call. The member will have 5 minutes, and he will get the bell with 1 minute to go.

BRENDAN HORAN: I will comment on the honourable member Chris Auchinvole’s words, which were spoken with a tonality sweeter than honey but were words more bitter than a poorly corked wine. Fancy giving holidays on one hand, and trying to take them away from workers on the other.

I would like to acknowledge the honourable member David Clark. It is thanks to that honourable member that I am able to have this call on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. We have a situation in this Parliament where MPs in four parties are allocated speaking rights but seven other MPs are not, and we seven MPs have to rely on calls being negotiable between parties. That is a matter that I will take up on another day through the proper channels. The honourable member David Clark did not take my support for granted after I became an independent MP. He took the time to follow up when the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee reported and to meet with me, and that is what you would expect from a hard-working, diligent MP in charge of a bill.

My initial thought was rather like that of the National members—rather mean-spirited at first—and I thought: “No, I am not going to support this.” Before I entered Parliament I part-owned and operated three retail outlets, and I hired 15 employees, and I was doing the mental sums in my head of the wages that I would have to meet. But then I investigated more fully and, upon reflection, saw that in the next 6 years public holidays would be Mondayised just twice—Anzac Day in 2015 and Waitangi Day in February 2016.

We have had a golden summer in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui, and, yes, it has not been good for farmers, but with a late monsoon season in the upper reaches of the Pacific, I am confident that we will have some rain soon. But with the golden weather that Tauranga and Mount Maunganui have experienced, our area has benefited with record numbers of visitors, and for areas of great tourist potential such as Mount Maunganui, the prospect of an extra-long weekend reaps huge financial rewards for many businesses. In the case of Tauranga, recovering from the disastrous effects of the Rena and facing the ongoing financial shortfalls to the region caused by Psa—yes, another National Government biosecurity blunder—then that opportunity of extra commerce because of the long weekend will benefit so many in the area, including hoteliers, restaurateurs, tourist guides, and tourist operators. Additional to this is that Anzac Day 2015 will be the 100th anniversary of the fateful landings at Gallipoli, and it is fitting and proper that the sacrifice of our Anzacs will be remembered in a way that includes a full public holiday so that we can fully respect and celebrate the sacrifice that our ancestors made.

Ensuring that in every year these two important commemorations are marked with a full public holiday for all people is a good step for this House to take. People who do not normally work on the days on which Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall will get the holiday on the Monday, and those who work on the Saturday or Sunday will get that day as a public holiday. Most important, the commemorations at Waitangi and at dawn parades all around our beautiful country will still be observed on 6 February and 25 April. It is with great pleasure that I support this bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to speak in support of this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. It is socially responsible, it will aid our very hard-working tourism sector, and the Greens are very happy to support it. Kia ora.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I rise to speak, as my colleagues have, in opposition to this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, for a number of reasons. But before I go over those reasons can I just assure those in the gallery and those watching at home that I know there is an important debate you are waiting for, and I can assure you that the timing is such that we will get through that full debate after I have finished.

The National Party is taking full calls on this piece of legislation because we are opposed to this piece of legislation for some serious reasons. They are serious reasons. I think when New Zealanders out there really think about Anzac Day and when they really think about Waitangi Day and what those days mean to them they will come to the conclusion—and I do not think it is a controversial conclusion—that, actually, they are not holidays; they are days of commemoration. To treat them solely as holidays, I believe, denigrates those days. I believe it takes away from the specialness and from the importance of those days.

When Parliament has previously considered how it should legislate for Anzac Day and for Waitangi Day it has specifically decided in previous years that it will do so in such a way that will not lead to those days being Mondayised, because Parliament knew at the time that those days were very important to New Zealanders. To simply Mondayise them, to simply treat them as just another holiday, is in poor form and it is something that this side of the House does not support.

I would say that the RSA, which is a very important body when we come to consider Anzac Day, is a body from which we should take the lead on Anzac Day. It has quite strong views on Anzac Day. It did not make a submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I am aware of that, but it has put out statements on the bill, and I think it is important that we do read those out for the record. The RSA represents those people who have served this country, it represents those people who have put their lives on the line for this country, and it represents the people who went to war so that we could sit in this House and debate these very issues.

What does the RSA say about Mondayising Anzac Day? It says: “Where the commemoration falls on a weekend the RSA does not support the granting of a Monday public holiday in lieu of Anzac Day … The RSA is concerned that putting a three day holiday weekend in place could take the focus away from its primary Anzac Day purpose, to the disadvantage of the commemoration itself.” That is from the national president of the RSA on 1 March. If we go ahead and Mondayise Anzac Day, then in the eyes of the RSA we are disadvantaging the commemoration itself.

Dr David Clark: Not all RSA members.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Mr Clark disagrees, but I am reading out a statement here from the national president. I mean, if the national president is wrong, Mr Clark, take it up with him, but that is the position of the RSA.

Later in the year he put out another statement specifically on the bill that Mr Clark put forward. He said: “we are seriously concerned that to allow a holiday long weekend when Anzac Day falls within a weekend will take the focus away from our most solemn day of commemoration in memory of the sacrifice of New Zealanders for their nation and, instead, turn attention towards the holiday itself.” I say that that is what the Labour Party, that is what the Opposition, is doing with this Mondayisation bill. It is not treating the day as the commemoration it should be treated as, and we say that that is appalling.

I want to turn now to the costs to business and the costs to the New Zealand economy, because we have to recognise that there are costs to the New Zealand economy.

Grant Robertson: What about the benefits to business?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Well, there are costs to the New Zealand economy. The Labour Party members want to interject. They disagree and they do not accept that there are costs to businesses, but we have to recognise that whenever we make decisions in this Parliament that affect businesses and affect the economy, it has a cost for everyday New Zealanders. Let us remember that it is not the Government that creates jobs, it is actually the people out there who are putting their money on the line as an investment to keep businesses operating. By Mondayising these days, we are actually leading towards a cost for those organisations.

The select committee did hear some submissions from business representatives organisations: Business New Zealand, the Employers and Manufacturers Association—

Dr David Clark: Tourism association—what did Martin Snedden say?

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Yes, yes, the tourism industry. It likes it, because it will benefit from it, but, actually, it is able to pass many of its costs on to its customers.

Let us take the Meat Industry Association. I think that is pretty specific and along the lines of what David Clark was talking about. It made a pretty good point about tourism. It stated: “It is noted that the tourism industry supports the Bill. The tourism industry stands to benefit financially from the bill and in large part possesses the means by which to pass on the additional costs associated with the Bill’s operation. … The meat industry, like other export industries, is not so well-positioned.” And here is the important bit that Labour and the Greens should really think about: “Being price takers in the international marketplace, there is very little opportunity to recoup the increased costs of production …”.

At the moment the Labour Party and the Green Party have this big inquiry, which they have set up on their own, about manufacturing, about the cost of exporting for New Zealanders. We have got a very big representative organisation here, mainly exporters, that is saying that the costs that the Labour Party is putting on to New Zealanders—the cost that the Labour Party and the Green Party through this legislation will put on to New Zealanders—will be to their detriment.

I want to turn to what the Employers and Manufacturers Association had to say, because that association is an important representative body, too. What it had to say was that this bill sends absolutely the wrong message. It sends a mixed message, in fact. We have spent a lot of time in this Parliament talking about how we can create jobs. We have spent a lot of time in this Parliament talking about how we can reduce unemployment. [Interruption] They do not want to hear it—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Even I am having difficulty listening to the member. [Interruption] I would like to remind the members on my left of Speakers’ ruling 60/5—“Interjections … are out of order unless they are rare … reasonable;” and witty, in the words of the late former Deputy Speaker Geoffrey Braybrooke. So I ask members to remember that.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I actually do not mind, but I have to agree with the Speaker—they were not actually that witty. If they are going to try—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, my microphone does not appear to be working. I can hear him very clearly from back here, so I am happy to swap positions—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! That is a frivolous point of order, and the member is trifling with the Chair. The member has been warned.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: Thank you very much to Mr Horan for that great impact on Parliament. It was appreciated.

