Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Wednesday, 30 July 2014

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Motions

Human Rights, West Papua—Media Freedom

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on media freedom in West Papua.

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

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I move, That this House call upon the new President of Indonesia to commit to genuine media freedom in West Papua, including the right of local and international journalists to report on the political situation there without risk of imprisonment or harassment by the Indonesian State.

Motion agreed to.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Wage Rates—Growth, Inequality, and Minimum Wage

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with his Minister of Finance that workers have an expectation that they “will be doing better than zero pay increases”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. I imagine all workers would like a pay rise, and on average wages have been rising faster than inflation. For example, average weekly hour wages went up by 2.5 percent over the last year and average weekly wages went up by 3.2 percent. At the same time, the CPI went up by only 1.5 percent.

Hon David Cunliffe: Complimenting the Government on its sartorial elegance for once—does he instead support the widening gap between chief executive officer pay and that of the average workers, which rose from 21.9 percent in 2010 to 26 times that just 2 years later?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a very, very long period of time this country has had a pretty significant gap between chief executive officer pay and what others earn. I will say, though, that that gap is considerably smaller in New Zealand than it is in a lot of countries around the world.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Prime Minister support the pay increase for the quarter of a million workers who would directly benefit from Labour’s minimum wage changes, which will provide a significant boost to the economy through boosting workers’ spending power?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In a word, no. The reason for that is I am not so irresponsible that I would say to 6,000 New Zealanders that they are losing their jobs because the Labour Party is polling at 25 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister oppose higher minimum wages when evidence shows that that leads to workers staying in jobs longer, higher productivity, higher standards of living, more spent at the corner dairy, greater consumer demand, and more, not fewer, jobs?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A few things. First, the Government has supported higher minimum wages each and every year we have been the Government, but we have done so responsibly. All I can say to the member is that when he sends those 6,000 people to the dole queue, he should be ashamed that he is doing that because his own leadership is leading the Labour Party down the toilet.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister oppose policies that would see our lowest-paid workers receive an additional $4,000 a year?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Labour Party will be known as the “Anti-jobs Party”. This is a party that does not support what we on this side of the House support, which is a 90-day trial period. I am actually a bit surprised the Labour Party does not support it, because if it had, it could have booted out Cunliffe after 89 days.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that the Prime Minister has no right to refer to any member of Parliament in the way he just did. This late in the day, I suggest you do your job. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest to that member that if he again raises frivolous points of order, he will not be here for the balance of question time.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, it is not a frivolous point of order about what people are called.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Grant Robertson: I will finish my point of order, please.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have just ruled that I said it was a frivolous point of order. [Interruption] Order! The member can freely disagree with me, but he has to accept my decision.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order? If it is a fresh point of order, I will be delighted to hear it.

Grant Robertson: Can I clarify that you are now changing a very longstanding ruling of this House that members have to be called either by their full name or by their title as a representative of their electorate? That is what you have just done. The Prime Minister used only the surname of the Leader of the Opposition and nothing else. This is a substantially changed ruling you have just made.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If I could intervene, I say that the member is actually right. I was remiss in doing that. I should have called him Mr Cunliffe. In the heat of the exchange I did not do that. I apologise and correct my answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister for that. The difficulty I have is that I actually did not hear that he was not referred to as Mr Cunliffe, and that is because of the level of noise and barrage that is coming across the House. I appreciate that we are very close to a general election. That is no excuse for members not showing some courtesy to the House so that I can hear the questions and the answers.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Prime Minister’s comments and his opposition to raising the minimum wage—and it will not be long before he is out of a job—why is it acceptable that there are 100,000 children living in poverty in this country whose parents are in work; if not, why does he oppose policies that will end poverty wages?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member seems be of the opinion that he can simply, through the stroke of a pen, make a difference to labour rates in New Zealand with no repercussions for those workers. If that is what the member really believes, then he should not have stopped at $16.25 an hour; Mr Cunliffe should have stopped at $50 an hour.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer, does the Prime Minister accept that a minimum wage rise has a perfectly proper place alongside a package of measures, like Labour’s economic upgrade, which will lead to increased levels of productivity, exports, and employment?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This Government, every single year, including through the global financial crisis, has carefully increased the minimum wage, at the same time growing jobs and the economy. If the member seriously thinks that putting a capital gains tax on every single business and doing all the things the unions wanted him to do—and that is why they backed him to be the leader—are going to grow the economy, he is dreaming. Oh, and by the way, I am more than happy to call him Mr Cunliffe. He should worry about what his caucus colleagues call him.

Child Poverty—Economic Policy and Cross-party Talks

2. HONE HARAWIRA (Mana—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that the Government’s economic policies have failed, given that more than a quarter of a million children are living below the poverty line in Aotearoa?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No.

Hone Harawira: Does he agree that finding long-term solutions to child poverty will require all parties in Parliament to work together; if so, can he tell us why National is the only party that refuses to take part in cross-party talks on child poverty after the coming election?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member had the opportunity, as a partner to the current Government when he was in the Māori Party, to talk about solutions but, actually, he prefers talking about problems, and that is why he left.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was can he—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question. There were actually two questions, and one of those questions was definitely addressed. You have a further supplementary question if you wish to use it.

Hone Harawira: Can he please explain why his Government has invested so heavily in building roads of national significance instead of houses for low-income families, many of whom are clearly living below the poverty line, when statistics show that decent, warm homes will help reduce the serious health problems that many of these families face and heavily reduce the cost of health care and other societal problems that inevitably flow from the existence of a growing underclass?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have invested in all those things. We need decent roads so we can have export industries so we can have jobs so that people can get off welfare. If the member had been willing to shoulder the responsibility of finding solutions, he would have been part of this Government’s extensive efforts to invest in insulating houses, protecting vulnerable children, and getting young people back on track so they can get jobs.

Jacinda Ardern: Why has his Government turned down offers of finding solutions to child poverty via a cross-party group?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we believe that that cross-party group is obsessed with measuring poverty and has nothing to offer as solutions to it.

Economic Programme—Policies and Results

3. PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s plan to lock in the gains from a growing economy helping to deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The programme is focused on locking in gains over the next 3 to 5 years from a growing economy that could, under sensible management, deliver sustained growth. So our plan includes responsibly managing the Government’s finances, continuing to build a more productive and competitive economy that supports higher wages and more jobs, investing in better public services so we can have a better community as well as sound Government books, and supporting the rebuild of Christchurch, including $15 billion of Government support.

Paul Goldsmith: What is the outlook for the New Zealand economy over the next 4 years, and how will this be supported by the Government’s economic programme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economy has built good momentum and there is considerable confidence among businesses and households about the outlook. We have the opportunity, if the economy is well managed, to get through the next cycle of growth with relatively low interest rates and possibly a lower exchange rate. That could lead to a significant rebalancing of our economy in favour of exports. Average wages are forecast, for instance, to increase to $62,000, up $7,000 in the next 4 years. The economy is expected to grow just under 12 percent in the next 4 years, and we are on track to reduce Government debt back to 20 percent of GDP by 2020.

Paul Goldsmith: What lessons has he taken from the previous economic cycle, when house prices doubled and floating mortgage interest rates reached nearly 11 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government learnt some sharp lessons from the economic management of the previous Labour Government. By 2008 mortgage interest rates had reached almost 11 percent, house prices had doubled in 7 or 8 years, and inflation—that is, the cost of living—was rising at 5 percent. We are focusing on avoiding a Government spend-up, even though it is election year, and on influencing the housing market so that we can have a more balanced economy. Those are sharp lessons from the mismanagement under the previous Labour Government.

Hon David Parker: How can he say his plan is working when after 6 years wage rates are stagnant, 147,000 people are still out of work, youth unemployment is over 13 percent, Auckland house prices under his watch have increased in real terms at a 50 percent higher rate than under the previous Government, and we are having billions of dollars sucked out of the economy through a collapse in our export commodity prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: My opinion of it is, I suppose, interesting, although I have had the opportunity to share it with the House several hundred times in this last session. But it is the opinion of the New Zealanders who have stopped leaving to go to Australia that really matters. Three years ago there was a net flow of 40,000 New Zealanders to Australia. Last month there was zero. So the battlers in the regions have decided it is working, and they are staying because they can get work here with appropriate pay and they know they cannot get it in Australia.

Paul Goldsmith: How are the lessons taken from the previous economic cycle being built into the Government’s programme for responsible economic and fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those lessons that I referred to earlier are really quite important. It is important, for instance, that we maintain the discipline of economic spending but also that we maintain a strong focus on the economic policy that has given businesses and households the confidence they now enjoy to invest, to save, to work more hours, to save more money, and to go and ask for a wage increase because they can see the productivity. So we will be sticking to careful fiscal management, a broad programme of microeconomic reform, and, in particular, we will avoid the mistakes made by the previous Labour Government, the damage from which we are still cleaning up 6 years later.

Brendan Horan: Will the Government consider the New Zealand Independent Coalition’s policy of a financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent on banks and foreign exchange, just as Germany and 10 other European countries are mooting as good fiscal management?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Oil and Gas Exploration—Cost and Outcome of Promotion

4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the breakdown of the $240,000 of taxpayers’ money spent entertaining oil company executives in 2011, and specifically how much of that money was spent on food and alcohol?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): The total spend for the 4-day New Zealand Oil and Gas Summit 2011 was $237,000, including around $22,000 on catering, $37,000 on accommodation, $12,000 on Rugby World Cup hosting, $10,000 on other activities, $20,000 on a welcome reception for over 100 guests—

Hon David Cunliffe: Wardrobe expenses.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and $40,000 on a 1-day seminar, Mr Cunliffe. I can also tell the member that the biggest spend on investment in oil and gas promotion in the last decade was in 2008 when Labour, propped up by the Greens, spent $745,000.

Dr Russel Norman: So can the Minister confirm that he spent $22,000 on food and booze for the wealthy oil company executives, using taxpayers’ money?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No, I was not the Minister, but be very clear that spending on promotion is not unusual. Actually, as a small country at the bottom of the world we do this in a range of areas from tourism to renewables to trade, and I would remind the member that when his party was propping up Labour, in 1 year they spent $745,000.

Dr Russel Norman: When was the last time he spent a quarter of a million dollars, wining and dining clean-energy company executives—when was the last time he spent a quarter of a million dollars wining and dining clean-energy executives?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I personally never have. I have already said that promotion is not unusual. I will remind the member that maybe he should be grateful for the hard work I am doing, given that he wants it to fund his so-called green bank slush fund.

Dr Russel Norman: How many jobs have been created as a direct result of the oil executives’ $240,000 trip to New Zealand?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think we can say with some certainty that Statoil entered the country after that event. It is spending $20 million, but, of course, promotion has been going on for a very long time under successive Governments. In 2012, $1.3 billion was spent by international companies on exploration—last year, $1.5 billion. I think, as I said, that the member should show a little gratitude given all the money we are working on getting that one day he will get to waste.

Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister’s answer to the last question that zero jobs were created as a result of the oil executives’ $240,000 trip to New Zealand, which happens to be exactly what he told the New Zealand Herald yesterday, when he said that there was no job creation in oil and gas production as a result of the $240,000 spent wining and dining the rich oil company executives?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member misleads the House. That is not a quote from me. What is very clear in the oil and gas industry is that it creates 7,000 jobs directly. They are the highest-paying jobs in the New Zealand economy—on average, $105,000 per annum. Actually, I think that places like Taranaki are really glad that we have this industry. The member opposes it, but that is not the position—as David Shearer has said, although his leader disagrees—of most New Zealanders.

Dr Russel Norman: With the fourth-lowest oil royalty rate in the world and 90 percent of the profits going offshore according to the Government’s own reports, is it not the case that deep-sea oil drilling is all about New Zealanders taking the risks while the foreign oil corporations take the profits?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Eight hundred million dollars a year in taxes and royalties is earned to pay for schools, for hospitals, and for infrastructure directly from this industry. On the issue of the royalties, we get 42c in every dollar of profit. It is lower than the Norways of this world, but were there significant finds we could well review that.

Roading, Wellington—Transmission Gully

5. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any reports on the benefits of the recently confirmed Transmission Gully motorway?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Yesterday the New Zealand Transport Agency announced that an agreement has been reached for the construction and operation of Transmission Gully’s motorway north of Wellington. There are many benefits to the motorway. The time savings are in the region of 10 to 15 minutes and the safety benefits well outstrip the current safety record on State Highway 1. Transmission Gully will be a four-lane motorway with a central median barrier the entire length of the route and will be constructed to a KiwiRAP rating of 4 stars. Its construction also means that there is an alternative route into and out of Wellington in the event of a disaster.

Paul Foster-Bell: Has the Minister seen any comments regarding the progress on the Transmission Gully motorway?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have. Wellington Regional Council chair, Fran Wilde, says it is a much-needed shot in the arm for Wellington. Automobile Association spokesman Mike Noon says the road will save lives. The Road Transport Forum says Transmission Gully is the right move. The Porirua deputy mayor says Transmission Gully is fantastic. The positive comments have been many. However, comment from the Greens leads me to this conclusion: a National-led Government will build Transmission Gully; any other Government will not.

Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm that the signing of yesterday’s public-private partnership contract between the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Wellington Gateway Partnership is the culmination of the provisions of the United Future - National coalition confidence and supply agreement in 2005 and 2008, and that this contract-signing confirms that Transmission Gully will proceed and is here to stay?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I firstly would like to acknowledge that the leader of United Future, the Hon Peter Dunne, has been a tireless campaigner for this road. It is one that has been talked about for literally decades, but now its time has come, largely because of the efforts of local Wellington National MPs alongside Mr Dunne, and all credit to him for his long advocacy for this road, which will make a big difference to the region. This is a contractual arrangement, and it will hold unless a future Government decides to breach contract, which would be an appalling thing.

Finance, Minister—Performance

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has he achieved all his promises in his last six years as Minister of Finance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, despite challenging circumstances and, of course, with the support and effort of so many New Zealand households and workplaces. For instance, we inherited a Budget outlook of a $3.9 billion fiscal deficit in 2009 and forecasts of never-ending deficits thereafter, and now we are on track to surplus. We said we would protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders through the recession and ensure that the tax system is fairer, and we have done that. We said we would create an economic environment where business was confident to invest, supporting more jobs and higher incomes, and we have done that. But, of course, there is still much work to be done, partly to complete fixing the damage of the previous Labour Government but, more important, to realise the true potential of so many New Zealanders who aspire to a brighter future.

Hon David Parker: Why has the wage gap with Australia, which he promised to close by 2025, widened since he took office in 2008, using the methodology that the Prime Minister promotes, by close to $70 per week and is now over $190 per week?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong, but here is a measure of it. Are New Zealanders getting on planes in their thousands to go to a labour market where they think they can get paid more? Last month the net outflow of New Zealanders to Australia was zero. That is, the Kiwi battlers are staying home because things are better here.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library, based on the methodology used by John Key, that shows that the wage gap has widened by $68.85—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon David Parker: Does he regret promising to raise $5 billion to $7 billion from the sale of State assets to spend on schools and hospitals, when he raised less than that amount and then spent the money on things like fixing the roof of the Beehive, bailing out Solid Energy, and a new computer system for Cabinet?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. No regrets about that whatsoever. The Government has $4.7 billion in the Future Investment Fund and we are proudly spending that on other public assets, such as the largest, most complex construction project in New Zealand: the rebuilding of several hospitals in Christchurch. We are very proud of the fact that we have been able to sell shares to New Zealanders. They gave us their money and now we are spending it on other public goods.

Hon David Parker: Does he still stand by his promise to lift exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025, when since he took office exports have fallen from 33 percent to 29 percent of GDP—

Hon Steven Joyce: It’s wrong. He’s wrong.

Hon David Parker: —and Treasury forecasts them to keep falling? Mr Joyce, read your numbers. That is right.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, given the choice, I agree with my colleague Mr Joyce that the member is wrong. But I can tell the member this. There is no way exports would grow if we adopted a policy of shutting down the dairy industry and the oil and gas industry. That would not only be bad for exports but devastate our regions, the economies of which are overwhelmingly resource-based. That is the Opposition’s policy.

Hon David Parker: Given that exports were 33 percent of GDP when he took office, what percentage of GDP are they now?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question in detail because exports are at record levels. In the last quarter, in the last 3 months, New Zealand recorded one of its best-ever trade surplus results. Rather than criticising the export sector, we support it. It has been remarkably resilient over recent years—

Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister begins his answer by saying “I cannot answer this question.”, why does he then continue to answer the question?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will judge the length of the answers. As I have mentioned to this House on many occasions, I take into account the length of the question and the tone of the question, but it is for me to judge that, not for Mr Prosser.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that exports have decreased from 33 percent to 29 percent of GDP—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The documents have been described. Leave is sought to table the research document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.

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

Hon David Parker: How can he say he has fulfilled his promise to rebalance the economy away from housing speculation, when Auckland house prices have increased at an annual growth rate that is 50 percent higher in real terms than it was under the previous Government, when average house prices in Auckland are now touching $700,000, and homeownership rates are at their lowest level in over 50 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the Government has worked pretty hard over the last 3 years to do almost everything, short of taking housing decisions off Auckland Council, in order to free up supply in the Auckland housing market. Unfortunately, the Opposition has not supported us on all the measures that we have taken, but help is on its way. The housing market is cooling, supply is growing, and New Zealanders can look forward to more affordable housing if they re-elect the National Government.

Māui’s Dolphin—Preservation

7. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Does he agree with the summary of the Associate Minister of Conservation, Nicky Wagner, of his Government’s policy to save the Māui’s dolphin that said: “We’ll all cross our fingers.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure the member has taken the Minister out of context, but what I am guessing the Minister would have been talking about is the quite significant steps the Government actually has taken to protect the Māui’s dolphin, which include now allocating effectively 100 square kilometres of set net bans for every one of the estimated 55 Māui’s dolphins, a total of 6,200 square kilometres; making sure an observer is on all fishing vessels; and essentially working very hard to ensure that we do the best that we can for a species that is endangered.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s policy to allow fishing methods lethal to dolphins, mineral mining exploration, and dangerous seismic surveying for oil and gas in the marine mammal sanctuary where the Māui’s dolphins live?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member might have a little credibility on the topic if she stuck to fishing, because there is no evidence to support, actually—

Hon Annette King: That’s arrogant, isn’t it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, no, it is actually factually correct. There is no evidence to support the claim that mining or exploration is endangering Māui’s dolphins, and if there was, Annette, your Government would not have carried on doing it over that time.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry, Annette King—your Government would not have continued to support it. So when it comes to set nets, that is an area that could potentially endanger Māui’s dolphins, and that is exactly why the Government is taking the steps that it took in the policy statement it supported in 2012.

Metiria Turei: If in the marine mammal sanctuary for Māui’s dolphins you can still mine for minerals, drill for oil and gas, fish with methods that kill dolphins, what part of his pollution economy are the Māui’s dolphins safe from?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In the last 40 years, they have been undertaking oil and gas exploration in Taranaki, and there is not a single example of a Māui’s dolphin that has been killed as a result of that. That really is fundamentally the problem with the Greens, and that is that they are going to try to hoodwink a bunch of New Zealanders that an industry that supports thousands and thousands of jobs, and produces the better part of a billion dollars in royalties and taxes—which go towards paying for all the things that the Greens constantly say that they want people to have more of, like health, education, and welfare support—should all be put in jeopardy for a misguided belief that oil and gas is affecting the plight of Māui’s dolphins.

Dr Russel Norman: It’s just a tiny dolphin—who cares? You don’t care about a tiny dolphin.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, you see, this is the problem, is it not? When you do not know what you are talking about, you make up policies that will not work.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now long enough.

Metiria Turei: Is the reason that National is failing to follow the International Whaling Commission’s recommendations to prevent all of these lethal and potentially lethal human activities, including the seismic surveying within the marine mammal sanctuary, in order to protect the last 55 Māui’s dolphins in the world—is it failing to follow the International Whaling Commission’s recommendation because it is too busy wining and dining the oil and gas industry?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When it comes to “whining” the member just needs to look to her right.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order, and I require it to be heard.

Metiria Turei: That is no answer to the question. The Prime Minister needs to address it.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I cannot agree with the member.

Tertiary Education—Promotion of Engineering Qualifications

8. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment: What is the Government doing to increase the number of people going into engineering?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education, Skills and Employment): Engineers make a critical contribution to our society and our economic growth. They allow our industries to compete on the world stage. We need to be training significantly more engineers to meet industry demand today and in the future. As part of Budget 2012 we increased funding for engineering at tertiary level by $42 million over 4 years, and a further $9.34 million over 4 years in Budget 2013. Last week I launched a new Engineering - Education to Employment initiative to promote engineering technologists and technician qualifications to students, with bridging courses, work placements, and scholarships. The Engineering - Education to Employment initiative is about industry, schools, the Tertiary Education Commission, and our polytechs working together to increase the number of students training as engineers.

Louise Upston: Why is the Government focused on growing the number of people studying engineering at polytech level?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: What a silly question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Go and have a cup of tea, Winston. Since we boosted our investment in engineering provision in Budget 2012 and—[Interruption] It is like having an angry old uncle in the building, is it not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Since we boosted our investment in engineering provision in Budget 2012 and Budget 2013 we have seen a very good pick-up in enrolments at the professional level in universities. Unfortunately, many people still think the only option for becoming an engineer is as a university graduate. Although having more graduate professional engineers is important, companies tell us there is a need for engineering technicians and technologists who have studied to diploma or degree level at institutes of technology. This announcement will create a big push for more enrolments in level 6 and level 7 engineering courses at the country’s institutes of technology and polytechnics.

Welfare Reforms—Sanctions and Impact on Children

9. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: How many children were in households affected by the 15,079 sanctions against people receiving benefits with dependent children since her welfare reforms were introduced on 15 July 2013?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): The number the member refers to is the number of sanctions applied, not the number of beneficiaries. This is because beneficiaries can have sanctions applied to them more than once. We know there is at least one child living in each of these households, but the total number of children per household is not centrally collated. It is held in individual case files, and could not be compiled in time to answer this question. However, what we do know is that people often quickly re-comply, so the number of sanctions in place at any one time is much lower. For example, at the end of June 2014 there were 575 households with children being sanctioned. This does not necessarily mean—

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order might be obsolete now, but the Minister said that she did not know the answer to my question, and I fail to see why she continued.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the Minister answered that she could not answer it exactly because it is a massive job to collate the information, but I would have expected the member to appreciate that the Minister was attempting to give quite relevant information, which certainly was of interest to me, if not to the member herself. I would be grateful if we could hear the answer. Has the Minister now completed the answer?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, that is fine.

