Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Wednesday, 27 March 2013

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Brunei—Sultan

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, Sultan, Yang di-Pertuan, and Prime Minister of Brunei Darussalam is within the precincts of the Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left of the Chair.

His Majesty Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah, accompanied by the Minister of Internal Affairs, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Myanmar—Speaker, House of Representatives

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a delegation from the Myanmar Lower House led by the Hon Thura U Shwe Mann, Speaker of the House, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed, and that the Speaker be accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.

Hon Thura U Shwe Mann, accompanied by the Deputy Speaker, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Ministers—Confidence

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Conservation, given that the Auditor-General cited the Department of Conservation’s regional conservancy staff as the strength of the organisation, and it is these very jobs that are being targeted for elimination?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it true that various jobs in the Department of Conservation are being renamed by Nick Smith as “rangers” so that Dr Smith can give the impression that front-line staff are not being cut at the Department of Conservation, and is this the kind of spin that he expects from his Ministers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and no are the answers to that question. I would refer the member to the statements by Al Morrison yesterday, when he said in particular: “While I acknowledge the next few months will be a period of uncertainty for DOC staff and their families, I am confident DOC will be able to maintain all its key outputs in species protection, pest control, and the provision of recreational facilities within the new streamlined organisational structure.”

Dr Russel Norman: Just to confirm: his answer was yes to my question “Is it true that various jobs in the Department of Conservation are being renamed by Nick Smith as ‘rangers’ so that Dr Smith can give the impression that front-line staff are not being cut at the Department of Conservation?”

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. As I said, yes to the first bit—they are being renamed as rangers—but, no, there is no spin involved.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that his Minister is moving the Department of Conservation to focusing more on being a business that makes money rather than a conservation-focused organisation, is this what he expects from his Minister of Conservation, and will the Prime Minister step in to rule out Department of Conservation staff having to wear corporate-sponsored uniforms and logos?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I think what is happening within the Department of Conservation is that Al Morrison, rightfully, is actually leading the organisation to reflect the 21st century approach. If there are companies—as I think I saw in a clip last night on TV—that want to play a role in terms of conservation in New Zealand, then that could be a welcome thing. If one goes overseas—as I am sure that member has done, and as I do—you can see within national parks and things around the world that there actually are roles where corporations adopt highways, national parks, or whatever it might be, and that money is actually used for the benefit of the people who go to those national parks. What would be so wrong about that?

Dr Russel Norman: Does he have confidence in his Minister for Climate Change Issues, given that, according to Treasury, New Zealand is now on track for a net emissions increase of up to 50 percent by 2020?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and I would point the member to the period of time when emissions really grew wildly in this country, and that was under a Labour Government, supported by the Greens.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he have confidence in his environment Minister, given that Guy Salmon, an ecologist, a former National Party candidate, co-author of the National Party’s Bluegreens vision statement, and one of the architects of the Land and Water Forum, said about his Minister: “This is the first time I have dealt with a Minister who has been wanting to lower environmental standards. This shouldn’t be happening in New Zealand.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and I would utterly reject that assertion by Mr Salmon. In fact, the Minister cares passionately about the environment and is playing an important role to make sure that we are improving, amongst other things, water quality in New Zealand.

Dr Russel Norman: Given that Guy Salmon co-wrote the National Party’s Bluegreens vision statement, why is Guy Salmon now denouncing the environmental performance of the National Government—has Guy Salmon changed, or is it just that this Government’s second-term agenda is so toxic to the environment that Mr Salmon has been forced to speak out?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member wants to know what Guy Salmon thinks, the member should ring Guy Salmon.

Dr Russel Norman: Is this Government’s second-term toxic environmental agenda, whether it is in the Department of Conservation, climate change, or Resource Management Act changes, being driven by his Ministers, or will he take personal responsibility for it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I would utterly reject that there is a toxic environmental review. If there is anything toxic, it is the fact that the Green Party decided to keep Brendan Horan’s—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Chris Hipkins: Why does he have confidence in the Minister of Education, given that she repeatedly denied having been consulted on Lesley Longstone’s resignation and $425,000 payout during question time yesterday, and then snuck into the House at 9.55—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question with the piece about “snuck into” is an unnecessary—[Interruption] It is a reflection—[Interruption] Order! I am trying to help the member get a legitimate answer to his question. But to suggest that a member who is not even here to defend herself “snuck into the House” adds, I think, an unnecessary imputation to that question. I would just invite the member to ask the question again. Remove that bit, and it is a perfectly legitimate question.

Chris Hipkins: Why does he have confidence in the Minister of Education, given she repeatedly denied having been consulted on Lesley Longstone’s resignation and $425,000 payout during question time yesterday, and then came into the House at 9.55 p.m. last night to admit that she was?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the Minister, on reflection, decided that she did need to at least clarify her answers, so she came in to correct them. That was the first available occasion that the House could allow her to do that, and it is actually normal for people to have to correct answers. I have had to do it, other Ministers have had to do it, and the Leader of the Opposition has had to do it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The fact is that the Minister had considerable time to actually correct the misinformation to the House, and to describe it, at 9.55, as “snuck into” is totally a sound use of language, and I think you cannot purely demand that people couch their questions in the framework of another’s very limited language.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is quite entitled to his opinion. I have a different opinion. The way the question was subsequently worded was, I felt, a far better way to word it—[Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister then subsequently answered it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister in his answer indicated that 9.55 was the first opportunity. Is it still within the Standing Orders to report progress in order to make a correction? It used to be the case to report progress from a Committee to seek leave to sit again, and to make a fulsome apology at the right time, rather than hiding in one’s office and popping down—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have no ability of knowing the—

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need the Prime Minister’s assistance. I have no knowledge of the diary of the Minister of Education or whether she had time available to come down earlier than that or not. I do not even know whether she was in Wellington. So from my point of view, the only part I was objecting to was the words “snuck into”. Whether the Minister had had an opportunity to come down earlier, that is for the Minister; it is not for the Speaker to know.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The advice I have is that the Minister came to the House before 6 o’clock, tried to actually correct the statements before 6 o’clock, and was advised by the Clerk that that was not possible and that she should come back before 10 o’clock.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sure you will work with your staff so that Ministers are better advised in the future.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can be absolutely assured that I will work very well with my staff.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely it would have occurred to you that if the Prime Minister is correct that the Minister was ready to make the change in her answer before 6 p.m., then why would it require until 9.55 p.m. to come to this House and give her explanation?

Mr SPEAKER: The Clerk advises that the House was in Committee at that time. A personal explanation cannot be made while the House is in Committee, and the time that it came out of Committee was, obviously, at 9.55.

Statutory Holidays—Mondayisation of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I do.

David Shearer: Can—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Opposition has a right to have his supplementary question heard.

David Shearer: Can he clarify his statement: “Mondayisation, I know, I don’t agree with that. I mean, I think in the end this is an issue which, you know, fair enough, I don’t think, you know, our—we’re opposed, but we’re not vehemently opposed.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I must admit it does not sound that fluent, and I have got to be honest, I was attempting to be a ventriloquist and pretending that I had David Shearer’s little puppet on my hand.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

David Shearer: Why is his Government opposing the Mondayisation of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think for good, longstanding reasons. If it was so blindingly obvious and something that was absolutely top of mind and something that New Zealanders absolutely wanted, there was a 9-year period when the Labour Party was in Government and it did not do it. It has become an issue today, but it was not an issue in the 9 years when previously Labour was in office. The very good reason is this: the Government takes the view that Anzac Day in particular, if it falls on a weekend, is a day when New Zealanders will more often than not want to actually go and attend those ceremonies and remember those who have fallen and who fought for our country. The fact that that may now be Mondayised may lead to a view where more New Zealanders treat that as a 3-day weekend, rather than specific recognition of that very important day.

David Shearer: In the light of that, is he saying that people will not go and commemorate Anzac Day in a weekend because there is a Monday following that weekend?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Clearly, many, many people will go out and commemorate Anzac Day, and we would encourage them to do that, to pay their respects. But the view that we have taken has been that if there is a situation where there is a 3-day holiday, it may encourage others to just treat that as a normal 3-day weekend. We think that is a disservice to those two particular days.

David Shearer: Do you think this might start a trend that people will not celebrate Christmas or New Year if they happen to fall on a weekend as well?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: New Zealanders choose, on Christmas Day, to spend that day in a variety of ways. Some New Zealanders choose, on Christmas Day, to attend a religious service. Many do not. But that is actually quite different. We do not assemble as a nation on Christmas Day to remember those who have given their lives in the pursuit of liberty and freedom in New Zealand. It is quite different.

David Shearer: Is he aware that the Tourism Industry Association has called for cross-party support for the bill; if so, why is he refusing to back his own industry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I am aware of that, and that is exactly the point, is it not? The tourism ministry represents people who want to have a holiday, and the member is standing up, telling us they will not have a holiday—they will still go to the ceremonies. But then he is arguing that the very people who promote holidays want the thing. No wonder Helen Clark did not do it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.

David Shearer: So why will he not—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The level of noise and barraging is unacceptable. We have some very distinguished guests within our gallery. At least show them—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Do something about it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member asks me to do something about it. I am not the one barracking. It is from both sides of the House. I ask for a bit of respect for the Leader of the Opposition to ask his supplementary question.

David Shearer: Why will he not vote for a bill that most hard-working New Zealanders want, that most businesses want, that his own tourism industry, for which he is the tourism Minister, wants, and that he himself says is “fair enough”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the very simple reasons that were given consistently through this bill, which are that we believe that those two particular days should be marked on the day that they fall and it makes logical sense. All I can say to Opposition members is that if they really think this is the issue of the day—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficient answer.

Savings, Increase—Initiatives, Purpose, and KiwiSaver

3. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: What measures is the Government taking to help increase national savings?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The Government has taken a number of measures to increase genuine savings and reduce New Zealand’s vulnerability to overseas lenders. We have set a path back to Budget surplus by 2014-15, when we can start repaying debt. We have reduced taxes on savings and work, and increased taxes on consumption and housing speculation, and we have embarked on a share offer programme in energy companies that will give everyday New Zealanders another option for their increased savings. Around 440,000 New Zealanders have pre-registered their interest in buying shares in Mighty River Power.

Maggie Barry: Why is it important that New Zealand increases national savings?

Hon PETER DUNNE: It is important to do that because it actually helps reduce our longstanding and heavy reliance on overseas lenders, which is New Zealand’s largest single vulnerability. Our net international liabilities at 31 December last year were $150 billion, or 71.7 percent of GDP. Most of this is private sector debt built up over many years. The Government’s share is relatively small, but it has increased significantly as we have run deficits. Although our international liabilities have improved from a peak of 85 percent of GDP in 2009, they remain high by world standards, and that is why the Government is focused on policies that are genuinely designed to lift national savings.

Maggie Barry: What changes has the Government made to KiwiSaver as part of its wider programme to increase savings?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The Government announced a number of changes to KiwiSaver in Budget 2011. These were designed to encourage a higher level of savings amongst New Zealanders, build a larger pool of local capital, and make the KiwiSaver scheme more financially sustainable into the future. They included increasing the minimum employee contribution rate from 2 percent to 3 percent, and, at the same time, increasing the compulsory employer contribution rate from 2 percent to 3 percent. Both of those changes take effect from 1 April.

Maggie Barry: What impact are the higher employee and employer contributions expected to have on KiwiSaver savings?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The changes are designed to ensure that KiwiSaver remains an attractive savings option for a growing number of New Zealanders and also to ensure that the scheme is financially sustainable into the future, without the Government having to borrow heavily for subsidies and tax breaks. Overall, KiwiSaver membership and total funds continue to grow strongly. We now have almost 2.1 million New Zealanders accumulating $15.4 billion in KiwiSaver funds, and the funds are forecast to grow further to around $25 billion by 2015, and to almost $60 billion by 2021.

Canterbury, Recovery—Fraud Prevention and Allegations

4. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received about the extent of fraud allegations in the Christchurch rebuild?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): There have been a number of reports and allegations of fraud and we take these claims very seriously. All agencies are working collaboratively to investigate and prosecute where cases can be proven. For example, I am aware that the Serious Fraud Office is working on two cases at the present time that meet the test for its involvement. There have been some 730 other allegations that have been investigated by various groups. The Canterbury earthquake fraud committee, if you like—the group that is coming together—will involve all those agencies and it is actively pursuing any allegation and, in addition to that, is looking for ways in which fraud could occur.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with KPMG forensic services lead partner Stephen Bell that the extent of fraud in Christchurch could reach $1.5 billion or even 10 percent of the $30 billion rebuild; if so, what systems did he put in place from the outset to prevent such fraud?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is the estimate that comes from an analysis of projects of this size that have been undertaken in any other parts of the world. What I can tell the member is that the Canterbury Recovery Fraud Prevention Interagency Group has been established, and was established early, and it involves the New Zealand Police and the Serious Fraud Office and all of the other groups that are involved in the recovery where there is public money involved.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many companies lost their contractor accreditation as a result of fraud in Christchurch, evidence of which has been available on a daily basis, and what is his explanation as Minister for his answer?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What has been available on a routine basis has been a number of allegations made through the 0800 number that the Earthquake Commission set up. There have been over 730 claims investigated. To date the allegation line has received 448 calls. Twenty cases have been handed over to the police for prosecution. Four have been successfully prosecuted by the Earthquake Commission, and there are more in the pipeline. It is estimated that $4 million has been saved through those fraud investigations. There are the two big cases being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office at the present time. And there is a file of numerous other cases where there are discrepancies in invoicing. Where that discrepancy has been agreed by the invoicer, the over-invoicing has not been paid. Then there is a process that the Fletcher EQR office uses to weed out contractors who are operating in the wrong space. There are currently two very big investigations going on in that regard at the present time.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister was asked how many companies have lost their contractor accreditation and for an explanation as to his answer as Minister. So it is how many companies—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! And I will ask—[Interruption] Order! And I will ask the Minister whether he can address that part of the question. The difficulty was there were two phases to the supplementary question. The second part was very adequately addressed, but if the Minister has that information, could he give that to the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If he did not give an answer as to the number that have lost accreditation, how could he possibly have given an adequate answer to the second part of the question?

Mr SPEAKER: He gave a very adequate answer to the second part, but we are asking him now whether he can address the first part of the member’s question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a number of companies that have been taken out of the system by the EQR office. I do not have those details and I cannot give the member that number at the moment, but I will certainly go and have a look at it. The point I make is that there are numerous activities going on to prevent fraud at the present time. If people have allegations of fraud, they can make them through the 0800 number. They are treated seriously. Bigger issues are referred to the police. In fact, one has been referred to the police today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen a police complaint acknowledgment against a contractor accredited by Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, Southern Demolition and Salvage Ltd, regarding the falsification of time sheets?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, that would be an operational matter, and he knows that Ministers do not engage in operational matters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister has got no idea as to what is going on because he does not want to know what is going on—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —he should say so. But I do not know that Ministers are not aware of those sorts of facts, not if you were being responsible in the case of fraud. So how—

Mr SPEAKER: The member adequately addressed the question that you asked.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, anything goes now, of course—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. If he is going to question a ruling like that, where he asked whether the Minister was aware of a particular allegation and the Minister stood and said no—he has addressed that question quite satisfactorily. If the member is going to continue to chip at that, then I will not allow him any more supplementary questions. I will give him one more chance.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will take all the chances I am entitled to, I think.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will stand and withdraw and apologise for that remark.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not an option. The member will stand and withdraw and apologise.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw what I said to Mr Banks.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the interjection from Mr Banks. I heard it from the member. I have asked him to withdraw. If he does, he can continue.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw what I said to Mr Banks.

Mr SPEAKER: Then the member can now continue with his supplementary question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If companies such as Southern Demolition and Salvage Ltd are found to have committed fraud, will they be removed from the list of accredited contractors on the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority website; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a complaint to New Zealand Police by Bruce Herbert Williamson regarding the falsification of time sheets by Southern Demolition and Salvage Ltd, a subcontractor to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, which challenge the Minister put to me last week if I had evidence.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is definitely no objection. The document can be tabled.

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

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board—Performance

5. 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): Yes, but there is always room for improvement. I am also confident that the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board has made a very good decision to confirm 24/7 acute services at Wairau Hospital, especially when you think that the Government has invested an extra $48 million in that district health board over the last few years.

Hon Annette King: Well, in light of that answer, have general practitioners been advised by the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board that there are over 500 outstanding referrals for surgery that need to be seen by the end of June, which is well in excess of its capability, and with its current capability, it will be able to deal with only malignancies and not much else?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, I did read that story in the Nelson Mail or the Marlborough Express last week, and I did look into it. I have been assured by the chief executive of the district health board that those 500 people who are waiting for an FSA, a first specialist assessment, will be seen by a specialist. They will not be culled from a waiting list like the 30,000—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Annette King: Have general practitioners in the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board been advised that surgeons will not be able to see conditions that are less than urgent, and some referrals will be returned without even being seen?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, that was in a newspaper article last week, which referred to a letter sent out by someone from the hospital. I have been assured by the district health board that that does not reflect what will happen in that area. What I can in fact tell you is that in the whole of the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, they are doing far more specialist assessments than they ever did, and, in fact, I have been advised that the only time there was a significant reduction in the access to seeing a specialist at the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board was when there was a 10 percent cut when that member was the Minister of Health.

Hon Annette King: Has the head of the department of general surgery in the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board apologised to general practitioners for the sorry state of affairs at the district health board, and told them that the board must comply with the ministry directives or face financial penalty?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think that was reported in the newspaper last week about what the general surgeon said, but I have to say that in fact what I know is happening in the Nelson-Marlborough area is that they are actually providing more operations, more specialist services, more support for the people of Nelson-Marlborough, and you would expect that when you put an extra $48 million into that district health board over the last 4 years.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from the head of the department of general surgery, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, to all the general practitioners in the board’s area, outlining the issues exactly as I have raised them in the House today.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the letter from the head of department. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.

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

Business Growth Agenda—Investment and Support

6. MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister for Economic Development: What progress is being made in encouraging firms to invest in New Zealand through the Business Growth Agenda?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): The National Government is implementing a wide array of initiatives to encourage firms to invest in New Zealand, to support jobs, and to further grow the economy. For example, we are encouraging oil and gas exploration. In Taranaki, last week the Prime Minister opened the Todd Corporation’s 100 megawatt gas-fired McKee power plant, and Methanex has recently committed to restarting methanol production at Waitara. In Hawke’s Bay we are working with the local council on the Ruataniwha Water Storage project, aimed at providing more reliable water resources in the highly productive Ruataniwha Basin. In Auckland we are constructing the $1.4 billion Waterview Connection, the biggest transport construction project in New Zealand’s history, which is the key to reducing congestion across Auckland’s motorway network and encouraging economic growth in our largest city.

Mark Mitchell: What is the Government doing to encourage more investment in innovation in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is working hard across the country to encourage more firms to invest in research and development and innovation. We are currently investing $115 million a year in research and development co-funding, and on 1 February this year we launched Callaghan Innovation, which will play an important role in encouraging more business innovation in high-value manufacturing and services. Just today we have seen encouraging data from Statistics New Zealand, which shows spending on research and development by Kiwi businesses went up to $1.2 billion last year. That is up 25 percent since 2010, and it is achieving a far better result than the previous Government achieved with its abortive research and development tax credits.

Mark Mitchell: What reports has he seen about support for the Government’s Business Growth Agenda initiatives?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen a number of what could be described only as varying reports. I have seen comments relating to development of our natural resources saying that “… undeveloped coal reserves should be left in the ground.” and that “The oil and gas isn’t going anywhere so what’s the rush?”. I have seen comments describing our programme for major irrigation projects as “ill-considered”. I have seen comments relating to key infrastructure development, like the Waterview Connection, saying that “We would revisit it … only if that was still possible and it was not too advanced.” These comments came from MPs Maryan Street, Moana Mackey, David Parker, and someone called David Shearer, who are all opposed to development.

Housing, Affordable—Auckland Plan and Metropolitan Urban Limit

7. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Phil Twyford: Was he intentionally misleading the public to cover up his Government’s failure in housing when he said: “the Auckland Council … wants the Government to … enact the unitary plan straight away, with no input and no opportunity for Aucklanders to express a view …”, given that right now thousands of Aucklanders are having their say on the draft plan, and once it is notified in September, even if his Government allows the plan to have legal weight then, the public can do it all again with the Government-appointed board of inquiry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I think there is without doubt some consultation that has taken place. A fair bit of it is in relation to the spatial plan, which in terms of concepts and vision is the very fine detail and I actually do think it needs input from Aucklanders.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave of the House to table a note from Auckland Council detailing all the public engagement that has so far taken place on the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a note that is available easily to other members?

Phil Twyford: It is not publicly available.

Mr SPEAKER: Then 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: I seek leave of the House to table the provisions in law that guarantee the public rights of appeal even after the plan is given legal weight.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is attempting to table legislation, a law, an Act, that is not—

Phil Twyford: Yes, because, clearly, the Prime Minister has not read—

Mr SPEAKER: No, that—[Interruption] Order! That will not be put.

Phil Twyford: How can his statement be true that Auckland Council is saying that it is going to intensify and pretty much go within the current metropolitan urban limits and just go straight up, and “We are saying you need to go up and out”; how can that be true when the Auckland Plan says that up to 40 percent of new dwellings will be built on greenfield land?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because I think it does characterise, if there is a difference in view, the one where the Government’s belief is that there should be more greenfield sites available. And Auckland Council is largely of the view that it is intensification.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table the section of the Auckland Plan and the Auckland Unitary Plan—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Again, that is something that is—[Interruption] Order! That is something that is available to any member.

Phil Twyford: The Prime Minister clearly hasn’t read it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a necessary part of putting leave to table a document.

Phil Twyford: Should Aucklanders conclude that his housing Minister has lost the plot, given Nick Smith’s statement on Sunday that he and Len Brown are in the same paddock, when just days earlier he was accusing Len Brown of killing the dreams of Aucklanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I know this will come as a great disappointment to the member but, actually, the Government and Auckland Council are working very collaboratively on the issues in relation to Auckland. I know it will come as a great disappointment that we want to allow Aucklanders to have input into their plan. And I know this will come as a great shock, but I am confident we will make great progress on both the issues of housing in Auckland and ensuring that we have a unitary plan that Aucklanders have an opportunity to express their views on.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with Kim Campbell of the Employers and Manufacturers Association, who says: “The government’s proposal not to ratify Auckland’s Unitary Plan until 2016/17 will load big costs on to Auckland’s ratepayers, and hold back Auckland’s growth,” and how is it that this Government has got so offside with such a big cross-section of Aucklanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, and I think the member should go and look at a few of the polls.

Road Safety—Safer Journeys Action Plan

8. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements has he made on transport safety?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport): Today I had the pleasure of launching the Safer Journeys Action Plan 2013-2015. The plan addresses some of the tougher and more complex road safety problems, and represents a transformative approach to the goal of a safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury. The economic cost of injury is significant, estimated to be more than $3 billion a year, and the human cost is immeasurable. Since 2010 the Government has introduced significant improvements to safety, and it is reassuring to see a reduction of around 20 percent in the number of people—

Hon Members: Speech! Speech!

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: You see, they do not seem to think—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just complete the answer.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —in the number of people killed and injured on our roads, but, although progress has been made, more still needs to be done.

David Bennett: What are some of the milestones highlighted in the action plan?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The milestones in the plan include a high-risk intersection programme, a vehicle fleet programme looking at the exit of older, less safe vehicles from our roads, options for blood-alcohol concentration limits for various classes of drivers, and a speed-management programme focusing on appropriate travel speeds. Safer Journeys builds on the great work achieved from the first action plan, and can I take this opportunity—

Hon Members: No!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I think the answer has been quite sufficient. I thank the Minister.

Canterbury, Recovery—Offer on Red Zone Properties

9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: Will he extend the deadline for residential red zone property owners who have been offered only 50 percent of rating valuation for their land?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): No.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he aware that this offer is now being investigated by the Human Rights Commission, the Auditor-General, and the Ombudsman, that there are court proceedings already filed by some owners and another major action about to be filed, and that the Finance and Expenditure Committee is hearing a petition on this matter, and are not they reason enough to extend the deadline?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. These are voluntary offers that are made to people who are in difficult circumstances and they have a choice as to whether or not they accept them. Further, the numbers that the member is talking about are relatively small—we estimate about 110 households. The deadline will not be extended.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he aware that some of these ratepayers have had as little as 12 weeks from the date they received the formal offer from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, and given that some of them are facing financial ruin for heartbreaking reasons, could he extend the deadline so their circumstances can be addressed?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The amount of time they have had for settlement will depend on the date on which they sent their consent to receive a settlement offer. So I say again that we are not extending the deadline.

Denis O’Rourke: Why is 50 percent of the 2007 rating value the fair and correct figure to offer, when there is no independent advice or relevant criteria to support that?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Because the estimated market valuation of those properties is on average $2,600, and the offer of 50 percent of the 2007 valuation is many, many times greater than that.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How does he respond to Bryan Ellis, who has owned the Bexley Garage for 47 years, which is still operating, and who faces a loss of $265,000 on his land rating valuation with the 50 percent offer?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are thousands of New Zealanders who have made investments that they could not insure who have suffered equal losses, but they are not coming to the Government to make good those losses.

Crime Statistics—2012 Figures

10. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Justice: What recent report has she received showing that crime is falling under this Government?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yesterday the latest conviction and youth prosecution statistics were published on the Statistics New Zealand website. These show crime is continuing to fall and New Zealand is becoming an even safer place to live in. The number of adults charged in court last year decreased by 7 percent from the previous year and the total number of charges laid reduced by 5 percent. Since this Government has been in office the numbers of people charged and charges laid have reduced by 19 percent and 18 percent.

Scott Simpson: What do the statistics show for other users in the criminal justice system?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am delighted to confirm that the number of children and young people appearing in our criminal courts last year was down to 3,018. That is a reduction of 500 on the previous year and the lowest number since 1992. The number of people charged with violent offences has decreased in the past 4 years by 17 percent. At the same time conviction rates have increased to 74 percent, showing our criminal prosecutions are more effective. Reducing crime is of huge benefit for all New Zealanders.

Schools—Proposed Closures of Nelson Residential and Christchurch Schools

11. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Education: Will she wait until the Chief Ombudsman’s investigation of the Ministry of Education’s processes on school closures is complete before making a final decision on the Salisbury and Christchurch school closures?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of the Minister of Education: No.

Metiria Turei: What advice has the Minister received on the possibility that Christchurch schools could launch a judicial review of her decisions to close them because the consultation with them has been a façade, like with Salisbury School?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The consultation with Christchurch schools has been comprehensive, as was evidenced by the changes that were made when the final decisions were put before them, and there is still a further consultation period to go.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked what advice the Minister had received about a potential judicial review, and that question was not answered.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member afterwards to have a look at the question. She then talked about consultation being a charade, and the Minister chose that part of the question and challenged whether, in fact, the consultation had been a charade.

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister make a properly considered decision on which Christchurch schools are to close, when at least five of those schools cannot make an informed submission because they are still waiting on vital geotechnical and population information from her ministry?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is a process that is used to close schools. That process is being followed as per usual.