Let us go back to the Employers and Manufacturers Association and what it is saying about things, because it said: “On the one hand we hear pleas from Parliament about creating jobs, costs of living issues, and a general empathy with the difficult times everyone is experiencing. On the other hand, proposals are being made that not only do nothing to assist those issues, but [actually] exacerbate them.” So the employers out there are telling us that by putting an additional cost on to businesses, that is going to exacerbate some of the issues we are talking about.

We know that the Labour Party has a very different view from us about creating jobs. Every time we have put forward proposals to create jobs, it has opposed them. Every time it has put forward proposals such as this, which would be a cost to business that could potentially lead to jobs being lost, we have opposed them. Some of the other comments being made by industry organisations are along the lines of: “Potentially, we will see more businesses shutting their doors for these particular days.” More businesses shutting their doors for these particular days means, actually, less employment on those particular days.

The costs themselves are not insignificant. The Labour Party likes to think that this will actually cost nothing, but the costs are not insignificant. The cost that we have had reported to us—and, yes, there is a bit of dispute about it—is that it would cost the New Zealand economy roughly $200 million for every day that is Mondayised. Those members shake their heads, but they have never actually come up with an alternative number. They have never come up with an alternative number.

We know that these days are important to New Zealanders. We know that these days should not be treated just as holidays. These days are important days of commemoration. Anzac Day is about the people who fought for this country. Anzac Day is about the people such as the RSAs and what they think about that, and how that is an important day for them. This is also about Waitangi Day and about remembering New Zealand’s history, about commemorating the day that New Zealand became the country that it is. This is not about taking those days away from New Zealanders by just treating them as holidays and Mondayising them, costing businesses a lot of money, and sending mixed messages to the business community and to New Zealanders about what this Parliament thinks is important. We oppose this bill for those very reasons, and I would urge the Opposition to really reconsider what it is doing here. How much of a benefit will this be, and what is the impact on New Zealanders? What is the impact on these very important days for New Zealanders? We disagree with what it is doing. It should be opposed.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. In this second reading debate I want to focus on value—the value, the regard, the importance, or preciousness that every person should feel as a New Zealand citizen. During the debate on this bill a number of views have been expressed about a person’s value. I have been moved by the depth of feeling of those affected by the bill—those who will be able to choose whether they access a social institution they are currently prohibited from accessing for no reason other than their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. The feeling of being excluded, of being a second-class citizen, and of being outside the normal parameters of society proliferate amongst our community, but we are normal, and we are entitled to the same rights as every other citizen.

The issue of coming out, of being true to who you are, is difficult enough for any person. The discussion around this bill has emphasised how real the discrimination is. The agony and hardship that so many who have bravely made submissions have had to face is unreasonable, but what is totally unacceptable is the State perpetuating that agony and hardship by not issuing marriage licences to loving, consenting, and eligible non-heterosexual couples.

This bill is about marriage equality. It is not about gay marriage, same-sex marriage, or straight marriage; it is about marriage between two people. There is no distinction to be made—that is equality. Whether the form of that marriage is religious, secular, or cultural is a matter for the couple to determine. Denying marriage to a person is to devalue that person’s right to participate fully in all that life offers. It is essentially not recognising someone as a person. No State has the right to do that. To deny trans people, intersex, lesbian, and gay people the right to marry is to deny them recognition as a person.

Opponents to this bill are essentially asserting that non-heterosexuals are not equal people and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as other people. As Archbishop Desmond Tutu said when being sworn in as the Anglican Archbishop of Cape Town in 1986: “A person is a person because he recognises others as persons.” Almost 20 years later in a sermon in London in 2004, Archbishop Tutu expressed his wish to reverse injustice by ending the persecution of people because of their sexual orientation, which he described as every bit as unjust as that crime against humanity, apartheid. He stated: “For me this struggle is a seamless robe. Opposing apartheid was a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination against women is a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a matter of justice. It is also a matter of love. Every human being is precious. We are all—all of us—part of God’s family. We all must be allowed to love each other with honour. Yet all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God. This must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are.”

Archbishop Tutu’s logic and reasoning is compelling. It is the same logic and reason that should guide us all in this House when we vote on this issue. To most people marriage is an institution characterised by positivity. It is about love, commitment, and family. No sector of society has the right to claim ownership of marriage and determine that their perception and practice of marriage is the only acceptable way. Marriage belongs to society as a whole and that requires the involvement of the whole of society. The role of the State in marriage is to issue to a licence to two people who love each other and want to commit to one another formally—that is what this bill does.

To be valued for who we are is the bare minimum we should expect from others. It is the bare minimum we should expect from the State. For me it is what I would expect from a church, but that will be a longer journey and one that each denomination and church community will determine in their own time.

The State’s position is that all human beings are equal citizens and the law protects various aspects of a person’s identity including their sex, sexual orientation, age, colour, and race. These are fundamental aspects of our identity with which we are born. The Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act extends the protections beyond these innate aspects to matters of status and belief.

I have always been clear that in pursuing marriage equality I will defend the rights of those in churches to practise their religion on terms that they consider reflect their beliefs. Freedom of religion is an individual right and I support the Government Administration Committee’s recommendation to strengthen Section 29 of the Marriage Act to make it clear that there is no compulsion for a minister to perform a marriage that he or she does not feel comfortable about. Section 29 protects all celebrants. Attempts by opponents in the last week to limit the protection only to those listed in the amendment are totally misleading. The select committee amendment, in clause 5A, is clear. The specific amendment that refers to organisational celebrants begins with the words “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), …”. The general protection in Section 29 remains in place and applies to all celebrants. To read it in any other way is disingenuous.

Exercising freedom of religion means religious groups view marriage as exclusive. That is the reality of freedom of religion and it is my intention to recognise that freedom and therefore allow that discrimination to continue for as long as religious leaders and specific denominations choose. But in return I would ask that churches consider the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex community with love, compassion, and reason. My bill is one step and will allow members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex community to participate in the civil and State institution of marriage.

Some church leaders have embraced that step and I am hopeful that time will see a change in the attitude and practices of other church members. I do have hope that churches will move towards an inclusive approach to marriage. Last October the General Assembly of the New Zealand Presbyterian Church passed a motion opposing this bill, but an attempt to pass a motion that their ministers could conduct a marriage only between a man and a woman was lost. That is a positive step and will allow ministers like Rev. Dr Margaret Mayman from St Andrews on the Terrace, who submitted both personally and professionally, to fulfil her desire to be able to offer same-sex couples the same option as different-sex couples—that is, to marry or have a civil union.

I want to recognise and thank the members of the Government Administration Committee who have read and listened to the many submissions received. Their report is reasoned and compassionate in recognising the positions taken by those in favour and those against.

In focusing on value I am drawn to the lyrics of American musician Ben Haggerty, better known as Macklemore, in his song “Same Love”:

And I can’t change

Even if I tried

Even if I wanted to

I can’t change

In voting on this bill, I hope the House will give a message to all young people: you do not have to change, you can be who you are, and we as a society will value who you are. Kia ora. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! Can I just remind members in the gallery that you are in Parliament and Parliament is here for the members of Parliament, not for members in the gallery. There will be no comments at all.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I rise to speak in this debate, having been a replacement member of the Government Administration Committee during the final stages of the committee’s work, although I regret that I did not hear the many submitters prior to the committee’s deliberations. Nevertheless, I have read and considered as many submissions as I could, and I have had numerous meetings with constituents and interested parties, especially in my own electorate in Hamilton. Many urged me to maintain my vote at first reading against the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill; quite a few urged me to change it.

In recent days both sides of the debate have flooded my in-box with emails. A common theme of many emails from the bill’s supporters, given that my Christian faith was, and remains, the main reason for my position, was that ours is a secular society and that my faith should be left out of the debate. I understand that view, but in matters of conscience one must fall back on firm foundations. To ignore what I perceive to be God’s will in this debate would, therefore, be unthinkable, even though I acknowledge that not all Christians think as one on this matter, and I agree with Glyn Carpenter from the New Zealand Christian Network that Christians must approach this matter graciously and with respect. I hope those who have contacted me, whatever their views, believe that I have achieved that, even though, I have to say, I have not always received the same in return.