Sue Moroney: Why does the Minister for Social Development not want to know how many children are affected by her policy to halve their parents’ benefit, reducing the household income by $150 per week?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I was trying to tell her, it is at a point in time, so what we do know is that, actually, when a sanction is applied, it does not necessarily mean that they lose money out of their benefit. Most actually re-comply—

Hon Member: Yes, it does.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, it does not, actually. What it means is that most actually re-comply in a relatively short period of time, and it does not actually affect their benefit payment.

Sue Moroney: Does she realise that cutting the household income by $149 a week means that children go hungry, doctors visits are cancelled, prescriptions are not picked up, power is cut off because the bill cannot be paid, and families get behind in their rent payments; and is this the brighter future she promised?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, the brighter future we promised is having 30,000 fewer kids on welfare now than there were 2 years ago. What we promised is the lowest number of sole parents on benefit that we have seen for nearly 20 years. Before any sanction is applied, a person is told that they have failed their obligation, and they are given 5 days to re-comply. If they re-comply in that period, they will not be sanctioned.

Sue Moroney: What if they don’t?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: And if they do not, their sanction then applies, but if they can re-comply between that and their benefit payment being made a week later, then it does not affect their actual benefit.

Sue Moroney: And you have no interest in knowing what the impact is.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, it is very fair and reasonable to expect people to turn up for their appointments and to actually be looking for work if that is the expectation.

Sue Moroney: Well, what is her explanation, then, for the fact that in the latest household income report, we now have the highest proportion of children in severe poverty this century?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is about helping those people into work and seeing their incomes increase. As I have stated, we have fewer sole parents on benefits now than we have had for over 20 years. That substantially makes a difference to them, their children, and their community, and we will back them into work because, quite frankly, the hand-wringing sympathy of the Labour Party does not work for them.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very clear. It was asking her for an explanation for the fact that in the latest household income report, we have now got the highest proportion of children in severe poverty. The Minister’s answer was denying that fact.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister answered by saying that, in her explanation, it was helping people into work.

Sue Moroney: Well, if she is going to deny that, then has she asked for any advice or reports about the plight of the 5,822 people who have had their entire benefit stopped under her welfare reforms in the year ended June 2014, and whether that has contributed to the increased homelessness, to the increased begging, and to the increased poverty that we see on the streets of New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, no, because we have not actually changed the eligibility to benefits. So, actually, those people are eligible for benefits if they meet the criteria where they do not have a job or do not have an income. The reality is that they—

Sue Moroney: But you’re cutting them off.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well, we do not know what the reasons are for them leaving their benefit, and they are many and they are varied.

Health Personnel—Nursing Entry to Practice Programme

10. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Health: What investment has the Government made in training places for nurses?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Can I firstly just note that the standard of dress on this side of the House today is vastly improved from normal. Today the Government is announcing that we will fund $2.8 million for an additional 200 training places for nurse graduates on the Nursing Entry to Practice Programme. The Nursing Entry to Practice Programme offers professional and educational support for graduate nurses in their first year of practice. This additional $2.8 million will provide an extra 160 training places at New Zealand public hospitals and another 40 training places at aged-care facilities across the nation.

Shane Ardern: How many training places are now available for nursing graduates, and will it be a prerequisite for their entry that they must wear bright shirts and ties?

Hon TONY RYALL: I had not thought of that. This $2.8 million investment brings the total number of places on the Nursing Entry to Practice Programme to 1,300. Ensuring we have a well-qualified nursing workforce to meet the future needs of our health service is important. We now have 3,200 more nurses employed by district health boards than when this Government was elected in 2008.

Hon Annette King: How will his belated announcement days before the election period, at least 2 years after Health Workforce New Zealand warned of a nursing shortage, and just before he throws in the towel, help Kim, who wrote to me last week saying only one person—only one person—in her class of 40 has got a job offer now?

Hon TONY RYALL: It would depend on which year that student graduated—

Hon Annette King: They’ve just graduated now.

Hon TONY RYALL: Oh, graduating now. If we look at the July 2014 graduates, already 42 percent of them have found jobs, which is pretty good compared with roughly between 80 and 90 percent of the previous cohort. We are making a lot of progress, and I am pretty pleased that we have found the money for these extra 200 training places.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost to Consumers

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First): Can I begin by observing that the standard of dress on that side of the House is evidence that you can have lots of money but no class. [Interruption] Oh, I struck a nerve here, eh?

Mr SPEAKER: And now we will have the question.

11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that the current Minister for Climate Change Issues is working for all New Zealanders?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and can I note that on that side of the House you can have lots of MPs but you never hear from them. [Interruption]

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I know you are worried. They all know hope is on its way. How can this Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when an economic analysis by Infometrics just out shows households are being charged substantially more than the emissions trading scheme compliance costs being paid by energy and liquid fuel companies supplying them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I have not seen that report, but what I do know is that if you look at the emissions trading scheme, New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world outside of the European Union that actually has an emissions trading scheme. I think that the emissions trading scheme, when you think about the fact that it applies effectively what is a floating rate for carbon—and that rate is very low—shows that while it is having some impact on the economy, the effect on households is relatively low.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when energy and liquid fuel companies have price gouged New Zealanders for almost NZ$1.4 billion by overcharging households an average 75 percent more than these companies paid in emissions trading scheme compliance costs, as shown by an economic analysis by Infometrics?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is actually wrong in his numbers or, at least, the analysis is wrong. It is also dangerous making assumptions of what is actually happening, because it depends when those companies actually acquired the units. But, as I said, overall the system is a modest one, but I think it is working for New Zealanders.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table three papers by Infometrics, one dated 3 June on electricity costs, the second on 1 May in respect of Genesis Energy’s charging, and the third on 24 June on carbon prices.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three particular papers. Is there any objection to their being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled.

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

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when energy and liquid fuel companies are purchasing foreign carbon credits for NZ$3, while overcharging New Zealand taxpayers an average of $11 per credit, and if this is not a financial rort as pointed out by Infometrics, what is?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is wrong. We are not actually doing that. What I can say in terms of those foreign assigned amount units, which the member is talking about, is that actually the Government has moved to eliminate those being purchased by New Zealand companies.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be doing what was much vaunted by the National Party, working for all New Zealanders, when iwi alone have lost a further $600 million as a result of the collapse of the New Zealand carbon market, an opportunity to bring thousands of jobs to the regions at no cost to taxpayers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is demonstrating, I think, that he does not actually understand how the system works. On the one hand, he is saying that those people who purchase carbon units at high levels and therefore pass that on to the consumer are somehow rorting the system, but those who did not sell their units and now the unit price has dropped are somehow also rorting the system, both of which cannot be right.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I can see how Wall Street works! How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when Genesis Energy, price gouging its customers by their electricity bills between 2010 and 2012, attained additional profits of $36.5 million and inflated artificially its share value; if so, why has he not done anything at all to stop it?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the claim made by the member. But what I would say is that on this side of the House we have had a climate change policy that, I think, has been pitched at about the right level. I think it has been modest but fair for New Zealanders. If the member feels incredibly strongly about these climate change issues and about the amount that consumers might pay, I strongly suggest that he joins with his rejection of the Mana Party and drop kicks the Greens as well, because they will have the price of carbon at five times what it currently is.

Diplomatic Incident, Malaysian Official—Briefings and Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity

12. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did his office receive an email at approximately 5.00 pm (New Zealand time) on 22 May 2014 advising that the Malaysian Government had refused to waive diplomatic immunity in Muhammad Rizalman’s case; if so, when was that email opened?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, my office has been advised that this answer may be longer than normal.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): As the Minister has already said publicly, one staff member from his office was copied into an internal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade email on 22 May. The email reported that the diplomat had returned to Malaysia in light of a decision by Malaysian authorities to decline a request for a waiver of immunity. The staff member did not open the email when it was received, as she was travelling at the time with limited communications capacity and was not the usual contact point for such reports. The email was identified in June, when correspondence was reviewed in the office. The inquiry initiated by the Minister reflects the fact that the management of this case and associated events have had a serious impact on a young woman and have quite rightly undermined public confidence in the management of diplomatic immunity. The Minister expects the correspondence between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his office to form part of that inquiry. He does not plan to comment further until that process is completed.

David Shearer: Given that the Minister was travelling and was arriving in New York at the time, was communication that difficult in New York to prevent the opening of that email and having it read?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think that question has already been addressed in the opening answer. Basically, they had limited communications capacity.

David Shearer: If the Minister is saying that the email was received and not opened, when was it finally opened in June?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not have that exact information. What I have said is that the email was identified in the office in June.

David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was on notice. It defies belief that this was not gone into before the Minister came to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is raising a reasonable point. It was a question on notice. We have identified that it was in June. I would have been hopeful that the date in June could also have been identified for the benefit of the House. The Minister is responsible for the answer; it is for the member to judge that answer.

David Shearer: Given that revelation today, why do the terms of reference into the investigation into what happened at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade not extend to what was going on in the activities in the Minister’s office and the actions of the Minister himself, in light of that investigation?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is up to Mr John Whitehead to consider how he undertakes this inquiry. The Minister expects the correspondence between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his office to form part of that review, and he expects to be interviewed, as well as relevant members of staff.

David Shearer: Given his answer to question No. 6 on 2 July that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade failed to inform its Minister, will he now admit that the failure was actually his and his own office’s?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The point is that there is an inquiry into all these matters, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not intend to comment further until that is concluded.

Urgent Debates Declined

Teachers and Support Staff, Payroll—Management of Novopay System

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision by the Government to take complete control of Novopay from the owner, Talent2. The Minister’s decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A debate on the findings of the ministerial inquiry into the Novopay school system was held on 4 June last year. The Government has now negotiated a new operating model for the school payroll system, to be implemented in October.

The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The House’s business should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made, even though it may be important. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. The payroll system has remained in a steady state over the last 15 months, except for the start of the year pay-rise cycles at the beginning of the year. Further improvements are required, and work will continue on a substantial improvement programme and simplification of the school payroll system. The agreed transition process will occur over time.

The decision today, although significant, does not signal any radical change in education policy. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the matter has again reached a stage where I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This is our last general debate for this session. We rise for the general election, and it is game on. This is an election that the Labour-led Opposition can win, will win, and must win for the people of New Zealand—for the people like the 260,000 children growing up in poverty; like the people who are without jobs, for whom we are promising jobs; and like the people whom we are promising an increase to the minimum wage immediately. The contrast is clear. Today we announced an immediate increase to the minimum wage and another one next year—$2 more. That will put $4,000 a year into the pockets of low-income workers. In New Zealand there are 100,000 children in working families that are below the poverty line, and we have the plan to fix that.

Meantime, contrast that with the National Government’s plan. What is its solution? Wining, dining, and mining—milk and disaster. It is presiding over a dairy industry where prices are falling off a cliff. It is praying that this election comes quickly, before dairy prices go down and interest rates go up, and before New Zealanders see through the fluff and the sham to what is really going on. And what is going on? There are 260,000 children in poverty, two out of five of whom are in working families. There are 40,000 kids hospitalised for poverty-related diseases. Homeownership is at the lowest level in 50 years. Rent and power are up 20 percent each, so hard-working families, middle-income New Zealanders, cannot get ahead.

Meantime, more people are unemployed in every region of New Zealand except Canterbury. Half of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise despite 3 percent growth, and 75 percent of Kiwis say that the gap between rich and poor has got bigger as real wages have fallen in 13 out of 16 regions.

Hon David Parker: And they’re right.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: And they are right. Meantime, the top few percent are doing just fine. The top 10 percent now own more than the other 90 percent, and National gave them huge tax cuts while putting GST up on everybody else. That is the Government’s priority. Now chief executive officers earn 26 times the average wage. The wage gap with Australia, which John Key was going to close, has climbed $70 a week to $190 a week.

It is often said that politics is a tipping game, and we know that this game is going to tip because on that side team Key is a pretty sorry mess. There is John Banks, the man John Key kept on throughout his trial for electoral fraud. Judith Collins used her ministerial position to entrench and enrich herself and her family. What did she get from the Prime Minister? A $5,000 holiday. Peter Dunne, the Minister who leaked the Kitteridge report and has never denied it—never denied it—was restored to Ōhariu and to the ministry. Are these higher standards for New Zealanders? I do not think so. Murray McCully—enough said. Gerry Brownlee is the “Minister for Aviation Security”, an oxymoron. That is like calling Jonathan Coleman the “Minister for Transparency about the FBI”, Simon Bridges the “Minister for National Parks”, Maurice Williamson the “Minister Helping Police with their Inquiries”, or Nick Smith the “Minister for Three Strikes Fishing for a New Game”. There is Phil “Richard Worth” Heatley, Claudette “Put It on the Plastic” Hauiti, and Aaron “Don’t You Know Who the Hell I Am?” Gilmore.

Well, we know who the heck they are. They are members of the tired old National Party. It is the “prop up the rich” National Party, and damn the rest. It is the Government that is on its way out. This is the Government that is on its way in. I say bring on campaign 2014. We are up for it. We are going to win this race. Thank you.

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, otirā, ēnā tātou katoa. The 50th Parliament wraps up this week. It has been a busy term, with more than 330 pieces of legislation passed—51 in the past year alone—and thousands of questions answered by our Prime Minister and Ministers. Whatever has been in the headlines, unlike others we truly have been focused on the issues that matter for New Zealanders. I would like to pay a tribute to New Zealanders for their resilience in going through the last very difficult period—perhaps the most difficult in a generation—their preparedness to face those challenges, their attitude to hard work, their continuing commitment to their families, and the entrepreneurship that has been evident in the growing, and continuing to grow, economy that our Government has overseen.

We feel a mood of positivity and “upbeatness”—if that is a word—in New Zealanders. That is most absolutely reflected by the strong and aspirational and constructive and positive leadership of our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key. Before he even came into Parliament he indicated that he wanted better for this country and for New Zealanders. In the almost 6 years that he has led our nation he has demonstrated that every day in every way. All of the policies of this Government have been about how we support New Zealanders to do better and how we back them to be the successful, aspirational Kiwis that we know them to be. Unlike the Opposition, which wants to focus on being pessimistic, on reporting failure, and on personal attacks, this side of the House has focused under the leadership of our Prime Minister on what is the very best in all New Zealanders.

We have delivered a stable and aspirational Government. Our track record reflects that. What have we done? In the economy that we have managed so soundly under our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, we are now in a situation where growth is forecast to reach 4 percent next year. The average wage has increased by $3,000 and by 2018 it is forecast to get to $62,300. An extra 84,000 jobs have been created in this past year alone. That is forecast to grow to 172,000. As we have heard in the House today, of course, one of the key indicators of that confidence in our economic management is that New Zealanders are staying here in New Zealand or coming home from other parts of the world, such is their confidence in our economic management. There is more to be done, and we are focused on that.

We also have a safer environment. In law and order, crime is down on almost—well, actually, on every indicator: violent crime, youth crime, reoffending. We are focusing more now and into the future on how we prevent young people getting into those situations where they default to criminal behaviour. For that, can I acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins and, of course, Anne Tolley.

We have 40,000 fewer people on welfare over the past 4 years. That is due to the stellar work of our Minister for Social Development who has focused her considerable energies on how we give people more chances to be successful. We see that in those coming off benefits and going into work. We understand that being on a benefit is no life for anyone. It is a lifeline; it is not a lifestyle. Work is good and we are providing that work. We are giving people incentives to come off benefits.

We are investing more and more in education. On every measure in education we are seeing improvements. More kids are participating in early childhood education. More kids are doing better in national standards at primary school. More young people are leaving school with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. More are getting degrees. This is absolutely due to the hard work of teachers and principals and their board chairs and trustees across the country. They are the ones who deserve the credit. We are backing them to be successful. That is why, going forward, we are putting $359 million into recognising, supporting, and growing the skills of teachers and of principals.

In health we have seen significant success. This is because we want to ensure that we have well New Zealanders and well families. For cancer it is now 4 weeks from decision to treat to actual treatment. Immunisation for our youngest New Zealanders—

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

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This week fluttering around outside Simon Bridges’ office I found a receipt. It seems to list a various number of expenses. Let us go through them. I see here we have 4 nights at the luxurious Intercontinental hotel in Wellington. We have got a corporate box for Rugby World Cup matches, including an All Blacks game. We have a sailing trip from the Port Nicholson Yacht Club. And meals—all the meals and booze you can think of, worth $22,000. We have got lunch catered by Ruth Pretty at the Palliser Estate vineyard, lunch at Martin Bosley’s, and dinner at Logan Brown. All up, what we see is $237,000 worth of taxpayers’ money to wine and dine just 11 oil executives over 4 days.

So here we see National spend $237,000 over 4 days. Here we see National blowing an annual ministerial salary in only 4 days on 11 oil executives, demonstrating how out of touch National is—how out of touch National is with the world that Kiwis experienced. Spending $22,000 just for booze and food equates to about $500 a day per person. That is twice what many Kiwi families spend in an entire week at the supermarket—$500 a day. At a time when Kiwis are struggling, working some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages and with some of the highest costs of living in the developed world, we are seeing this sort of action by the Government. At a time when one in four of our kids is growing up in poverty and when 60 percent of our rivers are considered unsafe to swim in, something is seriously wrong with National’s New Zealand.

You see, Kiwis see their Ministers splashing money around on some of the richest industries in the world, being more interested in the last drops of oil than they are in the last 55 Māui’s dolphin. They are subsidising tens of millions of dollars to seabed miners who cannot even get a consent through National’s Environmental Protection Authority, with special deals for smelters, tax breaks for oil drillers, pokies for convention centre deals, and our assets sold off for a song to a minority. You see, this September Kiwis have a choice: National’s pollution economy and crony capitalism or a smarter, cleaner, fairer New Zealand, which is what the Green Party is espousing.

So this election my message to Kiwis is: aroha mai, aroha atu—love New Zealand. I love New Zealand, I love my country, and this election I am asking Kiwis to party vote Green to look after, to take advantage of, and to build and grow the country we love. This election the Green Party is going to deliver a cleaner environment, a fairer society, and a smarter economy. We are stable. We have got a unified caucus, successful co-leaders, and we are ready for Government. We are proven. We have led the Opposition this term on issues like asset sales, power prices, and protecting our Māui’s dolphins, and we have worked with National, where we could, to make practical improvements like the home insulation scheme, and the national cycleway.

We are modern. We have brought fresh thinking and up-to-date solutions to Parliament, and we have tackled those issues other parties are ignoring, like climate change, entrenched inequality, and the underperforming economy. This September Kiwis have a very clear choice on our country’s direction. National says that our rivers and streams should be safe for swimming—well, it does not even say that. It says that our rivers and streams should be safe only for boating and wading. The Green Party says that they should be safe to swim in. National says that our economy should continue to be dependent on raw logs, milk powder, and, hopefully, oil—desperately, desperately hoping for oil. The Greens, however, have got a plan to build a smarter, greener economy that really works for all New Zealanders. Our vision is an economy that sees Kiwis, for example, in work installing insulation under people’s roofs and solar panels on the top. Our plans include a second internet cable for New Zealand and support to grow the internet economy.

There is a limit to National’s pollution economy. You can see it every day in our toxic rivers and streams. There is no limit to the greentech, the clean energy, and the IT we could be exporting around the world. We are going to deliver that smart Green innovative economy through personal and business tax cuts to everyone by putting a charge on carbon polluters. We are going to invest a billion dollars in extra research and development to help our greentech sector, and we are going to establish a green investment bank to kickstart investment in smart Green projects that create good jobs. National will not look, it will not count, and it will not act when it comes to growing child poverty and inequality, but the Greens are going to deliver a fairer society where every child has enough to thrive. We have got a plan for a cleaner, fairer, smarter Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a very clear choice Kiwis have got this September, and we are urging them to get on the roll, make sure they vote, and party vote Green.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): Yes, we are here nearly at the end of the 50th Parliament—my goodness. It is a round number, but by golly it has been a challenging 3 years for New Zealand, a challenging 3 years for the people of my Rangitata electorate, a challenging 3 years for the Government. But do you know what? We can unequivocally say that this Government on this side of the House has done the hard yards in order to protect New Zealand’s citizens from the sharpest edges of the recession.

As we come to the end of this Parliament, I want to acknowledge our Minister of Health, the Hon Tony Ryall. He will join other colleagues today in giving his valedictory speech—Paul Hutchison, Phil Heatley, Eric Roy, and Shane Ardern. But I want to pay a special tribute to the Hon Tony Ryall, who has been the Minister of Health now for the last 6 years during challenging times. So despite the fact that we have had huge challenges to the Government revenue and finances—the global financial crisis and the sort of impact that the Christchurch earthquakes have had on New Zealand—there has been an average of an extra $500 million going into the health budget each year during his term as Minister.

In addition to that we have seen the health dollars go further during that time. That has been an enormous achievement on the part of not just the Minister but the Ministry of Health and the practitioners working in the health sector across this country. I will give some examples in a few moments, but it has really been a case of the Minister challenging the health sector to look at how it can do things better with the same amount of money or a little bit more. There is $15.6 billion being spent on health now. In the big scheme of things we had a slow-down of the amount of extra money going in there, but it was no longer a case of chucking money at it and hoping that we would get outcomes. Instead, it was about actually measuring what we were doing and having targets that health practitioners universally bought into, and they delivered fantastically well. I want to use some examples of those health targets. In addition, we have got 1,500 more doctors and 3,200 more nurses.

How have we seen these outcomes measured in terms of things that really matter to the families of New Zealand? I can tell you that as we look around the country now we see measles affecting families of older New Zealanders, in terms of late primary school and secondary school students. We know that it was shameful that back in 2007 only 67 percent of New Zealand’s children were fully immunised at age 2. We know that it is now 93 percent at 8 months. We know that that has been wholly because of practitioners getting in there and making sure that children are fully immunised. We also know that there is much less waiting for cancer treatment now. We know that New Zealanders are not going to Australia for their radiotherapy treatment and their chemotherapy treatment. We know that that is because we have looked to do things differently and to make sure that we are delivering to New Zealanders the health care they deserve.