Metiria Turei: Why has Salisbury School been denied access to almost all of its 5-year funding since she decided to close the school? Is it because she is trying to close the school by stealth following the High Court ruling that her previous attempt was unlawful?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. Salisbury School continues to be funded. It is funded at the rate as if it had 40 residents; it currently has 20.

Metiria Turei: How can New Zealand students and parents trust her to make decisions on their schools’ future when her decisions have been ruled unlawful by the courts and her processes are now being investigated by the Chief Ombudsman?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: People who have a view and an opportunity to challenge it are free to do so.

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Te Ururoa Flavell. [Interruption] Order! I have called Te Ururoa Flavell’s supplementary question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Would the Minister consider spending the estimated $6 million that has been associated with kura kaupapa Māori relocation costs to set up a new kura kaupapa Māori or a satellite of another kura, rather than forcing one to uproot to another community?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not in a position to give a comprehensive answer to that question.

Government Communications Security Bureau—February 2012 Briefings and Appointment of Director

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister responsible for the GCSB: Did GCSB Director Ian Fletcher attend the three briefings he received from GCSB in February 2012; if not, which, if any, of the briefings did Ian Fletcher attend?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for the GCSB): I am advised that Ian Fletcher was present on the three occasions I met with the Government Communications Security Bureau in February 2012.

Grant Robertson: Noting his previous statements that he is not briefed on operational matters by the Government Communications Security Bureau, was he briefed on the outcomes of Government Communications Security Bureau operations at his 24 February meeting?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not on the advice I have of the notes of that meeting.

Grant Robertson: Given that answer, what are the meetings he has with the Government Communications Security Bureau about?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not my normal practice to answer those details, but, because the member is so prone to conspiracy theories, the director came to me to sign a warrant and I signed it on the 24th.

Grant Robertson: Given that the Government Communications Security Bureau received an email from police on 22 February 2012 that indicated that the three targets of the Dotcom surveillance were New Zealand residents and therefore the surveillance was in breach of the Government Communications Security Bureau rules, does he not think that Ian Fletcher should have informed him of that at his meeting 2 days later?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, the correct process was that the situation in terms of the legality of the actions that the Government Communications Security Bureau had undertaken in relation to Operation Debut needed to be clarified. The bureau went to its chief legal adviser. The chief legal adviser advised the bureau that it was legal. As we all know, that was actually wrong.

Grant Robertson: What role, if any, did he play in recommending the appointment of Ian Fletcher as Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: His appointment was made by the State Services Commissioner, but if the member is trying to make some other allegation, then yes, I knew Ian Fletcher. I went to school with his brother. His brother was way brighter than Grant Robertson—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that answer does not assist the order of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Six times yesterday you ruled against the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please make—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Six times yesterday you ruled against the Prime Minister for making comments that were out of order—at least. Earlier when the Rt Hon Winston Peters made an out of order comment he was required to withdraw. You have never done that to the Prime Minister, and I just want to know whether it is going to be even both ways.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot be expected to withdraw that Grant Robertson is not as bright as Alistair Fletcher. He is not.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister addressed the question and then added a remark that was not helpful to the order of the House. I moved immediately to stop him. I have now moved on. Does the member—[Interruption] Order! Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to now deal with the—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: You did not deal with the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have dealt with the matter. I have dealt—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You haven’t dealt with the point of order at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will stand and withdraw that comment.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled that the Prime Minister’s comment was out of order. He then used the point of order process to repeat it, clearly in breach of your ruling and trying to overturn your authority here. You must ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment, because otherwise he is completely in breach of your ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment, but I am not addressing any further the issue of his earlier answer. Would the Prime Minister withdraw?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is.

Mr SPEAKER: Good. We will hear a fresh point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a suggestion that in future you listen to a point of order. You would have heard exactly the one that Russel Norman made.

Mr SPEAKER: I listen very intently to points of order. I listen—[Interruption] Order! I remind members of the gallery that are here watching the proceedings of this Parliament. [Interruption] Order! I listen very intently. I do not always hear the points of order accurately because of the level of background noise in this Chamber. Does the Prime Minister—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You saw fit earlier today to threaten not to allow any more questions from me today. The Prime Minister for the seventh time in 2 days repeated his offence. I heard no such threat from you in respect of his ability to take part in this House in terms of question time, and I want to know why he did not receive a similar threat.

Mr SPEAKER: Because I would have thought it was extremely obvious to the member that if other members want to ask the Prime Minister any question, they expect an answer. Has the member—

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

Mr SPEAKER: No. We are not doing further points of order on this.

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

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will entertain it, but if it is a continuation of the other, then I will be asking the member to leave the Chamber. So if it is a fresh point of order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, it is an absolutely fresh point of order. The point of order is whether you have rewritten the Standing Orders—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now—[Interruption] Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: Sit down until I am finished. For goodness’ sake!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber. The member will leave the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could clarify for the House what the point of order Trevor Mallard was going to raise was, because we have not heard it.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I had determined very quickly that it was a relitigation of the matters that have been raised. [Interruption] I have so ruled. Does the member have further supplementary questions?

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order?

Chris Hipkins: It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is a fresh point of order, I will entertain it. Otherwise I will deal with the—

Chris Hipkins: I am now going to raise with you the point of order that Mr Mallard was going to raise, which—

Mr SPEAKER: No. That is now relitigating—

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now leave the Chamber.

Chris Hipkins withdrew from the Chamber.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave for the Labour Party to be given a chance for its point of order in the name of Mr Mallard to be put.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I do not know whether it is appropriate for the member to seek leave on behalf of another party, but to clear the matter up we will put the leave that the Rt Hon Winston Peters has sought. Is there any objection? There is. Has the member got further supplementary questions?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to rule on the question of referring to members of the gallery in debate or in the House, because that is what you did as Speaker. You referred to who was in the gallery. That is not something that we are allowed to do as members of the House, because it is against the Standing Orders to refer to the gallery and that influencing behaviour in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that point that the member is making. She is quite right. It is not appropriate for members to refer to people in the gallery, but the member might like to note my opening remarks at the start of Parliament, when I specifically referred to people in the gallery and invited the House to greet them.

Grant Robertson: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer to the last supplementary question, when he introduced the nature of his relationship with Ian Fletcher, can he enlighten the House as to whether he has had further contact with Mr Fletcher since their school days, perhaps in London?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I cannot recall particular occasions; I am sure I may well have done so. What I can say, if the member wants to know, is that my mother was best friends with Ian Fletcher’s mother. If that makes a conspiracy, fair enough.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yesterday Patrick Gower from TV3 said that the Prime Minister “owned” Mr Shearer yesterday. Well, today not only did we see him being owned but also we saw Mr Grant Robertson being owned—owned over and over again. Mr Robertson’s best theory now is that Mr Key’s mother knew Mr Fletcher’s mother. Well, golly gosh, I did not know that was against the law yet in New Zealand. But it is a fantastic sort of indication of what they will do. Poor old Mr Robertson! If you want to know what Mr Robertson is really trying to do, we just have a look at Eddie on The Standard. It is a left-wing blog site that Trans Tasman talked about today, and what it tells us is what is really going on in the Labour Party and why it is that Mr Shearer is being set up day in, day out to ask the Prime Minister about whether or not he stands by his statements. Why is it that he does not want to talk about his statements? Because he has got bank statements—

Andrew Little: Why doesn’t the member talk about justice? Because she’s running it down. She’s got nothing to say and she’s running it down.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and Mr Little is an angry little man—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member Andrew Little lower the tone of his interjection, so that at least I can hear the member.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Take a chill pill.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Mr Little really should take the chill pill, should he not, Dr Coleman? Having said that, we can see why Mr Little is angry. Of the three factions in Labour, there is the right, which, apparently, is led by Mr Shearer or Mr Goff, and the left, which is led by David Cunliffe, and we have got the careerist left, which Mr Robertson leads. But where is Mr Little on the list? Mr Little is last on the left faction—last on the left faction. Why would that be? Because Eddie, of course, is a woman, not a man, working at the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, which, of course, is Mr Little’s union. So Mr Little is actually behind the factions. Mr Little is getting louder and louder and angrier and angrier, and he might have to take that little—calm down, have a nice bit of peppermint tea, and he might be all right.

So let us talk about what the country really cares about. It actually cares about us, the Government, doing work with the people of New Zealand, with the marvellous Public Service, which is working so well with the National-led Government and our coalition colleagues. Have a look at law and order. Under Labour, what happened? Well, I do not know. Four more prisons were built, crime was up—what else did we have—and the prison population was up from 5,000 to 8,000 in nearly 9 years. What is happening under National? Four years of a National-led Government, and crime is down—absolutely right down—

Dr David Clark: 30,000 jobs gone.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and Mr Clark over there from somewhere in Dunedin says that the jobs are down. Yes, they are in the prison service, and the reason, Mr Clark, is that crime is down. Is that not a good thing? Anyway, what we are also seeing is that crime is down, people are safer, prisoners are being rehabilitated, great work is going on in the Department of Corrections, great work is going on in the police, and great work is going on in education and in getting people to actually learn to read and write, not like Labour. Labour’s response to crime was always: “Let’s talk really tough about it and then do nothing. Lock them up. Don’t rehabilitate them.” The other policy we got from Labour—the only one we got on law and order in the last 4 years—was Charles Chauvel’s “Let’s get rid of three strikes.” That is actually the only policy on law and order that the Labour Party has not yet reneged on. So let us just see what happens. The other day we saw Mr Shearer saying: “No, we’re not going to now have no GST on fruit and vegetables. We’ve now reneged on Mr Cunliffe’s policy.” Let us see what he does on Mr Chauvel’s policy.

But at the end of the day all people want for New Zealand is that we work for them. The Labour Party is working for itself, with factions going around factionalising. My dear old friend Shane Jones—I think he is part of Mr Shearer’s faction at the moment. It could change. It depends on how the votes are. Mr Shearer is doing a great job. I was thinking of actually saying to Mr Shearer that I could start up a “Citizens for Shearer” campaign. It worked really well in 1975 for Mr Rowling. I am thinking of starting it. I will get 100 worthies, all of whom, obviously, are friends of the Labour Party, and we will go and help Mr Shearer, because we want him to stay. I am his biggest supporter. I think he is a great man. He has no memory of the US$100,000—it is US$175,000, is it not, as I recall now—in that New York bank account. That is the rumour I have heard, and why not? It sounds like a good rumour to me. But, actually, this is the poor man who, day in, day out, is asking the Prime Minister about statements—can he remember them? This is the man who cannot even remember US$175,000 in a bank account.

But, of course, he could always just show us the money—show us the money. Show us the money, Mr Shearer. Why do you not just show us the money? And we will all see how it is that he can forget that. But this is the man whom the Labour Party at the moment says it wants to lead the country. Well, we know what that means. It means Russel Norman as Minister of Finance, or possibly Russel Norman as deputy leader, even, of the country. And what will that mean? Utter oblivion for this country.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Well, I think that is an improvement on the last time, Mr Speaker. Prostitution is not illegal in New Zealand. I know that, you know that, and the National Government should also know that. But that does not mean that Government policies should be aiding and abetting the sex industry. [Interruption] Oh, look at them now. They do not like it when they hear something that their Government has failed to address. Alcohol is not illegal, either. It is not illegal, either, but that industry is surrounded by a range of laws and regulations to mitigate the harm it does to society.

What the public wants is leadership, some leadership—something that the National Government has failed to deliver. It wants leadership from the Government in the area of prostitution, because the fact is that the sex industry creates a serious risk and danger to society, as well as to those working directly in the sex industry. Recently, we have seen the Minister of Immigration having to advise international students not to enter the sex industry. So he must know something—he must know something in this area. On the new Immigration New Zealand employment advice website international students are being warned against working in the sex industry. Sam Lotu-Iiga, you need to listen to this because a lot of those people are probably living in the Maungakiekie area. The question the public is asking is—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, but I am struggling to hear this member, with the volume in here. Could we check the sound system, because I am really struggling with it.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having absolutely no problem hearing the member. It is a very good speech. Would the member continue.

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that member has now learnt something important, for a change. The question the public is asking is what took the Government so long. What took the Government so long to act? Has the Government not been monitoring these students coming into this country and engaging in this kind of work—the sex industry, that is? Perhaps the Government finds sex work either not sexy enough, or too sexy—too sexy to deal with.

Since the introduction of the Prostitution Reform Act 2003 the issues with prostitution have got worse. It is out of control in South Auckland and in Christchurch. In South Auckland, for example, we have a major issue in Papatoetoe, in Manurewa, in Ōtāhuhu, and now recently in Ōtara, where 13-year-olds can earn something between $500 and $600 a night. That is disgraceful. Where are the police? Why are they not monitoring these young girls?

The local residents, especially the elderly, have also been unfairly abused, unfairly harassed, unfairly suppressed, and unfairly muzzled by these prostitutes. The law-abiding residents of this country are too afraid to ring the police. They are too afraid to actually report to the local authorities, because they are too scared of the intimidation that they are receiving from these prostitutes. This is an industry that has been given $8.7 million—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How much?

Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: It has been given $8.7 million by the Ministry of Health to get its act cleaned up. New Zealand First acknowledges, though, that it is important that we support the intention behind these funds, especially around the alcohol abuse, the drug abuse, the under-age abuse, and, of course, the issues with health-related matters. But have we seen any reports? Has anyone received any reports on whether there has been an improvement in this area? I do not think we have. The Minister of Health has not even presented us with any reports to tell us how this $8.7 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent by the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective. There have been no updates.

Unfortunately, the problem of street prostitution has got worse and is completely out of control. By some reports, something like a third of the sex workers in Auckland are Chinese. Is that not extraordinary? Is that not extraordinary, David Bennett? What is going on here? How many of these people are recent migrants to New Zealand? How many of them are also using student visas as a front for a prostitution ring? Are they able to properly reside and work in New Zealand? Prostitution is an issue, and I think the Government should pull my bill out of the ballot in order for this matter to be resolved.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. Me waiho ake mā taku Reo Māori e whakatau te puehu e rere haere nei roto i tēnei Whare i tēnei wā. Ia 5 tau ka tū te tatauranga nui, me kī, ko te census ki runga i te mata o te whenua—ia 5 tau. Whai muri, ko tētahi kaupapa e kīia ana, ko te Māori Option. Ka mutu, he aha te Māori Option e kōrerohia ana? Arā, ko tērā kia taea e ngā mea Māori nei te haere mai i te general roll ki te Māori roll, i te Māori roll rānei ki te general roll. Ko te mate kē o tēnei kaupapa e 4 marama noa iho te wāhi kua whakatahangia kia taea e te Māori te whakawhiti mai, tētahi taha ki tētahi taha—4 marama noa iho. Ki te kore tētahi Māori e whakawhiti, me kī, kua noho kōhatu tana noho i runga i tērā rārangi īngoa, tērā pea mō ngā pōti e rua. Nō reira, he kaupapa nui tērā ki ngā mea, ngā kaipōti Māori.

He hītori anō rā, he kōrero o nehe tō ngā tūru Māori. I te tau 1967, e whā ngā tūru Māori—e whā ngā tūru Māori. Ā, ka mutu, i te tau 1996 ka eke ki te rima. I te tau 1999 ka eke ki te tuaono. I te tau 2002 i eke ki te mea tuawhitu ngā tūru Māori, ngā tūru kua whakatahangia mō te iwi Māori, me kī, mō ngā kaipōti Māori. Ko au tētahi kua waimaria ki te whiwhi i tētahi tūru i raro i tērā o ngā korowai. Ēngari, mai i tēnei wiki tonu nei, i te Mane o tēnei wiki tae rā nō ki te 24 o Hūrae, koinā te 4 marama kua whakatahangia kia taea ai e Te Ao Māori te whakawhitiwhiti mai i tētahi taha o te taiapa, ki tētahi taha o te taiapa.

Nā, ko te mate kē o tēnei o ngā kaupapa, me kī, ko ngā tūru Māori ka puta nā te tokomaha o te hunga ka rēhita, me kī, ki runga i te rārangi Māori. Nō reira, i tēnei wā kia mōhio mai koe, e ai ki ngā kōrero e 56 paihēneti kei runga i te Māori roll, ka mutu, ko te toenga kei runga i te general roll. Mā te 56 paihēneti i runga i te Māori roll ka whiwhi i Te Ao Māori ko ngā tūru e whitu. Nō reira, mēnā ka whai haere koe i tērā āhuatanga kia haere katoa mai Te Ao Māori ki runga i te rārangi Māori, ka 12, ka 14 pea ngā tūru ka waihotia ake mō Te Ao Māori. Mēnā ka eke ki tērā kātahi ka raruraru te taha ki te Nāhinara, ka raruraru te taha ki te Reipa i te mea, ka taka mai ki runga i te āhuatanga o te rōpū kotahi hei tohu ko tēhea te Kāwanatanga o te rā. Koinei ki a au nei te whakatinanatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i te wā i whakaarohia mai ai e ngā mātua kia pērā rawa te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Koinei te tino kaupapa, kia whai mana te tohu o Te Ao Māori i roto i ngā nekeneke o tēnei o ngā Whare Pāremata i runga i tēnei o ngā whenua. He āhua uaua te noho ā-tokotoru ahakoa kua noho mātou a Pāti Māori nei i te taha o tētahi Kāwanatanga. I tēnei wā ko Nāhinara ēngari i tōna mutunga mai ēhara i te mea, kai a koe te mana hei whakakāhore rānei, hei tautoko rānei i tētahi o ngā whāinga o te Kāwanatanga. Nō reira, ko tāku ko te kī atu, Māori mā, tū Māori māi, hoki mai ki te rārangi Māori kei reira te oranga, me kī, o ngā tūru Māori, tuatahi, tuarua, mēnā ka whai tonu i tērā huarahi, ka riro mā tētahi Pāti Māori e whakatau te Kāwanatanga ka tū mai ki konei.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In this job for life!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: Kai te rongo ake i te Hōnore Winitana Pita e mea ana, ā, he pai tonu tērā kia noho a Te Ururoa i roto i tōna mahi mō ake nei. Ko tāku ki a ia he rā tōna, koia tētahi i whaiwhai haere i ngā tūru Māori. Ko au tētahi o āna kaitautoko i te wā i tono ia mō Te Tai Tokerau. I nāianei kua peke taiapa a te Hōnore Winitana Pita, kāore ia i te pīrangi ki ngā tūru Māori kua waihotia ake ki te taha. Nō reira, ka hoki mai tērā ki te ngaungau i tana nono ā te wā. Ko tāku, ko te kī atu e koe, e koe, kua hoki mai tēnei kaupapa o te tūru Māori ki te ngau i a koe. Nō reira, ko tāku, he tautoko i tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Whā marama noa iho. E te iwi Māori maranga, tū Māori mai.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. I will let my Māori voice settle the dust that is flying about in this House at this point in time. Every 5 years a census is conducted throughout the country—every 5 years. After that a Māori Option is carried out. Why is the Māori Option being mentioned? So that Māori ones can come from the general roll to the Māori roll or go from the Māori roll to the general roll. The real problem with this is that the period set aside for Māori to transfer from one roll to the other is just 4 months—only 4 months. If a Māori person does not switch over in that period, his or her name will remain on that roll for perhaps two elections. That is a big issue for the ones who are Māori voters.

The Māori seats have a history, an old one. In 1967 there were four Māori seats—four. In 1996 it reached five. In 1999 it rose to six. In 2002 the Māori seats reached seven. Those were the seats set aside for the Māori people, let us say, for the Māori voters. I was one of the lucky ones to get a seat under that cloak. But from this week, the Monday of this week until 24 July, that is the 4 months set aside so that Māoridom can cross from one paddock to the other.

The problem with this is with the number of seats that will be gained by the huge number that will register, let us say, on the Māori roll. So at this moment you must understand that according to what has been stated, 56 percent are on the Māori roll, with the rest being on the general roll. By having 56 percent on the Māori roll, Māoridom will get seven seats. Therefore, if you follow that trend and all of Māoridom go on to the Māori roll, 12 or 14 seats perhaps will be set aside for Māoridom. If that is achieved, then National and Labour will be in trouble because it will come down to the situation of one party deciding who the Government of the day will be. That, to me, is the implementation of the Treaty of Waitangi at the time when the elders considered that it be like that.

This is the real purpose, in that Māoridom will have credibility in the mechanisms of the Houses of Parliament, and in this country. It is somewhat difficult as a threesome even though we of this Māori Party are with a Government. At this point in time it is National, but at the end of it all it is not as though you have the mandate to oppose or endorse any aims of Government. Therefore, I say Māoridom, rise up, Māoridom, come back to the Māori roll, firstly. Secondly, if we follow that to its conclusion, it will be a Māori Party that will determine the Government.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In this job for life!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I can hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters saying that it will be great if Te Ururoa remains there doing his work for ever. I say to him that his day has arrived. He was one that went after Māori seats. I was one of his supporters when he sought the Te Tai Tokerau seat. But now the Hon Winston Peters has jumped the fence. He does not want any Māori seats. He has abandoned them. That will come back to bite his buttocks in the future. I say to him, take that, good job. This matter about Māori seats has come back to bite you. Therefore, I support this matter. Only 4 months. Rise up, the Māori people, stand Māori like.]

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): What an absolutely shocking day for the Labour Party! In the House today Labour members completely lost it and blew it. What you saw bubbling to the surface was the manifestation of all the frustration, all the tensions, and everything that is wrong with the Labour Party. What you saw was its chief whip and his buddy Trevor Mallard trying to lure the Prime Minister into a point of order contest, and they lost. They thought they had set the trap; they blew it completely.

Trevor Mallard showed that he has not got the mental toughness for politics. Chris Hipkins showed that he is not up to it. It was disgraceful to see the chief Labour Party whip swearing with the most profane language at the Speaker as he left the Chamber, and I hope that that is going to be followed up. Meanwhile, the lack of discipline is showing as Labour members are tweeting abuse about the Speaker. I reckon that is a breach of privilege. You could see how angry those members were by the way they left the Chamber. Maryan Street completely lost it. David Shearer was absolutely furious because he has lost control of his—

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know this member is new to the House, but you cannot refer to people leaving the Chamber and not being here. It is the oldest rule in the book—it is the oldest in the book. You cannot do that.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, you know that is wrong.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I know it is right.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member cannot—[Interruption] No, I do not need any assistance. The member cannot refer to other members who have left the Chamber. But, equally, it is a very dangerous precedent to be bringing the Speaker into this debate. Would the member please continue.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, Mr Speaker, I think the House gets the drift: Labour has imploded. I saw Mr Shearer at 6 o’clock this morning running half-naked in a singlet and shorts down The Terrace. I am not sure whether he was running from the right, the left, or the careerist left—he was running faster than the last person who got invited up for a coffee by Mrs King’s boarder—but he looked like a man who was frightened. I can tell you that when you are in trouble, you generally go back to your support base for succour. Well, I can tell you that the Labour Party cannot do that.

If you read The Standard you will read a post by someone called Eddie, a lady who used to work in Michael Cullen’s office, and she clearly lays out what is happening in the Labour Party at the moment. You have got the right, you have got the left, and you have got the careerist left—and you have got a few who are getting run over in the middle. This shows that that is the party that really does not know where it is going.

I can tell you where Labour is going. It is going nowhere, because Mr Shearer cannot remember a thing. How are we ever going to trust him to run the economy when he does not even know where his own personal surplus is? How can we trust a man whose brain fades are so bad that he cannot remember that Labour campaigned in 2011 that it was going to get rid of GST on fruit and vegetables? In fact, David Shearer himself said that GST has to be repealed. Now he is saying: “Oh, I don’t actually know.” When you ask him about the Mighty River Power buy-back, he cannot commit. He cannot tell you whether they are going to buy those shares back or not—he cannot commit. When he was asked by his union base whether he would support unions in the Ports of Auckland dispute, what did he say? He said: “I’m sorry, I can’t commit.” David Shearer is Bill Rowling for the 21st century writ large, and it is a disaster for the Labour Party. It would be a disaster for New Zealand, and Kiwis will not put up with it.

Meanwhile, we have got John Key, a man with a great career background, a man who has led us through very difficult financial times to a point where the only country in the OECD with higher growth is the Australians, by 0.1 percent. We had better economic growth last year than the US, Europe, Canada, and Japan. We are on the right track. We have got a plan. Read the Business Growth Agenda. It shows where the country is going. It shows the 300-plus initiatives that we put in place. Why are people going to pick someone as shambolic as Shearer and his three factions over John Key, who is leading a united National Party? I can tell you what. Labour members can say all they want, but they know it is the truth. We are on the right track to lead New Zealand into a great future.

I ask New Zealanders to look at where the country is going, look at our record over the past 4½ years, look at how John Key has taken us through the toughest of times, look at the path ahead, and look at the decisions we have made around education, infrastructure, law and order, and the courts. The only thing that Labour members have said that they might do is take GST off fruit and vegetables. They lost it in the House today. It was an absolute disgrace. Frankly, it reflected very, very poorly on Parliament. I think it shames us all as parliamentarians. I rest my case.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): When Jonathan Coleman got to his feet, I thought he was going to get up and apologise for the appalling failures in the two portfolios that he is responsible for in this House. [Interruption] The first portfolio, Mr Coleman, is defence. You know, in 12 short months, you have achieved the lowest morale ever in the New Zealand Defence Force on record in its own surveys, and the loss of 1,000 skilled, experienced, and qualified service personnel from the armed forces to the extent that we have got to get Aussie sailors to put our new ships to sea out from Devonport, in his electorate. He would know that—he would know that. And we have seen the worst ever attrition rate in the Defence Force, at over 21 percent.

But I want to talk about his other failures—his failures in the area of being State services Minister. Last Friday we saw the biggest ever release of confidential information—the biggest ever breach of privacy in the history of this country. Ninety-eight thousand people in Christchurch had confidential information about their property and repairs released by the Earthquake Commission—98,000 people who would dearly love, each of them, to have the information about their own property, because the Earthquake Commission will not give them information about their own property. This was a massive breach of confidentiality.

And it was not the first; in fact, it was the seventh such breach in the last year. Let us look at the track record: at the Accident Compensation Corporation, 6,700 files were released to Bronwyn Pullar; at the Inland Revenue Department, 6,300 pieces of personal information about tax records were released; and at Work and Income, 7,000 documents were released, including documents, highly confidential and highly personal, about children in care. Then there is Novopay. To add insult to injury, not only is it not paying people but also it is releasing information about their pay to people who should not get it.

John Key stood up in this House yesterday and said there is no systemic problem. You know, “Planet Key” is an odd place, where you can get a comment like that—seven major breaches, literally tens of thousands of people having their confidential information released, and John Key says “no systemic problem”. Well, that is not what the Privacy Commissioner is saying. She described last year—this is in a press statement—as the year of the data breach. That is what the Privacy Commissioner said. This year already there have been 10 times as many releases of confidential documents as there were in the whole of last year. I want to know what this Government is doing about it. Why is no action being taken to protect private information about individuals?

Colmar Brunton did a poll, and it found that two-thirds of New Zealanders did not trust their information to be kept confidential by Government agencies. This Government is responsible for that, but this Government is pretending not to be accountable, and is not accountable. Why is that? It is because Ministers themselves have been complicit with the release of personal information. Paula Bennett misused her ministerial powers to release information taken from the personal files of two beneficiaries who had had the temerity to criticise her policies. Beware, New Zealanders, this is a Government with Ministers who will delve into personal files and release them publicly. And when she was censured by the Human Rights Commission about that, she said she disagreed with its view and she would not rule out doing it again.