New Zealand may, indeed, be a secular society, but marriage has historically been a religious institution for Christians and for most of the many other religions now represented with followers in New Zealand. For that reason, this matter is causing huge distress to many, and it is quite wrong to say that changing the definition of the word will not affect anyone else. Christians, for example, believe that marriage was instituted of God himself, signifying the mystical union between Christ and his Church. It may be convenient for some to argue, therefore, that the change of a definition has no great impact on others, but that ignores and offends tens of thousands of New Zealanders who think otherwise.

Last year I indicated that a principal reason for my opposition was my concern that Parliament is moving ahead of the churches on this issue. I remain very concerned about that, as I believe that some of the division that this bill has caused within society in recent months could have been avoided. If the churches could reach an accommodation, probably based on the French model whereby all couples undergo a civil wedding after which those who wish to, and who meet the criteria of the appropriate church, may then also have a religious wedding ceremony, I think many more in our country could live with this. Although this would not satisfy all who opposed the bill—and the idea was not considered, apparently, because it was beyond the scope of the bill—my personal view is that such a division between the functions of Church and State might have achieved much wider public acceptance, and some of the hurt that many thousands of the bill’s opponents are feeling might have been avoided, or at least lessened. I am personally disappointed that we are not able to consider and debate that option. Without it, I think this bill is putting the cart before the horse, and I remain unable to support it.

Although some proponents of the bill argue that religion should have nothing to do with our approach to this issue, that, in my view, is akin to arguing that parents should have no say over their children’s important and sometimes sensitive decisions during their formative years, or that unions and employers should have no say in our labour laws.

I acknowledge the major challenges faced by members of the select committee, and the respectful nature of the discussions for which I was present. I also acknowledge the architect of this bill, Louisa Wall. A few months ago I accepted an invitation from staff and pupils of Wellington High School to debate this topic with Louisa at one of the largest political meetings I have ever seen. Several of my colleagues thought I was mad and would probably be lynched. After my initial hesitation, however, I decided to do it, because I felt it was important for young people to have both sides of the argument to consider. Although I was in a minority of one when I started—and probably still when I finished—I was very impressed by the pupils’ courtesy and the interest they showed in the issue. I enjoyed the experience, and I respected the approach that Louisa Wall took that afternoon. Thank you, Louisa.

That aside, given the huge public interest in this topic and the significant ramifications of the change that is proposed, I am very disappointed that the committee was unable to hear many of those who took the trouble to prepare personal submissions and who asked to be given the opportunity to appear before the committee. I know from many from my own electorate who have spoken to me, and others from around the country who have written, that there are hundreds of New Zealanders who feel aggrieved at being shut out of the process on a discussion of a matter of such importance to them and to their faith communities, their cultural and ethnic groups, and so on.

This is not just for Christians—far from it—but, as I have said, my personal reservation remains primarily grounded in my Christian faith and my difficulty in believing that God wants this change to be made. This is not, in my view, evidence of a religion that is out of touch, or of Christians being unable to love others equally and without passing judgment, but it is about honouring him and his word. It is not to say that I have not been moved and challenged by many Christians, including four ministers in my own city, who have debated the issue with me and argued that just as Christ always sided with the persecuted and the marginalised in his own times, we should read into that that he would today side with gay couples who are currently denied the opportunity to marry. That is why I offered in good faith to work with those who felt the Civil Union Act needed to be strengthened, and I repeat that offer.

Some have said that this bill grants a basic human right. I do not believe that marriage is a universal human right, because there will always be those who do not meet the legal criteria to marry for various valid reasons. I have some sympathy for those who fear that if this bill is passed, pressure could arise at some future date for other changes to be made to the Marriage Act to accommodate changes that today would seem unthinkable. It is less than a decade since almost every member of this House, many of whom are still here, argued that a change to the Marriage Act of this nature was out of the question. That is why many New Zealanders regard this bill as a breach of faith by those they sent here to represent them.

Most societies have believed and most religions have taught, for thousands of years, that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman who are over a certain age and not committed to any other relationship. It is sacred and said to represent, as I mentioned, the union between Christ and his Church. Maintaining this belief in 2013 has not suddenly become a bigoted or homophobic view just because this bill happened to be drawn from the member’s bill ballot last year. Yes, God loves us all equally, whether gay or straight, but he does not, in my view, approve all social change.

Although most who have written to me and, presumably, to other MPs from both sides of this debate—and, as I mentioned earlier, literally tens of thousands have done so—have been sincere in their views and respectful in the way they have expressed them, a few have been aggressive, insulting, and, though the irony appears to have escaped them, far more bigoted than anyone I have heard arguing for the status quo. It is clear that some of the most extreme writers on both sides of the debate refuse to consider that the alternative view to their own could have any merit whatsoever. I do not agree with them. I gave an undertaking to consider as many submissions as fairly and as objectively as I could, and I have done that.

I have been moved by the experiences and deeply held convictions of many who have made submissions to the select committee and who have contacted me on both sides of the debate. In particular, I acknowledge the distress of gay friends and constituents and others who have insisted very persuasively that being gay is not a choice and that they continue to feel that society treats them as inferior because of their orientation. I accept the former conclusion, and I very much regret that the latter is still true for many—I hope we will be able to move away from that. But to those who have dismissed my religious beliefs as worthless—and some have—or who have insisted that I could easily change those beliefs, and who have insisted that my support for the long-held definition of “marriage” means that I must be a bigot who is antagonistic to those who are campaigning for the changes and that I must also be homophobic, I say that those are not my views and I am not that person.

As I said, I would have welcomed debate on the merits of several compromises. I hope we may still be able to consider some, if, as expected, this bill progresses tonight to its Committee stage. I pray that God’s will be done.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, can I thank you very much for that excellent choice in the fierce competition that there is on taking a call on this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I was very privileged to chair the Government Administration Committee, which considered this bill, and therefore I am particularly pleased to be able to take a call. Normally at this stage of the debate I would take a 10-minute call, but out of respect to the number of people to whom we cannot refer, I would like the vote taken before 10 o’clock tonight, so I am going to take shorter time than I would like to, and certainly say fewer things than I would like to as well, because this is a really important issue for many people.

I want to acknowledge all the committee members who sat on the consideration of the bill, those who were for the bill and those who were against. I think that everyone tried really hard, on what is for most people an emotive issue, to be respectful and tolerant of people who disagreed with their view, and I want to thank the committee members for doing that. We were nearly 100 percent successful in that attempt. Likewise for the submitters. People were very nervous, very anxious, and very passionate, but again, almost without exception, they presented their views in an inoffensive and respectful manner.

I want to pay particular tribute to all the submitters, but particularly the young gay and lesbian submitters, for whom it must have been a very big and courageous step to talk about their own lives in front of people whom they did not know—people who as politicians make an art form out of intimidating people. We tried not to be intimidating, but nevertheless I am sure it was a very big step, particularly for those young people. People who talked about how they realised their sexual orientation made them different from their family members, from other people at school, or from people in their workplace, many of whom then tried to deny their sexual orientation as a result, who lived their life as a lie. People who were subjected to being bullied, who felt isolated or rejected by their family, who never felt part of the community or society that we all value so much.

For those people this is not going to change their world. This is not going to overnight change New Zealand into a completely tolerant and inclusive society, but it will be a lawful recognition of the value of their loving relationships, and for that reason alone I would support the bill. It is a step forward in recognising the value of love in our law regardless of the sexual orientation of the people who love.

I want to just briefly talk about a frustration I have. They say a frustration shared is a frustration that more people are frustrated about, so let me do that tonight. The changes that we have made to section 29 of the Marriage Act, which my colleague Louisa Wall has referred to, are specifically designed to ensure that religious freedoms are not trampled on by the Marriage Act, including this amendment, which I hope we progress tonight. We accept that religious freedom should continue in New Zealand. We received advice, we debated about it, we thought about it, and we took the best advice possible. I would be prepared to be a witness for a reformist minister in court and say that he has the right to deny a same-sex couple solemnisation of their wedding—should any same-sex couple want to ask a reformist minister to solemnise their wedding.

We also as part of the select committee process decided to repeal section 56, and I would recommend that people read that. We thought the language of the law was outdated. We do not propose, though, that this be an opportunity for people to denigrate other people’s relationships. We just thought that this was an old-fashioned bit of legislation.