We also know that 94 percent of our emergency department patients are now seen within the 6-hour target. Why do we need a 6-hour target? Well, hang, it looked pretty ghastly when we had people on trolleys in corridors in the emergency departments for not hours at a time but days at a time. What a shame. What an absolutely shameful practice that was, and that has stopped.

Scott Simpson: Who was the health Minister then? Who was it?

Hon JO GOODHEW: Well, there was a variety of Ministers of Health, to be fair. There was actually the Hon Annette King and the Hon David Cunliffe. Both had parts to play in that.

So what else have we got happening? Well, we actually now have a significant amount of money looking to address a very, very difficult issue, and that is rheumatic fever prevention—$65.3 million is in there. The previous Labour Government promised much and delivered nothing on this. It promised to address it but did not. It is a terribly difficult issue to address. Now we have thousands upon thousands of children dropping into sore throat clinics to be checked. They have much less likelihood now of developing rheumatic fever because they are getting the treatment they need by doing that.

We have also prioritised detecting diabetes and cardiovascular disease early. In order to do that you cannot expect that patients will just rock up to the doctor and say “Oh, I thought I might have a check for that.” That is rare. What we are doing is systematically requiring that those conditions are checked for in primary health care. When it comes time for this election what we will see is New Zealanders looking at our record, our plans for the future, and voting National.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That was an interesting speech by Jo Goodhew, and obviously that member is proud of her record. I take the opportunity to wish Tony Ryall well. We have sparred occasionally in the House, but I will say this: for Mr Ryall, sadly, along with Bill English, one of his political epitaphs—which the member never, of course, referenced as a proud moment in this House—will be the running-down of Solid Energy into the ground to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, to the tune of 1,000 jobs, and all the while that member, her colleagues, the Minister of Finance, and the outgoing Minister for State Owned Enterprises, sat by, fully advised by their officials, and did nothing. That is their version of a hands-off, free-market economy. I believe in the free-market economy, but I believe that Ministers are paid a big whack of a salary to do their job and to ensure that boards do theirs and management do theirs.

There are some significant problems in our economy and in the life of this country: 260,000 children live in poverty and our manufacturers are struggling because this Government will not come to terms with much-needed monetary reform. We have proposed solutions to both those problems. We have proposed reforms, quite substantial reforms, in respect of monetary policy. Paid parental leave, a desperate cry for parents to be supported; our early childhood education having its funding restored; and lowering our class sizes—these are all solutions that this side of the House, along with others in other parties, have promoted.

But there is a biblical saying—dredging up my old Catholic Sunday school roots; I think it is Proverbs 26:11—and it goes like this: “As a dog returneth to its vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.” Look at the litany and the priorities of this Government. “Brown Bag Banks” is soon to be sentenced, and may be doing porridge in striped sunshine in about 48 hours—a Minister in this Government. Judith Collins—Oravida—caught feathering her own nest. She was feathering her own nest and to this day she will not front up with critical information. Then, of course, another Minister—

Tim Macindoe: This is “Vote Positive”, isn’t it? This will go down really well on the hustings.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: If you are going to interject, sonny, sit in your seat and obey the rules, or take a call. Then there is Peter Dunne. Peter Dunne is the Maxwell Smart of the New Zealand Parliament, 006½, leaking national security reports, but he is still a Minister in the Government.

Then we have Gerry Brownlee. I have got to say this about Gerry Brownlee, and I will quote from Bill English when he was referencing the law back in 2006. Bill English said this: “You see, respect for the rule of law is a positive quality; it is not just obedience under the fear of discovery and punishment.” Well, you can tell when a Government is moving into that zone of being out of touch. The sort of human blunderbuss Gerry Brownlee apparently is on top of every aspect of his portfolio—every aspect of his portfolio—but struggles to know which door to get through, or which door to try to get through, or which rules to obey at a particular airport, even though he is, or was, the Minister responsible for aviation security. Mr Brownlee does not, of course, have the decency to write to the volunteer whom I met a couple of days ago and personally apologise. He does not have the grace to write to the chief executive of the airport company and say: “OK, I did this. My cop. My staff did it. This guy is a volunteer. Do not sanction him. He is a decent human being.”—and he is—oh no.

The Prime Minister, of course, is great at talking about lifting standards, and we will not talk about the member who is not here in respect of her expenses. We will not go back and regurgitate the bile that is Mr Dunne, the bile that is John Banks, and other Ministers who have gone. Oh no, anything goes in terms of the high standards and the arrogance of this Government.

Well, I say to the people of New Zealand that we have proposed a series of solutions. We have proposed a series of solutions like reforming superannuation and dealing with the housing crisis by actually building houses—100,000 houses over 10 years. When I went to school you solved problems in a practical way, not with accords that do not exist. After 2 years, there are zero houses through the Auckland Housing Accord.

We have proposed a series of solutions, and positive solutions. I say compare us on this side of the House with those opposite, who exhibit every sign of political decay and arrogance—and Gerry Brownlee is a big target to pin that one on. They show every sign of political arrogance—that they are somehow above the ordinary folk out there, they are somehow better, and they know better than the ordinary folk out there. Well, I say that that is the first sign of constitutional and political decay. I suggest that Mr Brownlee and others look at the level of decency, look at the so-called high standards, and make some substantial changes. There is, indeed, a difference and a choice in the next election.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs): It is a pleasure to speak in this, the general debate, the last general debate before Parliament rises in this the 50th term of Parliament. I want to start by using a word that you will not hear from the previous speaker, Mr Cosgrove, and that you will not hear from the Labour Party, and that is “positive”. Positive is the contribution that the Hon Tony Ryall has made over the last 24 years. Positive is the contribution that John Key in this John Key - led Government has made over the last 6 years. I mean positive, because when you look at the Labour billboards, you see more “positive” than you see of their leader. What a joke—another joke of how they cannot support David Cunliffe. I went to Waimakariri. I saw the billboards for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. They are not red, they do not mention Labour, and they do not mention David Cunliffe.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table one of my billboards, which shows exactly the opposite to what that member—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I am not putting the leave.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. We are being positive because this Government stands for education and standards in schools. This Government has led to an increase in the achievement rates for Pacific kids in our schools. Seventy-two percent of Pacific kids across this country have now reached National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 achievement rates. That is something that I am particularly proud of.

You cannot expect Labour Party members to govern when they cannot govern themselves. That much is clear this afternoon, and it has been clear for a very long time in this debating chamber. Can you imagine what you would get with a Labour Government? You would get back to the future with Annette King, would you not? The Hon Annette King—you would get back to the future. I go up and down this country, and when I am talking to my constituents in Maungakiekie—when I am out doorknocking, putting hoardings up, and delivering pamphlets—what are the things that they demand from Governments? They demand better public services. They want services in education, health, housing, and law and order, and that is what this National Government is delivering day upon day in this country, governing New Zealand.

We have got 40,000 more people receiving elective surgery since 2008. We are keeping our kids and our families healthy. Ninety-one percent of 8-month-old children—[Interruption] Miss King knows this because she was the Minister of Health. It has gone up and 91 percent are now being immunised, and 98 percent of those kids under 6, Annette King, have access to free doctors visits day on day.

We are also attacking diabetes, which is a particular problem in my neighbourhood, and heart disease and rheumatic fever. That is something that, under Annette King, Labour neglected for a very long time—a very long time.

Sue Moroney: Oh, what rubbish!

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Sue Moroney knows this. In the area of law and order, we are making a difference, because crime rates are at their lowest for 25 years. [Interruption] That is 25 years—25 years—Mr Simpson. We have lower youth crime and lower violent crime. We are putting victims at the heart of our justice system, so I want to thank the Hon Judith Collins for leading that.

We are, as I have said, getting success right across the board in education. It is positive for our communities, it is positive for local people, and it is positive right across the board. It is about getting skills, education, and qualifications. What does that do? It promotes your ability to get a job. When New Zealanders get jobs—

Hon Members: Where are the jobs?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —they are free to choose and free to get jobs independent of the State. Members opposite might ask where the jobs are, but in the last year there has been just under 80,000 jobs created, and for Pacific people that is 8,000 jobs created over the last 12 months.

In my own portfolio of local government, we passed the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) last night, which has meant a more effective way of delivering local government services. It means that development contributions are going to be fairer and more transparent. It also allows for councils to promote consultative processes that are appropriate for the circumstances. We have a clear choice on 20 September. New Zealanders right across this country have a clear choice. Vote for a party that is in disarray, caught up in “gotcha politics”, and that apologises every time it delivers a policy, or vote for a party that is focused on the issues that matter to all New Zealanders—on improved public services, growing the economy, and growing jobs, and on education, skills, and training. National is a party for New Zealanders who believe in their own future.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand is the land of milk and honey—if you have the money, that is. The rises in power prices, petrol, rents, rates, and food are doing immense damage to Kiwi families. The Government says not to worry because we have a rock star economy, except that for most Kiwi families it is a rock-bottom economy, and the Government is aground with its economic policy, which has relied on a dairy boom, the Christchurch rebuild boom, and over $60 billion in borrowing.

Net Government debt as a percentage of GDP has risen from 5.5 percent in 2008 to a staggering 26.3 percent in 2013. In the meantime, Statistics New Zealand data shows that in the year to June, food prices are the highest since July 2011. In June, vegetable prices increased 8.9 percent; meat, poultry, and fish prices increased 3.6 percent; butter was up 7.7 percent; yoghurt was up 3.6 percent; and in the year to June, fresh milk was up 11 percent, cheese was up 12 percent, yoghurt was up 7.2 percent, and butter was up 12 percent. Also, beef was up 6.9 percent, lamb was up 20 percent, and chicken was up 2.4 percent. But incomes for most people are not up.

For many people who are struggling, the ability to buy meat and vegetables has been an issue for some time because these basics have reached the point of unaffordability. That means that people have to buy cheaper food that fills the tummy but lacks nutrition.

We in New Zealand First will remove GST from food. Remember when John Key promised no increase in GST, and then after the election increased it to 15 percent? That was a slap in the face for families trying to put good nutritious food on the table. And that slap came after a kick in the guts for most families, when in 2009 the Key Government reduced tax for the highest income earners, at a staggering $5 billion, but there was nothing for struggling families.

A recent OECD report stated that the income gap in New Zealand was the worst for all OECD countries, and New Zealand has the fifth-highest food prices within the 34 OECD nations. New Zealand First will take GST off all food, except for a very small number of items, such as sugary drinks, takeaways, and restaurant food. So at least 95 percent of all food would be GST-exempt. The objective is to give relief to struggling middle and low-income Kiwi families.

New Zealand First has surveyed mothers who buy the family food. Most spend around $300 a week, but some must make do with $200 per week. They say they need the GST off food, and if they get the benefit of the extra $30 to $45 a week they will use it to buy more and better food. Now that would be a rock star result. Kiwis on those middle and low incomes will feel the greatest benefit because they spend a much greater proportion of their income on food.

This policy will cost $3 billion per year and will be partly funded by clamping down on tax evasion and the black economy, estimated at $7 billion annually. The Key Government is projecting a $3.5 billion current account surplus within 2 years. So this policy is easily affordable. The policy is also easy to implement. Food is exempt from tax to some degree in many countries, including Australia, the United Kingdom, and most of Europe, because they do not see a family’s food as a proper object for taxation, and neither should we. In addition, New Zealand First will remove GST from rates on residential property. Rates are a major burden, especially for people on lower and fixed incomes. It is a tax on a tax, and that has to end.

Under a New Zealand First Government, food and rates will not be taxed, because we are the one party that will genuinely address the cost of living, and the cost of living is the big issue in this campaign.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank God there will not be a New Zealand First - led Government. It is a great pleasure to speak in the general debate this afternoon—the final general debate in this 50th Parliament. After the member Denis O’Rourke’s contribution, I was going to rebut some of the things that he said, but it is probably not worth it. It is like everything that that party ever said—things like they are not anti-Chinese, but everything that comes out of that member’s mouth is all about anti-Chinese rhetoric.

I am very proud to be standing here as part of the National-led Government, led by our Prime Minister John Key. Our Prime Minister has provided strong political leadership, stable Government policies, and a united hard-working team. Today you can see that most of us are wearing a very colourful tie, going out in support of one of our colleagues who is giving his valedictory speech today, the Hon Tony Ryall, who has been a very colourful character in this House for a very long time. We are united. We are a hard-working team and together with forward-thinking New Zealanders we are making things happen.

There are many things that I could talk about but I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, the Hon Judith Collins. As her parliamentary private secretary, I have worked very closely with Minister Collins, and her work has been exemplary. I am particularly proud of the work of the Office of Ethnic Affairs in Ethnic People in Commerce in New Zealand. More than 400 people attended the Ethnic People in Commerce conference this year, and it was an opportunity for ethnic people in commerce to connect with mainstream businesses and corporates. This year, Ethnic People in Commerce in New Zealand is partnered with Export New Zealand to connect and take advantage of and maximise growth opportunities. I can say that there were at least 300 real connections that were made as a result of the conference, and they will result in greater opportunities for our ethnic communities, in recognition that our ethnic communities can and do contribute significantly to the benefit and growth of New Zealand.

Tomorrow Parliament wraps up after an incredibly busy term, with more than 330 pieces of legislation passed and literally thousands of questions answered by the Prime Minister and Ministers. Through everything that has made the headlines over this parliamentary term, this National Government, under John Key’s leadership, has been well and truly focused on what actually matters. Jobs and wages are growing, and we have one of the highest growth rates among the world’s developed economies. That is something that we should all be proud of.

We are supporting the most vulnerable in New Zealand with Better Public Services. We have fewer Kiwis thinking that their future will be better in Australia; they are remaining in New Zealand. We have Kiwis returning to Aotearoa. People are feeling more positive. Export figures are high, inflation is low, and we are on track to surplus. That is something that we should all be very, very proud of. We are on track to Budget surplus this year and to post increasing surpluses in years to come, so that we will have choices about repaying debt and investing a bit more in our priority public services.

Earlier, someone asked where the jobs are. In the past year there were an extra 84,000 jobs created right across New Zealand. Treasury is forecasting that another 172,000 jobs will be created over the next 4 years. That is something we should all be proud of. It is interesting that the increase in spending from Labour in the last six Budgets in its term of Government added up to $20 billion. Compare that with this side of the House: our six Budgets total $2.9 billion—$20 billion versus $2.9 billion, driven in part by two net zero Budgets. Everyone can decide who is better in charge of the treasury. The public can see who is a better manager of the treasury.

We have improved the Government’s finances, while still improving public services and making a difference. It is less about throwing money around on a problem and more about changing the way we work, so that the services we deliver are more effective. We are finding out that the more we get Government agencies to focus on results, the better outcomes we have for our communities and our country.

This Government is willing and able to spend more now to reduce the long-term social and economic costs of dysfunction. What a good thing it is for families and what a good thing it is for the Government. The National Government should be voted in on 20 September.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Well, there are none so blind as those who will not see, and of course, the blindest in the House right now would be Mike Sabin, after putting on his tie this morning. The rest of the National caucus constitute a major health and safety risk that requires hearing protection because their ties and shirts are far too loud.

This is a great day for working New Zealanders because now they have hope. Working New Zealanders have seen Labour’s policy announcement on work and wages, and now they know that help is at hand. Help is at hand because they are the ones—the 50 percent of wage and salary earners in New Zealand—who have struggled to make ends meet year after year of this Government. Year after year they have struggled to make ends meet and now they finally see there is a chance that their wages will go up. Sure, those on the minimum wage will get an immediate lift, and they will get another lift next year—$15 before Christmas, $16.25 next April—and then the rest of working New Zealand will know that in Labour they will have a Government that is committed to sharing fairly the economic gains of this country.

The Government talks about rising wages, but it turns a wilfully blind eye and ignores the 46 percent of working New Zealanders who did not get a pay rise last year. It had nothing to say about it because it does not care and it does not understand it. It does not understand the modern workplace and the modern labour market. That is this Government. Put aside the 46 percent who cannot get a pay rise—what about the others? What about the rest of the workforce who have added to the productivity gains of this country? There has been a 50 percent improvement in productivity in the last 20 years and yet wages have not kept pace. If the average wage had kept pace with productivity improvements, the average wage today would be between $7 and $8 an hour better than it is now. But that Government does not care. It does not care that 40 percent of children living in households that are below the poverty line have working parents. They live in households that have working parents. That is how bad it is. Working parents are going out there, doing two, three, four, and sometimes five jobs, and still cannot make ends meet. That is how bad wages are in this country for far too many people and it is time it changed, so we will lift the minimum wage.

We will do away with the retrograde laws that this Government passed that prevent people from negotiating pay rises through collective bargaining or other means, and we will get rid of the laws that treat people shabbily and appallingly—the 90-day law is just one of them. We will get rid of those laws. Then we will have a conversation. We will have a conversation with all those in the labour market—working people, wage and salary earners, the so-called dependent contractors, the people who are employed by labour hire agencies. We will talk to their employers and we will ask them why they cannot get a pay rise, why they are being treated unfairly, why they are being sent down the road and kicked out of a job with no notice and no compensation—why is that happening? We will get that information, we will hear from the people who matter and the people who care, and we will make changes that reflect a modern 21st century labour market, not the 19th century version that National believes in, and not the antediluvian policies that National will visit on this country, because people want better.

People expect fairness and they no longer look to National for fairness. They look to National for graft and unfairness and for looking after its big mates, but working people do not look to National for fairness any more. They look to Labour. The 50 New World workers in Hāwera who have lost their jobs today will not look to Chester Borrows for help; they will be looking at Hamish McDouall and Andrew Little for help, because that is where it is going to come from. The 250 skilled engineering workers who lost their jobs in New Plymouth this year are not looking to Jonathan Young or National to help; they are looking to Labour for help, because that is where they will get it. They know that the people in Labour understand working people, and they understand the labour market. We understand what is going on and we will make it better. People will know that under Labour they will have a better chance of getting a fair share. Not when Tau Henare is in the House—no, no, no—that is long gone. They will look to a Labour Government because that is the way you get a fair share in this country.

If you want to be paid fairly for what you do, you vote Labour. That is what New Zealanders are lining up to do. They will be lining up to do it come 20 September. They will not be looking at that mob. They want jobs and they want a reduction in unemployment, not the 6 percent that they have got right now.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak and participate in the last general debate of this Parliament. I am proud to be part of this National-led Government, which has turned round this economy.

First of all I would like to make a correction. The announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition that people will have an extra $4,000 in their pocket—I do not agree with him. If you calculate—

Hon Annette King: Why not?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I will tell you. Listen to it.

Hon Annette King: You want them to be poor?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Listen to it, first. A $2 increase in pay for working 40 hours for 52 weeks calculates as being $4,160 in total. If you deduct the tax from that, you will get almost $3,400. The public will get $3,400 in their pocket, not $4,000. So every announcement that the Labour Party has made has to be read carefully, because it has got loopholes in it.

Apart from this, I would like to—

Hon Annette King: So when you talk about the average wage, does it include tax, or not?

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: But it is not in the pocket—it is not in the pocket. The Leader of the Opposition said you will have an extra $4,000 in your pocket. This is not in your pocket.

Hon Member: Lies.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes, lies.

The Government has worked hard, more jobs have been created, wages have grown, and we have got the highest growth rate among the world’s developed economies. Our Better Public Services are supporting the most vulnerable. Export figures are higher, and inflation is low. We are on track to surplus, and fewer New Zealanders think that the brighter future is in Australia.

Whether we arrive in waka or we arrive in modern-day jet planes to start afresh in a new place, with little support in terms of family, friends, and networks, it is not easy. However, despite these and other hurdles, many of us make a humble start. We learn and adapt to the New Zealand culture, its food, and its habits, and that goes a long way. It is fair to say that New Zealand has enriched the lives of migrants, and migrants have in return enriched New Zealand with their food, colour, and culture, and have contributed to the development of the country, not just economically but socially as well.

Migrants’ children too adapt to the New Zealand education system, and have been very successful in their academic achievements. Despite English not being their first language, migrant children adapt in their attempts to progress, and do as well as their Kiwi peers. Of course, the role of parents in the success of their children is very crucial. Most migrants understand that to succeed in their adopted land, their family must work hard and their children must attain a good level of education. That is why most of the migrants pay close attention to the education of their children and support their achievements. With support from their families, many of the second-generation migrants are now seen in professional roles as chartered accountants, doctors, lawyers, and architects.

Continuing the theme of the achievement and the contributions of migrants to New Zealand and its economy, recent statistics made available from Statistics New Zealand state that in 2004, the contribution made by the migrant people of Indian origin to the New Zealand economy was about $2.8 billion. By 2013 this had risen to $10 billion, which equates to 4.8 percent of GDP. I think it is fair to say that we are contributing our fair share to the New Zealand culture socially, culturally, and economically.

In recent times most of the New Zealand migrants have come from Asia. The migrant community in New Zealand no doubt plays a very active role in connecting their country of birth to their country of residence in developing trade and economic ties. The importance of the result of this unique relationship between one’s motherland—that is, the land of birth—and the adopted motherland, or the current place of residence, is that the relationships are very vital in growing trade between Asia and New Zealand.

HOLLY WALKER (Green): This is probably the last time that I will address this House. As members will be aware, I have stepped down from the Green Party list and I am not seeking a second term in Parliament. Having been here for only 3 years I have decided not to give a formal valedictory speech, as I do not have enough to talk about to take up 15 minutes of the House’s valuable time. But nor did I want my last words in Hansard to be on the Epsom by-election debate, following the unfortunate departure of Mr Banks, so I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few parting comments in this general debate.

I did not plan to leave this House so soon after arriving. I had hoped that this would be the start of a long career in politics. In my maiden speech I expressed the hope that when I left we would have made real progress on reducing inequality and eliminating child poverty. So I am sorry to be leaving without meaningful change in either of those important indicators, and before having the chance to be part of a progressive Green Government to address those, and the equally vital issues of climate change, environmental protection, and economic transformation. However, we are, all of us, always only one unexpected event away from a big lifestyle change—the birth of a child, a change in employment, a family challenge—and so it has proved for me.