Then we have got Judith Collins. ACC released, wrongly, 6,700 files, and then Judith Collins’ office released the name—not released but leaked the name—of the person it had sent them to wrongly, Bronwyn Pullar. When Bronwyn Pullar got in an advocate by the name of Michelle Boag, president of the Labour Party, to speak on her behalf, the emails that Michelle Boag sent to the Minister were also leaked. Do you know what she said—and I shall finish with this—

Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that Michelle Boag is the leader of the Labour Party. The National Party—

Mr SPEAKER: And I am sure it was a slip of the tongue. But it is debatable; it is not a valid point of order.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I shall finish my last sentence. This is what Michelle Boag, the former president of the National Party, said: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached, that’s very, very dangerous.” That is the quote. That is what she said about her own party.

NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): We live in a very complex and fast-paced world. We juggle technologies, new ideas, and different philosophies. That is the noisy buzz and detail of our daily lives, and, actually, much of what we debate in Parliament—and certainly question time today was a good example of the irrelevancies from the Opposition. In reality, only a few things really matter. Only a few things really change our lives, and if we can get them right, all the rest is flotsam and jetsam. What we want is healthy families, we want educated young people, we want safe communities, and we want jobs. To make all these things happen, we need a secure economic future. In New Zealand under this John Key - led National Government we can tick all those boxes. We are focused on the things that absolutely matter to all New Zealanders.

In an unstable and insecure world—and we watch on the television and see the financial ructions right across the world—this Government is managing our finances amazingly well, and our economy is growing. Our health system is remarkably effective, our crime rate is down, and the quality of our education right across the country is improving.

Of course, just like everybody else around the world, we have had to tighten our belts. This Government made a deliberate decision to protect the most vulnerable families. We have kept all the established entitlements, including things like Working for Families, and increased superannuation payments as we work towards getting into surplus from 2014 or 2015. We are one of the very few developed countries that has not increased public debt, and that puts us in a very strong economic position.

Our prudent economic management has made things easier for all New Zealanders, because despite the global financial crisis and the high dollar, our economy has grown in nine out of the last 10 quarters, which is an almost unheard-of achievement in the developed world right now. The latest figures show that we are growing at 3 percent, and in my home town of Christchurch we are growing at 7.5 percent. We have never seen that sort of growth anywhere in New Zealand ever before. The New Zealand economy is growing faster than Canada’s economy, faster than the US economy, much faster than Japan’s economy, and much faster than the UK’s economy, and it is even trumping the EU, whose economy is actually shrinking. Our growth forecasts are steady, and they are continuing to be better than most countries going forward.

New Zealanders are doing OK because we are managing to keep mortgage rates low—the lowest for 45 years. Some of us remember buying our first homes when our mortgage rates were in the 20 percent range. Keeping interest rates low for homeowners and landlords helps everyone keep their household budgets down. The tax cuts across the board mean that most people have greater take-home pay and those who are getting superannuation are also getting the benefits of that take-home pay.

But, more important, this Government has a relentless focus on work. We understand how important it is to help people get into work. We know that in the normal course of events jobs come and go, but good jobs underpin the health and the wealth of our nation, and we are working really hard to make our economy more competitive and more productive so that businesses can add to the 60,000 jobs created in the last 2 years. So, as we focus on the detail of our business in debates, let us make sure we continue to do the really important stuff well, because keeping families healthy, educating our children, keeping our communities safe, and ensuring ongoing economic security is actually what it is all about.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): The previous speaker, Nicky Wagner, talked about a secure economic future, but she missed a major thing out, and that is because this Government does not understand that a secure economic future depends on a well-managed environment. That is the basis for economic prosperity and our well-being. Instead, we have a Government that is hitting on the environment over and over and over again. It is dismantling our environmental legislation, stripping out the environmental principles from the Resource Management Act, making it easier for people to mine on conservation land, and making it harder for people to have a say in protecting their neighbourhoods and the places they love from inappropriate development. It is a Government that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

We have seen that in the loss of 140 jobs—another 140 jobs—from the Department of Conservation this week, because of funding cuts and continuing fiscal pressure on the department. There is a huge loss of professional expertise in biodiversity, in recreation management, in historic heritage management, and in practical skills like predator control in these job losses. But there is something even more troubling in the staff cuts and the new structure that the Department of Conservation is rolling out. It is because there is a major change in the department’s strategic direction. It is changing from allowing commercial activity on conservation land, such as tourism, when it is compatible with conservation values, to enabling it. That is confirmed in the briefing papers to the incoming, recycled Minister of Conservation, where we see a comment that the department has been charged, along with the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, with identifying options for realising greater value from international visitors’ use of public conservation lands. Is that what we are going to see on conservation lands in the future? Is that a way of realising greater value—having McDonald’s outlets at the start of the Routeburn Track? That is what the department is potentially about with the new structure.

The “Minister of Everything”, Steven Joyce, has directed, along with the Prime Minister and Nick Smith, that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and the Department of Conservation work on enabling more commercial development of conservation land. What does that mean? It means more mines, more habitat destruction, more inappropriate development, like McDonald’s outlets, potentially happening on conservation land. That is because this Government does not recognise the need to invest in nature and environmental protection if we want a strong economy and long-term prosperity for New Zealand. That is because this Government does not realise that overseas, people are questioning whether the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand is real. We need to make it real and give it more integrity.

This Government has a frontier attitude towards the environment. It sees nature as something to exploit. Its vision for Aotearoa New Zealand is to open up our oceans to deep-sea drilling. Its vision is to sell off our energy companies and use the revenue that that generates to put $400 million into subsidising agribusiness through big, new irrigation schemes. That is $400 million into promoting irrigation, when it will not put more than $150 million into the protection of natural heritage through the Department of Conservation.

This is a Government that is in its fifth year in power and we have not seen a single new national park, despite National saying that it would establish Kauri National Park in Northland, despite it saying it would investigate a national park in the Waitakeres. It has been slow on protecting Māui’s dolphins, and that species is potentially on a slow slide to extinction. We have got a Minister of Conservation who turns down a tiny marine reserve in Akaroa Harbour, less than 12 percent of the harbour, despite the fact that there is only one postage stamp - sized reserve on the whole east coast of the South Island. It is a Government that is toxic to the environment in its changes to legislation, changes to the Resource Management Act, and changes to the Crown Minerals Act, and in its starving the Department of Conservation of funds and in the major change in the department’s strategic direction.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I think it is quite clear that New Zealanders have totally and utterly woken up to what is coming out of the Labour benches and, of course, from our friends across there in the watermelon patch. They have totally woken up to the sort of double-headed approach that is akin to throwing enough mud and hoping a little bit of it sticks, and, also, scaring everyone into thinking there is some sort of a crisis out there. It seems to me that that approach is very much about saying: “If we can, scare people into thinking we are a viable alternative—so let’s manufacture up a crisis.” It seems they have gone a little bit quiet on the idea of a manufacturing crisis, but it does not stop them trying to manufacture their own crisis.

Well, there is something very scary all right. There is something very scary about parties on the other side of the House, and that is the prospect to New Zealanders of a Labour-led, Labour-Green Government with one Russel Norman with his finger on Treasury’s xerox. That is what we call “A for Armageddon”, and that is pretty scary to New Zealanders.

What is just as scary, I think, is the brain fade of the Leader of the Opposition, one David Shearer. This is the same person who has $50,000-plus—we are not sure how much it is; he does not seem too keen to tell us, but it is at least $50,000—in a foreign bank account, and it seems that he cannot remember to put it on his pecuniary interests return. I think that we can forgive people for making an honest mistake. But then we ask ourselves: did he do this in 2009? Yes. Did he do this in 2010? Yes. Did he do this in 2011? Yes. Did he do this in 2012? Yes. Did he pay his tax every year on that money? Yes. So one could ask themselves whether this is an honest mistake—I do not know. But this is the man who would be Prime Minister; this is the man who wants his hands on Treasury’s money. I say to you that he seems to have a problem when other members in this House have issues around memory and money, but it seems that it is sweet as a nut when it involves him. Well, that does not sit too well with Kiwis, and they have worked that out.

Some other inconsistencies that we might want to consider when throwing stones around a glass house is that Labour is quite happy to promote one Hon Shane Jones—a good bloke, but the Auditor-General did not have too much good to say in her report. But suddenly, of course, the Labour Party wants to take the Government down when in the Auditor-General’s report into the Skycity Casino there was some discussion about how the process could have been better. When one looks at those two reports, I think it is quite evident to see where the weight of evidence lies there, but it seems what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander.

We can also look back to the 2011 election campaign. I was watching with great interest as the Hon Phil Goff, doing his very best to keep that sinking ship afloat, talked about the fact that the 2011 campaign was a referendum on asset sales—it was a referendum on asset sales. I think we will all remember that, and I am certainly sure that Labour Party members would remember it.

Dr David Clark: And most people backed a party that opposed asset sales—right or wrong?

MIKE SABIN: It just so happens, Mr Clark, that when Labour lost the election, all of a sudden the faith it had in New Zealanders and what was the referendum means nothing, because all of a sudden it wants another one. It gets its friends over in the Greens to pay a few people to scratch up a few signatures, and away it goes.

It seems to me that when we are throwing mud, one must be very careful that one is not throwing it at a fan, because it does tend to blow back in one’s face. That is what we are seeing time and time again here from a Labour Party and from a leadership that is scrambling to find its feet. If we look at the Labour Party, I think we can be quite confident that the Labour caucus has support for its leader—absolutely confident in that—just the same as we can see that the Labor Party caucus in Australia has great faith in its leader, Julia Gillard. There is a good reason for that, and the reason is that they stand only themselves as a candidate. There is no one else running against them. It is hard to lose an election in that circumstance. I bet you that Mr Shearer hopes that that would happen in a general election, but I cannot see that happening any time soon.

I submit that there is a stark difference between the National-led Government and the Labour and Green benches. This is a disciplined National-led Government that is focused on what matters to Kiwis: the economy, and managing the Government’s finance. The two-headed monster that we see on the other side of the House has a plan, and it is so cunning that you could pin a tail on it and call it a Cunliffe.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): It is a basic, fundamental principle of our democracy, of our country, that data and information about any individual that are collected by a Government, whether it is a department, a ministry, or an agency, should be kept confidential, and that the Government agency can be trusted—can be trusted—to treat your information within a set of guidelines, that your personal details will not be accidentally emailed to a complete stranger, as we have seen with the latest breach, at the Earthquake Commission, and that your sensitive information will not be shared inappropriately or handed to the media to make a political point. How can the public of New Zealand trust a Government that allows systemic breaches across multiple departments and agencies to occur, and when they occur the Prime Minister behaves as if it is all not a problem and he is indifferent and dismissive, as we have seen this week?

This is an extremely serious matter, and it is a matter of public trust. It requires a serious response and an acknowledgment that these issues need to be addressed not just on a department by department or a case by case basis but right across the Government. It requires a systemic response, and it will require the Prime Minister of this country and all of the Ministers on that side of the House to take off their blinkers, get out of their horses and carts, stop their jokes, and get into the 21st century. The Prime Minister really had better smarten up, because his pathetic responses are being met with derision—derision and disbelief—from an information and communications technology community that is aghast at the ignorance and indifference that he is showing.

This is not just about an individual’s human error; this is 2013 and it should not be happening. There should be systems in place to prevent these things happening, to prevent human error. In the last year, as Phil Goff pointed out, more than 120,000 New Zealanders have had their privacy breached by this Government’s incompetence, its head in the sand attitude, or its blatant disregard for individuals’ privacy. Phil Goff read them out—seven different ministries and agencies. Hekia Parata and Paula Bennett were two Ministers caught out releasing private correspondence and private information.

The private sector has warned repeatedly that New Zealand has a major problem with information security, and a strategy released late last year by a group of IT security professionals said that “While technological innovation is high within the New Zealand market, the national spend on educating, training and developing skilled technical personnel is surprisingly low, creating an imbalance and directly contributing to the fragility and vulnerability of our nations IT systems.” If that is not a significant warning, I do not know what is. Yesterday the chief executive officer of the Institute of IT Professionals, Paul Matthews, said that the Earthquake Commission had failed Security 101 and that it was mickey mouse stuff that such sensitive information could be sent so easily to an outside person. It is not rocket science. SEEMail, which David Shearer referenced yesterday in the House, is just one secure electronic system. Why has it not been mandated across all Government agencies and ministries? As I understand it, it is not mandatory; it is an opt-out system. The point is that what we need to know is that there is a basic system across all agencies, and if there is sensitive material to be handled, then it is critical. There are plenty of options out there. The private sector has plenty of options, if the Government was willing to ask it. Simple checks—you send the email with an attachment and it bounces back, checking that you really want to send it.

Last year two-thirds of New Zealanders said that they did not trust Government departments to protect their information. I wonder what they would be saying now. We have to treat this seriously. I have got a member’s bill that will come before this House in the next few months. It is called the Electronic Data Safety Bill. It sets up a special commission of inquiry across Government agencies. It is a very serious matter. In the absence of a joined-up strategy for our data security, I urge everyone to support it.

AARON GILMORE (National): The irony. We heard the last speaker, Clare Curran, talk about data protection and security. That member is the same one who goes on to her own party’s forum and censures her own members about what they can and cannot say. It is hypocrisy for the Labour Party to be talking about the ability to protect data when the information of its own party members and donors could not be kept secret from the public and was released.

There is a comment that that member did make that is an extremely serious matter and one of public interest, and that is the matter of the Leader of the Opposition and his ability to talk of public trust and welfare and worrying about where his own money is or is not. I want to walk through a few things. Mr Shearer returned to New Zealand some time in 2008 to run for public office and be the MP for Mt Albert. What I understand is that at that time Mr Shearer may have applied for an exemption that exists for overseas returnees and migrants coming back to New Zealand, which grants an exemption of up to 4 years for income tax, including interest income. In 2006 the Inland Revenue Department put those rules in place. Mr Shearer is completely entitled to do that. In 2009 he ran for public office, and we are now told in 2013 that while Mr Shearer was filling in his tax returns for the 2012-13 year he understands that due to some information he discovered he needs to have filled in the pecuniary interests register, which actually has the information about interest income.

I want to talk through an interesting thing. You are required to disclose interest income to the Inland Revenue Department in New Zealand only if you have more than $200 in net after-tax income. Mr Shearer has publicly stated that the deposit he has is contained at the Chase Bank in Manhattan. He is on record as saying that. He is on record as saying that it is more than $50,000. If you go to the Chase Bank and you ask them what the deposit rates are for various items, you have to have over $400,000 in that bank account to have an amount that should be disclosed under Inland Revenue Department rules in New Zealand—over $400,000. The interest rate at the Chase Bank is 0.05 percent per annum—0.05 percent per annum. The deposit is not $50,000; it is probably likely to be $400,000. This information is publicly available. If I can go and find it, why can Mr Shearer not front up to the people of New Zealand, be honest with them, and disclose the information we are talking about? I do not have any problems with Mr Shearer being a multimillionaire, but he should be open with the members of the Labour Party and the people of New Zealand about how much he has hidden away. Mr Shearer needs to come clean.

When you look at the information on the other side of the fence, we have a leader in John Key. We have heard many of the Opposition spokespeople moaning and groaning about the differences between Mr Key and Mr Shearer. Well, I say that we have a Prime Minister in Mr Key who is committed to rebuilding Christchurch. On the record today, I want to talk in my last little bit about what is actually happening in Christchurch in the rebuild there. [Interruption] I am sure that the lady over there, Ms Dalziel, may touch on this in a very short period of time.

What I want to talk about is the commitment to rebuilding Burwood Hospital, and over $200 million and over 500 jobs moving into my community in north-east Christchurch. I want to talk about the building of new subdivisions and hundreds of new jobs in and around the Prestons subdivision. I want to talk about the potential building of a water park that 20,000 people signed a petition supporting. The Labour Party patently said it was not for it until public record and the mayor were. I want to talk here about a retirement village that is committed to building hundreds of units and investing hundreds of millions of dollars.

That is the difference between Labour and National. We are for jobs, building our community, and being open and honest with our mistakes. The Opposition, led by Mr Shearer, is being deliberately evasive by not coming out and telling us the information about whether Mr Shearer took advantage of the 4-year tax exemption he was offered and had the ability to use under Inland Revenue Department rules, and, if so, whether it is only this year that he is required to declare his income, as required by Inland Revenue Department rules, and whether it is actually $400,000, as I believe it is. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): We should have had a snap debate yesterday as a result of the privacy breach by the Earthquake Commission. It met every test. However, what was relied on was the Privacy Commissioner noting that the Earthquake Commission had taken an honest and open approach to the breach. I agree with that. If that was all that had happened—what happened on Friday—I would not have called for a snap debate. Then it was also said that the commissioner would be following up to make sure that similar breaches cannot occur in the future. I want to tell the House what else the Privacy Commissioner said in her release: “The Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff said today”—and this was on Friday—“that public sector agencies needed to have stronger controls in place when handling spread sheets of personal information. ‘The EQC breach is yet another incident involving inadvertent disclosure of large amounts of personal information on a spread sheet. We hope that agencies are starting to realise that they should have stronger controls in place to help to prevent these types of mistakes. But they clearly have a way to go yet. I think it has reached the stage where the public need some further reassurance,’ Marie Shroff said. ‘So I am considering writing to the State Services Commissioner and all public sector chief executives, asking them to tell me what precautions they have put or are putting in place to help prevent inadvertent emailing of client information on spread sheets.’”

Then she said the bit that was relied on yesterday, and then she said this: “There are real people behind the information that government holds, and we all have the right to expect that our information will be strongly protected.” That is the issue. The Government can take the Crosby/Textor classic approach of attacking the messenger to divert attention from the real problem, but this will not go away. The role of the parliamentary Opposition is to hold the Government to account, but when we are denied access to the tools our Standing Orders provide for that purpose, for unknown reasons, the Government is let off the hook, unreasonably so. The Prime Minister should have been standing in the House yesterday admitting that the Government had failed to give the people of New Zealand confidence that it can be entrusted with people’s personal information, and that is what this is all about.

Yes, there is a Christchurch issue, and now we know that the Earthquake Commission could easily give people a quick snapshot of where they are up to in the system, whether there are any hold-ups with their claim, what they are, and what time frame is anticipated for their resolution. Not one aspect of the confidential, commercially sensitive information needs to be released, but, of course, that is the one—the Crosby/Textor approach—that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery focuses on, to avoid fronting the real question, which is why people do not know what is holding them up, and why the Earthquake Commission will not give them that information. We now know that it has precisely that information.

But the bigger-picture issue is that this Government is not meeting its obligations to provide data protection, even though it is legally and morally obliged to do so. Under John Key’s watch, there have been serious breaches of New Zealanders’ private information at the Ministry of Social Development, ACC, the Inland Revenue Department, Work and Income, Novopay, the Department of Corrections, and now the Earthquake Commission. This is not just a simple case of human error. Of course there was human error, but it is not good enough to say that we have all sent an email or a text message by mistake at some point. We are not all responsible for massive amounts of personal data. It is not good enough to say that it was one file sent to one person. It contained over 80,000 separate entries covering 98,000 claims. It is not good enough to say that this is like putting the wrong address on an envelope. It is not. The Government is responsible for receiving and handling massive amounts of personal information, which can be transmitted in a nanosecond. That is why we have data-protection laws. You could not stuff 80,000 pieces of information into an envelope to wrongly address. That is the point of data protection.

The latest breach shows that there is clear evidence of a serious and widespread problem with the security of our Government information systems. That is why the Prime Minister of New Zealand must take responsibility.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It was interesting to hear this week that Labour is considering going back on one of its major election platforms of last election: GST off fresh fruit and vegetables. “If we can’t afford policies”—we heard Mr Shearer say—“then they will have to go.” Now, apparently, “GST off fresh fruit and [vegetables] is one of the things we’re looking at.” Is it not amazing?

As I recall, that was one of the major election promises of 2011, pushed by Phil Goff. He stood there, he roared, and he bellowed: “Labour’s plan is a bold one. It’s a game-changer. It’s about fairness,”. He gnashed his teeth, he thundered, and he went puce with rage. We had Mr Cunliffe standing on top of a bus with a loud hailer roaring that this was going to bring social justice to New Zealand. We had Mr Parker, and I am not quite sure—I do not think he was convinced about it. He did not say too much. Mr Parker I am not too sure about, but Mr Shearer certainly said that if the goods and services tax did not apply to fresh fruit and vegetables, then they would be much cheaper for ordinary New Zealanders.

Now we hear that maybe that is not going to work after all. It was going to cost about $317 million—that was the guess—and Mr Shearer says: “Well, can we do it all? I doubt whether we can. We are going to have to reprioritise.” So he is prevaricating, massaging the media, and warming us up for a climb-down on one of Labour’s key platforms. What has happened to the Labour Party? What has happened? This party used to be one of conviction and principles. When Roger Douglas led the party it was firm and it was brave, but now it seems to have a leader with a spine like a jellyfish, and it is going back on all sorts of things. He is refusing to say what is going to happen.

I note that there are one or two coalition problems ahead. It was interesting to read the response of Labour’s potential coalition ally, the Mana party. One fellow, the economic justice spokesperson—I cannot remember his name—said: “It is hard to think of a more week-kneed, pathetic announcement.” So that is not so good for relationships between Mana and Labour. I am not sure where the Greens are on this, but I am quite confident—and I call upon them. I call upon the Greens there to make clear their views on what they think about GST on fresh vegetables.

Labour abandoned it because it was a crazy idea. I mean, if it is supposed to bring about social justice, then why would you take the GST off imported pawpaws sold at my local fruit and vegetable shop, Jack Lum’s in Remuera? How is that going to advance social justice in this country? If fruit and vegetables, why not water? But not bottled water—normal water. If you are going to have GST off potatoes, why do you not have it off staples like pasta? But not fancy pasta. Or bread—plain stuff, but not Vogel’s. Or we could have clothing—why should we not have the GST off clothing? But not fancy clothing—school uniforms, perhaps, but not private-school uniforms. We should take the GST off books because education and moral improvement of the country is very important—but non-fiction books, not trashy novels; maybe New Zealand novels—

Hon Member: What about biographies?

PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and biographies, possibly. But we would be in a terrible tangle, and we would be undermining one of the great strengths of the GST and the tax system in this country, complicating a beautifully simple solution.

And what would happen? If Labour takes the GST off fruit and vegetables, the revenue falls and so what would it do? It would not reduce spending. We know that Labour never reduces spending; it only increases it. So it would have to put the GST up on everything else, or it would increase income taxes on work, and that would be the perfect way to grow this economy! We should give credit where credit is due. This week Labour members appear to have abandoned what was a crazy tax policy and I think they should go the whole hog and get rid of the capital gains tax idea that they have as well, and then bring themselves back to a sensible tax policy that we could all support in this House.

Before I finish I did want to draw a contrast, if I could indulge the time of the House, between Labour’s tax policy and the tax policy of this Government, which is focused upon building growth, sound economic policy, returning to surplus, reducing Government spending as a percentage of GDP, rebalancing the tax system away from discouraging work through overly high income taxes, and building a more productive and competitive economy through welfare reform and the Business Growth Agenda. All these things we are doing and we can sign up to and that is what is building a brighter future for this country. That policy is one that I stand for and am here to support. I think that this country in very difficult times and in very difficult international times is in good shape. We have had 3 percent growth over the last 12 months and there would be many countries around the world that would be grateful for that.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I go to the next order of business of the House, can I just caution the House about personal reflections under Standing Order 117. There was a reflection made that indicated lack of courage and that is totally out of order. I would just remind members that all members in this House are honourable and that when we point one finger at someone else, we have three pointing at ourselves.

Voting

Correction—Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): On 26 March, when the House in Committee was considering the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill, the result of the vote on the closure motion in respect of Part 2 was incorrectly announced as Ayes 64, Noes 57. The correct result is Ayes 61, Noes 60. The record will be amended accordingly.

Bills

Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill

Third Reading

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I move, That the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill promotes a fair, efficient, and modern justice system and I am grateful for the support it has received from this House and during the select committee process. The Justice and Electoral Committee has made minor technical changes from the original bill as it was introduced, but it has fundamentally retained the status quo and its changes still protect current rights of appeal, ensuring that this bill retains and will achieve its purpose: the protection of the “great writ”. The “great writ” will be protected from improper use and this ensures that we have an effective justice system. Habeas corpus is an ancient writ, requiring a person in State detention to be brought before a judge or court to determine whether their detention is lawful. Its importance throughout history is almost unparalleled, with its first recorded use occurring in the 14th century. It is for exactly this reason that the improper use of the writ must be not be allowed to continue.

In 1997 the Law Commission made recommendations to simplify the procedure for dealing with habeas corpus applications. The Habeas Corpus Act in 2001 implemented the changes recommended in this report and for the first time formalised habeas corpus in legislation. However, since then practical experience has revealed several anomalies in the application of the legislation. For example, the 2001 Act required habeas corpus applications to be given precedence over all other court business. This left it open to misuse in some cases. In 2007, following consultation with the judiciary and the Government agencies, the Law Commission issued a report addressing these concerns. The bill incorporates the changes recommended in that report.

This bill will allow the High Court or a judge of the High Court to be able to dispense with the rule that habeas corpus applications take precedence over all other business. It will ensure the easier transfer of applications to the Family Court where appropriate. It will provide for a judge to be able to dismiss applications that are statute barred or use incorrect procedure, and will allow procedural improvements such as holding pre-hearing conferences and hearings by technology authorised by rules of the court. These changes address issues that have clogged courts, failed to evolve with technological improvements, and dragged down the position of the “great writ”. This bill will address these issues. I am proud that this bill fits within this Government’s programmes to streamline our courts and ensure they are used for their proper purpose, and I would like to congratulate the Hon Chester Borrows on the work he has done in our court system. It has been exemplary, and it was a great privilege to be with him down in Westland at Whataroa courthouse.

I would like to close with this statement. Freedom from arbitrary arrest is a fundamental right. It is vital to our health as a nation that this is protected. This bill does not do anything to diminish the substance of this right. What it does do is ensure that this right is not conflated into a “get out of jail free” card for any situation. It is not. I thank the House for its time and call on all members to support this bill and to support a fair, efficient, and modern justice system. Thank you.

Andrew Little: Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member calling?

Andrew Little: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Andrew Little. We were both stumbling for a minute.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I thought that in a moment of injustice I was going to be deprived of an opportunity to speak in the great House on the “great writ”! So I am very pleased to take this call on this very important piece of legislation, the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill. As Mr Auchinvole has rightly said, habeas corpus goes to the heart of democracy and the sort of justice system that we celebrate and enjoy in this country. It has its origins as far back as 1215 in the Magna Carta, and the injunction there to prevent the arbitrary arrest and detention of peasants and the other citizenry by the monarch and the feudal lords. Of course, that is as much a risk today in some quarters as it was then, some might suspect.