The other bit of misinformation that I deeply resent and regret that is being put about by some opponents—and I say “some” because I know that many opponents have debated this issue on facts—is that we have taken out any references to husband and wife or gender-specific terms in the law. Our specific direction to the officials was to not do that. Frankly, I think it would not impact on many people. I will not stop calling my husband my husband, actually, regardless of what the law says. But we specifically said we wanted the law to recognise what people practised and wanted to do in our country, and the only references we have changed are those that were totally incomprehensible if we left the language as it was. So people who say we have gender-neutered the language are misinforming people, and they should be told to read the report from the select committee and read the amendment.

I am a very, very happily married heterosexual woman. I fail to see how enabling any other person in our country to have the opportunity to share in the joy and responsibility of marriage could harm anyone, but I am very able to see how much that could benefit the strength of our families and our communities. I am delighted with this legislation. I am very proud of the way the select committee worked on it. I know there were many submitters who did not have the opportunity to be heard. We read their submissions. We value their input. Those who were heard had a powerful impact on us. I think it has been a very good process, and one that I am very pleased to support.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): In the first reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill I voted that it be sent to the Government Administration Committee to ensure a call for submissions and a platform for discussion, and I am very glad that I did that. Serving on the select committee as deputy chairman was instructive, illuminating, and educative, and it was a pleasure working with the Hon Ruth Dyson as chair. I wish now to speak to the considerations of the select committee. The one aspect that was universal—common to all submitters—was that marriage is special, precious, and desirable. Everyone said so, no matter which part of the argument they were interested in. The issue is over who can or cannot participate in it. Submitters were very definite in expressing their particular views.

I found there were three main groupings, and I would like to talk about them now. One grouping has an eschatological view of the bill—in other words, to pass the bill will be the beginning of the end of society as we know it. This was a very firmly held view. It is perceived as a slippery slope, leading to our ultimate demise as a nation and as a civilisation. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of submitters who hold to this view. It was sincerity, though, that seemed to be entirely based on apprehension and fear and circular reasoning, rather than on a persuasive argument. Although I cannot imagine, if the bill passes, that a particularly large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to engage in same-gender marriages, I also cannot imagine that any number would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my wife and I have enjoyed, or to anybody else’s heterosexual marriage. I cannot see it. I have thought deeply about this and cannot believe that the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect the right of those who wish to hold to that view, but I cannot give it currency in coming to a defined position on this bill.

Another grouping held a perception that this is counter to religious views and practices and represents State interference in religious practice, beliefs, and dogma. The select committee listened very carefully and sincerely to the concerns expressed. As someone who had 5 years as a lay minister for the Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa / New Zealand and was a member of the council of assembly for the Presbyterian Church, I had a particular interest in this aspect of the discussion. It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged—indeed, forced—to conduct ceremonies for same-gender couples should the bill be passed. We have already heard from the Hon Ruth Dyson about section 29 of the Marriage Act, which has always stipulated that it authorises but does not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise a marriage to which the licence relates. The select committee has recommended a new clause that makes it abundantly clear that ministers of religion or celebrants from approved organisations are not obliged to solemnise a marriage if to do so would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or approved organisation.

I thoroughly enjoy theological discussion and have a huge appetite for it. I have been most grateful for the opportunity to sit with clergy from many different denominations and engage with them on this issue. By providing and ensuring that this bill deals only with secular issues—I will say it again: it deals only with secular issues—it nevertheless leaves a dilemma for established religious groups that wish to differentiate their churches or holy matrimony from the new definition if the bill passes. It is not for the State to have a view on this. It is for the churches to resolve in their own way and time, and I look forward to engaging in that discussion in a personal capacity in my own time.

The third consideration—we have heard it spoken by my colleague and friend Tim Macindoe this evening—is that marriage is an institution: time honoured, never changing, and having the essential components of one man and one woman common to all countries and civilisations throughout the millennia until death do them part. It ain’t necessarily so. I am privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I married on 11 March, 41 years ago last Monday, and lived happily ever after. But the question that exercised the upper echelons of ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should take a vow of obedience to her husband. If you are marrying a red-headed West Coast girl from a West Coast aristocratic family, some hope! During that same time, to have children born out of wedlock was a hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce, or, indeed, wanting to marry someone of a different religion. Banns of marriage were called from pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage, and others were invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to for ever hold their peace. Marriage is not an unchanging institution, and although most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women.

Some statistics to show this change to the institution are quite illuminating. Twenty-three percent of marriages are conducted in a registry office, 32 percent of marriages are conducted in a church, and 45 percent are conducted by independent marriage celebrants. The figures shout out change that we cannot close our ears to. I found it personally significant that from the—wait for the figures—9,347 independent marriage celebrants, which is nearly 10,000 independent marriage celebrants, and 530 civil union celebrants, so that is 10,500 all together, the select committee received two—two—submissions.

The last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matters of conscience and the question of family coming first. In terms of conscience, I have given much, much thought to this. I am acquainted with guilt. Being a Presbyterian, one goes through life thinking that one has not worked hard enough, has not done enough, and has not reached the requirement that life’s opportunities offer, and you will always get other members who will tell you that, as one did this evening. To assuage my conscience on this issue, I delved back in my life to the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion tell me the Jesuits determine is at 7 years old, when I was a boy. I looked at catechismic values when learning the catechism by rote in Glasgow: “Who made you?” “God made me.” “Why did God make you?” “God made me to know him and love him.” The third question: “What image did God make you in?” The answer: “God made me in his own image.” Every 7-year-old boy and girl said the same and believed it was true. They did not have to add: “… as long as I conform to being heterosexual, and not to loving anyone of the same gender as myself.” My conscience is very clear on this issue. Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another to being made in the image of God, and it will take a braver person than I am to deny that. I have addressed the question of eschatology in my mind, the question of ensuring religious freedom, and the assumption of benign institutionalisation. My conscience is not clouded or indeed involved in this issue.

As an older person, we do have baggage to carry of remembering when homosexuality was illegal—in fact, it was criminal—and it was, we were told, immoral. There were two definite groups of people who came and made submissions before us, and it was what I would call a generational divide. So, in dealing with the legacy of discriminatory prejudice—and I would not want that to be a deciding feature—I prayerfully ask to be able to internalise and resolve this complicated situation in my head, in my heart, and in my soul. What I learnt from listening to the submissions, colleagues, was that in fact each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender person appearing before us was not to be seen just as an individual, not to be identified just by gender preference, but in fact to be seen as a mother’s son or a daughter, and a father’s daughter or son, as siblings to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts, and uncles and aunts to their nephews and nieces, and cousins to their cousins. They are all family, along with their heterosexual friends and relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family, and all are part—in my mind, in my heart, and in my conscience—of God’s family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused it of undermining, and that is the family. We as parliamentarians should not simply look past the interests of the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their interests. We should, and we must, look after their interests. We should pass this bill.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): For the reasons outlined by my friend and colleague Ruth Dyson, I will speak for a relatively short time as well. I want to thank her for her able chairing of the Government Administration Committee, and I thank the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, for the work he did also on that select committee.

I will speak to contrast the attitude of most of the submitters to the select committee with my experience of chairing a select committee on a similar subject 27 years ago.

Hon Ruth Dyson: You were about 17.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: When I was 17, says Ruth. It was earlier, as opposed to the mid-point of my career.

There is no doubt that the winds of change have blown. They have moved us a very, very long way, and that is reflected not only in society’s attitude over the period of time, but in the attitude of members of Parliament and the public as they have taken part in this debate. It is enormously different. There are a few of my colleagues who were there at the time, but the attitude of some members from one side—Graeme Lee, John Banks, and Norman Jones—was appalling. It was absolutely shocking and revolting. Some of the people who spoke for that legislation were not that flash either. I think of Trevor de Cleene, whose main thrust was: “Just don’t make it compulsory.” I think that was the line that Trevor de Cleene took. But I was proud, at that time, at the third reading, to be the teller for the Ayes and to come out and put five fingers in the air, because that was the margin that we got. Times have changed.