When presented with the choice between continuing my parliamentary career and supporting my family when they needed me, I am not sorry to say it was an easy choice to put my family first. It has been noted by some that my departure is a sign that Parliament is still a difficult place for young parents. Some may conclude that it is not possible for a mother to be in Parliament with a young baby. My feelings on this point are mixed. In my Green Party colleagues here I could not have asked for a more supportive team in my attempt to combine the important roles of parenting and Parliament. The Speaker also has been more than fair in his willingness to grant me compassionate leave in the evenings to enable me to continue to breastfeed my daughter. My family, friends, staff, Green Party members and supporters, and even some MPs from other parties, have rallied around me and provided meals, babysitting, housework, and moral support to allow me to continue, and I am so grateful to all of you.

Many people have also asked me whether Parliament needs to change in order to better accommodate the needs of young parents. Some changes have already helped—the introduction of the new category of compassionate leave, for example. But short of radically overhauling the whole institution to allow, for example, job sharing or a temporary replacement from the list for an MP on parental leave, and perhaps one day we will get there, it is hard to pin down specific changes that would have made it easier for me to carry on—a change in the sitting hours, perhaps. But really it comes down to this. Being an MP is a 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week job and so is being a mum. It is bloody hard to hold down one 24/7 job—excuse my language, Mr Speaker. Holding two at the same time has, in my case, proved impossible. That will not be the case for everyone, and I sincerely hope that others will succeed at this in future, because this place does need more parents and more young mothers in particular.

As I step aside, at least for now, from this bear pit of parliamentary politics I do take comfort in the knowledge that those coming up behind me on the Green Party list will make outstanding MPs, and I look forward to watching them in action during the 51st Parliament. My own commitment to good green change is as strong as ever. I love New Zealand and I want to see a cleaner environment, a smarter economy, and a fairer society. I still want to see a meaningful reduction in child poverty and inequality, and I want to see progress on climate change, environmental protection, and innovation. So I will have to find new ways to help achieve this from outside Parliament. Wherever that leads me—whether back here in some capacity one day, or in a completely different direction—I will always be proud to have served as an MP for these 3 years, humbled by the trust that was placed in me to enable me to do so, and grateful to all of those who have made it possible. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): We are fortunate to live in a country that is working, and working in every sense of that word, with a transparent, uncorrupt, growing, and developing economy. Last year New Zealand’s economy grew by 3.8 percent in the year to March, making us one of the five fastest-growing economies in the developed world. Growth is forecast to reach a stunning 4 percent this year. Average wages have increased by $3,000 in the past 2 years, and they are on track to grow by another $7,000, to $62,300 in 2018. An extra 84,000 new jobs were created last year in the year to March, with forecasts of another 172,000 jobs to be created over the next 4 years. This Government is working for New Zealand, and New Zealanders are working hard themselves to build a better life for their families.

As this is likely to be the last opportunity that I will have to speak in the House prior to the general election, there are a few special messages that I would like to pass on. I would like to congratulate all retiring members who are about to give their valedictories this afternoon and, in particular, the Hon Tony Ryall, who has been the finest Minister of Health in my lifetime. I would like to wish Mr Vic Reid, an absolute stalwart of our society who has introduced and led the Cooking for One course for older widowers, among his many other charitable deeds and community interests, a very happy 90th birthday. And I would like to farewell the outgoing British High Commissioner, Her Excellency Vicki Treadell, who finishes her term tomorrow as Her Britannic Majesty’s representative in Wellington. Since taking up her commission, Vicki has been an approachable, energetic, and modern champion for the relationship between the United Kingdom and New Zealand. It is our oldest relationship with another State.

I would like to acknowledge Darryl Stevens, Aaron Hape, and all the team from Commonwealth Youth New Zealand, who organised this week’s student Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) here at Parliament. It was fantastic to see so many bright young people—the future leaders of our country—come from all over New Zealand to take part in that conference and learn more about the world around them. We live in an age where bloody and intractable conflict in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, the Ukraine, Nigeria, Pakistan, and elsewhere is claiming innocent lives, wrecking economies, consuming vast resource, and destroying ancient cultures and civilisations. Internal unrest and persecution, such as that of the Baha’i faith in Iran, which this House was yesterday petitioned to condemn, is also tragically common. It is of the utmost importance that the next generation continues to work for peace and to challenge injustice and persecution, so, as the Glasgow Commonwealth Games play out on our TV screens, I applaud the work of the Commonwealth and student CHOGM in maintaining the values of democracy and development that we all hold dear.

This country is moving in the right direction. We have a Prime Minister in John Key who is relentlessly optimistic, tirelessly positive, and unstintingly hard-working for our nation and its people. Here in Wellington, team Key is working hard and is delivering on our promises. With the massive Transmission Gully motorway project to the north, which is due to start work soon and to be completed by 2020, safer and securer transport around the greater region is on the way. The War Memorial Park over the Buckle Street underpass is on track to be completed in time for Anzac Day 2015, and it will be a wonderful civic amenity. Although I was disappointed to see the Basin Reserve improvements held back, I will join with my colleagues on this side of the House to ensure a pragmatic way ahead can be found.

Out in the Hutt too, our candidates are campaigning every single waking hour to ensure that the public are aware of the progress being made under the National-led Government. Chris Bishop, the National candidate in Hutt South, is assiduously making huge inroads and may become a constituency MP after the election. A rather cruel wit once said that left-wing politicians and babies’ nappies have one thing in common: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reason. Hutt residents deserve a fresh, new representative to push their interests in this place.

We are lucky on this side of the House to have a renewed team led by a Prime Minister who aspires to having fairness, prosperity, and a better life for all New Zealanders. That is why a clear majority of New Zealanders support team Key and will give their party vote to National this year. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Valedictory Statements

Valedictory Statements

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members, the process that we will follow for the valedictory statements is that there will be the four National speakers first. Following these, of which the fourth is Shane Ardern, there will be a waiata and the opportunity for congratulatory messages. Following that, we will move to Ross Robertson’s valedictory and there will be a waiata, along with the congratulatory messages, and then the Hon Tony Ryall’s valedictory and the congratulatory messages. For all those giving valedictory statements, there will be a 2-minute bell before the expiry of their speeches. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee, I call on Dr Paul Hutchison to make his valedictory statement.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Tēnā koe. May I start by paying tribute to our House of Representatives and all who have passed through it, and to those who have died for New Zealand, as commemorated on the walls of this great Chamber. Our democratic freedoms have been hard-won.

On arrival in 1999 I found myself looking towards the Speaker’s Chair from behind Sue Bradford of the Greens on one side and a magnificent display of dreadlocks belonging to Nandor Tanczos on the other. I could only marvel at and celebrate the diversity of our Parliament under MMP. Somewhat wistfully, I feel the Greens look slightly less organic today than they did 14 years ago. But I have played my part. By chance, I happened to occupy the apartment where the Hon Phillida Bunkle got into controversy over her purchase of very expensive hemp curtains. I decided that I would donate them to the Greens and organised a formal hand-over ceremony to both Nandor and Sue Kedgley. A photograph was duly taken by the Dominion Post, with us standing behind a street sign that, by pure coincidence, happened to be called Grass Street.

Even though I have had huge encouragement from my bench mate on “skid row”, the Hon Tau Henare, to be ejected by the Speaker from this House, as well as having gone to the same Onslow College as gold medallist ejectee, Trevor Mallard, I have miserably failed to achieve that status.

I want to take this last opportunity to comment on three areas that have been of particular importance to me, each of which I mentioned in my maiden speech: first, that New Zealand should do everything in its power to restore our status as a country that is a great place for all children to achieve their full potential; second, that New Zealand should significantly grow our science and research base, to better inform policy and broaden our economic opportunities; and, third, that New Zealand should stay firm in committing to our respected, independent foreign policy and continue to celebrate and encourage others to join our hard-won, inspirational nuclear weapons - free status.

Today I am so delighted that my wife, Antonia, and beautiful daughters Clemmie and Daisy are, with other friends and relatives, in the gallery. I am sorry that Natacha and Elizabeth are unable to be here. I pay heartfelt tribute to Antonia and her mother, Pam, who have put so much love, care, and devotion into our family.

I wish to salute the magnificent and diverse people of the electorate that I have had the honour and privilege to represent. The seat of Port Waikato, and then Hunua, includes vast areas of superb farmland that stretches from the east coast to the west. Pukekohe has been the epicentre. It is a multicultural, progressive satellite town—or city—of Auckland, and home of the Ranfurly Shield. Franklin is made distinctive by its people knowing and caring for each other by an incredible network of community organisations and colourful local leaders.

Having spent my previous life near major hospitals in cities, it was a novel and wonderful experience to live on the land. I hardly knew what a heifer was, but I now care for a small herd. On selection day my wife gave me a card and a bunch of roses, and there was a quote from George Bernard Shaw, which read: “He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”

Countless numbers of A and P shows, calf club days, farmers’ meetings, and interactions with the legendary Pukekohe Vegetable Growers Association have given me a huge respect for our farmers and growers and their love of the land. Their contribution to New Zealand’s economy and our consequent ability to afford good health, education, and social services should always be remembered.

I have had the great good fortune to be supported by a superb electorate team. I thank every one of them—in particular, the longstanding chairman, Ian McDougall, the campaign chairman, Rod McGregor, and the secretary, Glenda Watson, for their extraordinary service to our party. May I thank Alwyn Black, who supported me in Wellington with great professionalism for 13 years, followed by Sarah-Rose Burke and Jennifer Fellows. May I also thank Jeda Wyatt, Raynor Capper, and Lynda Christie at the electorate office, and, in particular, Barbara Knowles, who is sitting in the gallery. Barbara represents the quintessential electorate agent—highly professional, highly knowledgable, and extraordinarily kind to those most in need. She has served our community with distinction. The team has made it possible for me to assist thousands of constituents, which is a very satisfying part of the life of an MP.

Several local issues have been of immense importance to me. I would have dearly liked to have witnessed before I left this House a fair and honourable settlement of the Ngāti Te Ata Treaty claim. I sincerely hope that day will come soon. The amalgamation of the eight Auckland councils was the most divisive issue during my tenure. The thinking behind the draft legislation was definitely urban-centred. There was no provision to ensure the rural voice was recognised at the new council table, despite 70 percent of Greater Auckland being rural. I was glad to have unanimous caucus agreement to move amendments that resulted in the Auckland spatial plan having to take regard of rural issues and the Auckland Council establishing a rural advisory panel.

I had requested permission to cross the floor as a symbolic gesture to the 97.5 percent of people from Pukekohe who polled against amalgamation. I am now of the view that if the Auckland Council has the same sort of determination to achieve efficiencies and cut unnecessary bureaucracy as the National Government is doing with Better Public Services, in the long run it will be a positive move, but there is a long way to go. The only time I did cross the floor was to support the Smoke-free Environments Act, which has been a huge positive step for New Zealanders. It is hard to imagine now the discomfort of smoke-filled public transport, pubs, and restaurants. Although only last night, at the launch of Speeches That Shaped New Zealand: 1814-1956, Tom Scott fondly recalled the rich, earthy atmosphere of Bellamy’s in the past—sodden with beer, bad breath, body odour, smoke, and spittoons, where the spitters rarely reached their targets. Those were, indeed, the days.

Nine long years in Opposition was extremely challenging. On the positive side, formulating good policy was fundamental to winning the public over. As science spokesperson in 2005 and 2008, I was alarmed that New Zealand was well below international benchmarks for research and development both from public and, especially, private industry investment. The only snag was that by the 2008 election, and the sense of the global financial crisis, Bill English had said that there was no extra money for science. I cunningly introduced John Key to Peter Gluckman at his home on several occasions and lobbied hard for science to have greater recognition.

The 2008 science policy had some modest but profoundly important changes. There would be greater funding for basic discovery research. A chief scientist would be appointed. Sir Peter Gluckman has been outstanding. Not only has his massive talent and experience informed the shape of our science system since but he has introduced the idea of having a scientist in each Government department in order to achieve evidence-based policy. Elections and pork barrel politics have, for years, plagued New Zealand with tempting mega-morsels that have little evidence base that they will work. This election cycle has been no exception, with the “porkometer” registering billions of dollars’ worth of doubtful promises.

In my maiden speech I had called for scientists to be better honoured. After all, New Zealand’s three Nobel Prize winners are all scientists. I managed to persuade Don Brash in 2005 and John Key in 2008 to have a Prime Minister’s prize of $1 million per year to be awarded to our top scientists, and also media involved in science. It gives great satisfaction to hear the annual awards and also to hear Prime Minister Key state that “Science will be at the centre of my Government.”

New Zealand would lead the way in the area of climate change most relevant to our country, not by taxing industries that are vital to us, when no other countries are, but by creating a research centre that would look to reduce on-farm greenhouse gas emissions. I remember spending hours with Dr Andy West, the chief executive officer of AgResearch, and detailing how this would be done. Tim Groser seeded the idea of it becoming a global centre, and it is hugely satisfying to know that now over 40 countries belong.

In the 6 years of this National Government, public investment in science has increased over 60 percent, international benchmarks have been targeted, and a whole range of efforts to encourage private sector investment has continued, but a quantum leap is needed in the long term. While in Opposition I initiated a select committee inquiry into the quality of care and service provision for people with disabilities. An overarching principle that emerged, which became a major recommendation to the Government, was that disabled people must be given the maximum freedom of opportunity possible to choose their own destiny—as the sector told us “Nothing about us without us”. I am delighted that Tony Ryall and Tariana Turia have since instigated programmes around New Zealand.

Since the change to a National Government in 2008, New Zealand has witnessed some of the most impressive leadership in our history. The combination of John Key, Bill English, and Steven Joyce is unmatched in terms of practical economic experience and personal accomplishment, mixed with informed theory. On all fronts achievements have been made by highly talented Ministers. Paula Bennett has led some of the most important long-term social reforms for children. In health, Tony Ryall, in my view, has done the hardest thing of all—that is, not only to curb the increase in spending on public health but to achieve more services and achieve health targets. This is, indeed, a fantastic feat.

As chair of the Health Committee it has been a privilege to work with all parliamentary colleagues and the sector over the last 6 years. I hope that a small contribution has been made by four further inquiries that I instigated. The submitters and the help of many expert advisers have been inspiring, and I thank them all for giving their time so generously.

I have no time today to discuss the great experiences over the 6 years while on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. Extraordinary opportunities and insights have come from chairing the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development and co-chairing, with Maryan Street, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. The Wednesday night ritual of drinking whisky—strictly after 10 p.m.—and discussing the issues with our millennium intake, Phil Heatley, Lindsay Tisch, and Anne Tolley, has been a great pleasure.

I want to go over the four inquiries. The Inquiry into early detection and treatment of prostate cancer led to an overarching recommendation that men and their families should be encouraged to seek up-to-date, evidence-based information from their doctors so that they can make an informed choice for themselves. The Prostate Cancer Taskforce was appointed and the recommendations are being rolled out around New Zealand as we speak.

In terms of the Inquiry into how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation, I was a bit alarmed when the Dominion Post captioned an article I had written on this subject “A prick in the right direction”. I did not take it personally. It is hardly conceivable that here in New Zealand, as recently as 2007, our completion rates for 2-year-olds were Third World, at less than 70 percent. Today, rates are over 90 percent, and for 12 out of 20 district health boards, Māori rates are higher than non-Māori.

The Inquiry into improving New Zealand’s environment to support innovation through clinical trials—of medicines and medical devices—resulted in most recommendations being accepted. We now have one of the best ethics approval processes in the world, an innovation health hub, better industry relationships with Pharmac, and an improving clinical trials sector.

And finally, we have the Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception until three years of age (Volumes 1 and 2). Although most New Zealand children enjoy good health and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential, as we all know, there are significant and alarming differences around New Zealand. The National Government has embarked on a suite of profoundly important changes to improve these differences. The solutions are not easy. I thank all colleagues across the political spectrum, where our committee achieved a cross-party consensus over a range of contentious issues, from reproductive health and education to optimal maternity care, and from the socio-economic determinants of health and poverty to an all-of-Government approach to improve nutrition and prevent the impending burden of long-term chronic diseases such as diabetes.

Every member of the committee made great contributions. I really appreciated the collaboration of Kevin Hague and Annette King, who, although we are miles apart on many political issues, see improving all children’s start in life as a national priority for New Zealand, and I thank that always thoughtful journalist Colin James for his positive commentary.

We recommended a proactive investment approach from the work of Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman. The rate of return for the dollar spent on a child is far higher the earlier the investment is made, from preconception on. Since the inquiry, the Government has committed to introducing a range of programmes, from Healthy Families New Zealand to a voluntary star labelling nutrition initiative, and to a strategy to help prevent foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Local government is now talking about handing over the responsibility of fluoridation to the Ministry of Health. Hopefully, our report helped nudge this along.

However, I would make the plea to successive Governments to take our entire package of recommendations very seriously and not just pick up the easy issues. The investment approach is a win for children, a win for adults, a win for the economy, and a win for New Zealand. I reckon that with the political will, within 10 years we could restore our country to being one of the best places in the world for all children to grow up in. We need a comprehensive plan, with key performance indicators, to sit alongside the Government’s excellent Children’s Action Plan and early childhood education initiatives.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me a final say. I thank all the wonderful people who work in this parliamentary precinct for their outstanding services. There is no doubt in my mind that we live in the greatest little country in the world, and I wish all my colleagues the very best in their endeavours to make New Zealand an even better place than it is now, especially for children.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I am absolutely delighted that you, Mr Speaker, are presiding here today. You were the chairman of the select committee that I sat on when I first came into Parliament, and you were there for many years. It was a Primary Production Committee, and no one knew more about agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and biosecurity than you. Of course, those skills you brought into the House. You are the best Speaker I have had of the four that I have had. Your fairness, your knowledge of the rules—Mr Speaker, I cannot read your writing!

When I took over as National’s candidate in Whangarei, National’s majority was 383, and the local team was determined to leave the party stronger than when it found it. Over the five elections, that is what it has done. It has built the membership, it has built the finances, it has built the party vote, and, of course, it has helped me with my successive majorities. I thank it so much for that work. I remember that first campaign, and those people were pretty tough on me. In fact, I left my job in January, and the election was not until November, and I doorknocked, pretty hard, actually. I do not know how it happened, but Jenny fell pregnant that year. One of my team pulled me aside and gave me the hard word, and said: “Clearly, Phil, you’re not working hard enough.”

Actually, there were lots of good reasons for that time spent, not least of all the fact that the photo of my newborn son, Bryn, on the front page of the Northern Advocate a few months out from the 1999 general election must have been worth about 3,000 votes. The truly cynical would say that that was why we had McKenzie in election year 2005. But she would argue that she was worth about 4,000 votes. Nina, my older daughter, was not an election year baby, but then she does like to fly under the radar, with no one quite knowing what she is up to. She is certainly our quiet achiever. In the 15 years of being an MP’s kids, this is all they have ever known. They have had a wonderful experience, quite frankly.

I would like to give credit to my wife, Jenny, who never allowed a single person in our family, a single close friend, a colleague, or anyone to say to our children: “Gee, it must be tough having a father as a member of Parliament.”, “Gee, it must be hard not seeing your dad all the time.”, or “Gee, you guys must have it real tough.” Why would you speak that sort of garbage and bring it into a kid’s life? Actually, my children have been to places most kids have never been. My children have met people whom most kids would have loved to meet, and they have had conversations round the dinner table that are so rich and interesting that I think most kids would benefit from that. I am very proud, actually, of how they have carried themselves, how they have dealt with the issues that their surname has attracted, and how well they are doing at school, at youth group, and at sports. I salute them.

Time forbids me naming everyone in the Whangarei team, but thank you up there in Whangarei. I particularly thank my longest-standing chairman and treasurer, Murray Broadbelt and Ean Brown. They have been stars. They mastered something foreign to political parties and foreign to politics in general: they called meetings only when we had something to decide. That was a real joy.

To those at the National headquarters, Peter Goodfellow and Greg Hamilton. Their teams and their staff are the most professional National has ever had. Quite frankly, in Parliament Wayne Eagleson has put together a really cohesive bunch. They love to work for him and, because of that, they go over and above for us, and I appreciate it.

Jenny and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with all these people. But shortly after the last election, we started talking about fresh challenges and opportunities for us both. I came in enjoying what I do, and I have absolutely loved it. I want to pass on the baton still enjoying it. Mike Sabin, my neighbour, arrived in 2011 with single-mindedness for Northland, energy, and lots and lots of ideas. Shane Reti, Whangarei’s new candidate, has a different style from me and Mike, but he shares the same passion for the north as us, and I think he will do very, very well.

Being in Cabinet for 4 years was certainly the highlight. I recall my last meeting, where I told Cabinet colleagues how the camaraderie had been absolutely magic. Many of us who have been in Cabinet have been through the furnace of all sorts of innocent, but mostly self-inflicted, stuff-ups. Mine involved two bottles of wine. In Cabinet it actually gets to the point where it is just your turn to be in trouble. But, truthfully, when the Labour Party or the media are on the hunt, it is much better when it is another colleague’s turn. It is a bit like the two guys who were tramping and came across a tiger when they were in the jungle. One quietly slipped into his Nikes. The other one said: “You’ll never outrun him.” He said: “I don’t have to. I only have to outrun you.” That is what it is like. Although I did not like seeing my colleagues in trouble, it was a damned sight better than me being in it.

All my ministerial office staff were top-notch. As Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture I know they were really pleased with the reforms we drove for marine farming. It is an extremely exciting and pro-environment industry. After all, nothing reacts as badly to poor water quality as an oyster. On top of that, delivering on the aquaculture settlement for iwi with Chris Finlayson was just great.

My favourite question time was actually as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Colleagues might recall the death of Happy Feet, the emperor penguin. Gareth Hughes tried to pin the murder of Happy Feet on me and the fishing industry. What Mr Hughes did not know was that the Ministry and I had been GPS-tracking Happy Feet since the day he was released into the Southern Ocean. We compared his GPS position with that of the fishing fleet in order to keep it well away. Happily, on the day when he accused me of the murder, I was able to declare to the House that the fishing industry was innocent and that, in fact, Happy Feet had quite simply become a Happy Meal.