It is so important to our system of justice—and I do not wish to be dramatic in saying this—which, frankly, is under threat today. It is not because of that member, nor, I might add, because of the Hon Chester Borrows, although I have some criticisms of his performance, but because we have in New Zealand today the worst Minister of Justice we have had in more than a generation—a Minister of Justice who is presiding over cuts, cutbacks, and deprivation of access to justice in a way that we have not seen in the history of this great country. We are seeing it not just in the Family Court and we are seeing it not just in the District Courts—and this is where Chester Borrows does know a thing or two, because he is busily closing them down, and he has only this week closed down the Upper Hutt District Court, and, of course, courts in his own region—but we are seeing it in cuts to the budget for the Crown Law Office and the Public Defenders Office and in a whole host of areas in legal aid. This is all adding up to a very serious erosion of principles of justice and, most important, access to justice.

Habeas corpus has at its heart the right of citizens not only to be deprived of arbitrary arrest and detention, but, if that happens or is alleged to have happened, to be brought before a court to have it tested, and this House should never lightly interfere with the High Court’s jurisdiction in this area. This bill creates some sensible reforms and some expeditious measures about habeas corpus, but let us not understate the value of it, and let us not forget that we have a justice system that, frankly, is under threat at the moment and upon which more work will be required. But we will support this bill.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): The Green Party has supported the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill all the way through the House since the beginning, supported it through the Justice and Electoral Committee, and supported the amendments as reported back. It is—and we agree with Chris Auchinvole, Andrew Little, and others—a fundamentally important piece of legislation, if uncontroversial. It is a bill that addresses the central principles of Western democracy, and our constitutional system should not be taken lightly.

The only controversial point, it seems, through the passage of the bill—setting aside a touch of humour here and there, and some of it in Latin—is whether what should essentially be seen as part of the governmental legislative programme should find its way into the members’ ballot. We, for our part, query that, and intend to pursue it in other forum. But we are happy, none the less, to support the bill, and in the most constructive spirit possible commend Chris Auchinvole for his work on this.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I would like to endorse the comments of all the members in the House, and just simply record, as one of my colleagues told me today—in fact, Maryan Street; I shall name her—that habeas corpus means “you have the body”. I do appreciate that the member has brought the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill to the House.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a great pleasure to rise in support of this very good bill in the name of my colleague, Christopher Auchinvole. This Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is one that I endorse. I commend it to the House with great enthusiasm.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 114

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.

Noes 7

New Zealand First 7.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

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

In Committee

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that there will be one question, so the question is that clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3 stand part.

Clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I am enjoying the passage of this Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to place on record from the outset my thanks to all of those parties in Parliament that are supporting this bill: to my Labour colleagues, the Green Party, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, United Future, Mana, and Brendan Horan. They have all pledged their support for this bill, and without it this bill would not pass through the House. It indicates several things: the popularity of this bill, the fact that it is common sense, and that it restores to ordinary Kiwis the 11 public holidays they expect to receive every year.

The bill has been universally popular since it was made clear that commemorations will still occur on the same days that they always have—that is, 6 February for Waitangi Day and 25 April for Anzac Day. The fact that a holiday follows on the Monday that follows a weekend occurrence of those days is what changes. We have a bill that makes sure that we have those 11 holidays every year. That gives those holidays the full recognition that other holidays have.

I would like the National Party to consider its support for this bill also. In some polls more than 80 percent of New Zealanders support this bill. In the only quantitative survey that has been done 87 percent of small and medium sized business owners are either in support of or neutral toward this bill. New Zealand knows that this is a fair idea. It makes sure that ordinary hard-working Kiwis get the holidays they deserve every year. So I want the National Party to get in behind this bill.

I want John Key to get in behind this bill. His suggestion today in Parliament that ordinary Kiwis could not be trusted to front on Anzac Day is a disgrace. It is an outrage. Millions of ordinary Australians turn out on Anzac Day year after year after year. Their turnout is increasing. Mondayising has worked in Australia; it should work here too. If ordinary Australians can turn out for commemorations, I want to think that ordinary New Zealanders can too. For the Prime Minister to suggest otherwise is an embarrassment. So just to be clear on that, for John Key’s point to hold he would have to think that Christmas and New Year would not be held in such high regard if they fell on a weekend. Does he not remember 2010? Did Kiwis decide on Christmas morning that they would not get up and open their presents? Or Christians that they would not go off to their church services, because there was a holiday 2 days later? I do not think so. I think that is a nonsense position to take.

Ordinary Kiwis will honour these days and commemorate these days because they are of growing importance to New Zealanders. They are about our pride and our identity as New Zealanders, they are of growing importance to all of us, and they should have the full recognition that other holidays have. As Marcus Lush said on the radio, you would have to be the Grinch to oppose Mondayisation.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I find it a little ironic that the member resuming his seat, Dr David Clark, is asking for the support of the Prime Minister, and then sets about beating him around the head with a frozen fish as to his rationale. It does exemplify what we have seen so often from the Opposition, which is “the beatings will continue until morale improves” approach to garnering support.

I think it is actually a very, very fine balance that is looking to be achieved. I certainly do respect the views of parties that are supporting this Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, and I can actually see why. I do not think we would have to go too far to find out why the honest Joe on the street is going to think that having another long weekend is not a bad idea. But I think for me where this discussion lands is really the significance and importance of those 2 days. Waitangi Day, the founding day of the New Zealand that we know, and Anzac Day, which has come to be a time of some sombre reflection and commemoration for those who have lost their lives in the service of the freedom that we all enjoy today, are things that as an ex-serviceman I feel very, very strongly about. I know that that is a view shared by many across the RSAs, many of those returned servicemen, but also their families and their loved ones around them, and that to me is where the balance needs to rest.

An argument has been raised around the fact that if Anzac Day, for example, fell on a Saturday, that would in no way be devalued by the fact that the following Monday would become a holiday. Well, I think the law of the jungle would suggest otherwise, and people would see the opportunity to lash the kayak to the roof rack, put the trailer on, and head for the beach and so on and so forth.

Hon Annette King: Is that what you’d do?

MIKE SABIN: I do not have to, Ms King; I live at the beach, so feel free to come and visit at some stage. I believe that that member’s caucus sometimes comes up to see what Northland is all about by having fish and chips at the Mangonui Fish Shop, having a few photos, and leaving again, so feel free to call in to my house just down the road when you do. You will notice that I do not need to lash the kayak on the roof rack, because it is already sitting there on the side of the beach.

But coming back to the bill—

Hon Annette King: But why are other New Zealanders so dumb if that’s what they’re going to do?

MIKE SABIN: It is not a question of New Zealanders being dumb. I think that the argument being run by the Opposition is a futile one. I think that the bill actually deserves a better discussion. When I think about the importance of those days, Anzac Day and Waitangi Day, and the significance of those days, as a member of Parliament for Northland, I can vouch for the importance of Waitangi Day, certainly to locals but, I believe, also to all New Zealanders. It is a day of significance. So the balance becomes whether this devalues those days. My belief is, when talking to servicemen, the people who fought for the country, that that is how they see it. If it is just simply because hard-working Kiwis deserve another day off, then I think that balance tips too far. No one wants to deny Kiwis the opportunity of a day off—

Iain Lees-Galloway: You do.

MIKE SABIN: No, that is not the case. But it is around the context in which we are doing it and using these 2 most significant days for New Zealand as the meat in the sandwich to achieve that purpose. I do not believe that that balance has been met.

It was absolutely pointed to by the leader of that member’s party this afternoon at question time, when he questioned the Prime Minister as to why the tourism industry was so supportive of this bill. Why would tourism be so interested in supporting the bill? Because tourism is about holidays. Tourism is about relaxing, going away, and enjoying oneself. That very question actually points exactly to the argument that I believe we are advancing, that there is a very real risk that in Mondayising, we lose the value and the significance of the commemoration of those days. Are people seriously going to celebrate Anzac Day on a Saturday and then somehow—I do not know. What happens to the Monday? I do not think so. As I said, the balance becomes those who fought for the freedoms that this country enjoys and the founding of this nation. We should not devalue those days.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I will take a short call on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill and will address the proposed commencement date in clause 2. The bill as introduced would have come into force “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.”, and that—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Sorry to the member. I am trying to hear Brendan Horan.

BRENDAN HORAN: Thank you. As I was saying, I would like to address the proposed commencement date in clause 2. The bill as introduced would have come into force the day after the Royal assent was given, and that is good. It is axiomatic that if Parliament enacts legislation, then it should be implemented. But although that is obvious, it does not always happen. The bill as reported back would come into force on 1 January 2014—9 months from now. On the face of it, that may not seem to be a problem, as the first occasion on which the law would have practicable effect would be on Anzac Day in 2015, but long commencement dates can have unintended consequences.

It has been the habit of previous Parliaments to write Governments of the day a blank cheque, but at least this bill is not open-ended. We have allowed Acts to be brought into force by Order in Council and yet not specified any default date. For example, part of the Summary Proceedings Amendment Act 1976 is still not in force, 37 years after Parliament passed the law. There are over 30 such Acts on the books, not in force and with an open-ended, indefinite commencement date. Things can go wrong with definite but long commencement dates. For example, the Criminal Procedure Act was passed in October 2011, yet may not come into force until October this year. That Act amends numerous other Acts, including the Chateau Companies Act 1977. That is fine and good, one might say, but John Banks came along and repealed the Chateau Companies Act 1977 using the Regulatory Reform (Repeals) Act in August 2012. So the left hand of National does not appear to know what the right hand of John Banks is doing, and it is amending a repealed Act. So long commencement dates are not, in general, a good idea.

This debate will conclude soon and the Committee will vote. My vote may be cast in person or it may be cast by proxy, and I acknowledge and thank the Greens for their support of democracy. Six other MPs may be in the same position as me, and it is good that they are able to participate as MPs, the equal of my and their 114 other colleagues. But there is a problem when it comes to voting on this bill, which is that we have a Prime Minister who thinks we should not be able to vote here. The only thing toxic is that we have a Prime Minister with contempt for democracy, and that clearly will not do. The Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill will pass, despite the Prime Minister’s toxicity, with the votes of Labour, the Greens, New Zealand First, the Māori Party, Mana, United Future, and me as an independent MP. I gladly support this bill.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I would just like to defend our Prime Minister today from that attack from the far corners of this Chamber, which was most uncalled-for. That member, Brendan Horan, should not be making those attacks in this Chamber. I am sure that members of this party would not want to see that happen in this Chamber.

This bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, was debated, questioned, and thought through at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in a very concise and meaningful way. I felt that the members of the select committee actually enjoyed this bill. I would like to pay tribute to David Clark, the MP who brought it forward, because I think he has done a good job on it. He has got a slight problem in his political career, in that he keeps on yelling out something about the worst 50 years in the political history of the Labour Party. But apart from that one line that he keeps on yelling out all the time, this bill is evidence of somebody who has some potential in Parliament, and we would hate to see it lost by that one line that will go down in history as what he is known for. He will not be known as the person who gave holidays to New Zealanders; he will be known as the person who can yell out one line in Parliament. That is a shame for somebody who had potential.

It is very disappointing too for someone coming from Dunedin, because Dunedin is a city that historically has had a large Labour representation in this House. It has had a history of great Labour MPs, I must say, like Pete Hodgson—those great Labour MPs who were here when I came into this House.

Chris Auchinvole: We respected them.

DAVID BENNETT: We respected them. We did respect them. Michael Woodhouse has taken over that respectable role now. It is a shame that that current member from somewhere in Dunedin has not taken on that responsibility.

Chris Auchinvole: That mantle.

DAVID BENNETT: That mantle has been lost. The National Party is very grateful for the opportunity to pick that mantle up, of course, but this is a bill that could have defined a political career. It could have been the start of a good political career, but it will not be, because that political career has been surpassed by his one line. That one line is what he will be known for in this House. That is a shame—

Iain Lees-Galloway: Is this why you’re voting against the bill?

DAVID BENNETT: The next member over there is Mr Iain Lees-Galloway. Do we need to talk about representation in Palmerston North now? That great city, which will fall to National at the next election, has had many great Labour members. I remember that great Labour MP who was the member for Palmerston North. What was his name?

Scott Simpson: Joe Walding.

DAVID BENNETT: Oh, was that one of them? No, there was somebody else who is now involved with some university there. But Iain Lees-Galloway has not taken up that mantle, either, and that has been disappointing for me. I have been very disappointed to see how the Labour members have not delivered for provincial New Zealand. In provincial New Zealand people need that delivery, and it is not happening under those members. I say that just in recognition of Mr Clark, who did a fine job in the select committee with this bill but has lost it through the rest of his parliamentary career.

Iain Lees-Galloway: What a shambles.

DAVID BENNETT: Now Mr Iain Lees-Galloway is calling out again from the other side of the Chamber, and—

Dr Cam Calder: Which faction is he in?

DAVID BENNETT: Which faction is he in? Somebody is asking which faction he is in. He is the Simon Crean of the New Zealand Labour Party. He will get the word from David Cunliffe. David Cunliffe will say: “Come to my office. Come and see me.”, and he will talk to him and tell him that the member needs to go out on the next holiday—on the next day that there is a holiday—and go to the New Zealand public and say: “I have a deal for you by lunchtime.” On the next holiday we will see this from the Simon Crean of the New Zealand Labour Party. He will come at the next holiday and make it quite clear what Mr Cunliffe is intending to do. But would you believe that Mr Cunliffe will actually hold “Mr Crean”, or Mr Iain Lees-Galloway—on the next holiday—to his word? No, you would not. You would not believe that, and that will be very disappointing for another member of the Labour Party.

This is a serious bill. This is a bill that the select committee took great time in looking through. I must admit that when we had people coming in and submitting on the bill, the arguments were very strong on both sides. You know, there were people who came in and said genuinely: “We respect what these days mean and we want to see them retained in that way.” Then there were other points of—[Bell rung] Mr Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): David Bennett, 5 minutes on the bill.

DAVID BENNETT: Just as we start on the bill, I would like to pay tribute to Mr David Clark and his political career, which is known for one line and not for this bill. But, no, in all seriousness, when we did do this bill the arguments put forward by the proponent of this bill were very strong, as well. Nobody wants to deny anybody any rights or responsibilities in life, and I think this was a genuine attempt at a member’s bill. So I pay tribute to those who have supported this bill and to all those people—

Darien Fenton: Patronising, as always.

DAVID BENNETT: This is the Labour Party saying “patronising”. That is the Labour Party of old. We are looking for the Labour Party of new, with the new “Simon Crean” from Palmerston North delivering the new Cunliffe of the day.

When we look at the submissions, I think they were very real. People did say that they would like to enjoy those holidays in some ways, as the promoter of this bill has been saying. But in some ways the Government has to make decisions, and when we have to make decisions we have to weigh up things. We have to weigh up, you know, what happens and the timing of these decisions.

One of the big issues around this bill—and I think that something I would like David Clark to take a call on is to actually go through the dates for the next time that this bill will apply. I think he needs to make that clear—

Grant Robertson: Is this a filibuster?

DAVID BENNETT: —for all members of this Committee, including Mr Grant Robertson, and for all the members of the public who are listening. He may have to say the dates three or four times, because we have heard today that Mr Robertson has got some issues about remembering things and also understanding. David Clark may actually have to write it down in big print for you, so that you can pick it up. That would be interesting to see. What is the real effect of this bill? Is this bill merely talk or will it have a real effect?

Chris Auchinvole: Will it walk?

DAVID BENNETT: Will it have a real effect, and will it talk, in the words of that immortal—immortal, I say—speaker from our party Chris Auchinvole, who is well known around the world now as one of the leaders in the marriage equality debate, and—

Iain Lees-Galloway: That’s later.

DAVID BENNETT: —he will be on later, I am sure, with another fine rendition of his great speech.

I would like Mr Clark to just take that time and say what this legislation is really going to mean for New Zealand workers this year. Will it deliver anything for New Zealand workers this year, if you are looking at a holiday? Will it deliver anything for New Zealand workers next year? Will it deliver anything for the next year? That is the question I want Mr Clark to answer. Mr Clark may be able to tell us when this bill might actually deliver the holidays that he intends for it to do, because I do not know whether Mr Clark has made clear to the public the effect of this bill in the next few years—the next 1 or 2 years. It is all right talking about 10 years’ time. It is like the Labour Party’s superannuation policy. We hear about that in 10 years’ time, but what we need to know is about the next 2 years. In the next 2 years, what will be the effect of this bill? I do not know what that effect will be until Mr Clark tells this Committee what it will be, because I think he understands the issues involved. It may be—

Chris Auchinvole: Will he tell us?

DAVID BENNETT: No, he will tell us. I have got great faith in Mr Clark, because I have found him to be an honest individual.

Chris Auchinvole: He won’t duck?

DAVID BENNETT: I do not think that he will duck from the question, but I do think that he is not to use the line that this is the best legislation in the last 50 years. No, he cannot use that line with regard to this legislation, and he cannot use the line about the next 50 years and talk about holidays over those years. We want to know about the next 2 years—just the next 2 years—to just before the next election. That is what Mr Clark should concentrate on, the time before the next election. Will this bill make any difference? I do not know whether he is going to find that this bill makes any difference to ordinary New Zealanders in that time. It would be disappointing if this House was spending time on a bill, and that member has staged his political career on a bill, that achieves nothing—a bill that achieves nothing in the next 2 years.

Grant Robertson: This member would know a lot about that.

DAVID BENNETT: Is that what this member is going to talk about? Mr Robertson there says: “You’d know all about that.” Well, I would like to see Mr Robertson come to Hamilton and campaign. I want to see him come and campaign when we have got a $2 billion expressway going through our city that is going to be the best thing—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!

DAVID BENNETT: Sorry, Mr Chairman. Mr Robertson distracted me for a moment there, and I would hate to be distracted on a bill like this.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. David Bennett, the member who has just resumed his seat, has delusions of grandeur. I think he might think he is Simon Crean, or someone like that. I am not sure whether there is a comparison for Mr Bennett in either the Australian Labor Party caucus or, indeed, any other caucus whatsoever. He is a unique contributor to our House.

I wanted to pick up just one of the points that was made by Mr Bennett around when this bill is going to actually make a practical difference, and it is quite confusing listening to National Party members on this bill. It is either a bill that will destroy the fabric of our society as we know it or a bill that is going to have no impact whatsoever so why are we bothering, and both arguments are being run at the moment by the National Party. In fact, I think David Bennett may even have run both arguments during that speech—actually, possibly even in the same sentence. So I think we just need to clarify a few matters for the National Party on that point.

It is true that the next time this bill will have an effect is 2015, so that gives us plenty of time to get ourselves prepared for that to occur. The Labour Party in Government in 2015, assisted by others, perhaps, in the House, will celebrate the fact that when we come to 2015 this bill will come into force. Then it will have an effect in 2016, and then in 2021. So Mr Bennett can rest easy in his bed in Hamilton, knowing that this bill will have an effect in those periods.

The couple of points I just wanted to raise in this call are, firstly, a specific point, which is around the issue that has been raised from time to time about the cost of this legislation and the cost of this legislation to businesses. The reason I want to raise it is that early on in this debate the Prime Minister got himself very exercised and excited about the potential cost of this bill to businesses, and in the end the figures he was using sort of fell apart on him and were largely discredited. But I know that the Government is particularly attracted to the numbers that it gets provided by David Farrar. The numbers that David Farrar provides to the National Party are things that they take seriously, so I think we should note that he has done the calculation.

Hon Member: They pay for them.

GRANT ROBERTSON: They do pay for those numbers—that is right. But the calculation he has done on this bill is that it would, if passed, add 0.12 percent to the wage bill of a company—0.12 percent. It is not a massive task.

It is interesting to note in the National Party’s polls that David Farrar actually supports this bill along with, I suspect, a large number of other National Party MPs. That is the really sad thing today. This House will, I hope, at the end of this Committee stage pass this bill through, and it will go then to the third reading. That will happen because a coalition of parties in this Chamber has come together around a sensible idea, an idea that is not actually—

Louise Upston: It’s called a motley crew.

GRANT ROBERTSON: A motley crew, says Louise Upston, channelling her 1980s hair metal band. But, you know, we will not go into the history of hair metal bands. I would not want to offend the Chair in that regard, either. What we do know is that the coalition of parties other than the National Party and the ACT Party in this House is supporting this bill because it is a sensible bill. It is a bill that says we recognise the importance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day to New Zealanders. We say that those days deserve full recognition.

Chris Auchinvole: Oh!

GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Auchinvole is concerned about that, but when we look at Australia the evidence is that attendance at Anzac Day ceremonies increased when this law was put in place in the states that have it, and that is because it provides people with a focus around the period where it is a weekend, where they can ensure that they have their time off.

The other point to note is, of course, that Anzac Day is in fact a holiday during the week, and people do not suddenly disavow themselves of commemorating people because it is a holiday during the week. All this bill does is say that if Anzac Day falls on a weekend, New Zealanders will get the holidays that they deserve in the Holidays Act. It is by no means, in any way, an assault on Anzac Day. It is, in fact, a way of ensuring that New Zealanders can fully commemorate two very important days and have time with their families. It is an excellent bill.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Thank you very much indeed for the opportunity to speak on this particular bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, in the name of David Clark. I am put in mind of that grand Kiwi tradition during festive occasions, sports days, and picnic days—a good old-fashioned kids’ lolly scramble, because that is what this bill reminds me of. Is this really the way, one has to ask, to introduce oneself as a serious member of Parliament concerned with legislation for the country’s good? Is it?

Darien Fenton: Habeas corpus.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill is a very serious piece of legislation. It is a very serious piece of legislation that was accepted. I will be interested to see whether this gets the same vote. I agree with my colleague the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett, that this is a member whom we had credited with having really good potential. We thought that this could be a David with a future in the Labour Party.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. This is the Committee stage of this bill. I think it would behove the members opposite to at least address the content of the bill at some point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Well, the debate has certainly been quite wide ranging and actually quite humorous, I have to say, from both sides. I am monitoring it very closely. This is a time-limited debate, and if members want to waste their time in a time-limited debate, that is up to them, but I am keeping track.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: There we go. Savaged by Iain Lees-Galloway—savaged and almost brought to silence. But let us just go on.

Think of this wrapped in gift paper by your new Labour MP David Clark. I think it is a pity to embark on a political career in quite that way. The politician concerned is, in my mind, a serious politician—a serious politician—and I just think it does not quite carry the significance of the day as a commemorative day to declare it a holiday. Anzac Day is very, very special, and here we go, making it a holiday. What happened to those sector groups that created picnic days? Do you remember the picnic days? The good old Auckland picnic days? They did not stay a picnic day for very long. They are just part of being a day off.

Hon Member: Trade unions.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Trade unions—that is right. The emphasis changes when things are declared holidays rather than commemorative days. It was moving to hear Simon O’Connor reading from an Anzac diary during the second reading of this bill. It was moving. And it was disturbing to hear the criticism from the other side of the Chamber, and here we go again.

The process of this bill—members opposite would like me to talk about the process of the bill. I again share the views of Mr Bennett, the charismatic chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—a charismatic chairman. He made some very gracious remarks towards the way this bill was introduced and the way it was presented, and I would concur with those, because it was well presented. It was spoken to well by people who came in to make submissions from both sides. I see a head shaking on the other side. I am speaking in favour of the presentation that we received. You should not be critical of your own member, but we understand that is a little bit of a difficulty for that particular party over there.

But then again, as my colleague said, was it a good presentation, or was it in fact flimflam? Is this a road to being a David with a future within the Labour Party? What is in a name? Well, if the name is David, one is part of a plethora, a whole clan of them. But does this differentiate David definitively?

How does the bill compare with National policies passing through the same committee? Let us think of what some of those might be. National introduced the 90-day trial period for new employees in small and medium sized businesses in 2009. What would that do, compared with this bill, which gives people holidays? That created 13,000 jobs—13,000 jobs. This committee had another piece of legislation go through, which members will remember, expanding the 90-day trial to all businesses in 2011. Research shows the Government’s 90-day trial period is encouraging businesses to take a chance—

DENISE ROCHE (Green): It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I am delighted to see David Clark, the person whose name it is in, is the member in the chair.

The Greens absolutely support this bill, and I take exception to the comments of Chris Auchinvole, the previous speaker. He sounded so aghast at the thought of workers actually taking a holiday. It reminded me very much of the Christmas story, the Christmas tale, and Mr Scrooge. Workers do need holidays. Workers are working longer hours than they ever have before, and the reason they are doing this is that wages have been forced lower and lower and lower through this Government’s lack of action around developing proper jobs and a decent standard of living for workers.

If you compare what New Zealanders get in terms of public holidays and statutory holidays, we are falling below the OECD countries in terms of generosity for workers to have time to relax. This bill is a way of addressing that. This bill goes some way towards saying that workers actually deserve 11 days off—that it is feasible for them to take their 11 statutory holidays every year, instead of having to be short-changed every 5 years or so when Waitangi Day and Anzac Day fall on a weekend.

We reject the notion that by Mondayising both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day it somehow cheapens their commemoration. Other speakers have noted that this happens already if 25 December or the day after that day fall on a Sunday, and also if New Year’s Day or the day after that day fall on a Sunday. All four of these holidays are transferred, so it does not actually cheapen the event. In fact, the day itself is the day that people commemorate. Both Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are sacred and they will remain sacred wherever they fall in the week, as has already been noted, as well, by Mr Grant Robertson from the Labour Party.

If we think about what is coming up this weekend, it is Easter, and Easter is falling this week at the end of March. Easter never ever stays on the same days, because the timing of that holiday is attached to the moon. In fact, it is a lunar holiday.

David Bennett: It’s not attached to the moon.

DENISE ROCHE: It is a lunar holiday. However, the fact that the actual days change does not cheapen the resurrection and death of Christ.

When this bill Mondayises both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day, it may well increase participation. Certainly, this has been the example in Australia for Anzac Day. At Waitangi Day we have seen many, many people turn up on both the day before and the actual day. When it falls on a weekend there is a lower participation rate, because people cannot attach the extra day to the weekend. Local businesses up there have said that when it falls close to the start of a weekend, it actually increases the amount of business that they have in their community.

I guess if we are to think about Anzac Day and Waitangi Day as days that we should commemorate, then we should also think about the fact that we need to allow workers time to celebrate them. Whether it falls on a Sunday, or whether it falls on a Friday, for that matter, or a Thursday, the fact remains that each of these days is special and workers do participate in the celebrations and the commemorations around them. It is not onerous for businesses for this to be brought to fruition. There is a 2-year run-in for them to plan for it, and other speakers have already told you about the minimal cost that it will bring for small businesses.

This—[Interruption] I was just having a small holiday there. This bill is supported. This bill is definitely supported—

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to take a brief call on this very important bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. This bill is really important. We know that Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are days that are really significant to us as New Zealanders and we will not stop commemorating them. They are very, very special and we always like to treat those days as such. But what we in New Zealand First believe is that the rules for these holidays have to be the same as they are for Christmas and New Year if they fall on a Saturday or a Sunday. It is absolutely essential. We want to recognise our special days. We do not want them being treated as second-rate holidays, and we believe that this is happening at this point in time. So we are happy for this particular bill to go through.

It was interesting to hear that the tourism industry absolutely supports this bill because it knows that people will travel further into New Zealand if there is a day off on the Monday when the Saturday or the Sunday is Waitangi Day or Anzac Day. I have had a lot of people saying to me—even the taxi driver when I came into Parliament this particular week said that he thinks we should have the Monday off when it is a significant holiday. People support this change right throughout New Zealand. But I think it is worth saying that 6 February and 25 April are still going to remain as the days that we commemorate and observe Anzac Day and Waitangi Day. What this bill means is that if these days fall on the weekend, then a holiday on the Monday can be observed.