I am going to now surprise some people by saying that I have a lot in common with the position that Tim Macindoe got to. I think actually that the State has almost no role in marriage. My view is that if everyone had a civil union, or went to the State and got a bit of paper that said: “You are married”, and then went off to their church, or if they wanted to dance around a fire on the beach—have whatever appropriate celebration of that new relationship that they wanted—then that would be the best approach. But I have canvassed colleagues. What became clear to me is that the winds of change have not quite blown that far yet. Colleagues in the House do feel that the State has a role in marriage, and if that is to be the case then in my view it has to be equal for all. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I wish to move the following amendment: to delete all words after “That” and to substitute “a referendum be held at the time of the next general election to decide whether the Marriage Act 1955 should be amended to recognise marriage between two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.”

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member should, if he is going to speak, continue to speak. I would ask that I have a written copy of the amendment, please. So, just continue.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is clearly about many issues and many beliefs, and you have heard them tonight and for many years, and over the last few months in particular. But it is also about the right of the people of this country to be heard, the right of New Zealanders to all have their say, and to evince their equality with anyone who sits in this Parliament. New Zealand has a proud tradition of democracy. It is in our cultural DNA. We are one of only nine countries that can claim an unbroken line of democracy—that is, elections on a regular term—for the last 1½ centuries. We are a seriously unique country in that context, and the democratic traditions of New Zealand are part of who we are as a nation.

Tonight, for reasons that members may best understand themselves, that tradition is again under threat. We stand on the verge of passing legislation that would radically change the institution of marriage. No one, in tonight’s debate, watching television or being here tonight would surely dispute that. We stand on the verge of passing legislation that would radically change the institution of marriage—my party is not here to argue the merits of that—but we are going to go about it without any democratic mandate at all.

Who here, in the last campaign, said we were going to do this? Who here, in the last campaign—

Hon Members: We did.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, we did. Is that true? Well, I do not recall the advertisements. I do not recall the hoardings. I do not recall the proud boasts when it was thought that votes would be forfeit.

So we can make that frivolous statement, but tonight I am asking you this: why do you think that your knowledge of this country is preferable to that of the mass majority of adult New Zealanders? Answer that question. Do you still feel that you have an entitlement that is superior to that of the ordinary people of this country who, after all, we are meant to serve and not become the directors of? We are doing it without any democratic mandate at all. Have no doubt about this. The New Zealand people have been denied the chance to vote on one of the most polarising issues of our age.

This is not to argue the merits of each side. The proponents of Ms Wall’s bill point to the select committee process as being some sort of vindication. Well, if that is true, is that a mandate? If that is true, is it good enough? If that is true, why do you not trust your fellow New Zealanders? What is it about the New Zealand people, whom you forswore to serve all your parliamentary days, that you do not trust and think you have a superior knowledge of? If the select committee submissions revealed anything, it is that the public opinion in this country is widely split. We all accept that. But where is the majority in our country? Where is the mandate? [Interruption] This may seem tiresome, but just yesterday we were talking about the need to ask the country about asset sales.

We all know that there is a massive majority of New Zealanders who are, despite our politics, against the sale of assets. How can something be meritorious yesterday and 24 hours later not be meritorious? Answer that question. Such a major legislative change must be based on the collective will of New Zealanders, not 121 temporarily empowered MPs. Most of these people are going to be gone tomorrow—we all know that—so why would you not repose the trust in the voters of this country as against the people who sit here? It is called democracy, for goodness’ sake. If New Zealand is going to have a proper debate—

Sue Moroney: Go and get your 400,000 signatures.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Someone just said to me “Go and get the signatures.” Oh, really? Well, why not do what Washington and other great people in history have done? Why not ask the people? What is so wrong with that? What can be wrong, if you have the overwhelming majority of 4 million New Zealanders, expressed by their adults, in a referendum? Where is the sin here, in actually reposing the trust in the people of this country?

We are calling for a referendum on this issue to give all New Zealanders the same say as these people here tonight. Why not? What could possibly be wrong or unprincipled or unfair in letting the people of New Zealand decide this issue for themselves, and in knowing then, whichever side of the argument we end up on, that the public have decided and, therefore, because we believe in democracy we must live with their choice? What could be so wrong with that?

In the past so often—and there are people in the gallery tonight, watching TV tonight, and in this House, who know there has been an enormous fundamental disconnect between politicians and voters. We have seen and endured this on occasion after occasion, particularly over the last 30 years. No one could dispute that tonight. On so many occasions we have seen politicians blatantly lying about their intentions. There cannot be anyone who is watching tonight’s debate who does not understand that.

You know, tonight we are actually seeing it in this sense: there is a recurring theme here, and we wonder why a million people did not vote at the last election who were entitled to. There were one million such New Zealanders in a country that used to pride itself that even though the vote was voluntary, we used to outperform Australia, where the vote was compulsory. That was a recent boast, but a million never turned out at the last election, and I can see, and I am sure some of you see, why that is. They think that their voice does not matter. Echoing out of this House tonight and reverberating around the country, all around New Zealand, is an expression saying: “You don’t matter. You don’t count. You’re just Joe Bloggs out in the suburbs or somewhere else, or in some backblocks place.”, when, in fact, this should be an empowering expression from New Zealand.

There is nothing New Zealanders hate more than politicians who think they know best. There is nothing more odious, more loathsome, than politicians who think they know best. This debate, sadly, and I am not doubting the integrity of any side of this debate, shows a terrible indifference in 2013, when all of our expressions are about transparency, openness, and taking the people with us. There is an absolute apathy and indifference to democracy. It portrays a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority that some people in this Chamber hold. My challenge to you up there, right now, and around this country is: do you think these people are better able to judge this issue than you?

Hon Member: Yeah.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, no, you do not. Oh, no, you do not, because there is no one who believes in democracy who does not want to have the decision shared with their family, their friends, their community, and indeed their nation with them themselves. I think the people of this country are being grievously let down tonight, because there is an enormous sense of haste and argument here, but there is also the feeling that we again will take the people for granted.

My party proposes a referendum. My party says that we believe that the people of this country are better able to decide this issue than anybody else is. If you do not trust the people, pray tell me, who are they going to trust now?

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to begin by echoing the Hon Ruth Dyson and the Hon Trevor Mallard in expressing my appreciation of the officials who worked so hard servicing the needs of the Government Administration Committee and also to all of those members who sat on the select committee with me, both those who favour the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and those who oppose it. I believe they all did their job sincerely and well. I particularly praise the job that was done by the Hon Ruth Dyson in the chair—and, indeed, by Chris Auchinvole who, on occasion, was also in the chair—in creating a culture in the select committee hearings of respect and integrity.

Some of the submissions that we heard from people speaking in favour of the bill were hard to listen to. They shared with the committee their own stories of the damage that prejudice and discrimination had brought them—friends lost to suicide, their own self-harm, depression, and isolation—and they told us also about their love. It was wonderful to have lesbian, gay, transgendered, and bisexual people come to the committee and speak about the people they love, their hopes for the future, and the powerful difference this bill will make in their lives.

Some people came with their partner. On one occasion a young woman gave her submission with her partner, her parents, her sisters, and one of her sister’s fiancé. Heterosexual people and couples came and told us how they felt about marriage not being available to their gay friends. Parents came; children came. They spoke about love and about belonging; that the institutions of a society like marriage form a kind of rope that binds society together across the generations and through history. Not all of us want to get married, but what we heard on the committee was a strong yearning for respect, for belonging, and to add our strands to that rope.

It was striking that the submissions for the bill came from a huge range of organisations and individuals, offering an array of different perspectives—personal, religious, health, legal, and human rights were just some of those. By way of contrast, submissions opposed to the bill, although also sincere and strongly held, represented typically quite a narrow range of views and one particular perspective. Almost all of the submissions opposed to the bill came from a religious perspective. Most of them reflected the submission guide that had been circulated by a particular lobby group, often verbatim—including the errors.