As Minister of Housing I updated the rental rules of the Residential Tenancies Act, I began the insulation of every State house in the country, and I got rid of the decades-long notion of having a State house for life. That last one was a big policy fish, and we got it through with hardly a murmur. In energy and resources our office team introduced reforms to the Crown Minerals Act to promote exploration. We also introduced the new block offer process for awarding oil and gas exploration permits annually. It is continuing, with more public acceptance year on year, which is pretty much what you get in the long run when you are open and predictable. Interestingly, again we had fun in that portfolio, and again Gareth Hughes was a victim of my office staff’s sense of humour. He sent a parliamentary question to me, asking where in New Zealand oil and gas exploration was occurring. My staff member Kara Isaac and I decided we would send him the answer: “Underground.”

I am pretty chuffed to have done 4 years as a Cabinet Minister and I thank the Prime Minister for that. Very few get that opportunity. Obviously, I was disappointed when John met with me early last year to tell me about the reshuffle, but the meeting was basically one you would expect between pretty reasonable blokes. The Prime Minister is a decent guy. Equally, as leader he needs to be free to do what he thinks is logical. So it was a bit like the missionary in Africa who met a lion. He saw the lion, he dropped to his knees, and he prayed: “Dear Lord, let this be a Christian lion.” No sooner had he stood up when the lion dropped to its knees and prayed: “Dear Lord, bless this dinner.” That was what it was like.

The Prime Minister had to do what he needed to do. He needed to refresh the team. He gave opportunities to Nikki Kaye and Simon Bridges, just as he had done for me. In fact, the trickle-down effect of Ministers moving to Cabinet, new committee chairs replacing those Ministers, and then new deputy chairs replacing the committee chairs is good for the party, good for the country, and good for the Government. I will tell you what—the worst thing was, 3 weeks on, having to put up with Moana Mackey abusing me in the House for housing policy. Quite simply, weeks later I was still getting the abuse; while Nick Smith drew the salary. It was just wrong.

I would like to acknowledge the people of Parliament. Mr Speaker, you will acknowledge the staff here, of course, tomorrow. I have enjoyed working with colleagues from right across the House. I will not name them on the other side as I do not want to ruin their careers. Interestingly, when I first came in, John Banks’ advice was: “Phil, in politics friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.” Well, that might be true for him, but it has not been my experience.

I have loved working with the Māori Party. I remember a great argument I had with Tariana Turia one time in a committee. We left the committee and, as you do, we had a bit of a chuckle down the halls, because what goes on on the field stays on the field. Being demonstrative by nature, I put my arm round her little shoulders as we were walking. I grinned into her face, wanting peace, and basically said to her: “Look, Tari, I’m quite interested. Your first name, Tariana, is very similar to your surname, Turia, and I was wondering what they meant.” With her sparkling, shining brown eyes she looked up at me and said: “Actually, Phil, one of them means stallion.” I thought: “Oh, that’s interesting.”, but I slowly took my arm away. I scuttled down the hall and up the steps to the first floor and then into my office. What she did not know is that “Philip” in Greek means lover of horses.

Anne Tolley, Paul Hutchison, and Lindsay Tisch are part of the “class of ‘99”, who have shared Tuesday nights together. Simon Power and Katherine Rich—part of that class—are here today, and I thank them for coming. So is another former colleague, Roger Sowry. They have all been very good sounding boards for me. Apart from anything else, Sowry taught me how to say: “That’s right!” across the House in support of the Prime Minister.

Hon Member: That’s right!

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: That’s right! And, quite frankly, no one can do it as well as me. “That’s right!”.

In this House you have humour everywhere. No one is funnier than Chris Finlayson, Maurice Williamson, and Gerry Brownlee. I recall Lockwood Smith, when we were out at dinner once, talking about his waistline. Lockwood was very body conscious. You are not like that at all, Mr Speaker. I remember Lockwood saying: “Colleagues, it’s interesting. My chest and my waist are the same as they were when I was 25.” Quick as a flash, Gerry piped up and said: “Same with me”. It is true that Gerry is pretty headstrong, but in all the times I have stuffed up, he has done something or said something that has made us both chuckle. Although the pressures and constant invective over Christchurch would have made anyone else more thin-skinned, withdrawn, or even bitter, I think he has actually become an even better bloke, and I want to acknowledge him.

The MPs’ spouses have been great friends to Jenny. Gerry’s wife, Michelle, and Mary English have been particularly kind to us both, I recall, on a number of occasions.

No one in my time has held so many offices in Parliament with so much grit and decency as Bill English has. It is unknown outside caucus that he also takes on quite a pastoral role. Bill and Mary have six kids, all of whom will shake your hand, look you in the eye, and hold a decent conversation. I would like to say that Bill’s wider life, not simply his politics, is to his credit, and I acknowledge him.

I thank Whangarei residents for co-opting me into so many fascinating projects, from the bus bay at Whangarei Boys High School, to the building of the new teen parent school, the completion of the Kamo Bypass, and the ongoing upgrade of State Highway 1 through Western Hills, and finally acquiring Ngunguru Sandspit after years of devoted energy by a small team of local residents.

In recent times the Government and the council have built the Ruakākā sewerage system together and the new Hātea River bridge. My being at the right place at the right time saw Cabinet fund an extra $2.5 million for the Northland Stadium so that Whangarei could help host the Rugby World Cup. Being patron of North Haven Hospice and Northland Hockey has also been fantastic.

You cannot do this local work or Wellington portfolios, as you know, Mr Speaker, without great support staff. I acknowledge Lynne and Annika, particularly, and, also in Wellington, Margaret, Simmy, Carol, Vasoula, and Stefan. They have been just magic.

Both Jenny’s and my wider family are all Whangarei people. I am related to hundreds of them. That is why I get elected. Both families are extremely close and they have been very active in our lives and in my career. Candidate selection, putting up signs, manning polling booths, organising fund-raisers, and babysitting on long weekends—they have done it all. My brother-in-law Graeme Kerr has lived it with me, not least of all as campaign manager each and every election. I could never fire him as it would ruin Christmas dinner.

I make a special mention of my mum and dad. Every time I was in trouble, they would come all the way down to Wellington just to be, not to say anything. Such is the love between good parents and an errant son.

Jenny’s parents, Sandy and Hester, have been absolutely outstanding as in-laws to me and as parents to Jenny. I am sure that they believe 98 percent of politicians give the rest a bad name. I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that you are one of the 2 percent, and they are convinced that I am the other.

We also have great friends. Jeff and Steve have been very supportive of me. They are Kipling’s “thousandth men” to me. Dascha and Sarah have been so good to Jenny, and Graeme and Marion Young, our pastors, have been supportive of both of us.

As a last word I would like to say that in previous years I have heard many a valedictorian complain about this House’s robustness and rewrite the history of their own behaviour. We are not elected to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya”, quite frankly. I say that if you are outraged, be vocal; if you are appalled, show disgust; if you are devastated, express grief; but, most of all, be passionate. I have found that this House is like an animal. It is like an animal. It has got personality. Some days it is aggressive, some days it is funny, other days it is just dead flat. So be it, but no constituent I have ever met sends their MP down here to be a wet fish or a mouse or a sheep or a soft touch. Nobody likes rudeness, but they do want you to fight, and they do want you to be passionate.

In my maiden speech I said that the best thing a dad can do for his kids is love their mum. I do. Jenny and I have absolutely enjoyed this role, but now we want to go and do something different. We are told that the grass is greener where you go and water it. That is what we are going to do.

ERIC ROY (National - Invercargill): Can I begin with an immortal quote from Ecclesiastes 3 that says there is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born, a time to die, and a time to uproot. And so it is that our family is in its season of uprooting and finding some new challenges. I have often said that politics is a little bit like a crayfish pot. It takes a bit of energy to find the opening and to get in, but it is even harder to get out, and it is somewhat more difficult to get out undamaged. Whether I am undamaged or not is for others to say, but certainly for myself I can report I have learnt a lot, I have grown a lot, and I have made some really great friends.

The year 2014 is a significant and pivotal year in our family, but in life’s calendar there have been other pivotal years. I guess this started in another very pivotal year, 1972. Four things happened that were kind of loosely connected: I got married, the Norm Kirk Government swept into power, I bought a tractor—a David Brown 990, white model—and I joined the National Party. The connection was that the tractor salesman was incensed that Labour had the right, after four terms of a National Government, to assume the Treasury benches. He was able to persuade me, with my new responsibilities of a David Brown 990, white model, and a new wife, that I should join the National Party. Little did I know that that would set me on a course where I actually ended up here. I can now report that the David Brown is, to give it a technical term, munted and the membership of the National Party has been an interesting ride, but the real winner of that year was certainly the marriage.

You stand here in your valedictory and you have got an absolute montage of thoughts about what you could do. I thought I might give out a few awards. I will say that these are rhetorical and not material. My first award goes to Elizabeth, who has been my most valued and energetic supporter. Elizabeth has a saying that behind every great man there is a great behind. I am not one to disagree with Elizabeth. At this time I would also certainly like to thank my parliamentary team of Suzy, Michelle, Paddy, and Pauline. I need to also acknowledge my business managers, Felicity, Steven, and Terry, who run our Te Ānau operation and who have uncomplainingly kept things on an even keel. I could spend some 10 minutes naming, identifying, and extolling a number of people who have assisted me. Suffice it to say in the confines of time, I just want to acknowledge people in a variety of communities, committees, and roles who have been generous in their support, help, and advice, and who have been very beneficial to my time here.

It used to be that 21 years was the age of majority, and you got the key to the door. I joined the party in 1972. Twenty-one years later, in 1993, I had the key to the door and I came to Parliament. Since then I have represented two electorates and had two terms on the list. I have been in Parliament, out of Parliament, and back in Parliament. I have been in Government, out of Government, and back in Government. It is 21 years since 1993. I have got the key to the door; I am leaving. One should not try to interpret any reason for that; it is just a time to uproot and take some new challenges. It may have a lot to do with the fact that I want to leave this place before I am subsumed into the fourth stage of manhood. If you are not familiar with that, in stage one you believe in Santa Claus, in stage two you do not believe in Santa Claus, in stage three you are Santa Claus, and in stage four you look like Santa Claus. But it is great that with my maiden speech there were three generations of Roys in the gallery; today there are three generations of Roys again, but they are different generations. It is good to be able to do this amongst family and friends.

Each one of us comes to Parliament representing a kind of matrix of various things we have been involved with. Certainly for me, there was a variety of community groups and activities across a wide range of organisations, a background in agriculture and farming, a strong sense of Christian values that were steeped in Presbyterianism, and a love of the outdoors. Many people know I have got a bit of a passion for hunting. It was not very long until Bill English gave me the brand that this was the Christian who kills.

If I was to give an award for the most hectic time in Parliament, it would certainly be in my first term of 1993 to 1996. Inside a year, because of a transgression of John “Hone” Carter, I was a junior whip. As we neared the first MMP election, with the advent of opportunities that might persist in places other than the various parties that existed, we had an erosion of our backbench and the formation of a number of parties: United Future, the Right of Centre Party, and also the Conservative Party. I ended up as a junior whip with a backbench of 13 people to run the select committees. It was at that time that, as a systems person, I created a number of mechanisms to actually know where people were and what they were doing. That certainly stood as a mechanism that whips used for some time; I am not sure whether it is still used.

I also had to have an overlay of Cabinet committees and the agendas of when various Ministers were involved in those committees so that I could pull people out and man select committees. Over that period of about 18 months when I had those numbers to work with, we never lost a vote in a select committee. It is interesting that during that time, we lost five votes in the House. I think that in a way we think that the world will fall down when that happens. I would predict that under MMP that will happen again. We ought not to get too serious about that sort of thing happening.

Why I say that it was so hectic is that while I was busy as whip, I was also a select committee chair. I ran the Primary Production Committee largely with just myself on our side. The biggest thing we did in that time was a total rewrite of the Fisheries Act. This was a paradigm shift away from the old to a new, sustainable process, with property rights, quota management, and a whole lot of issues that had never been done anywhere else in the world. Although I was not the architect of that bill, our committee was certainly tasked with making it work and making a number of substantial changes that we put into the bill. It was about 19 months’ work.

So it was that before we actually got there, I did something quite interesting. We were kind of bound up and could not find a way through the maze of submissions, advice, and contradictions that were about. So as a committee we put out a position paper. I called in all the parties, which were highly polarised, and impressed upon them what Chatham House Rules were. I then presented the position paper and threatened them with all kinds of things that probably did not exist in Standing Orders if they broke ranks on Chatham House Rules. You have got to remember that in that environment there were the sorts of eco-groups represented by Greenpeace, commercial fishing on the other side, Māori customary groups, and recreational groups. We put out what we thought were ways forward on deeming, setting of total allowable commercial catch, and a whole lot of things we just could not find our way through. Everybody held to the Chatham House Rules, and on the basis of equal screaming we made some decisions that were put in the bill.

The bill came back to the House at exactly the same time in the political cycle as we are in now, as we were closing out for 1996. Then, putting on my whip’s hat, I was able to persuade the House that a 550-page bill could be taken as one question in 15 minutes in the House in Committee and then dealt with forthwith in another 20 minutes in the third reading.

It is kind of interesting that 18 years on, those substantive things that were put in have not been changed, but of further interest is that last month a report on an audit of fishing systems in 53 different countries around the world was put out and New Zealand came out as being the best managed and most sustainable. I cannot give myself an award, but I would certainly give myself a tick for what we did on fishing. That was quite an extraordinary period of time.

The following year the award for greatest adversary appeared. It occurred quite simply. One night I could not eat my tea, and later that evening I was walking up Glenmore Street and I collapsed. Some time later, and I am not sure when, a car picked me up and took me to my flat. That was Thursday night. It was Monday before I could get to the doctor. He pushed and prodded and then got me scanned forthwith. They found that I had lumps inside me as big as footballs, as my entire lymph system had been taken over by an aggressive lymphoma. The oncologist informed me that I had a 20 percent chance of getting through it, which is a kind of code for “Are your insurance premiums up to date?”. They opened me up, then closed me up and said there was nothing they could do. So I went home and I was sitting there—this was Wednesday.

The award for the most surreal telephone conversation I have ever had in my life went something like this. There I was, sitting at home internalising some reasonably significant issues. The phone went ring, ring. “Hello, this is Eric.” “This is Murray McCully.” I thought: “Goodness me. The all-knowing black knight has heard about my predicament and he cares.” I asked: “What’s on your mind, Murray?”. “Um, I have to give a speech in Invercargill on Friday. It’s July, and I’ve got a very bad cold. I don’t think I should be going to Invercargill in July with a bad cold. Can you do it for me?” “Murray, um, do you think I really should be doing this? I’m sorry to hear about your cold, but I’m dying of cancer.” There was a long pause, then he said: “Ha, ha! I’ll send you the notes.”

Much is often said about the dog-eat-dog bearpit of this place. It is certainly my experience that there are genuine people in here, across the House, for whom I have a great deal of admiration. I will give you an example of that. When I was in this battle, the first two MPs through my door at my farm were Damien O’Connor and Jim Sutton. And afterwards there were numerous acts of kindness and areas of support that really were a big part of the fight that I was in—some of them more helpful than others. Some of them made me smile, like the wonderful words of support from H V Ross Robertson: “You’ll be right, mate. Big strong bloke like you, you’ll be right. But you are lucky. If it’s in your lymph, you’re buggered, you know.” So Ross gets the award for the best, or worst, backhanded compliment.

In order to truncate the whole story about the cancer, let me just say that it is a small part in a book I have almost written, called Notes to the Grandchildren, which will be available at all good booksellers presently. There are two ongoing repercussions from this event of a brush with death, and they are not unique to me, but they have impacted on me. One is that when you go through medical trauma, your senses kind of get mucked around emotionally. I do not understand it, but I knew it had happened to me when I found myself crying when Nemo got lost. The second one is that you have an increased sense of your own mortality and you are doing all this self-assessment and appraisal about what you are doing, how you are doing it, where you are doing it, and whether it is the right thing, and that can be a bit of an insomniac monkey on your back.

After an absence from Parliament, I came back and was invited to take up a role as a presiding officer. It is quite a simple job in principle—protecting the rights of the minority and ensuring the will of the majority—but, of course, it all takes place in an environment of wounding, damaging, and getting credibility for yourself. There are layers of passion, and all sorts of things come in there. That is what makes it interesting. I think that in a way, reflectively, there has been a bit of a change since MMP. The battle now is more party to party because, of course, that is the important vote, and we have changed some things we do. When I came in here, general debates were principally opportunities for individuals to raise matters of concern in their own electorate or elsewhere. It is now largely for most parties a themed debate, and I think we are not as well served by that. Is it an issue for change? I believe it is, and I have for some time.

I have an increasing feeling that we should make all third reading votes personal votes. Note well that I am saying personal vote, not free vote. I think that increasingly there is some isolation and dislocation by members in this House from the actual reality of voting. We see that when a vote comes along, sometimes the groupings left and right advise the minor parties of what they are doing. We are seeing increasing times when there is redress sought to either amend the vote or to record in the record of the House what the intention actually was. Even more recently we have been seeing the veracity of proxies challenged by points of order or by interjection. I do not think that that looks too credible in the eyes of the public. It is not what they expect from their representatives in the highest court of the land.

I do realise there would be a time factor involved in actually doing that. I think the Business Committee could think about how that might be done. One suggestion would be to have any third reading votes immediately after question time the following day. Even one more extended hour in a session of a Parliament would cover for any of that time that had been taken up in that personal vote situation.

One of the greatest disciplines about being a presiding officer is curtailing response. Sometimes as you people get involved in debate, I think: “I am just dying to respond in a debate.”, and I have not been able to do that. The other thing is curtailing the desire to actually respond with an interjection at times. That has been so hard. In an emergency I would turn to my right-hand man, Roland Todd, and say: “Roly, this is how it works.” and tell him. Roland always had a three-word response that never changed: “Is that so?”. Thank you, Roland.

The cruellest barb award goes to an occurrence that occurred outside Parliament. I was going to give a speech at a field day in Palmerston North, and the best app on my BlackBerry could not find the memorial hall. I saw a guy in a dirty ute with a tweed jacket and I thought: “He’s got to be going there.” So I asked him where the memorial hall was, and he told me. Then I looked at my watch because I was the opening shot, and he said: “Look, there’s no need to worry. They’ve got a boring old fart from Wellington opening it up.” That is the cruellest barb—old fart, yes, but boring?

Let me just conclude with a couple of issues that I think it would be remiss of me not to mention because they are issues I have as probably my greatest concerns. The first is the sort of ongoing inability of a number of New Zealand citizens to make sensible decisions in relation to their own conduct. I made some comments about this in my maiden address. I can give you some examples. On 16 January this year in Golden Bay hundreds of people had spent 3 nights trying to stop some pilot whales from beaching themselves. So, inherently, there is good in all of us. On 16 January this year, the same day, Mrs Praveet Singh in Papatoetoe was attacked by two assailants and in a crowd of hundreds of people she called for help. No one went. Worse than that, when she escaped and started to flee, some of the onlookers herded her back to the assailants.

There is something inherently wrong with a society that actually cannot make proper and sensible decisions. It is my view that we have stepped away from the reference points that enable us to actually do that. We used to be solidly grounded in Judaeo-Christian values, and that kind of worked for us. We have never had the debate about what we put in their place if we actually want to move away from that. I do acknowledge that it is not the role of this Parliament in any way to be a faith promoter and that there should be that separation between religion and politics. This is where I think it does transcend that: when we deal with issues of conscience, how do we actually make those decisions? When we are on the big issues like euthanasia, trading in alcohol, abortion, or any of those issues, do we do it out of convenience, fairness, or populism, or do we have a basis for choosing right and wrong, and what sort of a message are we actually sending to the wider community?

The last point, which is a big concern for me, would be the award for the biggest lesson I have learnt. Let me reference it a wee bit for a start. Some of you will know that in 1967 I did some volunteer service. I went to Vanuatu and there I, interestingly, learnt about cargo cults. What are cargo cults? “Kago” in Bislama is “possessions”. A phone would be “kago”—anything that you have. What happened was that as these people who had lived there and had lived idyllically for a long time were contaminated by a lot of people who came in with a whole lot of cargo, they got to thinking: “How do we get this?”. During the Second World War was probably the advent of most of these. On the island of Tanna there is a cargo cult called the John Frum movement. One night in Tanna, as people were talking about how they could get the cargo, a man in a splendiferous uniform arrived and pulled a big scam. He said: “Give me your money, and I shall return with money for you, but these are the things you need to do to worship. I am John from America.”—hence the John Frum movement. He took their money and left. Four generations on, some people on Tanna are still waiting.

We laugh and think that that is kind of quaint, but in reality the biggest lesson for me is that cargo cults are very much a part of every part of society. Weekly I have people saying to me: “Why doesn’t the Government do this? Why don’t you do this?”. People have an expectation that there is some other way that they can actually get cargo. I absolutely applaud what Paula Bennett is doing—showing people who have got into a dependency mould that there are other pathways. Here is the real rub, though. As we get into the last 5 or 6 weeks before an election and parties are really, really keen to retain power or earn power, we could use the equity of this country to promise cargo that might be a reward in the ballot box. I think we need to really ponder the motive for how we actually do all of those things coming up through the election. I will not be here so I just make that little call now.

In spite of much encouragement I have decided not to sing a waiata at this point. However, I have written a valedictory poem, which is quite short. It is called “October”, and with apologies to A B Paterson:

There was movement up in Welly, for the word had passed around

That a new Parliament was under way,

They gathered from electorates, new faces to abound

And all the cracks had gathered to the fray.

All the tried and noted members from electorates near and far

Had gathered to the Parly for the fight,

For the members love hard talking where the nation’s fortunes lie

And the MPs sniff the battle with delight.

But in a quiet mountain valley, there’s a stream with crystal flow.

A man with fly rod ready, a trout to be his foe,

Recalled his journey forays and the days of Wellington,

He reflected for a moment on times in House and so

Of democracy and friendships, the privilege to serve,

Of bells and whips and caucus, select committees too,

With Standing Orders, Speakers’ rulings, points of order, “Order! Order!”.