The importance and the recognition of these days is absolutely essential. We like to compare ourselves with Australia. Australia has implemented this Mondayisation very successfully and, as New Zealanders, we can do the same. They are the people whom we like to measure ourselves against all the time. Even the Prime Minister measures us against that country.

We were quite interested to hear that the first date that will actually be affected by this change is in April 2015—25 April. I think it is worth mentioning that this is the 100-year anniversary of Gallipoli, and what better way to celebrate. It is very, very important. The first time that this affects Waitangi Day is in February 2016. So we can see that it is not going to happen instantly, but it is going to happen over a period of time. I think it will affect us for 2 days every 5 years, which is not significant.

What is the cost to employers? Well, we have heard that it is going to be only 0.12 percent. This is not going to put an undue financial burden on the Government or on taxpayers, mainly because it is going to happen only occasionally. In New Zealand First we like to see some consistency across our public holidays. The inconsistency that we currently have is quite problematic and it can be quite confusing for families, employers, and employees alike. So we need to ensure that all public holidays are treated the same.

It is worth stating too that this bill is going to be excellent for provincial New Zealand and those in the tourism sector. It is time that we stood up for this group in this Chamber. The cycleways—the great tourism development—do not appeal to a large majority of the population, because we are never ever going to use them, but in some way this small change, by Mondayising Anzac Day and Waitangi Day, will inevitably benefit families, communities, and many businesses right throughout New Zealand. It is for this reason that New Zealand First is firmly in support of this bill.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am pleased to support the Committee stage of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I wanted to start by saying a couple of things—first of all, to the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, David Bennett, who talked at length about disappointment. Actually, I think if anyone deserves sympathy when it comes to disappointment, it is that member, who has been in this House for several years now and must be feeling very disappointed about the way his Government is treating him. In fact, we say “David Bennett for Minister”. And we would vote for you, David, if we had the chance. And then to Mr Chris Auchinvole, who also talked about disappointment, I have got two words to say to that member, the two words being “habeas corpus”. If we have ever had so significant a member’s bill passed in this House, it was today with the Habeas Corpus Amendment Bill, as we heard earlier.

I wanted to point out to the members opposite that on Anzac Day and Waitangi Day, every year apart from every 5 years there is actually a holiday. It is a public holiday. So what happens is that people get the day off. Some of them—many of them, these days—go off to the Anzac Day ceremonies in the morning, the commemorations first thing in the morning. Some people on Waitangi Day go off to celebrate Waitangi Day. Some people do not, but it is a holiday. So this idea that somehow, because this bill gives people a holiday once every 5 or 7 years, it is cheapening those days is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

I also wanted to respond to the member Simon O’Connor, who spent his 10 minutes—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who?

DARIEN FENTON: —Simon O’Connor—in the second reading of this bill reading out the diary of a Gallipoli soldier who did not come home. I have to say, Mr O’Connor, that I found that incredibly offensive. I thought it was using the deaths of working-class men like my grandfather who went to the war. I say to Mr O’Connor to have a look above the next time he comes out of the National Party caucus room at the shield for the Peter Fraser Government, and he will see a photo of my grandfather, who fought in the First World War, who came home, and who joined the Labour Party—who joined the Labour Party—to fight for justice for working people. I know he would not begrudge the provisions in this bill. He would not. I thought it really cheapened the memory of the people in my family and the people in everyone’s families to have done that. I thought that was disgraceful.

The other thing that has been very interesting in this debate is that the Government seems to have forgotten its own legislation. In 2010 it passed legislation that would enable public holidays to be transferred to another day, including Waitangi Day and Anzac Day—including those precious days. But in 2010 the Government did not think they were precious enough to stop them from being transferred. In fact, in its legislation introducing the Holidays Amendment Bill to the House, the bill talked about it. An example it gave in the explanatory note said: “For example, if Waitangi Day falls on a Wednesday, an employer and a group of employees who work Monday to Friday may agree to observe Waitangi Day on the Friday.” So what happened to the preciousness of Waitangi Day? Another example used in the bill was Anzac Day. This Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot stand up in this Chamber and say this is all about disrespecting the memory of Gallipoli and the people who have gone before us who fought for freedom and democracy, and at the same time forget that it has passed legislation that actually undermines the recognition of those important days and, in fact, makes it more difficult for many workers to actually have the day off on pay.

I just want to finish, if I may, with a very interesting quote that we heard in Parliament today. This comes from our Prime Minister: “Mondayisation, I know, I don’t agree with that. I mean, I think in the end this is an issue which, you know, fair enough, I don’t think, you know, our—we’re opposed, but we’re not vehemently opposed.” That was the Prime Minister of New Zealand, John Key, who cannot make up his mind, who instructed the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to oppose it. And that is why those members have, because they have no basis for that.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I would like to acknowledge Dr David Clark for having a member’s bill before Parliament. It is well done. Anzac Day, 25 April—25 April: a day of respect, a day of commemoration, a day of reflection, a day of significance, and a unique day that marks the sacrifice of generation after generation. Allow me to paint a picture for you. The place is Pukekura Park, New Plymouth. A young boy, 3 or 4 years old; the first time he had heard a band with the kettle drums; the first time, probably, he had heard a pipe band and felt that curious tingling at the back of the neck that anybody with antecedents from Scotland always feels when they hear the pipes; long lines of men and some women snaking into the ground; at the back the school cadets; and before them—it is shortly after the Korean War—quite a few Korean War veterans, the larger majority of World War II veterans, and a smaller number of World War I veterans. But the smallest group—the smallest group; very, very small—probably fewer than a dozen frail older men, with their medals clacking, the poppies on their chest, was walking at the head of the parade into Pukekura Park in New Plymouth.

Among those men was my grandfather Harold Morley Thompson. These were the men, the last men, a few of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles who had gone to South Africa to serve in New Zealand’s first overseas campaign. Almost 6,500 New Zealanders served in that campaign. I guess that was the first time I felt that sense of pride in the fact that my grandad was there. And, sitting on his knee and listening to his stories of that campaign, I became aware of what it meant to serve King—or at that stage Queen—and country. I remember him being enormously proud. I remember him being enormously proud to be part of it, to be there on Anzac Day, and I remember hearing some of the stories. If I could be indulged by the Committee, I remember him telling a story that somehow he committed the unwritten crime—well, it is not unwritten; it is quite clearly written down—of not having the rifle that you have been issued with. He was a mounted rifleman but had no rifle—he had a carbine. Unfortunately, the carbine has a much shorter range than a rifle. He was engaging the Boer at some 500 yards. His commanding officer heard the crack as Thompson engaged the enemy, and recognised that it was not a rifle—he recognised that it was a carbine—and said “Thompson, 200 yards forward.” He survived that unfortunate brush with the increased proximity of the enemy, and lived to come back to New Zealand and have a very long and successful life.

Some years later I was leading my own platoon of school cadets in the Anzac parade in the same place at Pukekura Park and I venture to suggest that all the students—even though we were all young, at 13, 14, 15, and 16—on that parade were very cognisant of the sacrifices made on their behalf by those who were not there with them on that Anzac Day parade. A few years later, as a member of the Otago University Medical Company, “the Blue Berets”, I attended many a Dawn Parade in Dunedin, met the veterans, heard their stories, and was introduced to the notorious Dawn Parade rum coffee.

More recently I have been honoured to attend the Dawn Service at the Manurewa Cenotaph. I see a colleague across the Chamber from me today whom I remember being there a couple of years ago. The colleague I have just mentioned and another colleague from the Labour Party had arrived without a wreath, so, in the spirit of the day, I gestured to them to come up, and we laid the wreath together as local MPs in the area. It was an indication of the special, unique nature of the day. I just want to leave—

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I am tempted to respond to some of the sillier things that National members have offered in this debate this afternoon, but I do not want to waste my time on that, except to say to David Bennett that if he thinks that I am the Simon Crean of the New Zealand Labour Party, then I call him the Ken Wyatt of the New Zealand National Party.

The wafer-thin arguments that we have heard from National members this afternoon against this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, represent the very poor opinion that National members of Parliament have of the people of New Zealand. For some reason, those members of Parliament think that New Zealanders, given the opportunity of a long weekend when Anzac Day is commemorated on a Saturday or a Sunday, will all charge off to the beach and forget the solemn respect they have for the day, the people, and the sacrifice that they made. That was the argument that Mike Sabin made, that all of a sudden—

Mike Sabin: That’s right.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: “That’s right.”, he says. He has so little confidence in New Zealanders that he believes that, given half an opportunity, they will walk away from Anzac Day. Well, ladies and gentlemen, people who are listening to this debate and watching this debate, mark that. That is what Mike Sabin and the National Government think of you. That is what he thinks of New Zealanders, that they have so little respect for Anzac Day, for our armed forces, for our veterans, and for the sacrifice that they made for our freedom that they will walk away from Anzac Day if they have a long weekend.

Well, I have experienced a perfect example of how people can easily deal with this. Anzac Day commemorations are held up and down this country. If families choose to do that outrageous thing of spending a few days away together, they can go to an Anzac service in the place where they go on holiday. How hard is that—how hard is that? Communities up and down New Zealand, large and small, all commemorate Anzac Day, and if people are away from home, they can simply go to the Anzac Day commemoration in the part of the country they go to.

I did this when I was a student association president. We had university games held on the weekend that Anzac Day fell on, and all the student association presidents realised that it was important for us to go and respect and acknowledge the day in the place where we were at. It was very easy to organise and it was very easy to do.

The second ridiculous argument that the National Government has proposed is that this will cost businesses more than they can afford. Well, as David Farrar pointed out, this will cost businesses around 0.1 percent of their wage bill. That is how much their wage bill is going to increase by—0.1 percent. That is not of their total turnover; it is of their wage bill. Well, if National has done so much damage to the New Zealand economy that a 0.1 percent increase to their wage bill will put businesses under, then that is a sad indictment on this Government’s failure in economic management.

Thirdly, there is the argument that this bill will have no effect until 2015. Well, that, again, sums up the National approach to politics—that if it does not do something before the next election, it is not worth doing. [Interruption] That kind of short-term thinking is what has got us into the position that we are in, Mr Bennett. That is why this country is in such a deep depression, because this Government is more interested in politics and results before the next election, and it has no long-term plan for this country.

The arguments we have heard, and the hiding behind the stories of the commemoration of Anzac Day, of the sacrifices made at Gallipoli, at Passchendaele, at Afghanistan, at Timor-Leste—in places all around the world—are nothing but pure cynicism and National cloaking itself in all of those stories to hide the fact that it just does not want to give New Zealanders a few more days off. That is all it is. It is thinly veiled, it is cynical, it is sickening, and it should stop now. National will rue the day it voted against this bill.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is a pleasure to rise and talk to this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the member David Clark for the work that he has done on this bill and, although I disagree with the bill in premise, the dignity that he has brought to the approach.

Unfortunately, though, I have found the accusations—those hecklings and interjections a week or so ago—disturbing, and even more so today. Once again it has been brought up in this place about raising the topic of Anzac Day, bringing up the story, without comment—that is really important—unlike other members today who have tried to put words into the mouths of the war dead. I stood up, I only read a war diary, and I allowed those words to speak for themselves. The howls and the cries! I repeat what I said that day: how dare members opposite act with contempt when the words of the war dead are spoken—the words of an Anzac trooper are spoken—when we are discussing Anzac Day. You do not have to agree with it. You can interpret it in whatever way you want. It was left free—it was left free. But to rage and rant about someone daring to talk about Anzac Day—if someone dares to talk about Anzac Day and to put a bill down, we might put it in context. We might put it in context.

I have been struck since that speech by the number of phone calls, emails, and letters that people have sent expressing their support for that position, expressing support for their own people—war veterans, like a member who spoke earlier, who also had people who served. They were proud as Kiwis to have the voice of an Anzac trooper spoken in this Chamber. It might pay for members to note, of course, that this Chamber is a war memorial. In this very Chamber of a war memorial, they have yelled and cajoled the very fact that we might talk about Anzac Day when discussing a bill about Anzac Day. That is very, very striking.

I noted a week ago, and I want to note it again today, that Anzac Day is not a holiday, and that Anzac Day is not an excuse for a holiday. I made it clear the other time and I want to do so again. If we want to talk about more holidays, if we want to talk about workers’ rights, then we can find an opportunity to do that and discuss it. The moment you take a day of commemoration and turn it into a holiday, you have changed the nature of the day. That is why we call something a commemoration and that is why we call something else a holiday.

We have heard from Opposition members who say: “Oh, this is the same as Easter. This is the same as Christmas.” That is just ignorance. Those are days that are holidays—holy days—days of festival and celebration. Anzac Day is not; it is a day of commemoration. It sits on a very particular day. That is why we celebrate it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: So Boxing Day’s a holy day? Tau Henare might think that.

SIMON O’CONNOR: We do that in that way. We can see that Mr Mallard is back in the Chamber. We celebrate different days in different ways, and, once again, this Parliament does a disservice by trying to make everything absolutely the same. We heard someone from New Zealand First, I think it was, saying: “No, we need to call all the days the same. It doesn’t matter if it’s Christmas Day, Boxing Day, Easter, Anzac Day—let’s just make them all the same, make them all a holiday.” We heard the Leader of the Opposition’s attempted attack today, when he continued talking about tourism and how it is good for business and so forth. Listen, Mr Chair and others, to the rhetoric, and you will understand that this is about taking a day off.

But there are a couple of other things that we need to point to. There have been discussions about what the Australians do. Well, that is all well and good, but I think it is nice to note that I am a proud Kiwi. I do what I think is right for Kiwis and do not always follow what the Australians do. The other thing, too, is that people are noting the attendance on Anzac Day and that it is increasing. Well, I actually want to put the challenge to the Committee that attendance is returning to the way it used to be. Attendances over the years have dropped off in some generations in some cities represented in this House—certainly not in mine. Younger people and my generation are coming back to Anzac Day, and that is an important distinction.

So I want to return to what has been a theme of my approach to this bill: that Anzac Day is not a holiday. It is not an excuse for a holiday. I welcome the opportunity to talk with the member, or anyone from the Opposition, to find other excuses, but leave this day of commemoration, this Anzac Day, to be just that—a commemoration on the day of the 25th. It is a day of commemoration for which Parliament can stand up with confidence and pride in this war memorial, and allow the words of a New Zealand trooper to be spoken and not taken out of context and shamefully and contemptuously dealt to.

Dr CAM CALDER (National): I would just like to make a final contribution on this bill, the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, and just repeat that Anzac Day is a day of respect, a day of commemoration—

Barbara Stewart: It always is.

Dr CAM CALDER: —a day of reflection—I agree—and a day of significance. It is actually unique. It marks the sacrifices of generation after generation. It is a special day. If Anzac Day falls on a weekend and there is no extra holiday, then so be it—so be it. If anything, that underscores the extremely special nature of that day. In fact, if you think about it, it is a very small price to pay—a small price to pay—for New Zealanders of today, given the ultimate sacrifice made by the servicemen and servicewomen of yesterday. I oppose this bill.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I was not intending to take a call, but I will, having heard some of the comments of the National Party members on the other side. I take a call in response to the previous speaker, Simon O’Connor, as I am one of the very few members in this House who can say: “I lost my brother in the Viet Nam War.” I am absolutely appalled at the comments that were made by that member in relation to that. I have got every right to speak in this Chamber when I have lost a very loving, dear one myself, in terms of him falling on behalf of this country.

What I can say, further to some of the comments made in this Chamber, is that there are people who travel around this country to go to Anzac Day services and to be with their families, who have lost people, and go and see the very memorials of their own loved ones. In my particular situation, my loved one has his memorial in Waipukurau in Hawke’s Bay. I happen to live in Auckland. I would very much like, perhaps on a long weekend, to be able to travel down to Waipukurau in Hawke’s Bay, spend the weekend there, go to the Anzac Day ceremony, and enjoy seeing some of his old comrades and his old friends in Waipukurau, but you cannot do that if Anzac Day falls, for instance, on a Wednesday or a Thursday. It is a 1-day trip all the way to Hawke’s Bay for that. But I can tell you that the next time there is a long weekend I would dearly love to be able to take that time and that opportunity to go and do that.

Likewise, around New Zealand I am sure there are many elderly people—many elderly people—who would enjoy having their family visit from afar. So many people these days have moved from the regions to the likes of Auckland, leaving their elderly family in provincial areas around the country. What better opportunity for them than on an Anzac weekend, a long weekend, to be able to say: “We will go home and visit mum and dad or go and visit grandma and grandad. We will go to the Anzac Day ceremony with them and spend a long weekend with them.” I certainly know that my sons and daughters would love to do that with their grandparents who are living in Taupō. They would love the opportunity to go down and spend an Anzac Day weekend down there and take in Anzac Day in Taupō.

I have heard so much drivel from this National Party that it is unbelievable. A few years ago I was in Australia with my wife, and we happened to be there on a weekend when Anzac Day was being celebrated. We were in Sydney and we were absolutely astounded by the turnout in Sydney. The parade went on for something like 4 hours in Sydney, around the central city streets. Hundreds of thousands of people were watching the parade, and it was a wonderful long weekend—and not only that; the Australians celebrated as well. It was not just a sad occasion; it was also a celebration of their nation, remembering the Anzacs, remembering those who had fallen but also celebrating their lives.

Over that weekend there was a lot of celebration and also remembering what those young men and women had done in the name of their country. I think the people on the Government benches just need to absolutely wake up and think about this for a change. They should think about humanity for a change, think about the people of New Zealand for a change, and stop being like lemmings being led over the cliff by their leader, John Key. They should stop being taken down a road because they have all been whipped into action and told what to say. Have some thought for yourselves, have a mind of your own, think for yourselves, and think of what your constituents are saying. And your constituents, Mr Bennett, in Hamilton—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! You are bringing me into the debate.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: David Bennett should ask the people in Hamilton what they think. The previous speaker, Mr O’Connor, should ask the constituents in Tāmaki what they think. I do not think the members have asked their constituents, because most certainly good, honest, hard-working Kiwis—good, honest, patriotic Kiwis—who want to see a fair go for all Kiwis would say: “Stop being miserable. Stop being Grinches. Do not be the Scrooge of Christmas. Look at this sensibly and say that New Zealanders deserve this when it comes around. When Waitangi Day is on a weekend and when an Anzac Day is on a weekend, let us celebrate those public holidays and make them into proper national celebrations. Don’t be miserable National Party Grinches.”

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am not quite sure what the previous speaker, Andrew Williams, was going on about. If he could possibly send me a text at 2 o’clock in the morning, I will take time to look over it. Coming back to the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill, I just want to acknowledge David Clark and the work that he has done on this. Although I am new to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I also acknowledge the select committee and just reflect on the fine balance that I think is reflected here. I have listened very carefully to the contributions from across the Chamber, and mine, as I spoke to previously, does reflect very much my view that the servicemen, in particular, on Anzac Day tip that balance in favour of voting against this bill. That is certainly where my position comes from, and from the reverence and importance of that day in commemoration. I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of Simon O’Connor in that regard.

I actually believe that members across the Chamber—certainly the Labour Party—also share with us in that. I just want to reflect on a couple of points from former Labour Party members of Parliament. One Minister of Māori Affairs, Matiu Rata, said: “Like Anzac Day, New Zealand Day is not to be Mondayised. It is the significance of the occasion that is important rather than the fact that it is to be a paid public holiday. It should not be regarded as merely an extra paid holiday,”. That was one Matiu Rata who made that comment. Another former Minister of Internal Affairs, one Hon Mr Henry May, said: “The Government believes the Mondayising of New Zealand Day … would detract from the importance and significance of the event it commemorates.” Another former MP, Mr Rēweti, said that the committee considered that it was justified in declaring that Waitangi Day should not be Mondayised, because the Labour Party had gone to the electors in 1972 on the policy that Waitangi Day would not be Mondayised. Those were the heady days of the Labour Party—the working man’s party—that we remember, but I do not necessarily believe that they are represented in the Chamber here today.

We go on. Another former MP, one Mr Marshall, said: “I believe that it would greatly detract from the observance of the New Zealand Day for it to be Mondayised and turned into just another long weekend.” I think it is quite clear that there is a shift in the modern Labour Party, if I could call it that, from the traditional values that were held. I believe that those traditional values are actually held across the country and are something that we should reflect on in this Chamber. Certainly, I do so in being quite happy to oppose this bill.

We go on. There are actually other consequences to this bill, and those are consequences of a financial nature. Although there may be some in tourism who would welcome it, there will be many other businesses that are in a position where they are actually losing on the deal, if you like. Again, it is about a balance and being fair and reasonable, but also understanding that businesses have to make a dollar and it is a tough environment in which to do that. The member introducing this bill is the same member who would have us have a minimum wage of $15—the same member would have us have a minimum wage of $15. There are many businesses that would start going to the wall in that circumstance. We also look at this party, which would cancel the 90-day trial period that has been so successful. I just wanted to comment on the context around the financial constraints and the fact that this bill, as it stands, will have a financial implication, which should be considered in the mix. Although the member introducing it, as I said, would like to see a minimum wage of $15—and let us throw a capital gains tax or two in there, just for good measure—it is not something that will be missed in 2015 when this bill comes into play first of all.

I just want, lastly, to reflect on those veterans who have served this country. We should all be proud of them, and lest we forget the contribution they have made to this country and to the world we live in today.

Clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Clauses 1 to 7 and schedules 1 and 2

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is a pleasure to take the first call in this Committee stage on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. This is, in fact, a bill with a narrow scope, and it is a bill with a pretty straightforward purpose. It is one of the shorter bills that this House considers, but it has been a bill that has engendered some impassioned submissions, both for and against, and passionate debate in this Chamber, which has stood Parliament in good stead with the public. The public have appreciated the tone with which members on all sides have debated the bill. But although those submissions that have been heard against the bill and the speeches against the bill that have been made in this Chamber have, I am sure, been sincere, they have largely been motivated by fear—fear of concerns that are largely imaginary, and fear that has been whipped up by a campaign in the community led, particularly, by a couple of individuals, on a totally false basis.

I know that in this debate this evening we are going to be considering a number of Supplementary Order Papers to address imaginary concerns. I do not in any way impugn the genuine nature of the members who are bringing those amendments. They believe that they are bringing those amendments to do something that is important, but the concerns that they are raising are either ones that have already been dealt with in the bill or ones that are false concerns, where there is no problem whatsoever. I will be taking, I expect, some further calls during the evening to address those Supplementary Order Papers.

I want to particularly note that none of the Supplementary Order Papers that have so far been tabled to amend the bill have come from a member of the Government Administration Committee. I want to say I believe that that is because all of those members who sat through the bulk of the submissions—and I acknowledge that Tim Macindoe did, in fact, participate in a meeting right towards the end. All of those who sat through the submissions—

Tim Macindoe: Two.

KEVIN HAGUE: Sorry, it was two meetings at the end. All of those who sat through the analysis of the submissions appreciate the complexity of the issues and understand why the select committee has made the very precise amendments to this bill that we have. All of the matters—literally all of the matters—that have been raised in the Supplementary Order Papers so far tabled are ones that were very seriously considered by the select committee and were rejected.

I want to come to the Supplementary Order Papers about referendums, because there are two that we are considering tonight. The idea was rejected in the second reading of this bill, and, along with all the other Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled to date, will be opposed by our party and, I am sure, by most members tonight. The thing about referendums is that they are good for some situations. They are great for constitutional matters, for example, but they are a terrible, terrible way of addressing matters of human rights. Human rights are, by their very nature, inalienable. They are not an appropriate topic for referendums. They are also not an appropriate topic for the issue of minority rights, because minority rights will, of course, be rejected by a majority. I take the particular case of the vote for women in Switzerland. Because of the nature of referendums and the use of referendums in that country, it was achieved only in 1971.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat, Kevin Hague. I hope that at some point during the rest of the Committee stage of the debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill he is able to elaborate on that issue he raised, because I think the voting ability for citizens and the proud record that New Zealand has in comparison with those countries where that right to vote was determined by referendum is very worthy of comparison. I know there may be some who think the downfall of our society started when women won the right to vote, but I am not one of those who share that view, and I know David Bennett does not agree with that either. He supports the right of women to vote.

I want to acknowledge the work of the Government Administration Committee on this process, particularly in relation to the Supplementary Order Papers that the Committee of the whole House will be considering, but also the work of the select committee generally. This is not an easy issue for us to have considered as a select committee, and I want to pay tribute to all the members of the select committee, those who sat on every single day of it, and those who joined us just at some times. Some of the stories that we heard were really hard to listen to. Some of the stories told of how people, from when they are very, very young, feel about being excluded from their families and being excluded from their communities, always feeling different, and how frustrating and how demoralising that was, and, actually, the worst part, how suicidal that made people feel, particularly young people. We heard factual evidence of the much higher rate of suicide amongst young people whose sexual orientation was different from what they had expected it to be and different from what their families and their communities had expected it to be. They were gay and lesbian and were not that out of their own choice; they were that because that is how they were born.

More than anything in this Parliament we should strive to make sure that our laws and our leadership and our attitude ensure that people who do others no harm are made to feel part of our community, and are made to feel as valued as they are valuable. In my view, every gay and lesbian law-abiding citizen in our country deserves the support of our Parliament to ensure that they never feel second-rate, that they never feel less worthy than anyone else, and that our law backs them in their love, which is the proposal that we are progressing tonight.

I also want to acknowledge the officials of our select committee. We did not give them an easy time, frankly, and that, again, is directly in relation to some of the issues that we will be debating tonight. We had some interesting tensions. The tension between religious freedom and protecting human rights was one that we found quite difficult to resolve. I think we have got it absolutely right, and that is why I would be urging every member of the Committee to oppose the Supplementary Order Papers that extend discrimination provisions to all marriage celebrants. I do not agree with that. I think that when we say in this House “What should we tolerate as discrimination? What should we accept as being actions that clearly breach our human rights provisions?”—because, you know, they have been in place for how long? A long time—two decades. They are old provisions. They are sacred provisions. When we say “What actions should breach our human rights provisions?”, I think we should do it with care, and we did that at the select committee.

We said that religious freedoms should be exempt from those human rights provisions, and therefore that marriage celebrants who are associated with religious associations should lawfully be backed to decline the obligation of solemnising a same-sex marriage. Our view was that it was already covered in the law, but we took a belt and braces approach to make sure that that religious freedom is maintained. We have specified it in our amendments to the legislation. Any further amendment, whether it is Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of Su’a William Sio or the amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison, goes beyond what I think is fair and reasonable for this Parliament to justify. The Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Su’a William Sio actually extends it and narrows it at the same time, in a way that I think will give a confused message—

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I want to introduce to the Committee for consideration Supplementary Order Paper 202 in my name. I want to make some preliminary remarks about the Supplementary Order Paper and the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and then introduce the new clause that I have.

When President Obama indicated that he would support same-sex marriage most New Zealanders who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman did not expect that such change would occur so quickly in New Zealand, especially given that New Zealand already had civil union laws, which gave legal rights to same-sex couples, and, in particular, given that promises were made in this House that marriage would not be interfered with. I took a stance then in favour of the minority view of this House to not support the bill. I did so in accordance with the rights of freedom of conscience afforded to me on this issue, and the need to represent the views held by many throughout my constituency, by my family and friends, as well as the views expressed to me by religious groups.