I want to make two broad generalisations about the debate overall. Firstly, from the word go Louisa Wall and those of us who have been working for this bill have been absolutely clear that we have no wish to restrict the religious freedom of others. We know that some churches still had some doubt about that, but the select committee, rather than getting bogged down in whether their doubts had any validity, has moved to put the matter beyond doubt. The existing relationship between church and State has been preserved, with no church required to do or to say anything differently. Although the church voice that has been heard loudest has been one opposed to the bill, all the while there have been faiths, denominations, and congregations within denominations who wished to be able to conduct same-sex marriages and whose freedom of religion has been constrained by the existing law. Passing this bill into law will extend religious freedoms, and will not restrict them in any way.

The second general point I want to make is that as I read the submissions I was more and more struck by the difference in world view they represented. Those in favour of the bill typically see New Zealand as a pluralistic society in which this Parliament needs to create a framework that supports, and provides for, a multiplicity of cultures, beliefs, and value systems. By way of contrast, those opposed to the bill believe that this Parliament should legislate for a strict code of behaviour that conforms to a single or very tightly restricted set of beliefs and values based on their own religious belief. They believe all must comply with this behaviour code, regardless of whether or not they share the beliefs on which it is based.

We heard a lot about tradition. Those opposed said that the institution of marriage should not be changed, because of tradition. Those who support the bill showed that progress can occur only by changing historical practices. As Chris Auchinvole has so ably demonstrated, this has been the case with marriage many times over. This was graphically illustrated by so many of the arguments against this bill being precisely those that were used in the United States to try to justify continuing bans on interracial marriage: tradition, slippery slope, God’s will—all the same arguments. The landmark Supreme Court case to finally end such bans in the United States was Loving v Virginia—kind of ironic—in 1967, although the last of those laws was removed in Alabama only in the year 2000. Mildred, a black woman, and Richard, a white man, fought a 9-year battle to have their marriage recognised in their home state.

In 2007, then aged 68, a year before her death, Mildred Loving made a very rare statement about same-sex marriage, delivered on the 40th anniversary of the historic decision: “Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, [no matter their sex,] no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all.” It is time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Kanwaljit Bakshi.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have stood to take the call on a lot of occasions tonight. I want to know from you how you are determining who speaks.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I took the precaution of actually sending to whips beforehand what may be a preferential way of doing this, which was principally the mover of the bill, select committee members or leaders of the House, and then I as Speaker would choose subsequently after that. I have noted the member’s intention to take a call.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a conscience vote, a free vote, and therefore I think that it is wrong for you to go down that path. I think it is—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have made a ruling. The member may well disqualify himself if he persists.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for this opportunity for me to speak on the second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Before I talk about the bill, I thank all the staff and officials who worked during the select committee hearings and the collection of submissions. A significant number of submissions were received both against and in favour of the bill. I would also like to thank all the submitters for their written and oral submissions. I also take this opportunity to thank the chair of the Government Administration Committee, the Hon Ruth Dyson, and other members for all the hard work they have put into this process.

I begin by sharing some of the words from the holy Guru Granth Sahib, the living Guru of Sikhs: Awal Allaah Noor Upaava Kudrat Kē Sab Bande Ek Noor Te Sab Jag Upjava Kaun Bhale Kaun Mande. When translated, this would most likely read: “The Lord first created his own Light and out of This Light was created all human beings. How can there be one human being good and other cannot be?”.

My religious belief and faith is Sikhism. The purpose of me sharing those words with my parliamentary colleagues and you is to clarify that it is not in my religion, culture, or heritage to discriminate against anyone on any base. I do not believe that any one of us residing in New Zealand is a second-class citizen. I know that for some of my Opposition colleagues redefining what constitutes marriage may not be much of a big deal. However, from what my community has shared with me, for most of us it is. I base my opposition not on any historic belief but, rather, on what I saw and heard when I went with an open mind to the select committee hearings across New Zealand. However, at each of the select committee hearings none of the arguments presented by the submitters provided any significant rationale for redefining the word “marriage”.

Furthermore, the rights that are being sought are already provided for under the Civil Union Act. In case there are any changes required in civil union law, that Act can be tweaked to accommodate these changes. However, to change the definition of “marriage” from what it has historically been is something that offends the majority of people, who consider it inappropriate, especially when those arguing for the change have little in the way of reasoning to support their argument.

The basis of this bill is that marriage as a social institution is a fundamental human right for all people, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. All people should therefore have an equal opportunity to act without discrimination or limiting the human rights to one group in this society only, which would not allow for equality. In my counterargument, can I just say that the right to marry is not and never can be an absolute human right. The law of this country does not permit close family members to marry each other, or children, or people who are already married. In each case, there is good reason for such restrictions. None of them can be classified as discrimination.

Can I also ask a counter-question? Does everyone who is opposed to the view put forward not enjoy the same human rights as people who seek this amendment? Do we have the right to express what we feel about this issue, which stands to change our society? Mirroring the claim that same-sex marriage is a basic human right is correct—if this was the case, the rights would have been entrenched in major international human rights agreements signed by New Zealand, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those who argue that by proposing this bill they seek to defend the human rights do sound righteous, but people who advocate for the change have in my opinion failed to consider the grave implication that the change they seek will have for our society.

Moreover, those who feel reckless about redefining marriage should ask whether including polygamous relationships should be consented for our society. They should ask the question to themselves: what would be the impact of agreeing to the polygamous relationship in our society? Apart from the rational argument and the question I have put forward earlier, I ask a simple question of those who argue that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry: does the word “marriage” add any sugar or flavour to their relationship?

During one of the public hearings I was pleased to see a family who had come to support their daughter’s submission. By the way, the submission was in support of the bill. The family bond is one special thing we are fortunate to enjoy in New Zealand. During the hearing, I asked the family whether being in a civil union or marriage would affect her or her family bond in any manner. They said no. Some have classed my comment as discriminatory. Again, I refer to my opening statement and assure all my brothers and sisters that I believe in humanity and human rights as much as they do. All human beings are equal, regardless of where they come from. I honestly do not believe that in standing by my position on marriage I am discriminating against anyone. Marriage for me is something that has unique sanctity inherent in its divine origin, given to humanity as the pattern and the plan for the perpetuation of society.

This attempt to redefine marriage is causing a considerable amount of anxiety in religious organisations and their staff. The prevailing view of churches from Catholic to Pentecost is that the marriage is spiritually sacred to many people in our society. The New Zealand Christian community as a whole rejects the notion that there is no biblical view of marriage. The standard biblical view of marriage, first revealed in Genesis and then endorsed by Jesus, is the faithful union of one man and one woman. Any other form of marriage is not endorsed by old testaments. The idea of same-sex marriage is biblically unthinkable. Therefore, the Church also considers that the Civil Union Act 2004 already provides for the clear societal recognition and legal protection of same-sex relationships. The select committee listened very closely to the submissions made by the Church and therefore recommended that in case the bill is passed, no church minister or pastor can be forced to undertake a same-sex wedding. This, I think, is an excellent example of how democratic our nation is.

As a citizen of this country, I acknowledge, accept, and respect the aspiration of the homosexual people as citizens of Aotearoa to have their partnership recognised by society and fully protected by the law. However, the social and legal arguments presented by those forwarding this argument do not make a compelling case. My concern is to protect the uniqueness of the marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

Once again, I fully endorse the principle of equality as human beings. However, I assert that although the people are equal, not all relationships are the same. Rather than listening to the catchcries that are based on individualistic argument, we parliamentarians must consider the large public good and expectations when we vote on this bill. The larger public good and expectation is that most New Zealanders do not accept this. Society believes it has the right to do anything for ever. It takes little or no responsibility for the consequences of its actions. Australians, our neighbours, have recently defeated the equivalent legislation of our marriage amendment bill, with the resulting vote of 42 in favour and 98 against. I hope—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I have participated in more than one debate in this Parliament in my time here. The first time that I participated in a debate on a subject that really has been a platform for where we are now was on the 1993 amendments to the Human Rights Act that took effect on 1 February 1994. I have not been here as long as Trevor Mallard has, but I remember that debate very, very well. The second one was the civil union legislation. I do want to speak briefly to both of those, because they are relevant to why we are here tonight.