He clears his thought, a trout rises, solitude returns.

I bid you adieu.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Prime Minister, Rt Hon John Key, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen—tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Prime Minister, after 16 years in Parliament there is quite a bit I could say, but I will not. Do not panic! I was elected to Parliament in 1998 as the result of a by-election following the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key—another Freudian slip, Prime Minister. It was Jim Bolger, who had just been replaced by the very caucus that I was now a part of. What I found was that having been his electorate chair and expressing similar views to him was not career enhancing.

For the last time in this Parliament I wish to declare an interest in the dairy industry. I am the son a sharemilker. I worked my way through the industry and bought our first farm at the age of 23. To those who have experienced my determination and unflinching support for the farming community, I say that my late parents, Olive and Noel Ardern, and their late employer, the late Tom Hargraves, are responsible for who I am. I am a farmer, came in as a farmer, leave as a farmer, and—although it does not sit comfortably with many in this place—am proud to be a farmer, and I am prouder still to have represented a rural farming electorate. I know that being a working farmer has served me well as an MP, so it will come as no surprise that I am going to talk about agriculture.

On my arrival one of the most important pieces of legislation was the deregulation of the dairy industry and the debate on what structure should replace the Dairy Board. This was a contentious issue not just for Parliament but among farmers and the wider financial community. The result was the formation of Fonterra, and, despite its many critics to this day, name me one other industry that has performed as well, for as long, and currently is the only opportunity for New Zealand exporters to be truly of an international scale. As the weeks of prolonged caucus debate went on, with economic commentators claiming that the sky would fall if Fonterra was allowed to be formed, I was concerned that the formation would not happen and we would be left with a fragmented industry. You only have to look at other industries that have not taken this step to see how damaging to the sector and the New Zealand economy this would have been.

As I was driving to the airport at 5.40 a.m. on a cold Tuesday Taranaki morning preparing for another caucus debate on the issue, I came across this young mother driving an old Ferguson tractor with a child in a backpack and another child sitting on her knee, with a transport tray loaded with bobby calves, making her way to the farm gate. I realised that it was her that I was fighting for, and it steeled my resolve against those bureaucrats, those economic commentators, economists, and politicians who thought otherwise, because her efforts could reach their maximum opportunity only with the formation of a focused marketing structure that was internationally competitive so that we could capture the highest world market prices.

I told her story to my caucus colleagues because she epitomised the 11,000 other dairy farmers. Despite adverse conditions and personal demands, what I saw was one gutsy young New Zealander out there making it happen. For her sake, I have no regrets at maintaining a non-negotiable position on the type of industry structure that will give the highest returns possible to the farm gate and to “New Zealand Inc.” I know it has not always been career enhancing, but if I had my time again, I would not change my stance. My biggest regret is not being able to see the same structural change in the meat and wool industry.

The question is: was I wrong? If Fonterra had not been formed, could members of this House guarantee that our economy would be growing as well as it is today? The answer is no, they could not. So stop criticising the primary industries, and instead of looking for alternatives that do not exist, celebrate that we are world leaders in agriculture. Why is it that we unite and support our international sporting teams, but when it comes to primary industries, we think that any small provincial structure will succeed? Support the industries that support you.

Some in this House today will remember when Myrtle the “Fergie” came to Parliament. Eric, you should have bought a “Fergie”, mate. I was happy to become known as the “Tractor Man” when I took the old “Fergie” up the steps of Parliament in protest at the proposed introduction of a methane tax, commonly known as the “fart tax”. Some considered that this was the wrong thing to do, but nobody and nothing was put at risk, and that was subsequently proven in court. All I am going to say is that the tax did not happen, it has not happened, and it should not happen. If anyone thinks I was dangerous then, be warned: I will be a lot worse when I am not constrained by parliamentary considerations, and the old “Fergie” is still around.

The only time that I thought I may have gone too far was when I was chairing a select committee and I was greeted once by a leading trade unionist as “comrade”. The other good thing that came out of that, of course, was that it really brassed off Hone. He still has not got over it.

I want to say to this Parliament that Fonterra earns the money that gives us the ability to have a first-class social system. It allows us the luxury of enormous investment in environmental sustainability and conservation. Internationally, our farmers are known as one of the lowest carbon producers with the highest food safety standards and the most sustainable farming practices. If members are honestly concerned with the environment, then work with the farmers and approach this with an open mind. If you really care about the future of New Zealand, I beg you to spend time on farms speaking with farmers and observing what they do. Look at the money that Fonterra spends on research and investment in environmental issues, despite Fonterra remaining, by international standards, a small farmer cooperative. For example, in the last 5 years 23,000 kilometres of riparian margin planting and fencing of waterways has been completed. That is further than New Zealand to London. It is a long fence.

Members have an opportunity to play an important role in keeping New Zealand’s economy growing, with the triple bottom line of social, environmental, and economic benefits. To tax, restrict, and punish farmers while turning your heads away from the pollution of the cities is hypocritical and does nothing for the future of New Zealand. Abraham Lincoln once said: “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”

Over the 16 years I have established my role as representing farmers. I have served as chair of the Primary Production Committee and chair of the agriculture caucus committee. I have represented Parliament overseas as the New Zealand delegate on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I have served on many other select committees as chair and member. Some of you may not know this, and it will come as a shock, but I was proud when the Hon Bill English appointed me as spokesman on conservation. There are some environmentalists who have not yet recovered. Fish and Game should be grateful to have Nick Smith as its Minister. As biosecurity spokesman, I am delighted that many of the policies I put before caucus have now become legislation.

I came into this Parliament during the first MMP Government and I have a concern about the unintended consequences of our electoral system. My electorate has changed over the 16 years as MMP has forced rural areas to become larger and harder to service. Rural New Zealand has been the biggest victim of the MMP system, and all parties should look to redress the imbalance. It is not fair and it is not right that the areas that produce the money have very little representation in Parliament. When I was in high school, five MPs used to represent the area that is now the Taranaki - King Country. We are in danger of becoming a Parliament of professional politicians, and if that happens, then we forget that we are the people’s representatives. In order to be a worthy representative, to truly be a good MP, I believe you need to remain connected or, if you like, have a vested interest. It is my view that Parliament and the media have become childish around vested interests in business.

As a farmer I am worried about the lack of representation of farmers in politics. This is a message for farmers. If you are not happy with the direction that a Government is taking, then you should stand and be a representative. If you do not and if you stand back, then you are as guilty as those who are doing what you do not like. Farmers in the past have had the reputation of serving their communities, and you will fail if you use the excuse that farming has become more complex and you are too busy. If you do not get involved at all levels, then the price that is paid will be yours.

To my own electorate, I am proud that I have increased my vote each election, despite many boundary changes, because at the end of the day it is the opinion of those you represent that is most important. I thank the people of the Taranaki - King Country area for their loyal support. All MPs know that we cannot do the job without the hard work and support of dedicated people willing to go the extra mile.

My thanks go to everyone who helps make this building work: the Clerk’s Office, the select committee staff and report writers whom I have worked with, the Parliamentary Counsel Office, Parliamentary Library, Hansard, security, messengers, Bellamy’s, and the cleaners. To In Style Travel Taxis, Jane and Paul, thanks—thanks to all of you for your support.

There are too many individuals to thank by name, but, in particular, I would like to single out a few: Leveson Gower, our new electorate chair, and his wife, Vicky, and son, Angus, who are here today; past chair Harry Bayliss and his wife, Helen, who are here today; and special mention must go to the late Matthew Hammond and his wife, Angela. Matthew was my electorate chair for 10 years and, I might point out, a sheep and beef farmer. He said to me one night after an extremely frustrating meat and wool meeting: “Shane, if those meat and wool farmers want to go broke, then I guess you are just gonna have to give them the right to do so.” Matthew was my chair until a few weeks before he succumbed to cancer. Thanks to my electorate secretary, Helen Hoskin, and treasurer, Janette Brocklehurst, who previously worked for Roger Maxwell and then for me, and has continued in a voluntary role throughout my whole political career. As treasurer, Janette’s strength has always been to answer any suggestions from branch members that involved spending money with a no. The Hon Bill English could take lessons from her.

To my executive assistant, Kathy Ker, who was recommended to me by senior whip John Carter as someone who may be able to keep me out of trouble—I suspect that in all her years, this is the only area where she has failed. Jokes aside, she is the one who watched my back and whom I trusted to ensure the work was done. The value of having someone who is loyal and brutally honest to the point where she has told me—right up to, and including, the writing of this speech—when she thinks I am a plonker has made it possible for me to continue to be an effective MP as well as to continue farming. I have seen senior bureaucrats, Ministers, and other officials who have not seen things from my point of view walk away checking themselves bodily after an encounter with my executive assistant. By the way, she has been referred to on many occasions as the “Tractor Woman”. Thank you, Kathy.

To my electorate staff: the first two, the late Maureen Wilkie and Ella Borrows; to those in between; and to my current agents, Sharon, Claire, and Tracey, who are here today, I know that it is not easy looking after a large electorate. Thank you for your work.

To my wife, Cathy, and to my family—sons Jonathan and Cameron—all MPs know that when you make the decision to become a politician, then it has a significant impact on your family, and personal sacrifices will be made. Our occupation is not for everyone, and I am proud of my family, who have embraced farming, for all the good, the bad, and the challenges that it delivers. My family’s love and commitment to the land is best reflected in the words of Princess Te Pūea Herangi, who said: “The land is our mother and father. It is the loving parent who nourishes us, sustains us, and when we die, it folds us in its arms.” We are a typical farming family who know that we must leave the land in better condition than we found it. Thank you, Cathy, Jonathan, and Cameron, for your support over the years. I am returning home, you will see a lot more of me, and I love you.

To those MPs who have ventured into Taranaki - King Country, friend and foe, I notice that not many of them return. But my good friend and colleague Gerry Brownlee is the exception, and Gerry, we still have those gumboots ready for your next visit.

To the Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Key, thank you for being an exceptional leader. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a leader who plays golf with the President of the United States, who dines with the President of China, who stays with the Queen of England, and who knows all of the European leaders. As an export nation at the bottom of the South Pacific, that is a rare and wonderful thing. Our leader is exceptional.

To my parliamentary colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today, and may you all enjoy the electoral success that you deserve.

Might I add that it is often said that you make no friends in politics and that you do not meet many nice people. It is just not true. Some of the security staff, messengers, and other people in this place are wonderful people.

I wish to share with you the following verse, which I quoted in my maiden statement: “Seek that which is most precious. If you bow down, let it be to a lofty mountain. Let nothing but the insurmountable turn you from your goal.” It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve as a member of this House. Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am returning back home to the slopes of Mount Taranaki, to the farm, to the land where I belong. Kia ora.

Waiata

H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East): Kia ora, matua Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou e te Whare, e ngā iwi, e ngā reo, e ngā hau e whā, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa, and warm Pacific greetings. I appreciate the opportunity to address this House today as I say farewell to this fine establishment. For the past 27 years I have had the privilege to participate in the ebbs and flows of the ever-changing environment that is New Zealand’s Parliament. I am delighted to welcome my wife, Grace, here today, on her birthday. Without Grace’s support I could not have dedicated my life to my work over all these years. I owe her and my children, Cherie, Daine, Lee, and Lisa, a huge debt of thanks.

When I stood for Parliament, it was for three reasons: to promote productivity, to serve my community, and to encourage ethical leadership. While here, I discovered a fourth: a passion for education, which is crucial for my community, for when South Auckland wins, so too does New Zealand.

In the 1980s I worked in industrial relations and later became an industrial engineer. I went from freezing works management to the Auckland and Tomoana Freezing Workers Union. I want to welcome Mike Nahu here today, who is from that union. At the time, the meat industry was in crisis. It was costing more to process meat than we received for the product. We were converting unsold sheep meat into fertiliser. A group of us realised that the only way to save the meat industry was to dramatically improve productivity. We achieved remarkable results and we showed that the meat industry had a future. Everyone—worker, manager, farmer, shareholder, and the country—won. The experience in the freezing works convinced me that the way to lift our nation’s standard of living is to improve productivity.

Our good work was destroyed overnight when Sir Robert Muldoon issued a decree granting everyone in the freezing industry without a productivity agreement a $20 pay increase. Those who had refused to change were rewarded. One political decision set the industry back a decade. I decided the best way to promote change was to become an MP.

For 27 years I have taken every opportunity to tell this House that the answer to the economic issues we face is to lift productivity. My member’s bill, the Productivity Council Bill (No 3), passed its first reading but never made the carry-over motion in 1990. New Zealand is a rich country, yet we are becoming relatively poorer. The issue I came here to support is not yet won. I am delighted that we now have a Productivity Commission, and I urge all members to study the commission’s reports and implement its recommendations. The secret to increasing productivity that I learnt in the freezing works still holds. It is continuous improvement and sharing the gains. To increase everyone’s standard of living is going to take a continuing effort by this House, and a continuing effort should be something that we can all agree on.

There is no higher honour than to be elected by your friends and neighbours to represent them in Parliament. I feel a special bond with the people of Manukau East, who have twice given me the biggest majority in this House. But what the Boundaries Commission can give it can also take away. The boundary changes have meant my seat has wandered around South Auckland and east Auckland.

As one of the longest-serving members of Parliament, I am occasionally asked what the secret of survival is in politics. The commentators would have you believe that success in politics is charisma. Well, I was standing in another queue the day they handed out charisma. Rather, I have built my career on the principle famously expounded by US Democrat Speaker Tip O’Neill, that “All politics is local”.

Every Saturday for 27 years I have got up at 6.30 and gone to the Ōtara market, the meeting place of my electorate, where my team of volunteers sells quick-fire raffles and I meet the people. Then I travel to the sportsgrounds in my electorate and support the local teams. If parents, players, coaches, and referees can be there every Saturday, so can their MP. Around 4 p.m. I go and visit one of the bowling clubs in my electorate, and have a cup of tea and a chat. Members should try it. You will be amazed at what you learn, and your constituents become your friends. On Saturday nights for 27 years I have been privileged to have an electorate engagement, and sometimes two or three—perhaps as a guest of honour at a dinner, a prize-giving, a wedding, or a birthday—and 50,000 constituents soon become 50,000 friends. Sunday is God’s day, and I give it to my family and my church.

On Mondays and Fridays I see constituents. Rather than always having constituents come to my office, I visit people in their homes because it tells me so much more. I have a programme of electorate visits, so every year I visit every church, temple, and mosque, and every business. I also see each of the more than 40 educational institutions in my electorate at least once a year. Let me give you a tip. Visit at 2.30 p.m. When the bell rings the principal, no matter how enthusiastically he has been lobbying you, will escort you off the grounds, where, of course, you will meet all the parents waiting for their children. I doorknock every week.

I know that Mike Moore tells this story about me. He has a friend who says: “That Ross Robertson is mad. I have a security fence, security lights, and watchdogs. Only one person has knocked on my door—Ross Robertson. I have told him I am voting for him, but every 3 years he gets past my security fence, past my Dobermanns, and knocks on my door.”

From my door-knocking I have found it is not just this House that is often out of touch but also the commentators. I have found my constituents are less concerned about the controversies that captivate this House and are more concerned about the common good.

Some of you, as is the nature of politics, will have polls that say you are facing defeat this election. I have been there twice, in 1990 and in 1996. The year 1990 was not a good year for Labour, and I was 8 percent behind with 3 weeks to go. My opponent, the late Allan Brewster, was the popular local mayor. He was also the chair of the Auckland Regional Authority airport committee, which was advocating a second runway for Auckland Airport. A week before the election my team put a postcard in every letterbox in Papatoetoe. The postcard showed a map of the electorate, with the proposed flight path going straight over. The postcard just asked: “Do you want to share breakfast with a 747?”. Apparently, the thought did not appeal. Twenty-four years later they are still talking about a second runway, and I am still here. All politics is local.

I won because I have a wonderful team. I still have in my team people like Ruth Gordon, Gail and Kay Absolum, Alistaire Hall, Phil Greenbank, and Grace Robertson, who helped me in my first campaign 27 years ago. They say that you cannot leave the Manukau Labour Party. If you die, we expect your children to take your place. I thank the Gush family, Mulitalo family, Johansson family, Lavakula family, Wiki family, Tillotson family, Yvonne Matson, Efu Koka, Michael Clatworthy, and, of course, my children.

The House will understand when I give tribute to the Speakership. This Parliament has indeed been fortunate in the quality and dedication of members of Parliament who have served this House as our Speakers. It was a great honour for me, as a State house, working-class boy from Ngāti Toa - Tītahi Bay and Mangere East, to become Assistant Speaker. I am the only MP to have served as Assistant Speaker in four Parliaments and under two Governments—an achievement that gives me great pleasure. Under MMP the Speakership has become a cross-party organisation. I meet regularly with the Speaker, and what party we come from is irrelevant. I can say that because I have been an Assistant Speaker under four Speakers—two who were Labour and two who were National. I would like to see the day come when the Speaker is nominated by the backbench, as happens in the United Kingdom. In the British House of Commons the Speaker sometimes just calls on an MP to take the Chair. If every MP had to take the Chair, even for a day, not only would behaviour be better but also debate would be better.

MPs complain that debates in this Chamber are not reported as well as they once were. While in the Chair I have been privileged to hear some great speeches, but I have also listened to a lot of rubbish. I can tell when an MP has researched the contribution and has something to say, and so can the public. We owe it to the electorate to lift our game. If MPs do not take every contribution to parliamentary debates seriously, why are they here?

Too many MPs think they are here just to be a Minister, and of course that is important. But there are avenues for MPs who are passionate about issues. I have been able to raise issues such as prostate cancer in 1993 because I am an MP. I worked with the late Eion Scarrow, the gardening guru, in setting up the Prostate Awareness and Support Society to highlight this silent killer of men, and became its first patron. So guys, get a check-up. And then there was the stand against sexual harassment in the Royal New Zealand Navy, which was to make history and guarantee more safety for female sailors.

But it is we, the backbench, who must uphold parliamentary democracy. We are one of the least corrupt parliaments, but we could do better. In the last 10 years two former MPs have gone to jail for things they did while they were MPs. One MP suddenly resigned when questions were asked about the use of the travel privilege, and the Auditor-General has made adverse reports about the use many MPs make of their allowances. Of course, we need a code of ethics. The British, Canadian, and all the Australian parliaments have a code of ethics. This Parliament has legislated that all New Zealand local body politicians have a code of conduct. How arrogant of us to claim that we alone do not need a code of ethics. Will a code stop all scandals? No, of course not. A law against theft has not stopped burglary, but no one is suggesting we drop theft from the Crimes Act. Both of the MPs who went to jail told the court they had done nothing wrong. If Parliament had had a code, they could not have made that outrageous claim. I urge backbench members of Parliament to continue my campaign for an aspirational code of ethics, for leadership at this level is by example.

Worldwide there is agreement that the best protection against the misuse of privileges is transparency. We need more transparency in this institution. We need to apply the Official Information Act to Parliament. If we backbenchers wish to hold the Government and others to account, then we must be willing to be accountable. I have seen many things in the last 27 years that would not have happened if we had had the Official Information Act applying to Parliament. Rather than making it a secret, we should be willing to defend expenditure like MPs’ travel.

When I was first elected from the freezing works of South Auckland, I did not even have a passport. I never put my hand up for any overseas travel. One day Richard Prebble, then a good Labour Cabinet Minister, rang me up and said: “I have a transport calibration flight going to the Pacific Islands. They have a space for an MP. You’re going.” I did not want to tell the Preb that I did not have a passport, so I said: “I have a marginal seat. I’m too busy.” “Nonsense!”, said the Preb. “How can you represent Pacific Islanders when you’ve never visited the Islands? You’re going.”, so I went. It did make me a better MP.

In 1993 the honourable member Kennedy Graham, who was then the secretary-general of the Parliamentarians for Global Action, was coming to New Zealand, and I was invited to meet him. Next thing, I found myself in the Hague with a group of backbench MPs who believed that world peace was too important to be left to Governments. They walked their talk by visiting the world’s trouble spots to promote the democratic, peaceful resolution of disputes.

In 2007 I was honoured to be asked to lead an international delegation of MPs to one of the most dangerous places on earth: the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Looking back, I realise that maybe I was asked because there were not a lot of volunteers. We went to help tackle an issue that no army can help solve: HIV/AIDS. The MPs from the region said that they feared more of their constituents were going to die of AIDS than from the effects of the war, and in such a conservative country, they could not even raise the issue. They hoped an international delegation of MPs could talk about AIDS. Our convoy was stopped by the Taliban, but we got through and met with tribal elders. The hardest challenge was explaining how the disease is spread, but once over that hurdle, we got the elders’ consent for an HIV/AIDS awareness programme. I discovered that I was well-qualified for the mission. I had held similar discussions with the very conservative pastors in Auckland’s south to get their support for an HIV/AIDS awareness campaign.

Three years ago Parliamentarians for Global Action, comprised of MPs from 139 Parliaments, elected a backbench MP from Manukau East to be their world president. As president of Parliamentarians for Global Action, I have advanced the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and have led a campaign to get Governments to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty, to regulate international arms sales. Since World War II, over 40 million people have died in wars, but it is difficult to fight a war without weapons. More than 2,100 MPs from 114 countries, including 89 from New Zealand, have signed a declaration in favour of the treaty. I believe that the treaty will become international law and will save many lives. To date, 118 countries have signed it and 41 have ratified it—we will this year.

My involvement with Parliamentarians for Global Action has been challenging and rewarding, and I have appreciated the opportunity to work with, and support parliamentarians from, around the world as they have faced rebellions and massacres in countries such as the Central African Republic, and have endured human rights abuses in the name of freedom in Malawi, Bahrain, Chad, and Colombia. These things have reminded me every day of how lucky we are to live in our own country.

I acknowledge that I owe my career to my constituents in Manukau. I have loved every minute of it. For me, work is love made visible. I have given it my best. In my retirement I am going to do some work for my church, I have been elected to my local board, and I will continue to work for the place that I love, South Auckland.

Let me thank again my wife, Grace, and family—Cherie, who is watching at home in Papatoetoe with my granddaughter and grandson, Paree and Reno; my son Daine, who is watching in Singapore with my daughter-in-law Lyanna; my son Lee, who is watching in Ellerslie with my daughter-in-law Sarah and granddaughter Piper; my daughter Lisa and her partner, Mike Cross, who are here in the gallery today—I am so lucky to have you. My sisters Yvette and Vivienne are also here today.