Many in the religious and faith communities, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or other faiths, have expressed and continue to express a view that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. These beliefs are real and genuine. They are not made up; they are not fairy tales. They are true and heartfelt and many trace the source of this belief back through history to their deity. In addition, views expressed by my colleagues, friends, and family members are also genuine and strongly held in favour of their right to be married irrespective of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. I called on everyone then on both sides of the argument to keep the debate respectful and dignified, as this issue impacted on colleagues, friends, and family members, and I acknowledge that the House has conducted itself in that manner.

The basis for my introducing my amendment at this late hour is because many of the Churches prefer that this bill not pass at all. However, as reflected in the votes so far on this bill, it appears that, if we are honest with ourselves, this bill may pass, thus launching New Zealand into new territory where we elevate same-sex unions from civil unions and provide new legal marriage freedoms for two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity. If this be the will of the House that this bill pass at its third reading, then my amendments become critical in creating a balance between the religious freedoms currently enjoyed by religious and faith groups and the new same-sex marriage freedoms provided for by this bill.

My amendments aim to ensure that the newly created rights for same-sex couples do not infringe on the existing long-held rights of church groups to continue to conduct their affairs with the freedom to hold on to their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. My amendments make an appropriate distinction between the affairs of the State to protect the equality of rights for all citizens and the affairs of a Church and how it conducts its affairs with its members who have a traditional view of marriage. My amendment is in accordance with the desire of the Government Administration Committee statement in its report: “It is our intention that the passage of this bill should not impact negatively upon people’s religious freedoms.”

I acknowledge that the select committee has worked hard to address the issues of religious freedoms of belief and expression. With the greatest respect, however, the select committee’s recommendations do not protect the freedom of expression of persons and organisations outside the context of clergy who are authorised by their organisation to refuse to perform a specific marriage. The select committee recommendations do not protect church organisations from refusing to allow their premises that are occupied and used for religious purposes to be used for, or in connection with, same-sex marriage ceremonies. The principles in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 do not have supremacy in our laws and can be overridden by other legislation, and because of the provisions in the main bill, specific provision is also now needed to protect the rights of those who believe that marriage can be between only a man and a woman. My amendments provide protections that are clear in their intent and designed to avoid unintentional conflicts.

My Supplementary Order Paper includes three new paragraphs. In the first new paragraph, section 29(2)(a), my amendment provides protection to religiously affiliated celebrants or Church ministers if their personal beliefs are that marriage must be between a man and a woman even if their religion is not absolutely against same-sex marriages. The select committee’s efforts refer to “the religious beliefs of a religious body”. That is the denomination as a whole. This means that all the ministers of religion within a church are bound or otherwise by the religious belief of the Church in relation to same-sex marriage. There are currently two Churches today that I am aware of that have not yet confirmed a formal position as a whole as to whether to accept marriage of same-sex couples or not. There is no protection for individual Church ministers to conduct their religious role in accordance with their own conscience in the absence of a formal position by the body of their Church.

I have tweaked the select committee amendment to include protection of freedoms of belief and expression for individual church ministers whose religious organisations have not yet formalised a view on whether or not to accept same-sex marriage, or where the church organisation has refused to adopt an official position on the issue. My amendment provides this individual right to a church minister, pastor, or rabbi in a situation where there is absence of a view by the whole body of their Church. My amendment does not broaden out this individual right to civil celebrants and registrars. Civil celebrants and registrars would not have this protection, because they are performing a paid, public service, and this is in accordance with the positions of Canada and the United Kingdom.

In the second new paragraph, my amendment provides in section 29(2)(b) that a person or a religious organisation will continue to have the freedom to express their views and provide counselling that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. The select committee is to be commended for repealing section 56 of the Marriage Act, which was not compatible with the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. My amendment, however, explicitly removes all doubt and provides greater certainty of these freedoms of religious belief and expression.

And in the final new paragraph, my amendment in section 29(2)(c) provides for a religious organisation to refuse to allow its consecrated premises, premises that are occupied and used for religious purposes, to be used for, or in connection with, a marriage that is not a marriage between a man and a woman. My amendment aligns with the Crown Law Office recommendations in its report: “Therefore if Parliament intends that religious congregations not be required to permit their place of worship to be used for the solemnisation of same sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs, we recommend that this be made explicit in the legislation to put the issue beyond doubt.” My amendment provides clarity and certainty of this right. I am not asking that we extend the rights to commercial, for-profit, or investment property; it is solely for properties that are consecrated and occupied and used for religious purposes. I believe that without this amendment and the necessary safeguard it provides for religious freedom, the recognition of same-sex marriages will lead to socially divisive and entirely unnecessary conflict.

My Supplementary Order Paper is in alignment with the intent and the statement by the select committee. It reaffirms with certainty the freedoms of religious belief, conscience, and manifestation as provided in sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Despite the wonderful efforts of the select committee, which I acknowledge and thank it for, the intention of Parliament is not clear with this legislation as it now stands, hence my amendments, which clarify and provide greater certainty of religious freedoms in light of the new marriage freedoms for same-sex couples. It is important that Parliament’s intentions are crystal clear, otherwise what may occur is that Parliament’s intention may be challenged in a court of law in the future.

I have attached for the sake of members of this Committee in my Supplementary Order Paper references to Canadian law. Canada, for people’s information, has some experience in maintaining this balance, given it has had same-sex marriage since 2001. I seek consideration by this Committee and I ask that you find in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): We have heard that none of the proponents of Supplementary Order Papers on this matter were members of the Government Administration Committee, and as a consequence they did not hear the arguments. They were not part of understanding the analysis, and they did not appreciate the intensity of submissions. Then we were also told that a referendum was rejected by MPs because it is good for some situations but it is a bad way of addressing human rights issues. I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would have thought in the 1860s to hear that an issue that went in the end because of its expansion—not the cause but the expansion of slavery—and the cessation of it led to the Civil War in the United States. I wonder what Abraham Lincoln, this magnificent leader when it comes to human rights, would have thought of such an argument.

At the beginning of this debate last year the proponents of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill talked a lot about public opinion. One was reported as saying: “twice as many New Zealanders support marriage equality as oppose it so we can now make it law,” or that “We campaigned on this.” Really? I have got the manifesto here of the party that said that. It said on this issue: “Review and update relationship and relationship property law”. That is it. With the greatest of respect, please make claims in this House that can be sustained by how it was pre-warned to the electorate as to what was intended to be done. But some of us have been around long enough to know one thing: that the public on this matter is seriously concerned, and it is all over the place and divided on this issue. Opponents say one thing and the proponents say something else. What we want to know is where does the majority lie in New Zealand? It should not be reposed in 121 temporarily empowered members of Parliament. That is the fundamental issue here. Then to come to the House and start disputing the efficacy of an expanded democracy, where you share your views with the public of this country in this computerised age, is an extremely astonishing and alarming development.

I note that there are people who want to ignore the public and pass laws. We have seen it on asset sales and all sorts of other things, but a lot of the people who were lining up for a public referendum on asset sales and Mighty River Power now say: “Oh, but you cannot have it on this issue.” So we can trust the public on Mighty River Power and assets, but we cannot trust them on moral issues. I will ask you again: where did some of the members of this Parliament ever attain that intellectual, moral, and ethical superiority where they could shamefacedly, in front of the whole public and recorded by Hansard, tell New Zealanders what they think of their views? How did it happen to our democracy in 2013 that people could be so bold? No pre-election warning, just a post-election onslaught.

The select committee process has shown that the public are split. The public meetings show that the public are split. Letters to the editor say the public are split. Talkback radio, social media—all indicators suggest that this is a polarising and divisive issue in the community. Everyone here knows what my view of polls is. They are so erroneous in New Zealand, they are so unprofessional, that these things should be banned. Internationally, you get a 3 percent spread between five major pollsters, and they meet to try to sort out what is wrong with their methodology. Here we have a 14 percent spread and they carry on regardless. But when a poll is within 10 percent either way, then no one can tell me, in this House or outside, that they know what their neighbour, who is the voter of this country and whom we are meant to be the servants of, really thinks. So what is wrong with asking them? The work place is split. Churches are split.

Barbara Stewart: That’s right.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is true. Inside the Church churches are split. Families are split. “Where lies the majority?” is the issue that should be the most compelling for a member of Parliament who campaigned at the last election on the principle of democracy. There is no consensus. There is no majority. There is no mandate. You know, you can ridicule it by saying: “Well, the New Zealand First leader wants a ‘man-date’.”, and try to make out that a democratic dream is an issue of hilarity and humour or comedy. Let me tell that person who wrote that sort of thing that they would be the first victims if that was what resided in this country—a contempt for democracy itself. Yet we are here as Parliament about to totally disregard public opinion, and all a referendum asks is not that you do not get to have a vote, that you do not get to have a say, or that you even have a majority in this House; all we ask you is to await a public referendum to endorse your claims of having a majority. Is that so bad? Can that be so wrong? Again I ask those members whether on other issues of importance they would say: “My conscience, right or wrong, regardless of the constituency.”

As you know, our position is well-known. We have been consistent all along on this for years. We have never got up on a stage and said that we are going to debunk that person’s view or despise that person’s view. What we have said, day after day and night after night, and in more public meetings than most people here have ever had—and with bigger audiences, I might say—is: why do we not trust the people, have a fully fledged public debate, and even finance the quality of the debate so that it reaches above the blind and the bigoted to some rational and sane argument, and then ask the public what they think? We stand by that policy and tonight we are repeating our call. We want to find out where the truth lies.

I have asked people I know, friends of mine and acquaintances who are not ashamed to know me, who are both homosexual and lesbian, what they think. I have been astonished by the answer of those who said: “Well, I never asked for the civil union in law and nor am I asking for this. I am happy with what I have got.”—or to be ambushed in the middle of the parliamentary night to find out that “Now that you are living in a long-term relationship, you are subject to a claim of 50 percent of your assets.” These people were never asked, and they are homosexual. Perhaps they should have had a survey or a poll amongst them, but I have not seen that yet. All I am hearing is people claiming to represent a certain view. If that view was correct, then why were there so few actions following the passing of the Civil Union Bill? Why have so few sought that path if they have a massive majority even amongst a certain section in our society who they claim to be in support of this bill?

To those who say it was in their election manifesto, we have to say: “Well, show me.”, because it cannot be what I am reading. I would be hard-pressed to find any reference to this pre-2011. I have the manifesto. Nowhere in the document is there any statement of Labour’s intent, for example, to change the definition of marriage. It is not there. We get, as I say, on page 374 that commitment to review and update relationship and relationship property law, whatever that means. Apparently, the media did not know what it meant either. There was not one news story regarding Labour’s stance on marriage in 2011—not one. We have a report that says Labour supports gay adoption. We have reports saying Labour wants to prevent homophobia in schools, but no mention of marriage equality. I am not here to criticise people other than they put this in contention when they said it. So if you are going to contend it, be prepared for the examination of whether it is truth or not. No billboards, no mail outs, no TV ads, no speeches—just a deafening silence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Nonsense. What nonsense.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, no, no. Mr Goff said in July 2011 that he saw no need to redefine marriage. He was the leader of the Labour Party right up to the last election when whatever mandate or not we all got came into effect.

Let us not forget what we are talking about when we talk about this, because, frankly, around New Zealand are a whole lot of voters—and this is not a threat—who are going to make up their mind on this issue, and I say to some of my colleagues in this Parliament that they have put in serious jeopardy the next election result. That goes for National as well. It is a funny thing, is it not? In the National Party it is the list members who are going for this bill, and the ones who have got a constituency seat, in the main, are going against it. Many of those are going for the referendum. I say one more time that if you want to survive—

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

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The Committee of the whole House is resumed. Kia ora tātou, nō reira e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

Hon Judith Collins: Kia ora.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, thank you, Mrs Collins. Honourable members, when we were debating this prior to the dinner break, the Rt Hon Winston Peters had the call and he had just completed his call. I remember him doing so. So I am going to invite some other member to seek the call.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): This is the first and only speech that I will make on this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Although I sat through all the stages, I have never felt like it was my place to take a speaking slot. There are just too many other people in this House who have played a far greater role or who are more personally affected by it than I. But does that not say something in and of itself—the fact that, whether this bill passes or not, my rights and my privileges as a heterosexual woman will continue. I can choose to marry, or not. I can choose to enter a civil union, or not. I am not the one who has experienced limitations on my rights or freedoms, and yet here I am, privileged enough to have a vote to determine whether that right should be extended to others. And when it comes to whether or not that right should be granted, for me there is no question. The answer has always been yes.

I say “always” for a reason. Debates of conscience such as these do tend to lead to questions over an individual member of Parliament’s set of values. I understand the natural curiosity that comes around our religious upbringings. They help people understand how we have come to a position or they simply cause to confuse. My story probably lends itself more to the latter. I was reminded of it recently while cleaning out some old university papers. I stumbled across an essay I had written for a comparative policy class, in roughly the year 2000, arguing the case for civil unions. This was a fairly unremarkable thing—I was, after all, a staunch member of the Labour Party. But I was also at that time a member of the Mormon Church. It is fair to say that I know what cognitive dissonance feels like. When I started campaigning for civil unions some time later, I decided that I could not sustain such competing value sets any longer, and I left the Church.

I understand the internal battle that some members in this House have shared during the course of this debate, but I can honestly say that my battle was never over choosing equality or not, but rather how to deal with the fact that the values of equality and fairness were in fact the only things I never ever doubted.

Although I am no longer a member of the Mormon Church, I greatly respect it and I respect its members. I also respect their right to choose how marriage is expressed within their religion and therefore whom they perform marriages on behalf of. I would not support any part of a bill that removed that freedom from them. This Parliament is giving the assurance to such religious institutions today that this protection exists.

Although section 29 of the Marriage Act 1955 already states that “A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnize the marriage to which it relates.”, the Government Administration Committee went even further with drafting that assures that “no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body” and “no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize a marriage by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs …”. Not only does the law contain this protection; Hansard, the record of this Parliament, will record it also. Put simply, the requests laid out for us by institutions like the Mormon Church have been heard and have been met within the bill. No amendment is required.

I could not end my small contribution to this debate without acknowledging the roles of those who have paved the way for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill: Fran Wilde with homosexual law reform, Tim Barnett with civil unions, and, of course, Louisa Wall for marriage equality. But behind each of these sat community members who have fought hard, with pride and in spite of personal anguish and attacks, to get us where we are today, and they deserve our thanks.

In 1948 my great-uncle was imprisoned for no other reason than his sexuality. He was in a State prison for 3 years for what was then considered to be a crime. Although in the eyes of the law we no longer criminalise the expression of someone’s sexuality, I do not believe we will have a fully inclusive society until we remove all forms of discrimination, be they physical bars or the stigma imposed by legal differentiation. That is why today I cast my vote on behalf of queer and questioning youth, on behalf of my friends, and on behalf of my uncle.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Are members calling? I call the honourable member Tim Horan.

Hon Members: Brendan.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Brendan. I am sorry. I will put my glasses on.

BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Apology accepted, Mr Chair. Thank you, Mr Chair. I take a call tonight to urge every member of this Committee to vote for a public referendum by postal vote to bring this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, into effect. That is provided for in Supplementary Order Paper 187, which is in my name. The opportunity to have a decision made by the public of New Zealand should be welcomed by those in support of, and opposed to, the bill. There is nothing to be afraid of and everything to embrace.

Two speakers previous to me, two members whom I respect very much, the honourable Kevin Hague and the Hon Ruth Dyson, said words that actually disturbed me in so far as they suggested that a referendum is contrary to the minority view. The connotation was, therefore, that somehow if this went to a referendum, the will of New Zealanders would be against this bill. To hear fellow MPs suggest that leaves me in a conundrum, because I was under the impression that we were here by the will of the people of New Zealand and, therefore, should be exercising that will.

All of us in this Chamber have been inundated with mail and emails about this reform of marriage. It has generated strong passions on both sides of the debate. Same-sex marriage is an issue that many New Zealanders have a very firm view on, and no one can argue that it does not have long-term social ramifications for our society. Consultation by referendum with New Zealanders is something that Parliament should do, rather than asserting a right to a conscience vote on a dramatic social change such as this, and, importantly, I would defend the right of every voter to be able to choose either yes or no. There will be a clear choice made. New Zealanders will make that choice in a referendum. It is the fairest and most sensible way forward. If the 121 men and women in this House purport to make the final decision on this major social change, then I fear that it will not be readily accepted by broader New Zealand. There is a potential to be creating a new group—to use Louisa Wall’s words—of second-class citizens, whose feelings of injustice and resentment will last for years. I am concerned that bitterness, acrimony, and bigotry could linger. However, if we have a referendum and we go to the people of New Zealand, there is a far greater likelihood of broad acceptance of the outcome, and, consequently, harmony in New Zealand.

I would like to address some of the things that have been said. The honourable member Chris Auchinvole said 2 weeks ago that a referendum is something you call for when you cannot make up your mind. On the contrary, I say that a referendum recognises that there are times when this House needs to recognise that there are prudent limits to the changes that it can initiate, limits when it is necessary to obtain the endorsement of the public of New Zealand, who, after all, gave us the mandate to be here.

The honourable member Kevin Hague in the second reading identified the key divide: those New Zealanders, on the one hand, who see us as a pluralistic society, in which Parliament creates a supportive framework, and those on the other hand, who see that Parliament should legislate for a strict code of behaviour. The referendum I propose is not to appease the chronologically advanced. It would not be able to be hijacked to become an election bandwagon. Rather, this referendum is for all New Zealanders. It is for young New Zealanders, including those too young to understand and also those not yet born. It is also for those New Zealanders who feel a sense of helplessness, who have not been able to exercise their voice. This is about the new world.

For the people in New Zealand who in 10 years’ time look back and ask whether this change, this dramatic decision, was the view of the nation or the decision of the State, this referendum will give that decision to the nation and divorce it from simply being the view of the State. To give the decision to the nation and for the harmony and the oneness that our country’s future depends upon, I ask members to vote for this Supplementary Order Paper. I would reiterate that there is no need to be afraid. We are not in a totalitarian State. There is no need to fear giving power to the people of New Zealand, for, after all, we are one country, we are one nation, and together we are all New Zealanders.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I am happy to be filling in for my colleague Louisa Wall, who cannot be here tonight. I was also happy to be a member who sat in on the Government Administration Committee for the passage of this piece of legislation, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Can I, first of all, thank members for their interest in this debate and the tenor in which the debate is being carried out, and for the Supplementary Order Papers that people have drafted. I appreciate that they have been done in the full sincerity of trying to get the best possible law that we can, and I am hoping that my contribution may actually be able to provide some clarification, because I think we are actually a lot closer than members might believe in terms of being in agreement on a lot of these issues.

The Government Administration Committee worked very, very hard on the issues that have been raised both in speeches and in Supplementary Order Papers, because we knew that when dealing with the area of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act, we had to be very careful about the wording. We had to be very careful about unintended consequences that might come from drafting that has not had that kind of consideration given to it, and that is how we came up with the wording that we did.

So if I can move first to the main issue that people have been raising, which is the protection of religious freedom and the concerns that Churches and religious organisations might be forced against their own beliefs to marry gay couples. Well, members may or may not know that section 29 of the Marriage Act, which has been in place since 1955, actually states that “A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnize the marriage to which it relates.” That has been in place since 1955. There has not been an issue with that, at all—not even since the civil unions legislation was passed in 2004 has this ended up going into some kind of legal stoush.

But concerns were raised that the refusal to solemnise on the grounds of sexual orientation might breach the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Commission, which is the body that would investigate any such claim, has said that it would not uphold a complaint of discrimination against a celebrant who declined to solemnise a marriage. So that is in place there, as well. So there is that protection of section 29. But to put it beyond doubt, because we recognised the genuine concerns that were being raised by submitters, the select committee actually proposed an amendment to make it clear—because we appreciate that the Marriage Act pre-dates the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that in this day and age we do not believe that freedom of religious expression should be overruled by this piece of legislation and that any celebrant acting on behalf of or appointed by a Church can refuse to marry any couple, if to do so would contravene their religious beliefs. We deliberately included celebrants in that, so this applies not just to religious ministers but to celebrants who are associated with those religious organisations, as well.

So the issue has now come down to what we call independent celebrants, who are not acting on the authority of any Church. I want to remind members of the very important distinction between the role of the Church and the role of the State here. Religious celebrants are acting on behalf of the religious organisation to which they belong and the State. Independent celebrants are acting solely on behalf of the State. I want to direct members to section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is the official information that we got from officials, which says that, indeed, it does allow rights affirmed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to be justifiably limited. Accordingly: “An exemption could be justified where it would be contrary to their recognised purpose [of religious bodies and approved organisations] to require [their celebrants] to solemnise certain marriages. In contrast, independent marriage celebrants and registrars are appointed by the Registrar-General to perform a public function, not to promote their own religious or personal beliefs.”

That separation between Church and State is very important, because if we now say that these public servants, effectively, who are carrying out a public function are not subject to the Human Rights Act, then what does that say for the civil servants who work in the Department of Internal Affairs, for example, issuing the marriage certificates? What the select committee did was we left the door open to those celebrants who do have firm religious beliefs to go to their Church and have their Church appoint them as acting under its authority. That way, they are given the full protection of this new clause that the select committee has put in. So I believe we have covered off that issue very, very carefully, and I would be concerned if we were to vote up amendments that might muddy that, because it was a very deliberate decision to not only make a separation between Church and State but to provide an avenue for those celebrants who are currently independent and who want to be able to exercise their own religious beliefs and their own religious freedoms.

And can I just point out an issue of reality, which is that this is unlikely to be a problem. On one of the most important days of your life, I do not think that any couple is going to want to have someone presiding over their ceremony who does not want to be there and who is there only under the threat of legal action. That is why this has never been an issue since 1955. It has not been an issue since the Civil Union Act came in, in 2004. I do not believe it is going to be an issue going on into the future. I accept the principle of the matter, but in reality I do not believe that anyone is going to be under the genuine threat of prosecution.

So we come to the issue of the use of church buildings and the ability to refuse to supply facilities or services. Can we be clear that churches will not, across the board, be required to provide their facilities for same-sex marriages if this bill passes. I want to read to members from the Human Rights Commission opinion on this. It said: “In part this reflects the fact that religious ceremonies and services are not an area of public life covered by the [Human Rights Act]. Similarly ceremonial or consecrated spaces, or any other religious premises that are not made available for the public to hire, are not covered by the [Human Rights Act]. However, when religious organisations provide goods or services or accommodation to the public they are held to the same non-discrimination standards as others.” This was actually backed up in the legal opinion of Family First.

So the idea that this is going to be carte blanche and that everyone has to provide their facilities is not true. Can I say to members that it has been the law for 20 years that if you provide a commercial service, you must do so in an anti-discriminatory way. You may not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. If members want to do that, then they should put forward a bill to amend the Human Rights Act, which is actually where this sits, not the Marriage Act. It is a major winding back of our human rights legislation if we now say that the law that has been in place for 20 years, where we have not had any issues, is now going to try to be wound back by an amendment to the Marriage Act.

Can I then come to the issue of freedom of speech and the concerns that the passage of this bill may mean that some people cannot express their views on gay marriage. One thing that came up was that there is section 56 of the Marriage Act—which none of us, I believe, knew existed—which makes it an offence to deny the validity of someone’s marriage. There were fears that this could be used against those who now recognise the validity of same-sex marriages. Well, it has never been used. This penalty has never been exercised. It is a “100 pound” fine and the select committee basically said: “Let’s get rid of it. It’s no longer appropriate.”, so members do not need to worry that section 56 may be used against people who speak out against same-sex marriages.

If I could move on to the issue of the referendum and the Supplementary Order Papers that are in place, the Rt Hon Winston Peters said that we are saying you can have a referendum on asset sales but not on this issue, and I want to say, absolutely, that that is not the case. Yes, you can have a referendum on this issue, but there is a process that we go through in this country to initiate referenda. That is absolutely open to members who oppose this bill, just as it was to members who oppose asset sales. What the Supplementary Order Papers are actually asking we do is to bypass that process, to override that process that is currently in place. From my own personal view I do strongly believe there are some issues that should not be determined by a referendum, and I do not believe that the rights of any minority group should be subjected and upheld only on the will of the majority.

Members mentioned Switzerland, where they do these issues by referenda all the time and as a result women did not get the vote until 1971—1971. I want to tell members the reasons that were given at the time were that men and women are fundamentally different—men and women are fundamentally different! On the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs website they point out, saying—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Can I just remind members that you can interject on the speaker who has the floor, but you cannot interject on each other when you do not have the floor. If you want to do that, then it is not done in this place.

MOANA MACKEY: What the department said at the time—one of the reasons given as to why women should not be given the vote—was that “... it wouldn’t promote equality because their natural modesty would stop them going out to vote when pregnant, and since rural women have more babies than those in towns, this would give an unfair advantage to the latter.” So I think there are some intrinsic dangers in putting an issue like this to the vote at a referendum.

More generally, I want to address the issue that a number of people who have emailed us have talked about, and that is children and what this might mean for children. I think we all agree in this Chamber that marriage does afford benefits, both legal and social. It provides stability. My question to members would be: why should every child in this country not have access to those benefits? Why are we saying to children who are currently living with parents in same-sex relationships—they are there now and if this bill does not pass that is not going to change—that they do not get the full protections and benefits of marriage because some adults disagree with the relationship that their parents are in? I think if we are looking at the rights of children in this country, then this bill actually does afford more legal rights and protections, as well as social protections and stability, to those children who are being raised in those families.

In terms of other matters—very quickly—this bill will address an issue for transgender people who, when they go through that process, have to annul their marriage or choose to remain listed with their original sex on their birth certificate, which puts a number of them in a horrible situation. This bill will address this. Some members say that some gay people do not want to marry; that is true. They do not have to do it. But if they do not do it, it will be because they choose not to do it, not because the State knowingly and deliberately excludes them from the institution.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): Like a number of previous speakers, I was not able to take a call in the first two readings of this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to take this call. I want to speak specifically to clause 5A, but before I do that I just want to reflect on the bill and how I have gone about making my decision on it.

When we are asked to exercise our conscience, there is no guidance in this Parliament as to how that conscience needs to be exercised. So I did a number of things. One was certainly to consult my own community. As I went about consulting the ethnic communities in Auckland, their leaders, I certainly found a range of opinion—some supporting the direction of this bill as an element of 21st century society, and others, a sizable proportion of the ethnic community, were not comfortable with the direction of this bill. In fact, as I went further into that I realised that they are not comfortable with the existence, the legality, of gay relationships. That is one matter that could not be relitigated. There have been many who have consulted us and made submissions who would like to relitigate that primary principle. That is not up for debate here. New Zealand crossed that bridge in the 1980s, and so we are now talking about something else.

Then I reflected with my family and friends—some very, very dear friends—who are members of the gay community. Some highly respected New Zealand families have children and grandchildren of gay relationships. I looked upon them and talked to some of them, and realised that here were people in gay relationships, with children, leading normal lives, with no effect on anybody else. They are great citizens, great mums, great dads, bringing up children whom anybody in this Chamber would be very proud of. So that matter then became part of my conscience.