I remember participating in the human rights debate as if it were yesterday. In fact, of the number of submissions that came into that select committee, which I had the honour of serving on, most of them did not actually deal at all with all of the amendments to the human rights legislation. They focused on the Supplementary Order Paper very bravely progressed by Katherine O’Regan, who was an Associate Minister in the Government at the time. She made sure that sexual orientation and also diseases capable of causing—no, infection—oh, I cannot remember what it was, but it was the HIV status clause. She enabled people to have a say about whether that should become part of our human rights architecture. Fortunately, that was passed by this House, and, at the same time, that legislation changed our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That was a substantial advance in this country, and I was very proud to be part of that debate.

Actually, I remember standing in this House. I was standing up the front, speaking in the third reading of the debate, and it was about 9 o’clock in the morning because we were speaking under urgency. I remember standing here, and I was so tired because we had been up until midnight the night before, and I just said: “Today I just feel so proud to be a member of Parliament.”, and I really, really felt that way. If you remember the early 1990s, there were not a lot of things that I felt particularly proud of back then, so it really was a major achievement.

But what I remember about that night, after the debate was over, was that I was invited to appear on television to stand up for what I had voted for. I appeared debating the issue with, on the other side, a gentleman called Graham Capill from one of the religious political parties. I just want everyone in this House to think for one minute about where he is today. So, as I said, I felt very proud of that moment, supporting that legislation, and it was a major, major change.

I should have been the Minister who introduced the civil union legislation. I really am very sad that I was not. Tragically, I decided to take time out for bad behaviour at the time, and as a result my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope had the honour of taking that legislation through the House. The disadvantage of not being able to steer that legislation through the House was immediately overtaken by the great pleasure I had in hearing the submissions, and I pay tribute to Ruth Dyson and all members of the Government Administration Committee for having taken up that challenge with this particular piece of legislation, and for doing so in such a respectful way. The feedback I have had from people on both sides of the debate is that they felt honoured and respected by the committee, so I do thank the committee for that and thank Ruth Dyson for her great leadership in that regard.

As I said, lots of the arguments that have been heard today were heard then, but I have to say that the noise was much louder then. I have to say that the noise has dampened down. I do not feel that there is the strength of the objections that existed back then, and I think there is a very simple reason for that. A lot of the dire predictions that were made at that time simply did not come to pass, as they had not in 1993, and as they had not in the year—what was it—BC or whenever Trevor Mallard was debating the previous legislation.

The point is that I went back and I looked at my first reading speech for the civil union legislation, and I actually found a speech that I could have given tonight. I said back then that the Marriage Act was discriminatory. Every single thing I said in my speech was actually not in support of civil union; it was in support of an amendment to the Marriage Act. I wish we had been able to go there then, but we could not, and I am really proud of my friend Louisa Wall for bringing this bill to the House tonight. I quoted Baroness Hale, who had recently made a decision in the UK. She said that the guarantee of equal treatment is “essential to democracy”—and it is.

This is not the slippery slope. I actually went online before to find out what is the alternative, what is the opposite, of a slippery slope. I found that it was a leap of faith, and that is what we are doing here tonight, as we have done all the way along this journey. It is not a slippery slope; it is about understanding where our democracy must stand. It must stand for human rights.

I said in my third reading speech on the civil union legislation that I had a lot of luck on my side when I chose the circumstances of my birth. I was born to the majority status in every single respect. I was white, I was female, and I was heterosexual, and I was born into what was then called the one true faith—I was born into the Catholic Church. I said that what concerned me at the time was that some representatives of that Church had, essentially, asked me to set aside one of the principles it stands for and one of the values it taught me, and that was the one that affirms committed, faithful, loving relationships between two people who wish to share their lives together.

I stand by those values. That is why I stood by the civil union legislation, that is why I stand by this marriage amendment bill tonight, and that is why I believe that the people who have supported this bill actually speak to those values in exactly the same way that we did back then. I hope that this House can see its way clear to seeing the passage of this legislation today, and the rest of the passage of this bill, go down in history as a day that we stood proudly for human rights.

Hon TAU HENARE (National): Thank you for recognising me for the eighth time, Mr Deputy Speaker. You know, there is nothing quite like an idea whose time has come. There is nothing quite like an MP with an idea whose time has come. I want to say all power to my colleague Louisa Wall. I will not take too much of the House’s time. I know there are a few people across the way and even in my own party who will be silently clapping.

What I despise most of all about the process that we are going through tonight—or what I am going through—is the blatant gerrymandering of the process. I want to say to my party that I am appalled by that behaviour. I am appalled at some of the behaviour I have seen tonight and the outright not telling of the truth.

When something like this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, comes before the House, a person has to ask themselves how it impacts on them. How does the decision that the House makes impact on me, my wife, and my family? The funny thing is that most legislation impacts on you somehow. This bill, on the other hand, does not impact me one little bit. It does not affect me, it does not hurt me, and it does not help me. It has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with my sanity, with my lack of sanity, with my happiness, or with my lack of happiness. It has everything to do with other people’s sanity, everything to do with other people’s happiness, and everything to do with how they choose to run their lives.

I am remiss. I was a bit angry at the beginning—just a wee bit. I dedicate this speech not only to my very dear colleague Louisa Wall but also to my cousin who passed away 3 or 4 weeks ago—to Kathryn Henare, my first cousin. I was remiss in not saying her name.

The other question I like to ask myself when legislation is brought to the House is whether the sky is going to fall in. I have got to say that it ain’t going to fall in, and tomorrow the sun—actually, that might not be a good thing to say, because there is a drought—is going to come up again.

Dr Cam Calder: Rain’s on the way.

Hon TAU HENARE: And rain is on the way, but not because of this bill.

I do want to have a free shot. I want to make mention of the referendum issue, which my former leader, colleague, party mate, bench mate—

Andrew Williams: Mentor.

Hon TAU HENARE: —mentor, brother in arms spoke about. I want to say to New Zealand First that it is the only party in this House that steadfastly believes in the issue of referendum. I take my hat off to New Zealand First for having that position throughout the years. If there is one thing that it has been consistent on, it is the issue of a referendum.

But now I turn my little wee guns on those who have conveniently found the issue of a referendum; those who have suddenly become revolutionary on the issue of a referendum—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Resolute.

Hon TAU HENARE: —and resolute in their determination to push the idea of a referendum. If I was to believe them, then why are we not having a referendum on asset sales? Why are we not having a referendum on all sorts and all manner of things? So to my colleagues, whom I hold dear to my heart, including Mr Bennett, who has tried vigorously all day to get me to support a referendum, I say that it is a bit late, brother, to be thinking about a referendum. It is a bit late, and, quite frankly, it is wrong to think that you can govern a country through the referendum issue. It will not work, it has never worked, and I do not support it.

One of the final things I want to say is that if the so-called institution of marriage was so sacrosanct, then why are there so many people opting out of marriages? Why are there so many divorces? I am not an expert on marriage. I have been married for only just over 365 days. But what I do want to know is why we cannot offer the same opportunities to everybody rather than only a few people in our nation. I have to say—and I suppose I should quote Dr Paul Hutchison when he said in the first reading of this bill that he could not find any good reason to vote against it. I too am like that. I think that everybody should be like Dr Paul Hutchison and think very seriously, and have a look at it and say that they cannot find any good reason to vote against this piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House, and I commend my colleague Louisa Wall.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I am proud to stand here today as a Green voice in support of my impressive colleague Louisa Wall’s bill for marriage equality, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. The Green Party is voting en bloc in support of this bill because for us it is a human rights issue and there is no matter of conscience when it comes to rights and equality under the law. For us, even if the majority of New Zealand was opposed to this bill, we would still support it, because we understand that human rights exist to protect the minority from the majority, and that is what this bill does. I would like to acknowledge my colleague Kevin Hague, who has worked so hard for us on behalf of the Greens on this kaupapa, and to everyone else who sat on the Government Administration Committee. I know that hearing the stories of pain and injury caused by discrimination can be really hard, so I honour you for that work. I would like to then acknowledge everyone—and many of you, I know, are here tonight—who shared your personal stories with the committee, with this House, and in this process to help us make the right decision tonight. I really hope that your stories guide our votes.