I thank my out-of-Parliament electorate assistants over the years, the late Murray Haliday, the late Mark Nee, Bill Marshall, Rae Waterhouse, and Michael Clatworthy, for a job well done. My parliamentary executive assistants—and, in particular, my first executive assistant, Kath Barrett, and my longest-serving executive assistant, Marilyn Smith, who for 17 years has worked tirelessly on my behalf—awesome. I thank Speaker’s assistant Roland Todd, and those on the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board, who have been most supportive, especially Efeso Collins, Lotu Fuli, and Mary Gush. And I know that all MPs will join me in thanking the marvellous people who work in Parliament and look after us so well. I will always appreciate the opportunity and privilege I have been given to serve as a South Auckland MP in this Parliament. It is now time to hand the reins over and wish the Labour candidate, Jenny Salesa, who is sitting in the gallery, every success. I am sure she will do well.

Honourable members, tātou, tātou—together, together. Courtesy is contagious, and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders. The House is a symbol of integrity, the integrity of all honourable members should be upheld, and every voice should be heard in accord with our Standing Orders. Mr Speaker, nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa, ka huri.

Waiata

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Can I start by acknowledging three very special people: my wife, Kara, son, Llewellyn, and daughter, Maisie, who are with us here today. Thank you very much for the fantastic support and contribution that you have made to my career. My wife will tell you that in 1997, when we got married, I told her that I was going to do only another 6 years in Parliament. I think I actually said six terms, but she is running that line. I would also like to acknowledge my parents, Malcolm and Lenore, who have come down from Whakatāne today, my mother-in-law, Pam, and the rest of the family who are here too.

Can I say it has been an absolute privilege to work with a group of exceptional and highly talented people in the National Party over the last 24 years. Every one of those people has been an outstanding New Zealander, and it has just been the greatest honour to have any association with them over that time. And, I have to tell you, I think they are all looking absolutely fantastic this evening.

I was first elected in 1990, as one of 32 new MPs who came to Parliament in that stage. That is actually bigger than some caucuses in Parliament. I must say, I am really surprised at just how much I have forgotten in the intervening years, because, actually, I knew everything when I first came here in 1990. I had spent 14 months campaigning, and I would like to acknowledge the support of my parents during all that period of time. I spent 14 months campaigning, and it was a fantastic opportunity to learn so much about the different communities in what was then the East Cape electorate.

We spent a lot of time door-knocking to become known in those days and, you know, you really have to take every opportunity. I was out door-knocking in I think it was Richard Street in Ōpōtiki, just opposite the high school, I think, and it was not the most salubrious part of my electorate. I was out there knocking on this door and then all of a sudden, along from the side of the house, came this pit bull terrier. It looked at me, I looked at it, and it came for me. I got my clipboard and I tried to protect myself. It bit my leg. It hung on my hand. I had this dog hanging off my arm, like this, and I managed to get rid of it. I have got to say, it was really quite a worrying experience.

So I got back in my car and I drove back home to Whakatāne. I rang up Ian McLean—who is with us here today—who was my caretaker MP, and I said: “Oh, well, you know, I’ve had a very bad day. I’ve been bitten by a dog.” He said: “Great.” I said: “No, no, I’ve been bitten by a dog.” He said: “Fantastic. Did you get a photo?”. So I drove all the way back to Ōpōtiki, had my hand re-bandaged, and we got a nice picture in the paper. In fact, that story got on to the front page of the New Zealand Herald, which is no mean feat when you are a new candidate. I think the paper was somewhat attracted to my quote that the dog had bitten me, but if it had been the Labour candidate, it would have eaten her.

I have been supported locally in the National Party by a great team of people over the years. You know who you are, and I am very grateful for all the support that you have given me. When I came to Parliament back then, David Lange and Robert Muldoon were still here. I had dinner with Sir Robert one night. I have got to tell you that after I struggled to make any conversation, we sat there and ate our dinner for 15 minutes in silence. Then he got up and he said: “Right, that was really good. Let’s do it again sometime.”

Look, it has been fantastic. I have had tremendous satisfaction from the work that we have done in the electorate, and I was just reflecting today on some of the amazing things that people ask you to do. I remember that just a few days before Christmas one year a lady rang me up and said: “My husband is stranded on a live sheep shipment in the Middle East and I can’t get him home for Christmas.” You would ring your MP, and so I rang Don McKinnon, and her husband got home for Christmas. That was fantastic. There are also the number of people whom you have assisted at their saddest time, to get bodies back to New Zealand when their children have died overseas, and there is the fantastic support that happens there. I am reflecting on how every year our family gets a Christmas card in an email from some guy whom I helped 22 years ago. Every year, he sends a Christmas card. I have been reflecting for years on what I actually did to help him, but whatever it was, that response has just been marvellous.

I would like to reflect on my electorate agents. I would like to acknowledge them. There is Pam Eglinton, who was actually the best employment decision I ever made, because she is now my mother-in-law. Robyn, Pam, Jenny, Trish, Nigel, and Jackie have been fantastic in the work that we have done. We have had a lot of challenges in our area, and a lot of natural disasters—you know, floods, oil spills, kiwifruit collapses, Labour Governments—and we have got through them all.

I want to also acknowledge the constituents, who have been fantastic. They have been kind and they have been incredibly generous to my family and me over all the years. Often you hear about people having problems with constituents shouting and screaming at them. I have got to say that the people of the Bay of Plenty and the East Cape have shown just the greatest kindness and generosity to me and my family over the time, and I would like to pay great tribute to the people of the Bay of Plenty. It has been a very fast-growing electorate in the Western Bay of Plenty. For example, when I started as the MP for Papamoa, which came into my electorate in 1996, there were 6,000 people. Today there are 21,000. So it just goes to show that if you get a good MP, lots of people shift to the area.

I want to acknowledge Dame Jenny Shipley, who, as Prime Minister, promoted me to Cabinet in 1997. It was my great privilege to play a part in delivering New Zealand’s first woman Prime Minister, and it was a great privilege. We were a group, as we were planning that, called the Te Puke Bypass Committee, as some will remember, and it is a great pleasure to me that we are now spending $400 million on the proper Te Puke bypass, which will be opening shortly.

Mrs Shipley gave me the fantastic opportunity to be a Minister. I have got to tell you that when you have a young baby at the time, your mind is sort of on everything. I remember pulling in at Whakatāne Airport one day, taking the baby out of the car, checking the luggage in, and getting stopped by a constituent, and then we flew off to Auckland. As we were flying, there was an announcement: “Ah, Mr Ryall, we’re just letting you know that your car keys are at Whakatāne Airport. You left them in your car, with the engine running and the driver’s door open.” So it always pays to have a sign-written car.

Being in Opposition was incredibly frustrating—a very frustrating 9 years—but the one thing I learnt there is that it is a great opportunity to listen, learn, travel the country, and find out about things that you did not really know about, and so many people were very generous with their time in helping me in that role. In 2005 Dr Brash—who is here today—gave me the responsibility of being the health spokesperson, and I will touch on that shortly.

I have certainly appreciated the responsibility the Prime Minister has given me as the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, working with Bill English on the mixed-ownership model programme. Bill commented to me the other day that he and I, in my role as Minister for State Owned Enterprises both under Mrs Shipley and in this Government, have privatised or partially privatised $7.7 billion worth of assets. He thought that was more than Richard Prebble had done, but we are not going to tell anybody about that.

The Prime Minister also gave me the job of Minister of Health. I have got to say that this has been the best job in the Government. You work with quality people every day who are dedicated to the welfare of New Zealanders. I wake up most mornings and I turn to my wife and say: “Ugh, imagine being Minister of Education.” Now, that is a really tough job.

Look, I think many people underestimate the size of the health sector in New Zealand. It is 10 percent of GDP. For every $1 spent in New Zealand, 10c is spent in the health sector. There is not only our $15 billion public health service, with 75,000 staff, but a very strong and dynamic private sector—$1 billion in natural health products, $1 billion in health IT and devices—which has some great New Zealand companies. I think it is this intersection of health and technology that is going to provide an opportunity to create untold wealth in the future, and it is really important that New Zealand is part of that.

I am very proud of our Government’s health plan, which we are rolling out and will continue to roll out. I think the seminal decision was that we would stick with the structures that we inherited and really focus on results and improving performance. I think that over the last 6 years our doctors and nurses in the team have delivered exceptional results for New Zealanders across quality, productivity, and the financial domains within constrained funding—those six national health targets. You know, doctors and nurses are very competitive people. No one likes being at the bottom of those national health targets, and that has really driven a much better performance, including 40,000 extra elective surgeries, quicker emergency departments, and much faster cancer treatment.

Immunisation—I noted Dr Hutchison talked about the fact that in 10 of our 20 district health boards, the rate of immunisation for Māori 2-year-olds is now higher than the Pākehā immunisation rate. No one would ever have thought that that was possible in New Zealand. We have shorter cardiac waits.

Tobacco smoking—fantastic work that we have done there. I went to the World Health Assembly in Geneva—I have got to say, Prime Minister, that I have taken only two overseas trips as Minister of Health—and I was there talking about this work that we were doing in New Zealand on Pathway to Smokefree 2025. We have a programme that we have systematised across the whole country called ABC. “A” is when health professionals ask whether you are a smoker; if you are, it is “B” for a brief conversation, because that is quite effective in getting people to quit; and “C” is for when they offer you cessation medicine—ABC.

So I went to the World Health Assembly and I was giving a talk about this. I do not know how many people in this House have ever given a speech where they have lost their audience—it had never happened to me before that time—but everyone from Africa started talking amongst themselves, and I thought: “Oh my goodness, I have caused an international incident.” So I completed my contribution. I sat down next to a lady from Jamaica, and I said: “Why was everyone from Africa quite dislocated by my speech?”. She said: “Well, in Africa, they have ABC for HIV/AIDS—‘A’ for ‘Abstinence’, ‘B’ for ‘Be faithful’, and ‘C’ for ‘if you can’t, use a Condom’—and they couldn’t work out how that stops smoking.” So we have got a lot of acronyms in this area.

Look, it has been a fantastic portfolio, and with the Prime Minister’s support we have achieved quite a lot. I think the decision that we made to fund 12 months’ Herceptin for New Zealand women is something that has made a huge difference to the lives of so many people. I remember an experience I had at a cafe in Tauranga a couple of weeks after the 2005 election. I was standing in the line and this chap whom I had never met before came up and gave me this big bear-hug. I thought: “Well, this is very dislocating, in public.” It turned out to be a guy who said that a month before the election, he had had to put his house on the market to get the money to buy Herceptin for his wife, and the day after the election, he was able to take his house off the market. Fantastic, that contribution. So we have done a lot.

I must say I had a fantastic opportunity meeting a lot of people in the health service. It always pays to be very careful. Jo Goodhew, as the Associate Minister of Health, is doing this hand hygiene thing. I was visiting an endoscopy suite a couple of years ago and I thought: “Well, here is a great photo opportunity with the hand gel.”, which I did, and proceeded to rub my hands, at which every person in the endoscopy suite theatre gasped in horror. I thought: “What is all the worry here?”, and, well, of course, it was lubricating gel. So we ought to get that prostate awareness programme started.

I wanted to spend a little bit of time talking about what the next 10 years in the health area is going to be like. You know, with regard to ageing, the number of people over the age of 80 is going to treble in the next 10 years. So who is over 65 is just not the issue any more, because 65 is the new 45—I am trying to convince myself as I get there.

I think there are five big mega trends and the interaction between all of them is going to just change health care completely. The first of the five is care being closer to home. All this care is coming out of hospitals and into communities and into people’s homes. Pharmacists, GPs, home-care workers, nutrition advisers—all these people are playing a greater role, and there is going to be this much greater responsibility that we are all going to have to take for our health care in something that they call self care. It is a bit like Air New Zealand—it is getting us to do all the work and we like it. This is where we are going to have to take responsibility.

You know, Sir Ray Avery is developing a piece of technology the size of your wristwatch, with a beam that comes on your wrist and measures your temperature, your blood pressure, and your pulse. That information is then transmitted to a device that can be monitored by your general practice. So, as you can imagine, this technology is going to change everything. That is my second point. This “anywhere, any time” use of innovative technology is going to change our health care. This device it is just going to help change everything over the next 5 to 10 years. You are going to be able to plug your own personal ultrasound device into your cellphone, and imagine being able to beam that message to your local GP. These advances are incredible.

Thirdly, intelligence and insight from big data—this work that we are doing, collecting information across Government departments, across patients, and across people, with all the privacy protections—is going to allow us to build a picture on how health care interventions change people’s lives and on the best place to do it.

The fourth trend is personalised medicine. All this knowledge about your genome and your biomarkers is going to allow clinicians to develop very personalised therapies applying solely to you, and they are going to be able to provide you with information about your risk factors in the future. This will have huge ethical issues about whether we actually want to know these risks, but this personalised medicine is going to be amazing.

And I think the fifth big trend that is going to affect health care is that we are going to have this expanding role of non-physicians, and payment that actually rewards the quality of care and the outcome that people provide.

I would like to also just take a moment to thank the fantastic people who have supported me over the years. I would like to acknowledge my ministerial staff—in particular, my “head of filing”, Peter McCardle. I thank them for the wonderful contribution they have all made—officials at the Ministry of Health, the State Services Commission, Treasury’s State-owned enterprises unit, the travel office, the security guards, the Bellamy’s staff, the messengers and the gallery officers, the VIP drivers, the cleaners, and the district health board staff and their chairs, in particular.

I cannot finish off without acknowledging my three comrades: Bill English, Nick Smith, and Roger Sowry. You know, Parliament can be a very lonely place. It can be full of self-doubt and frustrated ambition. I think it is pretty unusual for any member of Parliament to have had three very close friends throughout their whole career. The relationship with those guys has been enduring and sustaining. They are extremely capable people, who have continued to be friends over the last 25 years, and, contrary to public opinion, we have never worked as a group. Frankly, we can never agree on anything. On any issue, it is always two versus two, and the two are always variant. So it has been wonderful to have had that association with them. It has been the most fantastic association anyone in Parliament could have, and I have just really appreciated the support that those guys have given.

Everybody else is going to be going off and I am going to be supporting the Prime Minister by campaigning as well. I wish you all a lot of activity, and I wish all the best for our side for the work that you are going to do over the next period of time. You will all be going out. Many of you may be doing rest home visits. I stopped doing those a few years ago. I remember going to one. You spend a lot of time giving out your card and, you know, shaking everyone’s hand. I had the name tag on and I did all that, and as I left the day room I heard one of the ladies say: “Was that the nice new young doctor?”. And then I discovered that they all had voted 2 weeks earlier.

So thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to be here to thank my fantastic family for the contribution and support that they have made. It has just been marvellous. And thank you for the great privilege it has been to be here, to represent the National Party and the Bay of Plenty, and to have worked for New Zealand over the last 24 years.

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

Bills

Veterans’ Support Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed from 29 July.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): So I am now calling David Shearer, who has 4 minutes remaining if he wishes to speak.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—yes, I do indeed. I just want to pick up where I left off, which was where we basically agreed with this Veterans’ Support Bill, which is a rewriting of the War Pensions Act 1954, which is well and truly out of date. As I was saying last night before the House rose, this is something that has been long overdue—to upgrade this Act. Since 1954 it had not really been touched. The review was kicked off by Rick Barker and Phil Goff under the last Labour Government. They asked the Law Commission to look into this bill and to provide some recommendations, which the Law Commission did. It consulted very widely. It talked to veterans and it talked to the RSAs around the country. It spent 2 years doing that and did a very good job. It was completely non-partisan and completely neutral, and as a result of that it came up with a 280-page report with some extensive recommendations.

For the most part, those recommendations have been agreed to. We have been pretty happy with that. There were a number, as I was saying last night, that were not agreed to. We pushed pretty hard from this side of the House—and I want to acknowledge Phil Goff’s efforts here—first of all to correct an anomaly that somehow there was some means of being able to assess a disability at 52 percent. It was a long, complicated piece of mathematical torture, really, in order to be able to come up with that 52 percent. That has now gone. The Government was reluctant to do that, but it has agreed to it itself. In addition to that it has agreed that the community services card will be automatically given to our veterans because, once again, it was something that the Government was not willing to entertain. The Government agreed to it, with pressure from this side. It also ensured that if a veteran was hospitalised, even after 13 weeks, their pension was not terminated. Once again, the 52 percent disability assessment, the community services card, and ensuring that 13 weeks in hospital did not mean that they were going to lose any of their benefits were additions that on this side of the House we pushed for, and after some pretty vigorous disagreement the Government agreed to them.

What we are left with, though, which I think is miserable, is that the lump-sum payment on the death of a veteran cannot be paid to that veteran’s family. That is a sum of $5,800. It is not a lot of money. Over the period of time that we were looking at, with the decline in the number of veterans because of the way that, unfortunately, people are getting older and passing away, that will amount to less than $8 million a year. I can think of a lot of money that is being spent by this Government on things that are of much less value than giving the benefit to those veterans’ families—giving them something when that veteran dies. Because, let us face it, it is not just about the veterans who went away; it is also about their families left behind, who suffered when they went. This would acknowledge that contribution that they made to New Zealand.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to support the Veterans’ Support Bill. It is a piece of legislation steeped in symbolic meaning and practical importance for the 40,000 veterans with qualifying service and their families, people who have been waiting 7 years since this law was first referred to the Law Commission for resolution. I am exceedingly thankful that it is passing in this term of Parliament. The world and our understandings of harm and the possibilities of rehabilitation have changed dramatically, as has the nature of warfare, since the original War Pensions Act 1954 was passed. An update is clearly overdue, and it is time to allow families certainty to be able to move forward.

This bill will make changes to the administration and decision-making processes, hopefully making them easier for veterans. It will provide a greater focus on rehabilitation and enable the provision of services to better meet the needs of elderly veterans as well as those of contemporary and future deployments. Changes have been made to this legislation through the Social Services Committee, thanks to the work of the Greens and Labour, and they were received by the Government. Post the select committee I would offer my thanks to the Māori Party, which has negotiated, I think, quite fiercely to get further small changes to this bill that are important changes. Sadly, the changes have not quite gone all the way. I must say I still fail to understand the apparent meanness of the Government in holding out on such a small financial contribution to ensure all veterans and their families are entitled to all entitlements. I really did feel that the mood in the select committee was one of commonality of concern, and yet, sadly, still we have not been able to deliver on all of the 170 recommendations from the Law Commission or everything the submitters requested of us.

It is important for me again on this, the day after the centenary of the start of the First World War, to take a moment to reflect on what those men, young and old, experienced at that time and remind us of our duty to do our absolute best to avoid sending any more men, women, or people to war. For me, no one has said it better than Wilfred Owen, describing the horrors in a way that I think helps some of us who are lucky enough to have known only peace to come close to, or to at least in some way imagine, the lifetime costs borne by those fighting the wars created by people in places like this. With the risk of a terrible schoolgirl recitation, I do want to read the poem from Wilfred Owen because for me there has been no message or poem that has helped me understand it better than this one. So I beg patience of people.

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,

Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,

Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs

And towards our distant rest began to trudge.

Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots

But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;

Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots

Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.

Gas! GAS! Quick, boys!—An ecstasy of fumbling,

Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;

But someone still was yelling out and stumbling

And floundering like a man in fire or lime.—

Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light

As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,

He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace

Behind the wagon that we flung him in,

And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,

His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood

Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,

Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud

Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—

My friend, you would not tell with such high zest

To children ardent for some desperate glory,

The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est

Pro patria mori.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Translate it.

JAN LOGIE: For those of you who do not know this poem or your Latin, this last phrase translates as “It is sweet and right to die for your country”.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Who wrote it the first time?

JAN LOGIE: It was written by Wilfred Owen; that is the version I know. We need to again acknowledge those conscientious objectors in the First World War who were kidnapped by the State and sent away for that “old Lie”. Tragically, we still all too often hear this, or versions of this, used to sell populations on the need for war. We see it in Gaza and we see it in the Ukraine. We do not see it so much in Syria, but it is continuing. Many of us watch these images and read these stories with a degree of horror—those of us who do not have family there—and with incomprehension and pain for the ordinary people there.

I think, obviously, that is right, but we also need to remember that many of the soldiers too are not there by choice. They are there because of the will and the power of the leaders, who do not have their bodies on the line. It is a tragedy, a failure of humanity, and a corruption of politics for anyone to have to die or, indeed, kill for their country. This failure must be avoided at all costs. We must stand up for human rights, work for peace, and honour those in our armed forces for their will to work for a safe world without war. Soldiers are real people—members of our communities and our families, as well as being in our armed forces.

Through the select committee process we heard from submitters who have been in these conflict zones and who told us of their lives being irrevocably changed by the war. At times, we heard from children. Those war zones had been brought home and into their family lounges and the harm had been passed on to the next generation because rehabilitation and support services were not provided by the State to ensure healing. We also heard of years of battles to get help and of struggles for recognition—battles and struggles with the same State that sent these people into places that caused them so much harm.

You do not have to believe in war to want the best support for people who have been through such horror, which is why the Green Party has been disappointed that this Government has held off on the two relatively small remaining points of payment on death and portability. We would like to have seen everything that the veterans asked for delivered on. We mourn the need for this bill, but wholeheartedly support it as the least our country can do to acknowledge the cost of being asked to kill another and to put your life and body on the line.

MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): The reality is that in the world we live in, the nature of human nature is that there will always be conflict of some degree or another. In that sense, although I hear what the Green Party has just said, the reality is that the men and women of this country and most other countries in this world will have a body of people in military service who will stand up for exactly the rights that the previous member, Jan Logie, was talking about. Sometimes, unfortunately, that will involve bloodshed, conflict, and heartache and will absolutely destroy the lives of not only those involved in the conflict but those who are left behind. That is the nature of the world in which we live. It is, sadly, a reflection of human nature. We do not have to look very far in the world at the moment to see that exact conflict going on.