The third element is the fact that I was a human rights commissioner for New Zealand. Once you swear to uphold the human rights of New Zealand citizens, you do not do that for the period that you hold that mandate; you do it for all time. So for me, in the end, it became a question of the rights of New Zealand citizens. For me then it became very simple and very clear. Our laws did not permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, and that indeed was enough for me to put all of the arguments together, put all of the consultations that I had carried out together, to say that there was only one position one could take on this particular bill, which was to support it. I also want to look into the eyes of those children, those mums and dads, those friends of mine, and those leaders of our communities who are members of this community and say that when the time came to express their rights in this Parliament in the only way I knew how, I did the right thing.

So from that point of view it was the right thing to do, and I am very pleased and proud to be able to support that. I know that members of my own community will not accept that, but I ask them to reflect on New Zealand’s history. I ask them to reflect on New Zealand’s history, its present, and its future. That is the country to which we as migrants have committed to and we have to accept some of those things, particularly when a Parliament such as this, the most democratic in the world, makes a decision. So from those points of view I was pleased to support this bill.

There is one final element that influenced me, and it was this. This bill takes nothing away from anybody. It actually takes nothing away. Those who argue that it does somehow reduce us as a society in terms of our spirituality certainly have a difficulty with me, because there is nothing about my relationship, my family, my marriage that is negated or diminished in any way. I know that the institution of marriage has been developed for a long time, and no doubt will continue to develop. It is not set in a form that has always been the same. It has always developed. A bit like our society and our civilisation, this institution will also develop.

I want to come to clause 5A. I also had concerns about the role of ministers and the role of marriage celebrants. There was a time when I thought, hang on, this does create some difficulties. I wondered how the Government Administration Committee was going to work its way through this. I am very pleased with what it has done in clarifying this in new clause 5A, amending section 29 of the Act. I think it is a very, very elegant way in which it has gone about doing this. The committee first underscored the principle that “A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant …”. I think that provides all of the protection that I require for a marriage celebrant who says: “I’m not obliged to do this.” I cannot imagine any couple who would then want to use a marriage celebrant who has expressed strong views. So for that reason I accept the clarification. I also accept that the avoidance of doubt clause that has been written into new section 29 is also very powerful, because it does satisfy those with strong religious beliefs, and they are across a number of religions. They are protected, and so they should be. So that satisfied two of the major requirements I had.

Then I come to the Supplementary Order Papers. I have difficulty with all of the Supplementary Order Papers that comment on the role of marriage celebrants, because I think inadvertently those Supplementary Order Papers are now licensing discrimination itself. I do not believe we need to go beyond what is already in the amendments to this bill, because to do anything else means we argue against the very principles that certainly have led me to the position I take. In the end, it will be discriminatory, and this is not the time or place for us to include provisions in our Acts that are discriminatory for no other reason. It almost goes around in circles, because it is saying that because you want to discriminate, it is OK to discriminate. Yet the whole thing is about anti-discrimination, and if that is where we start from, then I believe that in all conscience I can support none of the Supplementary Order Papers, because to go beyond where this particular amendment goes would be unfair, would be illogical, and would be unnecessary. It does address concerns of our citizens, but I think we must shape responses to those concerns, rather than accept them and make the amendments that they require, because the unintended consequences, as Moana Mackey says, are too terrible to contemplate—they would be—and I could not look the people I talked about earlier in the face and say that I supported that. So I will not be voting for those kinds of amendments. I do accept, however, the sincerity with which members have raised those concerns in this Committee. I know where they are coming from and I know what lies behind them, but I take comfort from the fact that the religious freedoms that are necessary and protected in our legislation, in the Human Rights Act, at the moment are protected here as well.

So with those comments I want to thank those who have participated in this bill for the care with which they have made those comments, and I trust that those listening will accept that this is not a knee-jerk reaction. It has been a long process. It is a process that I have gone through personally, and after many, many discussions I have arrived at a point that I now articulate. I know that many will be disappointed, and I know that many, many more will not be disappointed. I want to be able to look at both of those communities in the eye and say that we have taken away nothing from anybody and that we have, in fact, enabled us to be the kind of caring society we aspire to be. If we create those who are inside and those who are outside, then I believe we have done that for too long already. This is not the time or the place to do it, and I certainly would not want to be part of that. With those comments, I will support the bill.

PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Reading Tony Blair’s autobiography some time back, I was struck by his observation about politics that “when you decide, you divide.”, and I am conscious of the grave responsibility that is on the House this evening. I have certainly struggled with this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and have given it a great deal of thought, because it lies in the territory between two of my core political philosophies.

My conservative instincts, on one hand, lead me to respect traditions and the wisdom of centuries. Marriage has traditionally been conceived as being between a man and a woman, and in the British and Christian traditions for centuries it has been between one single man and one single woman. That has been the case only because it has made perfectly good sense. Institutions and ideas change over time, but the conservative in me makes me hesitate before changing something that has served society well for so long. I certainly understand and respect the strength of feeling of many New Zealanders who feel that we should keep things the way we are.

Running parallel to that, however, my guiding political belief is my commitment to freedom for people to live their lives in different ways with respect. Life is interesting, society is dynamic, and culture is diverse when people are free and have the liberty to live in different ways. It was 25-odd years ago when we agreed that the State should not outlaw homosexual acts, and very few people disagree with that now.

So I can understand why some gay couples would like to have access to the institution of marriage. People often ask: “Well, why do they want marriage when they can have civil unions already?”. The answer, of course, is that words are important, which is why people on both sides feel so strongly about it.

On balance, I have decided that for me freedom, or individual conscience, trumps tradition, so I am supporting this bill.

My background has been that I was raised in the Christian faith, in the Baptist Church. Many of my relatives and friends from that background are disappointed that I am voting for this bill. I understand their disappointment, but I would remind them that the Baptist Church was born out of the idea of non-conformity. The early Baptists gathered together because they disagreed with aspects of the established Church, and they suffered terribly for their individual beliefs. The tolerance of religious non-conformity that English-speaking peoples had arrived at certainly by the 19th century was fundamental in establishing many of the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today. We are so much better for it, accepting that we can all live together in a society, even though we fundamentally disagree on matters that are very dear to our hearts.

Many people have also raised the matter of defending the role of the family as the bedrock of society. Is this bill weakening the family? I am not convinced that it is. I do believe that strong and responsible families are essential to a successful society and that there is much work to do to strengthen families, but the real political battleground there, if, indeed, there is such a battleground, is, in my view, over the messages and signals that the State sends, particularly through its welfare policies. In my view, the signal that the State has sent over the past few decades through welfare policies has in many ways undermined the family, and dealing with that is far more important than whether gay couples can call themselves married or not—in my view.

Turning back to the bill, like many of my National colleagues, I needed first to be reassured that freedom of religion would be maintained, so that no marriage celebrant would be forced against their will to marry gay couples. Those assurances were given and an amendment to the bill strengthens protection for marriage celebrants, and I am sure that the will of Parliament on this matter is very clear. An amendment by my colleagues Macindoe and Mitchell makes that even clearer.

I also voted for a proposal that there be a referendum on this topic before the bill became law. I see it as materially different to a referendum on Government policy such as partial asset sales, where the Government policy was explicitly outlined before an election and is core to economic policy. In those circumstances, to my mind, there is no argument for a separate referendum. It seems to me, though, that on matters of major social change such as this, particularly when there has been relatively little discussion before or during an election campaign, a referendum is appropriate. [Bell rung] So I was disappointed that that was lost and—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is the member seeking another call?

Paul Goldsmith: No, that is enough. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I want to take just a short call following on from my colleague Paul Goldsmith about the referendum issue. As somebody who is not married, for anybody to get married I think is a great thing. I see both sides of the argument and am encouraged by anybody who wishes to follow that path. As an electorate MP, we have had numerous correspondence and meetings with people on both sides of the debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and I understand the issues raised on both sides of the debate. I just want to thank everybody who has been part of that, especially the proponents of the bill in this House, for the way they have done that. I think they have done it in a very fair and open way, and I would like to thank them for that and thank the members of the community who have shown their opinion.

Outside this Parliament tonight we actually have people showing both sides of the argument. It becomes a question of whether we in this House should really be making this decision. It is my firm belief that this is a decision that we can all hold opinions on. Some of us may not have strong opinions. Some of us may not know exactly which way they should vote, and it is going to be difficult to make a decision one way or the other. But I do believe that it is an issue that could go to the public. It is a situation on which the public could make up their own minds. It is not a situation where there are hidden issues that politicians have to understand and debate. It is not an issue that would be complex in the sense that it would be difficult to get the message out for the public. It is not an issue that you need a public petition to get the number of votes to set the referendum off. This Parliament can decide to have such a referendum.

I disagree with the context that it has been said that a referendum would not be the right way of dealing with this issue. This is the particular issue that is the right thing for a referendum to deal with. This is the time that would be a particularly strong time for the public to do a referendum on this issue, because there has been a very measured and developed public debate around this issue. I think we need to give the public their say on this issue. I do not know that we are elected to make this decision here today. I believe that we are here to debate this issue, and I believe that we are here to put this issue in front of the public—and I commend those people who have done that—but I actually believe that it is up to the public to make that final decision at this stage.

Chris Auchinvole: Be brave.

DAVID BENNETT: Some members may say “Be brave.” Well, I think it is being brave to actually accept that we in this House do not know everything, to be able to say—[Interruption]—no—to be able to say at some points in time that we need to listen to the people. That is what I implore the Committee to do.

I personally do not have a strong opinion for or against this bill. I understand the arguments on both sides. Many people will make assumptions that you are either for or against it on the way that you vote, but I do believe in the New Zealand public. I do believe in the sincerity of people to make a decision. I do not believe that the New Zealand public would make decisions based on preconceptions, or would in any way want to hurt their fellow citizens. I believe that the New Zealand public can be trusted. They will take an open mind to this, as politicians in this House have. If we can trust 120 of us to make that decision, why can we not trust 4 million of us to make the same decision? What is the difference between us and the people outside? There is no difference. We are all New Zealanders. We should all have this decision. This is a perfect opportunity for a referendum. I support the New Zealand First Party in bringing that amendment forward, and I look forward to this Committee voting that way. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Ka nui te mihi ki a koe i whakaaetia mai ai kia tū ake au i tēnei pō. Ka mihi rā ki a tātau katoa i tēnei pō e hoa mā. He pai ngā kōrero. Ahakoa i te āhua mātakitaki au i taku rūma i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero, he rawe katoa kia rongo ake i ngā rerenga kōrero ka puta, whakahē mai, whakaae mai. Ka tautoko au, me kī, i te mea kāre te Pāti Māori i tino noho nei ki konei ki te whakatakoto i ōna kōrero. Kua tae mai au ki konei kia kore tētahi e noho i te rangirua, ko te Pāti Māori katoa—tahi, rua, toru—kei te whakaae atu ki tēnei pire, mai i ōna tīmatanga kōrero tae rā anō ki tēnei wā ki tōna mutunga, ka tahi.

Ka rua, ka mihi rā ki taku tuahine ki a Louisa Wall mō tōna māia ki te kawe i tēnei kaupapa. Kāore e kore kua rongo ia i te whiu o te kupu, i ngā kupu whakahahani nei, ngā kupu whakawhiu nei i te mea, ko ia te kanohi o tēnei o ngā kaupapa, pērā i taku rangatira e noho nei a Kevin Hague anō hoki, kua rongo ia i te whiu o te kupu. Nō reira, ka mihi rā ki a rāua, ki a rātau katoa i kawe nei i tēnei o ngā kaupapa.

Ka mihi rā ki te komiti whāiti i te mea i te pānuitanga tuarua i rongo au i ētahi kōrero tino pai rawa atu me taku whakapono i wetewetengia, i whakatewhatewhahia te whānuitanga o ngā kōrero i puta i roto i te komiti whāiti. Nō reira he pai tērā. Ka mutu, ka mihi rā ki taku tuahine e noho nei i te tēpu i tēnei pō a Moana Mackey mō te papai o tana kōrero i mua tonu inā tatanei i a ia e kōrero nei mō te āhuatanga o ngā whakahē a wētahi. He mārama tonu tana whakatakoto i ngā kōrero, i tana karo i ētahi o ngā wero mō tēnei o ngā kaupapa. Nō reira, koirā tētahi tīmatanga kōrero.

Ko tā mātau, me te kī, ehara i te mea kei te pīrangi ki te whakatuarua, tuatoru i ngā kōrero ēngari, ko kī kia kaua e takatakahi i te mana o te tangata. Ahakoa tōna tāera, ahakoa tōna wahinetanga, tōna tānetanga, he ira tangata. Ko tā mātau ko te kī, kia kaua e pērā ki te tangata. Ko tēnei pire, kāre ōna hiahia kia pērā rawa i te tangata. Nō reira, māmā noa iho tā mātau tautoko i te mea nei.

Ko tētahi kaupapa e whakahono nei i te tangata, arā, ko tērā kupu ko te “hononga” o te tangata. Arā anō ētahi kupu, ko te piringa o tētahi ki tētahi, ka tuituia tētahi ki te tētahi ēnei āhuatanga katoa. Ko te hononga o te tangata tētahi mea kai te pūtake o te kaupapa o te Pāti Māori. Kua tuhia, kua kōrerohia i roto i ngā kōrero o ngā mātua tūpuna ngā whakataukī. Mā whero, mā pango ka oti te mahi. Nāku te raurau, nāu te raurau, ka ora te iwi. Ehara taku toa i te toa takitahi ēngari, ko taku toa he toa takitini. He kākano i ruia i Rangiātea. Ēnei kōrero katoa e whakamārama ana i te āhuatanga o te piringa o te tangata ki te tangata. Nō reira, ko te mate kē o ēnei whakataukī kōrero kāre tētahi i te kōrero mō tēnei mea mō te mārena—mō te mārena.

Nō reira, kua kōrerohia te āhuatanga ki te hāhi, ko te wāhi ki a au he kōrero paku nei mō te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori. I Te Ao Māori ko te mārena ka whai mai i te mahi, ka whai mai. I roto i Te Ao Māori ko te kupu e tika ana, kia moe tētahi ki tētahi. Te tūmanako kai te rongo koutou i te tikanga o tērā kōrero. Ko te moe a tētahi ki tētahi. Ka moe tētahi ki tētahi, kua mutu. Koinā. I ēnei rā ko te mārena ka whai mai. He tiwhikete, he pepa e kī ana āe, āe, i mahia tērā mahi. Nō reira tērā, tērā whakamārama mō te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori.

Ko tā mātau ko te kī, ko tēnei mea ko te hononga o te tangata tētahi ki tētahi he mea hei whakakotahi nei i te whakapapa o tētahi ki tētahi. He hononga ki te whenua, he hononga e kōrerohia ana i roto i ngā kōrero o Te Ao Māori, he whakahono i te tangata i roto i ngā waiata, haka, hītori. I tōna mutunga mai, koinei te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori nō reira, ēhara i te mea mā te tiwhikete tētahi ki tētahi e whakakotahi nei i a rāua, kāo. Nā runga i te mea, ko te whakapapa tētahi kaupapa kai te pūtake anō hoki o tēnei mea o te whānau, ko tētahi kaupapa i te pūtake o tēnei mea te hononga o te tangata ki te tangata anā ko tēnei mea, ko te whānau. Ko te whānau. Mēnā ka hiahia tētahi ki te moe, ki te mārena rānei ki tētahi atu, ehara i te mea ko te mea kotahi ki te mea kotahi, kāo. Ko te mea kotahi ki te marea. Ki te whānau, ki te iwi anō hoki, ko te maha. Nō reira tērā, tērā kōrero. Ehara i te mea mā te tiwhikete anō rā tērā e whakatau.

Ko tā mātau ko te Pāti Māori kei te kī atu ko te whānau kei te pūtake o te ao ka mutu, ēhara i te mea ko te whānau he mea aukati i te tangata—kāo. Ko te whānau he mea whakakotahi nei i te tangata. Nō reira, ehara i te mea mā te tiwhikete anō hoki tērā, kāo, me te kī anō hoki, ko te hononga o te tangata ki te tangata hākoa tōna wahinetanga, tānetanga rānei, te hononga rānei o tētahi ki tētahi, ko te manaakitanga, arā, koinei kei te pūtake o tēnei kaupapa. Ko te manaaki ā tētahi ki tētahi. Kai te kōrero tātau mō tēnei mea mō te whakawhanaungatanga, te whanaungatanga ā tētahi ki tētahi. Kai roto i ngā kōrero katoa, ngā hītori o ngā mātua, o ngā tūpuna.

Ā, kua puta tētahi kōrero mō te āhuatanga o te tiaki i ngā tamariki. Ē, kāre he raruraru ki tēnei momo hunga. Ko rātau te hunga tino tiaki i ngā tamariki ki tāku titiro i ngā tau kua hipa ake. Nō reira, ko tā mātau ko te kī atu, ā, tukuna te pire kia haere ki tōna taumata.

Ko te āhuatanga o te referendum e kōrerohia ake nei, kāre mātau i te whakaae atu ki tērā. Ko te mate kē o te referendum, ko te tokoiti ka hinga i ngā wā katoa. Mēnā ka kōrerohia te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori i Aotearoa, ka hinga te tokoiti mēnā ko te referendum te kaupapa kawe i tērā āhuatanga.

I kōrerohia te āhuatanga o ngā hāhi, anā nā Moana tērā i kōkiri, i karo. I wetewetengia tērā i roto i te select committee nō reira ki a mātau kāre he raruraru. Waiho te kōrero i runga i te pire kia tau. Waiho tērā ki reira ēhara i te mea, me rāwekeweke kia whakapakari ake. Kua tiaki mai i te āhuatanga ki ngā hāhi kei te pai, kāre he raruraru ki tō mātau titiro.

Nō reira, koinei ētahi paku kōrero me te kī atu ki a koutou, ki a tātau e whakarongo nei ki tēnei o ngā kaupapa kia kore tētahi e noho i te rangirua, ko tā mātau ko te Pāti Māori he tautoko i tēnei pire. Tukuna ki tōna whakatinanatanga, tukuna ki tōna taumata he painga ka puta. He rā tōna ka hoki mai ki roto i tō tātau Whare me te pātai, ā—he aha te raruraru? Tekau tau kai mua i te aroaro ka pātai te pātai—he aha te raruraru? Ai, ka hoki ngā mahara ki te wā i kōrero mai a John Key mō te āhuatanga o te haki tino rangatiratanga. Ko tāna i tērā wā kei te pai, whakairia te haki o te tino rangatiratanga, 2 tau, 3 tau ka pātaia te pātai—he aha te raruraru? Anā, kua puāwai i tēnei wā. Nō reira, e tautoko ana i te pire. Kia kaha, kia toa, kia manawa nui. Kia ora tātau katoa.

[Thank you, Mr Chair, for allowing me to speak this evening. I appreciate that greatly. Indeed, I acknowledge us all tonight, colleagues. The contributions were wonderful. Even though I watched the trend of the debate in a somewhat casual manner from my office, I endorse the flow of the addresses whether in support or against. It was just great to hear everything because the Māori Party did not remain behind to present its views. I have come here so that no one is left in any doubt that all of the Māori Party—one, two, three members—are in favour of this bill when it was first debated and will continue until its conclusion. That is one.

Two, I commend my sister colleague Louisa Wall for her courage in sponsoring this matter. Without a doubt she has felt the lashing, disparaging, and ill-founded remarks because she is the face of this policy, like this esteemed colleague of mine Kevin Hague, another who has also experienced the flogging. Therefore I salute those two indeed and all of them who bear this policy.

I acknowledge the select committee indeed because I heard some outstanding contributions during the second reading and believe the wide-ranging views expressed at committee hearings were carefully considered and examined by the select committee. So that was good. Furthermore, I acknowledge my sister colleague seated at the table tonight Moana Mackey for her fine contribution just a moment ago with respect to the objections by some. She set out her reasons clearly, and effectively turned aside challenges to this policy. So there is an introductory statement.

Let us say that, without wishing to relitigate a second or third time what has already been stated, we believe that the integrity of a person must not be trampled on. Regardless of one’s sexuality, female, male, it is a human element. We advocate that a human must never be treated like that. This bill has no desire to treat a human in that manner. So supporting this sort of thing is an easy matter for us.

Another matter that unites a person is that word “marriage” of the person. There are other words, relationship of one to another, bonding of one to another—all these situations. One thing that is the bottom line of the Māori Party is the relationship of a person. It has been recorded and quoted in the aphorisms of the forefathers and ancestors. With red and black the work will be completed. With my food basket and your food basket the tribe will be sustained. My strength is not that of the individual but of the masses. It is a seed sown in Rangiātea. All these wise sayings elucidate the aspect of the relationship of the person to another. However, the unfortunate thing about these proverbs is that there is no mention in them about marriage, about hooking up.

On the other hand, the situation relating to the church has been mentioned; I have a small contribution to make about it from a Māori way of looking at things. According to Māoridom, marriage follows consummation. Marriage comes after. To put it more aptly, as a Māori, sleep with the other. I hope you collectively heard and got the gist of that—it is sleeping with the other. Once the act of sleeping with the other has taken place, it is done. They are married. In these times it is the other way round. Yes, a certificate it is called, a document fulfils the marriage requirement. So that is that explanation from a Māori perspective.

We say that this thing about a union of an individual to another is a thing that unites the genealogy of one partner to the genealogy of another. It is a connection to the land, one that is referred to in the traditional chants and posture dances, and the traditional stories of the Māori society. At the end of it all this is the situation in the world of the Māori, so it is not the certificate that unites those two to each other—no, not at all, because genealogy is this family thing. A basis of a relationship by an individual to an individual is a family. If one wants to sleep with or marry someone else it is not as an individual to an individual, not at all. To the public, it is. To the family and tribe, it is greater than that. So that is that conversation. It is not for the certificate alone to determine.

We, the Māori Party, are saying that the family has an integral part to play in the universe and, furthermore, a family does not exclude a human being—far from it. It is the family that unites a human being. Thus, it is not the certificate on its own that does that, not at all. We are saying at the same time as well that the marriage of a human to another human, regardless of his or her sexuality, or another person to another person, it is the support that is at the basis of this matter. We are talking about this thing called building relationships, the relationship of one to the other. It is contained in all the traditional stories and history of our forefathers and ancestors.

A comment has emerged about the way the children are looked after. This is not a problem with this type of people. From what I have seen over the years, they are the ones who really look after children. Therefore we say let the bill go on to its ultimate conclusion.

As far as the referendum being spoken about is concerned, we do not agree to it. The problem with a referendum is that the minority loses all the time. If a situation relating to Māoridom becomes a point of discussion and a referendum is conducted, the minority perspective will lose.

The situation about churches was discussed and so Moana addressed and found a way around it. That situation was examined in the select committee and so we have no problem with it. Leave that part in the bill as it is. It is not as though that part needs to be fiddled about to strengthen it. The part about churches is being catered for and it is fine. From our perspective, there are no problems.

These, then, are some brief points. And to you and to us all collectively as well as all those listening in to this address, and so that no one is left in any doubt, we, the Māori Party, support this bill. Let it go so that it can manifest itself and peak. Nothing but good will emerge. There will come a time in the future when it will return inside our House and we will ask what the problem was. Ten years ago the question was posed—what was the problem? Oh, gosh. My thoughts go back to the time when John Key talked about the self-determination flag. He said at the time that it was fine, raise the self-determination flag. In 2 or 3 years’ time the question will be asked—what was the problem? And so the question has come around once more. Therefore we support the bill. Be strong, be courageous, and be stout of heart. Compliments to us all.]

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I take the opportunity to speak tonight in this debate with a degree of sadness that I can no longer give the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill my support, and I wish to explain why. Firstly, I do not accept that the Marriage Act as it currently stands denies anyone a human right. We all have the right to act and behave as we see fit in life. We have the right to choose our partners or our wife or our husband. We have the right to join them in legal civil union or marriage as appropriate. The Act as it stands certainly denies many people the right to marry, and so it should. There are other positions, roles, and opportunities that cannot be taken, used, or filled by us in life, and that is how it will always be. We have the right to respect—respect for our differences and respect for our opinions. One of the greatest attributes a human can have is the ability to tolerate difference, to accept others for what they are or believe, and to give them the opportunity to thrive and lead a positive, fruitful life. On that note, I want to acknowledge all who have participated in the debate on this bill, all of whom have behaved in the best spirit of this Parliament.

In this bill we are attempting to legislate to eliminate difference, and for no reason other than to overturn the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and make it available to everyone. I am sorry, but that is not the way of the world. It is not the business of Parliament to rule on an institution that has been in place in life for thousands of years. I can tell you that this Parliament will not be able to turn a sheep into a goat, no matter how hard it tries. It is not our business, in my view, to do that.

All the changes proposed in the course of this legislative change could be done through strengthening the Civil Union Act. In fact, the whole objective could have been effected through changes to the Civil Union Act, without affecting the status of many thousands—in fact, millions—of New Zealanders who have married in good faith over the years.

Louisa Wall stated in her closing statement on the second reading debate: “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.” This bill creates a situation that is not about young people or old people; it is about all of us. It is about finding a way for us to live in harmony, and I do not believe that we have handled this matter appropriately in the actions we are proposing to take in passing this bill. I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with the leader of New Zealand First. There is no mandate for this House to pass this bill. I have already said that it is not the place of Parliament to make this decision; it is the place of the people, and they have not been consulted satisfactorily. I am not a great supporter of referenda, but in this case I need to be, and, so, as a consequence, I will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper.

I would also like to state that I voted for this bill in the first reading. I voted for it because I genuinely believed that we needed to find a solution to this issue. I still believe that. I cannot, however, accept that this bill is the best way to deal with it. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Could I begin by acknowledging the courteous and, I think, intelligent and sensitive way in which the vast majority of members of this House have conducted themselves throughout all stages of this debate. It is, of course, one of the most highly charged and emotional subjects that we have ever been asked to grapple with, and many people who have been listening to the debate, whether they are for or against it, have commented to me about how impressed they have been and that they think it has been Parliament at its best.

Could I also acknowledge Moana Mackey, who is in the Chair at the moment. Earlier tonight she called for those who are promoting Supplementary Order Papers, and I am one of them, to clarify their protections for people of conscience that the sponsor of the bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, promised the nation, and which the Government Administration Committee has tried to secure, and to instead promote changes to the Human Rights Act. I certainly had to consider that in looking to put together my Supplementary Order Paper 203, but it was very clear that that would have been well outside the scope of this bill, and would not reflect the concerns or the intentions of those who are promoting the Supplementary Order Papers, or at least the ones that I have read; there may be more to be tabled. My Supplementary Order Paper, however, does refer to the Human Rights Act to ensure that marriage celebrants and others in, I guess, what might be called the wedding business, would not be subject to prosecution in the future if, for reasons of belief or personal philosophy, which may have nothing to do with religion, they are unwilling to conduct or participate in same-sex marriages. That is a very important protection for organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church, and I want to acknowledge the plea for our understanding that we have received from the Church, including Archbishop John Dew. I am not a Roman Catholic but I certainly read his submission particularly carefully.