And I hope that for the really beautiful, young queer people, some of whom I also know are here tonight, whom I met a few months ago and who told me that they would cry if Parliament ever had a queer-straight alliance, I hope they are going to cry tonight, because I hope this is going to be an example of a queer-straight alliance standing up for all of our rights. And so far I have been so encouraged by how much progress we have made in this debate and to see that 7 years on from the debate around civil unions, eight out of nine political party leaders are supporting this bill. I do believe as a country we are making progress.

One of the reasons I support this bill is for my mum and dad. When I came out, my parents really struggled. They did not, and they do not, live in the lovely liberal bubble that I do in Wellington. They do not have my beautiful community to tell them that my identity, and, by association, they and their identity, are OK. They have worried. They have worried for me and they have at times worried about how people would judge them. So I want my parents to know that society has moved on and that there is less chance now that I or they will be judged for my sexuality.

But most important, I think, for me, I want those people who have been bullying our young queer and trans people to know that as a society we have ended legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and we have taken one more step towards ending discrimination on the basis of gender identity. We have moved on and they are now well and truly out of step. Although I have no desire to marry, even if someone was asking, I do want the possibility for my friends, and others who want to, to do so. I want to see that equality in our law. Civil unions are not equality. People who are not told they cannot marry cannot tell us that that is equality. Civil unions are a compromise. They tell us and the rest of society that there is something intrinsically different about our emotions and our relationships. Although I absolutely celebrate difference, even after reading all the submissions and all the emails that tell me otherwise, I still do not believe that our love is essentially different.

The day before the first reading, a friend celebrated 5 years together with her partner. She has a house with her partner, they parent a child together, and they share their lives together. That day they marched for marriage equality together, because their relationship is just as valid as any heterosexual couple’s. Although I definitely believe that that is true without this law, I want them to know that this Parliament also thinks that is true. I want them to be assured that we see their relationship as intrinsically the same as that between a loving man and woman. I want them and their little one to know that this society does not discriminate on the basis of sexuality and, one day, entirely not on the basis of gender identity. And I want someone who is married and then transitions in their gender, and who is then married to somebody of the same gender, not to have to divorce their partner, as they have to do now. And I want heterosexual friends, like my colleague Holly Walker, to be able to marry in good conscience, knowing that her gay friends can, too—if that is what she wants to do.

Marriage has changed over time, mostly for the better, and now it just needs this change to reflect our current social norm. I am pleased the Greens and so many of us in this Parliament recognise this issue for what it is: an issue of rights and an opportunity to legislate for the possibility of a society without discrimination. Kia ora.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): It is a privilege to be able to stand in the House and speak in this debate, and I want to congratulate members from right across the House on the way in which they have conducted this debate from the moment this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, was introduced, or even discussed, and right through the select committee process. Unfortunately, I was not part of the select committee process, but all reports are that those people on the Government Administration Committee conducted themselves very well.

I think it is a real shame that people on different sides of this debate outside the Chamber do not think those of us who think differently from others within the House hate enough. The fact is that all of us can respect the views of those who are in here and who are making speeches tonight. I find myself in the situation where I agree with so many speakers—those who are speaking for the way I intend to vote and those are speaking against it. I do agree, for instance, with the last speaker, Jan Logie, that all relationships should be treated in exactly the same way, whether they be heterosexual marriages or whether they be civil unions between heterosexual couples or gay couples, or long-term de facto relationships between heterosexual couples or gay couples.

I believe that the fundamental issue here is the equality of long-term relationships and the status they have before the law, and I believe that that is the issue that we should have the courage to debate tonight. I do not believe that changing the definition of marriage to include gay couples is the way to do it. I believe that that is a different way of trying to achieve the main objective, which is to achieve that legal status.

I find abhorrent the way that various groups have acted throughout the course of this debate. As a Christian—a conservative Christian—I find abhorrent the way that Christians have entered into this debate and the threatening nature with which they have emailed colleagues. I know of colleagues who set out thinking they would vote against this bill and changed their minds because of the way they have been treated by Christians who supposedly worship in their daily lives and witness a loving God. If they profess to worship that God, then it is a different God whom I worship and whom I believe in, because they have shown nothing of that love—that all-encompassing love—in the way that they have conducted themselves in this debate.

It is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another, they always bring out the worst, and they seek to shove those people who do not hold to our faith into a pigeon-hole that would brand us all in the same way. I think that is a despicable way for people of faith to behave.

My fundamental concern with this bill, as I stated earlier, is that it seeks to redefine marriage as something other than a heterosexual institution, which it has always been, albeit the odd exception when some Greek wanted to marry his manservant, and no doubt somewhere back in history someone wanted to marry some other creature from another species. It does not mean, for instance, that that detracts from that fundamental definition of what marriage is.

Marriage does not belong to Christianity. It does not belong to any religion or ethnicity. It has been there since time immemorial, and it has always been relative to a heterosexual couple. I do not believe that changing that definition addresses the fundamental issues, which are about the equality of long-term relationships before the law. If, for instance, it is directed at the prejudice within the Adoption Act that is brought about by that definition of marriage, then I need to state right here that I would vote for that change in the adoption law, because I believe the overriding principle is what is in the best interests of children. So I think this House needs to have the courage to define clearly what the issue is and to have that debate, no matter how unpopular that may be and no matter how much trouble we may well get into.

I also want to just acknowledge a number of comments that members around the House have made, and they are about how far we have come. I know within my own experience how far I have come in relation to these issues, and that is about that circle of friends. I acknowledge again Jan Logie, who talked about the liberal bubble that she lives in. The wider the circle of friends, no doubt, the more contact that brings, as has been the case for me. I have a number of gay friends and gay relatives whom I love and whose friendship I treasure, and I consider it a privilege to be part of their lives.

I have also experienced the prejudice that those people have experienced within their communities. One is a particular cousin of mine, an Exclusive Brethren person, who, having come out, has had to leave the faith and his family. His acknowledgment of his status has meant that he has lost absolutely everything. Thankfully, he has been welcomed by a loving and caring gay community and an understanding heterosexual community, and I believe that that is a good thing.

I want to finish off with another point, and it is about the comment that the Hon Tau Henare made in respect of decisions that we make not affecting us. The fact is that we are here making decisions that will affect the lives of others, and maybe they will affect us as well. I do not accept any suggestion, for instance, that a gay couple being allowed to be married is going to affect my 34-year marriage to Ella, the same way as my good friend Chris Auchinvole does not see that it would affect his marriage. That is not the point. The point is that what we have is a group of people who will be affected by their fundamental beliefs in the fact that they see marriage as a heterosexual institution. By changing that, they will be affected in that way, and by enhancing the view of those who see it differently, you automatically suppress those views, and I would have thought that people who had lived under the wrongly oppressive regime for so long would understand that and we could find another way about it.

I want to finish now, because I recognise that time is short, by once again restating that I think that this Parliament has conducted itself with exceptional integrity, and the population of New Zealand, no matter how they would vote on this issue, should recognise that. The fact that we can debate strongly different points of view here but acknowledge that they are different points of view—they are not lesser, they are not greater; they are just different—and the more that the public of New Zealand, looking at this Chamber, recognise that, the better we will all be. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate has now concluded. I wish to acquaint members with the process from here on, because we are, to some extent, breaking new ground. We are now going to enter into the voting, but before I do that I want to just read Standing Order 294: “At the conclusion of the debate on the second reading of a bill, the Speaker puts a question that the amendments recommended by the committee by majority be agreed to”. Therefore, I am going to put whatever votes that we now have ahead of us, which may take us past 10 o’clock—that is from Standing Order 294.

So the first vote will be on the amendments that the Government Administration Committee recommended. We will then go to the amendment in the name of Winston Peters, and subsequently follow a process after that. I will call the votes on the voices first. When we get to the amendments, if a personal vote is required—if there is a division—members should indicate. Can I just say to the gallery that you have been well behaved. I would just ask for some decorum while we do this voting. Thank you very much.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to.

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

Ayes 66

Noes 21

Abstentions 2

Question agreed to.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next question is that the amendment in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, which is in order, be agreed to. So the question is that a referendum be held at the time of the next general election to decide whether the Marriage Act 1955 should be amended to recognise marriage between two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

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

Ayes 33

Noes 85

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 33, Noes 83.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 77

Noes 44

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.