My own views on this bill are well known, because I have had the privilege of speaking in both the first and second readings of this debate. I did so in the second reading because I had been a substitute member of the Government Administration Committee. So in this particular call I want to explain my thinking on the issue of the referendum. Like the speaker who has spoken just before me, Ian McKelvie, I do not often agree with Winston Peters either, but on this occasion, I do support his Supplementary Order Paper calling for a referendum, Supplementary Order Paper 188. The reason is because this clearly was not an election issue in 2011, and it is one of the most divisive issues of our time. The only time in the whole of the 2011 campaign that I as a candidate for Hamilton West was asked how I might vote on this issue was when I attended a meeting, which was also attended by Kevin Hague and a few other members of this House, at a nightclub, and it was a meeting organised by our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community in Hamilton. It was certainly quite a challenging meeting, but it was also one that was conducted with courtesy.

Contrary to the nonsense that is frequently being written about me in this debate, including in just the last few hours on Facebook, I want to say again that I am neither anti-gay nor homophobic. I certainly do not want to support any form of discrimination. Most of my gay friends know that and acknowledge that. Not all gays, of course, think alike on this issue, just as not all Christians do. Many of my gay friends and acquaintances have paid me the compliment of reading the speeches that I have delivered and responding to me intelligently. I acknowledge the fact that many of them do not agree with me, but I thank them for that engagement, and they have paid me the compliment of saying that they understand where I am coming from on this issue. By contrast, those who have been vitriolic in their attacks have never engaged with the arguments that I have put forward. It is conspicuous, when I read what they post about me and about others who have spoken on this bill, that when they constantly use terms like “bigot” and “homophobic”, they are running away from real engagement in the debate. It says far more about them than it does about me or others who have a different view from theirs. So I respect the many gay people who have contacted me intelligently and sensitively to engage on the issue. I respect them; I thank them for respecting me.

Like many MPs, I wish I did not have to express a view on this topic. I acknowledged my friend David Bennett a minute ago, who explained that so many of us find ourselves in a position where we have to express a view because we are here and this issue has arisen. But there are so many New Zealanders who currently feel disenfranchised and deeply disturbed by what is occurring, because it is a fundamental social change, and they are despairing of the fact that this has come upon us in this Parliament, without their having any opportunity to influence the way we would vote. None of my constituents, apart from the few who attended that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender meeting that I mentioned in Hamilton, just before the election, had any reasonable way—

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): I had not intended to take a call, but I am here in the Chamber on what we call duty, and I have decided that I will do, in fact, what I suppose is my duty. My duty is not only to vote on this bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, but to lay on the record the reasons why I will be voting for this bill. Many of my constituents have been surprised at my positive support for the bill, and many of them have contacted me and sought to turn my view round. In some cases, they have demanded that I turn my view round, and in many cases they have sought to persuade me. We have, over the course of this bill, read a lot of the information from Family First New Zealand. It has come repeatedly to our in-boxes.

But the reasons I am voting for this bill are several. Firstly, I do not believe that my marriage or the marriage of other New Zealanders will be in any way diminished by this bill. In fact, it is because I believe so strongly in marriage and my marriage that I understand why other couples want to be married too, and I do not see why I should have that privilege, that right, when other people in loving relationships and relationships that they enter into for life, just as I did, cannot have that privilege, as well—and therein lies the equality. I do not subscribe to the stories of the moral decline that will surely follow the passing of this bill, and I have found it unfortunate that some of the language that I have been treated to has been so strident and a little unfortunate. I have made the point that I respect other people’s views and would never ask them to do anything to contravene their views. I ask only the same for me. I do want to add to the record that some of the most poignant stories have been the stories that I cannot tell, because they are the stories of individuals who have also contacted me and told me how important this is to them.

I am going to finish there, but I am pleased that I have now set the record straight as to why I will be supporting this bill. One of the last things I will lay on the record is that I am very concerned, as I have already mentioned, that no one should have to take action in a way that contravenes their beliefs, and for that reason I will be voting for one of the Supplementary Order Papers, which I hope adds to the Committee’s complete conviction that no person should have to perform a marriage—no celebrant or member of the clergy—if it is against their beliefs. I am voting for that in the hope that it will further add to the record our conviction about that. Thank you.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I had not intended to speak particularly about the referendum, but I will, in fact, start with that. I am opposed to referenda as a system of decision making in this type of Government, but the proposal to have a referendum is in keeping with New Zealand First’s tradition, with its practices. That is what it does, I respect it for that, and I think it is very sincere in promoting a referendum in this case. New Zealand First has always liked referenda, even though it does not always benefit from them. I think of the Rt Hon Winston Peters and I think it was compulsory superannuation, when there was a ghastly result to the referendum. You know, it takes courage. One can hardly complain about New Zealand First putting forward that proposal, and I am sure those members will all vote for it. I will not. The reason I will not is that I am very conscious in my mind that the law should not be used to exclude people, nor should referenda be used to exclude people, and I think that could be the result of using a referendum in this case. We have heard that it is recommended because it will involve people. What it will not do is inform people, and this is a case where you really do, I think, need a lot of information in order to come to any sort of sensible decision. So a referendum in this case would of itself be divisive and opinion-driven, no matter which way the result might go.

The purpose of our being here is to legislate based on the information we have considered. I was deeply grateful to Moana Mackey, my colleague at many a select committee meeting, for her presentation of facts this evening. It did, I feel, set things in context very clearly. But in this respect I completely understand the Supplementary Order Papers to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill that are coming forward, because they are reflecting exactly the same sequence of thought processes that the Government Administration Committee went through as a select committee. The difference is that they have come in at this stage without the benefit that we had of a number of weeks to carefully consider which parts of the bill the amendments should be directed to. In regard to the Supplementary Order Papers, may I compliment the work done by Su’a William Sio and the way his Supplementary Order Paper 202 was presented. Again, I would like to say to that member that I have no doubt about the sincerity with which he approached the task. However, if I may, I have a few arguments against the provisions that have been put forward.

The first one is about the celebrants, religious and independent. This was not something that we treated lightly at all. The select committee fully investigated this section, section 29 of the Marriage Act. Its amendment in clause 5A, I consider, best reflects the advice that we received on this issue. The current amendment to section 29 as recommended by the select committee already provides stronger protection than has been there before. A triple protection is really not going to achieve anything other than increase the chances of litigation. If you look at section 29 of the Act, it is pretty sort of general, in that you may, but are not obliged to, conduct the wedding. And we made it a little bit more specific for religious people, but if you then go further again, you are becoming more and more specific, and specificity introduces new opportunities for litigation. Honestly, do you really think that people want to lawyer up, reach for their lawyers—“What are you doing reaching for your lawyers?”, “Well, I am intending to get married, so I must sue someone.” I do not honestly think it will be like that, but we made provision for it.

Basically, the Act needs to be read consistently with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. I am surprised that we have Supplementary Order Papers suggesting that those Acts should be negated. What is it you want to do that avoids those? The Ministry of Justice expressly stated in its advice to the select committee—and we were very impressed with the quality of service we got from the ministry officials—“We recommend that the exemption extend to religious bodies and approved organisations but not to independent marriage celebrants or registrars. A key purpose of religious bodies”—and I think this is very important—“and most approved organisations is to promote religious beliefs.” There is something that lawyers will understand much better than I do, and that is a hierarchy of purpose. The advice continues: “Section 5 of the NZBORA allows rights affirmed under the NZBORA to be justifiably limited. Accordingly, an exemption could be justified where it would be contrary to the recognised purpose of religious bodies and approved organisations to require their celebrants to solemnise certain marriages. In contrast, independent marriage celebrants and registrars are appointed by the Registrar-General to perform a public function, not to promote their own religious or personal beliefs. It appears unlikely that they could lawfully refuse to solemnise a marriage on religious grounds under s 5 of the NZBORA.” The select committee extended the exemption for religious bodies and approved organisations in section 29.

When we look at the call in Supplementary Order Paper 202 for freedom of expression, it says: “no challenge may be made under any Act to the lawfulness of the following conduct by a person or organisation, provided that the conduct is based on the belief or conviction that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman:”. I have a few problems with this one because the select committee has, in clause 5B, removed section 56 of the Marriage Act, which made it an offence to question another’s marriage. The removal ensures that no person can be convicted of expressing such a view. Incidentally, there never was a prosecution under that section. I have some problem with the drafting of this particular recommendation, because what it does say is that “marriage should be the union of a man and a woman:”. It does not add “exclusively”. You could easily add after that “or two people of the same gender”. So I think the proposals are, from a drafting point of view, riddled with difficulties, especially when we start talking about the need to identify the genders, and just who is going to do that sort of thing—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, enough.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, exactly: enough. We do not need to start thinking in that direction. But that is one of the difficulties about introducing specific requirements against the bill as it is.

The use of premises for marriage: what we understand from the Supplementary Order Paper is that “no challenge may be made under any Act to the lawfulness of a refusal by a religious body or approved organisation to allow premises (being premises that are occupied and used by the body or organisation for, or in association with, its religious purposes) to be used for or in connection with a marriage that is not a marriage between a man and a woman.” There is a fundamental difference between private and public spaces. We do not leave it to churches and organisations to determine whether they sell their services or not. We should leave the bill as it is. It protects religious freedom, and the Human Rights Commission has been clear that there is a distinction between private and public places.

I really understand where these submissions are coming from. I understand the impulses that have brought them forward. It is not strange to members of the select committee. We have been through the same processes. I think, given time, people will come, as Moana Mackey said, pretty much fairly close to where we have been. I think we can move forward and trust the bill. We should pass this bill. Thank you.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava, Mr Chairperson. I want to take a short call in responding to some of the comments by the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, just to provide some clarity for the consideration of the Committee. The wording that I have used in this draft of Supplementary Order Paper 202—regardless of “sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity”—is consistent with the bill that is in hand, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and you will find that in clause 4 of the main bill that we are discussing. That is the wording that it has: “marriage between 2 people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.” So in my amendment the words that I am using are consistent with the main bill. That is the first point.

The second thing is that I take on board what the Government Administration Committee has done. It is not an easy job, and I accept fully the sincerity of its desire to protect these religious freedoms. In the first part of my amendment, I have tweaked and added to it to ensure—because the select committee refers to a marriage celebrant who is authorised by the body of their church. We have a case currently where the Anglican Church and Presbyterian Church, as a body, do not have a position one way or the other, and ministers, on their individual bases, are divided on the issue. So my amendment provides the protection to that individual minister whose body of religion has not yet made a decision on whether to adopt a formal position one way or the other.

In terms of new clause 5A(2)(b) of my amendment, yes, the committee, I acknowledge, removed section 56 of the Marriage Act because that was incompatible with the freedom of religion provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, it does not state that those rights are there, and we know, and those of you who are in the legal fraternity will understand, that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does not have supremacy in our laws, and any other Act can, therefore, overcome that particular Act. Finally, in terms of the last clause of my amendment, with regard to premises, I make reference specifically to religious premises consecrated, occupied, and used for religious purposes only. I am asking that that protection be there. I am not worried about premises that are used for profit, commercial, or investment purposes. That is not the intention of my amendment.

Finally, it is also not the intention—and I want to make it clear—of my amendment to cover broadly protection for civil marriage celebrants, because civil marriage celebrants and registrars are conducting a public service and are paid for it. My amendment, in the whole, is about providing greater certainty for the freedoms of religion that are provided for in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I am simply wanting those rights to be explicitly part of the bill. That is why, although it is late in the piece, I do ask and hope that members of the Committee can have consideration. It is about balancing the rights provided by the State for protecting equality for all people, versus the rights of the church and how churches conduct their affairs with their members.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this highly controversial and important bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, which I continue to support. I want to start by acknowledging the incredible energy, effort, and thought put into submissions from both sides of the discussion. I also want to acknowledge the very high-quality report of the Government Administration Committee. I believe that this sort of report shows our Parliament at its very best when dealing with views that are passionately held and are about human rights and beliefs.

I also want to acknowledge the huge number of letters and emails I have received and the discussions I have had in the electorate that I am so honoured to represent, Hunua. I have got great respect for the sincerity of all those comments. On many occasions I have referred people who have written to me to the select committee’s comments as highly worthy of reading, and I do note that the commentary on the bill mentioned that in some European jurisdictions a marriage is authorised and registered by the State first and a couple is then free to choose to have a religious or cultural ceremony appropriate to them. Perhaps that is the ideal in terms of solving human rights.

Here in New Zealand from both sides of the issue there was a very strong message that marriage celebrants, church or independent, should not be compelled to carry out a ceremony if it was against their wishes to do so. Hence the amendment that I have tabled, which is in line with several other amendments, but in my case is simple and conforms with the second option that parliamentary counsel put before the select committee.

I am absolutely aware that the select committee spent significant time with parliamentary counsel and others discussing the options for amending section 2 of the Marriage Act. During the superb second reading speech of my colleague Chris Auchinvole, he mentioned that of the over 9,000 marriage celebrants in New Zealand, only two—only two, as he put it—submissions were sent to the select committee. But I have since contacted the clerk of the committee and others, and no one seems able to identify those two or remember exactly what they said, even my esteemed friend and colleague Chris Auchinvole. However, I have read carefully through the Celebrants Association of New Zealand submission, and although it supports the bill, it has two major concerns. One was: “The continued ability of celebrants to officiate only at ceremonies of their own choosing.”

It is accepted that any law is challengeable through the courts or subject to change by Parliament, as we are seeing in the United States as we debate here in Parliament in New Zealand today. What we write into this bill will surely give a signal as to the intention of Parliament for any future court challenges. Hopefully, however, court challenges will not happen. This amendment is not just about triple protection for a specific group—churches or independent marriage celebrants. It seeks to extend that protection to all celebrants in the spirit of equality and inclusiveness that underpins this bill. I do note that schedule 1 of this bill includes only Christian churches and would not protect other religions such as practised by my colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi.

All marriage celebrants, either independent or church, are in fact facilitating the State’s requirements in terms of the marriage certification. Although it is accepted that a key purpose of religious bodies and most approved organisations is to promote religious beliefs, surely that should not override the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of independent marriage celebrants or other significant religious bodies.

Some have argued that my amendment will lead to independent marriage celebrants saying no, for all sorts of spurious reasons. Exactly the same could be said of the churches. Surely the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should apply in an even-handed way. At some peril, to open a can of worms, a powerful corollary to providing individual choice in perhaps an even more contentious area is the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, where the conscientious objection clause provides explicit and clear exemption overriding any rule of law, terms of any oath, or any contract.

Many may say such a degree of protection is quite inappropriate today and needs to be reviewed. In reality in a country such as New Zealand, where there is not entirely clear separation between church and State—and a lot has been written about that—I suggest that these protections remain necessary and practical. So I call upon all members to carefully reconsider their proxies to support my amendment instead, which is designed to protect choice for all marriage celebrants in the spirit of equality and inclusiveness, which is what this bill is about.

Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): I would like to speak in support of the need for a Supplementary Order Paper in respect of protecting the ability of celebrants to be able to refuse to marry gay couples, depending on the way they see this particular issue. I have some sensitivity around it, having been a civil independent marriage celebrant for a number of years. I have officiated at about, I think, 100 weddings, and in the last 3 weeks I have done a tag team with someone who is currently licensed, because I am not currently licensed, having handed in my warrant when I became a bit busy as an MP. But I have officiated at two weddings in the last 3 or 4 weeks, and I am happily officiating at my nephew’s wedding this Sunday.

I would also like to point out that although people have said that those civil or independent celebrants do it for the money and that they are authorised by the State, so they should marry all-comers, in actual fact, most of the time, I have accepted a bottle of wine as full payment, because I saw this as some way I could help people within my community. I was not doing it for any particular reward. At times when mileage was required, etc., etc., then we got up to a hundred bucks, but, generally, it was for a bottle of plonk.

Having said that, the point is, I believe, quite specific here. I agree that there are protections within the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill as it is at the moment that protect those celebrants who are authorised or endorsed as part of the organisation they belong to, as long as their organisation, which is, in effect, their sponsor to be a celebrant, has a position on gay marriage. It has been raised already tonight that there are churches, for instance, that do not hold official positions on this issue, though a number of members within their community do. But those people who are in the position that I was as an independent celebrant would not be protected in this way. Although there is a clause there that says that no celebrant is obliged to marry any couple who present themselves for marriage, the fact is that you would have to tell a lie in order to not perform that marriage. People have said to me, even people with whom I am very friendly, sitting just there: “You could always just say you are busy.” But, in fact, that would not be true in the case—[Interruption] He is good to listen to for only so long.

The point of the matter is this: if I decided that I was not going to marry a gay couple who presented themselves for marriage, it would be because I did not agree with gay marriage. To create some other fanciful reason that my diary was full would be telling a lie, in effect, and I do not think people should be put in that position. It is the same as a shopkeeper, who does not have to serve somebody in a shop. If someone comes in and wants to buy some goods, the shopkeeper can decide whether or not he wants to sell those goods to that person coming into the shop. That is fine. But the Human Rights Act prohibits that shopkeeper from refusing to serve that person on the basis of a number of those bases within the Human Rights Act, some of them being sexual orientation, race, colour, creed, and all the rest of it—and so it should.

There is an alignment with what my friend Dr Paul Hutchison was saying when talking about people, for instance, within the medical fraternity, who are able to rely on their moral code and beliefs—well-held, religious or otherwise—to not perform certain procedures that people present themselves for. We can think, for instance, of circumcision of male children some years ago. A doctor was not required to perform that if they did not believe that that was within their keeping or ethics, and the performance of pregnancy terminations is exactly the same. If people can think that this issue is different, it is not. A medical practitioner is dealing with the physical—that is right. A person in my position as a celebrant who got into it through community service and initiated it through a faith interest is dealing with something spiritual, and I do not believe that the physical and the spiritual can necessarily just conveniently diverge for those reasons.

I think that it is very important that we have an amendment to this bill that makes it quite clear that an independent celebrant can decide not to marry a couple—a gay couple or any couple—who present themselves, because of that situation. I just underline it like this too. If a couple came to me and it came to their wedding day and they turned up and they were drunk, I would not marry them, because I do not believe that they would be in the right space in their heads to get married. If they turned up to present themselves and asked me to take their wedding and I believed that the woman was obviously suffering from physical abuse, had been assaulted, or in some way was there not because she wanted to get married to this guy but because she was under some sort of duress or pressure, I would not marry them. That would be fine, because the law says that you are covered and you do not have to. But if I decided not to marry the couple who presented themselves for marriage because of any of those bases under the Human Rights Act, I am acting illegally, and I believe that as a celebrant, as an independent celebrant, even one authorised only civilly and not promoted by some organisation of faith, I should have the ability to decline that marriage. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I would like to begin by acknowledging my friend Chester Borrows and that fine contribution on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I also particularly acknowledge Su’a William Sio, who spoke a short time ago, and, indeed, earlier this evening in a previous call. I think that all members of this House have had particular challenges in dealing with this issue, regardless of what side we are on, but I particularly want to acknowledge Mr Sio, who has, I think, faced unique challenges in dealing with the issue, and has, in my view, conducted himself with great integrity and conviction. I wish to acknowledge that and put it on the record, and to wish him well with his Supplementary Order Paper 202, which I think in many respects is very similar to mine, but there are some differences that I will come to in a minute.

When I was interrupted in a previous call, I was just making the point that none of my constituents, with the exception of the few who had attended a meeting of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community just before the election, had had any way of ascertaining what my views were on this issue, so that in casting their votes for a potential MP for Hamilton West, that cannot have been something that they were taking into account. That is one of the reasons why I felt that I should consider the call for a referendum on this issue, because I have been criticised, as many in this Chamber will know, for allowing my faith to influence my conscience vote on this matter. I have to say that for any person of faith what could be more important than faith as a foundation for determining our view on a conscience vote? Others have different beliefs from mine, of course, and I respect that, but my faith and my values and my beliefs are the foundation, the cornerstone, for my conscience vote. So I cast my vote in the first and second readings of this debate according to my conscience. But because I acknowledge that many voters in Hamilton West, and of course elsewhere in the country, may disagree with me—in fact, of course, many do—I also decided to support the call for a referendum. Immediately, some of the same people who had attacked me for voting according to my conscience rather than trying to reflect theirs, then accused me of cowardice, of all things, for wanting to let the public have their say. Well, I say to those people that you cannot have it both ways. I will vote for a referendum again tonight, not so much because I think it is the best way to decide the outcome, but because that way I can exercise my conscience while also enabling as many electors in Hamilton West as possible who wish to do so to exercise theirs as well. That seems a pretty reasonable compromise.

I want to turn back now to outline more of my thinking behind the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled, Supplementary Order Paper 203. At the outset I want to acknowledge my friend Mark Mitchell, who has this evening tabled an amendment to my Supplementary Order Paper, and to say to members that I fully support Mark’s thinking. I urge members to support his amendment as well as my Supplementary Order Paper. I thank Mark for the work that he has done on this issue. I think he has improved and clarified my Supplementary Order Paper.

When I was present for discussions in the Government Administration Committee, and that was on two occasions, there was considerable focus on whether those who on the grounds of conscience would not feel able to participate in a formal or professional capacity in a same-sex marriage would be respected and protected in that view. The majority of the committee, of course, said that they would be, and the bill’s sponsor who, I acknowledge, has conducted herself with decency and a real sense of determination in this matter, has also always promised that they will be protected. But the important thing is that legal opinion on this matter is deeply divided. So my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to guarantee the assurances that Louisa Wall and the Government Administration Committee say they support. I urge all MPs, whether in favour or opposed to the substantive bill, to support my amendment.

I want to read to you just some of the wording from Mark Mitchell’s amendment: “no marriage celebrant is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would conflict with the religious or philosophical beliefs of the individual or of the religious body or approved organisation (if any) to which he or she belongs;”. So it is designed to be comprehensive and fair and to give in clear language the assurances that the sponsor of the bill and many others have claimed should be there for those who have as a matter of conscience a different opinion on this issue. It is not, therefore, about re-legalising discrimination, which has been alleged by quite a number of people who have spoken this evening, or who have written. Those who claim that that would re-legalise discrimination are surely throwing open to real risk, including legal challenge, those who might wish through reasons of good faith and conscience to stand by their convictions. It is therefore about protecting churches, celebrants, and others from being forced to act contrary—

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is with great consideration that I take this call. We have got a bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, in front of us that does not sit comfortably with me, but I guess that we have all been on select committees from time to time where we have had a view about a bill that gets the majority vote and goes forward.

I just want to grab this opportunity to support those people who have put forward Supplementary Order Papers, because in the context of it all, when you look at the bill as it stands, it certainly does not provide me with sufficient comfort that the principles and values that the individual may hold are taken into adequate consideration. When we look at clause 5A in the bill, where it applies to section 29 being amended, subclause 2 talks about: “Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no celebrant who is a minister of religion …”, and then it goes on and talks about approved organisations, and there has been, no doubt, some work given, and thought applied, to that particular provision. It stands comfortably with me that we need to clarify that so that there is a level of certainty that the individual’s view—and I, as an MP, can think of many people out there whom we have all supported to become a celebrant, and, yet, they are not actually associated with any authorised organisation, as it says, or a church. On that basis, I think it is very important that members of the Committee, as we go forward on a very serious matter that involves a whole lot of ramifications, do look at those Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled, and consider whether we support those Supplementary Order Papers.

My particular situation is that I have chosen to support a Supplementary Order Paper that has been put forward by Tim Macindoe, and it encapsulates, I believe, the most essential elements that would add value to the bill. I do acknowledge William Sio over there, as well. It is heartening to those of us who find the bill somewhat challenging to see that when it does actually go through it will give clarity and certainty to those people who have to administer it, in one shape or form. I acknowledge those other speakers, especially Chester Borrows, who talked about giving those people a good solid platform on which they can, if approached by people of the same sex who want to be married, actually decline gracefully, because we appreciate that there are elements of society that need to be considered in such ways.

When we look at the actual preamble to the bill, it talks about the level of people who are actually married at registry offices—it talks about 23 percent; and that 32 percent are married in churches or organisations, and 45 percent by individual celebrants. On that basis, I would urge the Committee to seriously consider the Supplementary Order Papers that have been put forward, with a view to adding special clarification to the individual’s right to say whether they will or will not marry people of the same sex. Thank you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): If no other member is seeking the call, I think it would be helpful to the Committee if I explain the process a little bit from this point on. Because I am going to commence the voting without a closure motion, if we are not concluded at 10 o’clock the voting will stop at the conclusion of the vote that crosses the 10 o’clock mark. I am not predicting that will happen. I am just saying that in the eventuality that happens—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Stop filibustering!

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Ha, ha! The second point I wish to make is when it comes to amendments, I think there are four or five, and starting with Su’a William Sio, we will vote on these chronologically as they were tabled. If the first one passes with a majority, it negatives the subsequent ones. So members need to be quite clear in their minds which of those amendments is the one that they personally want to follow. I need to explain that before we start.

The third issue I wish to just acquaint the Committee with is from Standing Order 298(1), and I will read it for you: “A committee of the whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates the principles or objects of the bill as read a second time by the House.” So the second reading declares the intent of the House in relation to the bill. In that regard the House voted down an amendment to have a referendum. So the first point is that the two amendments, one in the name of Brendan Horan and the other in the name of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, to have a referendum are out of order because of Standing Order 298(1), when the House has already declared its intent.

So we move to the amendment in the name of Su’a William Sio. The question is—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. My referendum was distinctly different from that proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 188, and I have cleared that with the House.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Yes. The issue of referendum is the guiding principle upon which that is made. I have sought advice. I have consulted with the various references that we have available to us, and the two amendments are out of order. So the question is that Su’a William Sio’s amendment to replace clause 5A—

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I would like to seek leave for the Committee to grant the option of having the first referendum.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of Su’a William Sio to clause 5A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 22

Noes 88

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 22, Noes 87.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Mark Mitchell to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 in the name of Tim Macindoe to new clause 5A be agreed to:

replace new section 29(2)(a) with:

(a) no marriage celebrant is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would conflict with the religious or philosophical beliefs of the individual or of the religious body or approved organisation (if any) to which he or she belongs; and

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

Ayes 35

Noes 80

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I regret to ask for this leave so early in the voting, but I seek leave to correct the voting record of the first amendment—the amendment in the name of Su’a William Sio, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202. I regret I omitted to have Hone Harawira’s vote, for which I carry the proxy, recorded in opposition to that Supplementary Order Paper.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): So you are seeking leave to correct the vote. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. The record will show the amended numbers. We move now to Tim Macindoe’s amendment to replace—

TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Do we not need the result of the amendment?

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The amendment to the amendment was not carried. I declared it and I called for the doors to be unlocked. We are now on to the next one. [Interruption] I will do it again for the members. The Ayes were 35 and the Noes were 80.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 203 in the name of Tim Macindoe to clause 5A be agreed to.

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

Ayes 36

Noes 79

Amendment not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 36, Noes 80.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 5A be agreed to:

insert in section 29, after subsection (2):

(2A) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body enumerated in Schedule 1, and no celebrant who is a person nominated to solemnize marriages by an approved organisation, is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of the approved organisation.

(2B) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), no celebrant is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would offend the celebrant’s genuinely held religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions.

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

Ayes 18

Noes 84

Abstentions 1

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 18, Noes 85.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 7 and schedules 1 and 2 be agreed to.

Ayes 77

Noes 43

Clauses 1 to 7 and schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill without amendment, and the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill without amendment.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.