I just want to acknowledge the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force and acknowledge the contribution they have made in the modern warfare environment, which more often than not involves peacekeeping; acknowledge the contribution and the sacrifices that have been made in Afghanistan over a significant period of time; and also reflect back on the legacy they picked up from those who have served in conflicts like Viet Nam and Korea, and going back to the Great War. This country can stand very proud of its sacrifice and its tradition to uphold and fight for the democracy and the freedoms that most of the world enjoys today. Although in the Green bubble maybe it would be nice to imagine away the need to have that, the reality is it will always be needed, and in needing that we will always need people who are prepared to put the service of their country ahead of the servicing of their own needs and their own interests. So I just pay my respects and homage to those people both past and present, because ultimately the reality is we need those people and always will.

The Veterans’ Support Bill—I have enjoyed the conversation that has been had across the Social Services Committee and in the House. There has been some robust debate on some particular points, specifically around the lump-sum benefits. Obviously, although I think that everyone can accept that there is no price that can be put on the service of an individual for their country in this regard—there is no comparison with any other level of service—the reality is that what the Veterans’ Support Bill does in its totality is reflect the need to acknowledge the contribution made by some of our older veterans and to also acknowledge that there are some 20,000 or so modern-day veterans of war.

The Veterans’ Support Bill, having been a long time in its gestation, essentially from back in 2007—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Could I ask those members—I know you are probably talking tactics—to just move to one side, please.

MIKE SABIN: I have absolutely, completely lost my train of thought, although, having said that, I did not do so when they were standing there having their tactical meeting.

Let us not forget about the 20,000 modern-day servicemen. What this bill does is to reflect—[Interruption] What was that, sorry?

Moana Mackey: Where’s the lamé?

MIKE SABIN: Yes, I have just changed tie, indeed. What this bill does is reflect their modern service and the modern defence service alongside acknowledging the contributions of those past servicemen. I will not dwell too much on what the nuts and bolts are of this bill. I think they have been very well traversed, and I acknowledge the points that have been made, in particular by the Hon Phil Goff. He has certainly debated vigorously, and I commend him and I acknowledge exactly where he is going.

Can I just thank the officials—in particular, Major Rebecca Thornley, who got promoted during the course of the passage of this bill. I would like to think that that was because of her great service to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I am still waiting on her acknowledgment by way of some huge military shout, which I am sure will be coming. Can I just acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse and also other former Ministers of Veterans’ Affairs, such as the Hon Nathan Guy—who is just traversing his way past me as we speak; how convenient—and also Judith Collins. I also want to acknowledge Ross Miller, who is one of my executive but certainly has been involved in this work as a former major, a former officer in the army. He has made a great contribution. I commend this bill in its third reading.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First, as the veterans’ affairs spokesperson for New Zealand First, on this very important bill, the Veterans’ Support Bill. It is very symbolic that tonight this bill is going through its final, third reading, in the week leading up to the centenary, the 100-year commemoration, of the commencement of World War I. Of course, all the veterans from that great battle are now long gone. However, we still have a number from World War II and, of course, a great many more from subsequent campaigns in Malaya, in Korea, and in Viet Nam, and in other subsequent engagements.

Firstly, can I commend the Law Commission for the excellent work that it did 4 years or more ago to bring this bill to the House, originally with its report. Its recommendations—some 174 recommendations, I think there were—[Interruption] What was that?

Louisa Wall: 170.

ANDREW WILLIAMS: 170, I am told—170. Those really did bring home to this House and to those involved in veterans’ affairs and the RSA and all veterans around New Zealand what is indeed involved in terms of looking after the interests and the welfare of our veterans. It is most commendable that the Law Commission did such a thorough job to come up with its findings and to make its extensive recommendations. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the length of time that it has to get to this final, third reading. As we have said before, many of the older veterans are not getting any younger. Every year that goes by we lose more and more of them, and that is a very sad situation that we face. Therefore, time is of the essence to do all we can for those veterans as best we can and to give them just recognition for their services to this country.

I have spoken in this House before but I will speak again of how I still have reservations about the full intent of this bill in terms of ensuring that veterans receive the benefit of the doubt in relation to their medical records and their medical conditions. There have been so many cases—several thousands of cases—of claims being turned down by Veterans Affairs New Zealand because of inadequate medical records or medical records that are missing and other such errors. Back in 2008 the then Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae spoke at Tribute 08 for the Viet Nam veterans here in Wellington. He apologised on behalf of the Defence Force to the veterans that so many medical records had been lost, had been mislaid, and had not been handled correctly by the Defence Force. He apologised, and in his speech at the time said that no veteran would miss out, be penalised, or lose in any way as a result of the mishandling by the Defence Force of the medical records.

However, this bill does now include some clauses that talk about presumption of injuries and illness and death in terms of qualifying operational service, and it does refer to other aspects of that. There is still a lot of legal jargon here that still allows too many loopholes for those whom I would describe as bureaucrats to come up with excuses not to properly pay out to veterans who are in need. In that respect, I put forward Supplementary Order Paper 452, which was supported by Labour, the Greens, and several other parties, but which National did not support. My Supplementary Order Paper said: “In the case of doubt arising from missing or insufficient New Zealand Defence Force medical records as to whether a veteran suffered injury, illness, or death on operational service, the injury, illness, or death is presumed to have occurred while the veteran was performing qualifying operational service.” Had that gone through, it would have taken out a lot of the legal complexities of some aspects of this bill and ensured that veterans truly did get the benefit of the doubt.

We heard instances at the Social Services Committee, for instance, of a retired colonel who was declined a disability pension because he had no medical records of the accident happening on operational service, and, yet, so many of his comrades had seen him jump from the back of an army truck with full kit on, carrying a weapon and pack. He landed on his feet, but he landed badly on his ankles and did considerable damage to his ankles. In those days they did not just hobble off and go to the first hospital and be hospitalised. They were tough, tough men, these people. These were the guys in Viet Nam. They were tough. This gentleman carried on with very damaged ankles. In later years he now has arthritis and serious pain in his ankles. He has considerable problems with his ankles, and yet he has been declined a disability pension for that particular incident because there is no proof that he did it in Viet Nam. All his friends, all his mates, say that they saw it happen. They saw him receive the injuries. It was there, but it does not appear on any of his medical records, even though he was treated in Viet Nam.

John “Doc” Mountain, who was a medevac medic in Viet Nam, testified to the committee and also came and submitted. He said he witnessed so much of this going on. He saw many of these men being injured. He also witnessed the fact that subsequently, when they came to Wellington, many of their medical records, a lot of the original records, were not transferred correctly. They were on hard copy, they were on pieces of cardboard, and they were transferred into a more modern system of paper files and more modern transactions. They were not transposed. Information was left off. As a result, many of these gentlemen—and women as well—now struggle to prove some of their medical conditions because of the way those records were handled.

Can I just assure you that if New Zealand First is in a position after 20 September to address this situation again, we will rectify that. What we want to have in this bill is that veterans will get the benefit of the doubt, and we will ensure that they will be given that distinction. We will ensure that that is the case. We are talking about a small amount of money in relation to the Government’s Budget. It is a tiny amount of money in terms of the Government’s annual funding, but this is a huge amount for individuals—for individuals who are now elderly and need this assistance. Therefore, we are doing a great disservice to them by not allowing such payments and such support in their elder years of life.

We also agree with the other parties as well. We have said that we do not agree with the declining of the lump-sum payment. We think that should have been put in place. Again, families are often the ones who suffer. They are often the ones who have taken care of a veteran in their declining years. They deserve the support as well because many of them have suffered as a result of the military service and the military life of that veteran, including their coming back home and having subsequent illnesses. The family suffer and they should, therefore, also be recognised in that manner.

We are coming into a very important period in the next couple of years when we will be commemorating many of the battles that are on the wall plaques here—Passchendaele, Gallipoli, and many of the famous battles. But at the same time we have living heroes today in New Zealand—living heroes from Viet Nam, living heroes still surviving from World War II, living heroes who have gone and put their lives at risk in service of this country. I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to them for their services. This Parliament should most definitely give them every assistance they should receive.

New Zealand First continues to always uphold that principle. We were the party that put in place the funding for the RSA social support services—$1 million of funding over a 4-year period, or $250,000 a year. This Government cut that back to $150,000 a year. Again, after 20 September we will return that to full funding for the RSA. Again, the veterans deserve it; they need it. That social support from the RSA is most important to assist the veterans to get to hospital, to get to medical appointments, and to have the social support for them. So this has not finished.

This bill is a great step. We do commend this bill to the House. We know it goes a long way, but we can still improve on it yet.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is a very great pleasure to speak this evening in support of the Veterans’ Support Bill. It seems in some ways appropriate that we are debating the third reading of this legislation during this period, as we move into the commemoration of the centenary of the beginning of the First World War, which we will acknowledge on Monday next week, 4 August. It is 100 years after New Zealand entered that conflict.

It is also very good news, I think, that we are able to debate the third reading of the legislation now, in the final throes of this 50th Parliament. It is a shame that we are doing it in the last gasps of this Parliament, but it is pleasing that it will finally, after all these years, be completed and in a few days’ time will go to the Governor-General for Royal assent and become law.

Veterans all around the country have been waiting for a very, very long time for this day and, indeed, the day when this legislation is fully implemented. It is a conversation that started many, many years ago and led to the decision in 2006 by the then Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Rick Barker, to empower the Law Commission to embark on a period of consultation to discuss the issues that veterans faced—to discuss the ways in which the 1954 legislation had become outmoded, outdated, and no longer fit for purpose.

That was a conversation that was always going to take some time. We all knew that and we all appreciated that. The Law Commission, under the leadership of Sir Geoffrey Palmer, carried out that consultation well in a very robust fashion, in a very thorough fashion, so that all the veterans, all the veterans’ organisations—not least of which being the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association—were able to participate in that conversation. They helped the Law Commission to put together an extensive and thorough report that contained within it superb recommendations that were the genesis for this legislation, to ensure that in the 21st century we are appropriately providing for all our veterans, be it our veterans who served in World War II, in Korea, in Viet Nam, in Malaya, in Afghanistan, in Timor, in the Solomons, or in other places around the world.

Their needs are not all uniform, and there is a very distinct point in time at which the needs of veterans changed—that is, 1974, with the introduction of ACC. What this legislation contains at its heart is two separate schemes: one that applies to veterans who served before ACC came into force and another for veterans who served after ACC came into force. That is appropriate, to ensure that veterans from those conflicts prior to 1974 have adequate provision and are appropriately acknowledged by the State for the contribution they have made on our behalf and the sacrifice they have made on our behalf.

I was pleased with the Green Party’s contribution tonight because, like the Green Party, we abhor war, we abhor conflict, and we believe that as a nation we should be seeking every possible opportunity to avoid violent conflict with other nations and with other groups around the world. Increasingly, in this century, we do not find ourselves in conflict with other nation States but with non-State organisations. But we should always seek opportunities to avoid that.

Nevertheless, sometimes we as politicians, we as Governments, ask our people to go and put themselves in harm’s way. To me, a veteran is a veteran is a veteran. It does not matter what history might say about the conflicts that have taken place around the world. It does not matter what history might say about New Zealand’s participation in those conflicts or the decision that Governments made, rightly or wrongly, for us to be part of them. Those veterans served because their Government asked them to and because they believed it was the right thing to do to secure our nation and to maintain peace and prosperity around the world.

We should acknowledge the incredible sacrifice that was made by veterans who may have been injured or disabled, or, simply, actually all veterans who are necessarily impacted on by what they see and what they experience when they go to represent us overseas. So it was absolutely the right thing to do to get on and progress this legislation.

We do have some points of difference with the Government. Our first grumble, I suppose, is that it has taken a very, very long time to get to this point. The Law Commission did return its report early in the first term of this Government, and here we are, at the very, very last gasps of the second term of this Government, finally passing this legislation. I think it is a shame that it has taken so long, but let us not dwell on that too much. Let us celebrate the fact that we have made it this far and that we are very close to implementing this legislation at last.

There is an obvious point of difference, which has been a point of debate throughout the Committee stage and throughout the third reading of this legislation, and that is around the lump-sum payments and the accessibility of the veterans pension. We are very pleased that the Government has moved from its original position on the criteria for the veterans pension. It made really no sense at all that there was a requirement that a veteran demonstrate that they were 52 percent disabled in order to qualify for the veterans pension. That it is now universal will be very pleasing. But that is more symbolic than anything else.

Where the Government has not been prepared to move, sadly, has been on the issue of lump-sum payments. This is not an extraordinary amount of money. In terms of the decisions that Governments make, something between $7 million and $11 million per annum is not an extraordinary amount of money, and it is an amount of money that will decrease over time. That is unusual for Governments. Usually when you put some new spending into the baseline, you have to anticipate that there will be an increase in the actual spend over time. That is not the case here. Yet, sadly, the Government has decided not to recognise the contribution and sacrifice of veterans and their families by agreeing to the lump-sum payment upon the death of a veteran.

I appreciate what the Government is saying—that that money will not go to the veteran—but the truth is, of course, that the families of veterans made an extraordinary sacrifice as well, and in the case where a veteran is significantly injured and disabled as a result of their service, then often the family has an ongoing responsibility to support that person through their life. I think it is absolutely justified that we as a nation recognise that sacrifice and that support, as well.

In the legislation there is also provision for a code of veterans’ and claimants’ rights in their dealings with Veterans Affairs New Zealand. That certainly is something that came out of the consultation with veterans and their representative organisations. There need to be some fundamental rights that veterans have when dealing with veterans affairs, to ensure that they get a fair deal and to ensure that they get fair service every time.

Overwhelmingly, Veterans Affairs delivers a very, very good service for our veterans and, as a nation, I think we compare extremely well with some of the other Western nations around the world that send their people into harm’s way and then do not deliver when their veterans come home. This code of rights underpins that and ensures that all veterans get a fair deal. We do support this bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge that on 4 August we will mark the centenary of New Zealand’s entering into the First World War. We had 103,000 New Zealanders serve overseas, 59,500 casualties, and 18,200 New Zealanders who gave their lives for our country.

The history of this bill is really interesting, and I will go through it because I think it is important. We are here because in 2003 the Health Committee had an inquiry into agent orange, and it was very much inspired by our Viet Nam vets and the state of well-being of our Viet Nam vets. One of the recommendations from that select committee inquiry was for a review of the veterans pension.

What happened was that a memorandum of understanding was entered into by the Government, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association, and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. In 2007 the Law Commission was empowered to conduct that review. It had 170 recommendations, of which 132 were accepted. One was not, and I actually want to focus my whole speech on the one that was not. That was recommendation 95 and I would like to read it. It was that “All veterans with qualifying operational service should be eligible for the Veteran’s Pension, regardless of whether they have received impairment compensation.”

Currently, to receive the veterans pension you have to be 70 percent disabled. That translates through to the new legislation as 52 percent disabled. So if you are 52 percent disabled—or 70 percent disabled, as in the current legislation—you receive as a veterans pensioner, first, a community services card; second, payments continue if you have a stay of 13 weeks - plus in hospital; and, third, a funeral grant. Can I say that that call for all veterans to be eligible for a veterans pension actually came from the 1960s. The RSA has been calling for all veterans to receive a veterans pension since the 1960s.

It was interesting to read the Law Commission report because it actually said that the veterans pension was premised on four principles. One was about service to our country, the second was about actual economic loss, the third was about economic need, and the fourth was about disability. So of course disability was part of the equation, and I see the latest iteration of disability is that it is also an active responsibility of the Government to provide rehabilitation under this piece of legislation, which I think is an extension.

But if we go back right to the beginning of New Zealand’s history of providing pensions to our war veterans, it actually started in 1866. That legislation was called the Military Pensions Act. The Military Pensions Act was really interesting because what it did was have a panel of doctors who made an assessment about whether you were deserving or not. The really interesting commentary on that piece of legislation was that it actually had lower rates for Māori veterans than for Pākehā veterans, so it says something about the history of the time and how we regarded the different types of veterans. The ethos, as it was in 1590—I mentioned this in my second reading speech—was very much a charitable response by the Government. I picked up on that Queen Elizabeth I quote about “the fruit of their good deserving”, so we wanted to make sure that the deserving were catered for.

There was another iteration of the Military Pensions Act and that happened in the War Pensions Act 1915. In that iteration we actually created boards that decided whether people were eligible and what type of support they were eligible for. It was at that time that we corrected the differences between Māori and Pākehā pensioners and said no, they all deserved to receive the same level of support. Then in 1943 there was another update of the War Pensions Act, and we improved the rates and we improved the process. So there was an ongoing conversation between the RSA and the Government about the needs of our war pensioners.

From 1951 we integrated our response as a Government into the social security system, but it was interesting at that time because the veterans association, the media, and a commission of inquiry actually created the War Pensions Act 1954. The interesting thing about the history of the evolution of our recognition of the support that our war pensioners deserved is that it also gave rise to regulation 45 of the War Pensions Regulations 1956. In fact, that is where funeral expenses came from. That is where, as a qualifying veterans pensioner, you were eligible to get the funeral grant.

The commentary from the Law Commission is relevant because it said that our veterans deserve to be treated with a generosity of spirit in return for their sacrifice to New Zealand. The three things that they have got—the community services card, a continuation of the payment of their veterans pension if they go into hospital, and a funeral grant—were actually in recognition of the effects on the quality of life for veterans. It was not about the level of disability; it was actually about recognition of the sacrifice—being away from your family, being away from home, not getting further educated, the ongoing loss. It was a small token of appreciation, above anything else.

So what I find offensive, I guess, as a member of the Social Services Committee, is that during this process we have changed the criteria. We have said that now all veterans will get the veterans pension, so I think that this House has demonstrated that democracy does work. But with one hand we have given and with the other hand we have taken away, because now you receive that funeral grant only if you are 52 percent disabled. The rationale for that is money, pure and simple. It is all about the money, and I find that—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s all right. We won’t raise the pension age to 67.

LOUISA WALL: Do you know what? You can get a veterans pension before 65, so age is irrelevant. What the issue is with what we are going to pass tonight as a Parliament is that we are going to say you all deserve a veterans pension but that there are aspects of qualifying for a veterans pension that mean that we will give you a funeral grant when you die but you have to be 52 percent disabled.

Like my colleagues, I support this bill 100 percent, and I want to thank the New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association for its hard work and dedication in getting us to this point in time. I would like to acknowledge Veterans Affairs New Zealand and all our officials, who have brought us to this point in time. I want to say that as a member of the select committee who sat through the submissions and who was formally part of this process, it has been a privilege to hear from the veterans themselves how important this piece of legislation is.

I know that on Monday all of us, wherever we are, will be acknowledging that it is 100 years since World War I started. It is slightly ironic that all of this is happening at this time. I do think that it is very mean-spirited of us to impose a new qualification so that some of those who receive the veterans pension will not be eligible for the funeral grant that has been in place and has been a part of that particular pension since 1956, as I highlighted.

I commend this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs. I know that he is a bit upset with me, but the reality is that for our side of the House—all of us from the Greens, Labour, and New Zealand First who sat on this select committee—this was one of the big issues that we tried so hard to get consensus on. To have failed to do that is, I think, commentary about the time and it is commentary about the prioritisation of this Government. Kia ora.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Land Transport Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): I move, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill is designed to lower the current adult drink-drive limits, demonstrating that the Government does have a commitment to improving road safety in New Zealand, making Safer Journeys, the Government’s 10-year road strategy programme, all that much stronger. Safer Journeys was a vision to improve the safety on our roads and to see those roads become freer of death and serious injury. Although we celebrate the lowering of a road toll, this year some 250-plus people have died on our roads in the 12 months. If that were to happen as a single event, it would be a total tragedy that would paralyse the nation. It is important that we continue to look for ways to reduce death and serious injury on our roads.

As part of the strategy, the identification of drink-driving was an area of high concern. The second Safer Journeys action plan set out the Government’s intention to make a decision on drink-driving limits before the end of 2013. After considering the results of the research, which Cabinet required to be done back in 2010, and taking a series of other types of advice, the Government moved to introduce the Land Transport Amendment Bill to reduce the drink-driving limits for adults. The Land Transport Amendment Bill will reduce the breath-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The blood-alcohol limit will reduce from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams.

Research has shown that the cognitive abilities of drivers do become impaired at levels below the current limit for adult drivers. This bill seeks to reduce that risk. Work undertaken by officials suggests that lowering the limit will also reduce drinking and driving over the current limit. This seems to be an experience where the limit has been lowered in other countries. New Zealand, in fact, is well placed to capitalise on reduced limits because there is a strong enforcement regime in place. As crash risk increases exponentially with increasing alcohol levels, even a modest reduction in the level of offending by drivers over the current limit can result in significant road safety benefits. Such a shift in behaviour has been observed in the lower number of young drivers detected drinking and driving, following the Government’s initiative to introduce a zero alcohol limit for young drivers. Lowering the adult drink-driving limits will send a clear signal that consuming alcohol at high levels when driving is unacceptable. This should save lives. It will reduce injuries. Officials have estimated conservatively that an average of 3.4 lives will be saved and 64 injuries prevented each year.

Although the intention is not a money saver, it is worth noting that this will mean a net benefit of over $200 million over 10 years. It will also mean that many, many families that might suffer the tragedy of a loss like this and the effects that it has on them will be spared that particular agony. The bill will also put in place an infringement offence regime for drivers who fall between the new and the old limits. The infringement regime will provide a strong deterrent for drivers caught between those limits. The imposition of a $200 infringement fee and 50 demerit points is not a soft option. Any driver who accumulates more than 100 demerit points from driving offences within a 2-year period receives a 3-month driver licence suspension. Finally, the bill contains amendments of a technical nature that support the policy aims.

Over recent years public attitudes towards drink-driving have changed markedly. I think the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has done a very good job in taking this bill and putting it into a form that is reasonable and workable, and I am grateful for the wide support across the House. There was a member’s bill in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway that some said moved the Government to action. The reality is that we were well down the track, and although I commend the member for expressing through his member’s bill the same sentiments and concern that the Government has exercised in bringing this bill to the House, I think it is worth noting that there are few in this House who would not see this as a positive move in our community.

There will be those out there who say that it is too restricting on people, etc. Well, all I will say is that there is no restriction in this bill on enjoying yourself out of your home in a public place where alcohol is being served; it is simply a restriction on what you may do behind the wheel of a car after such consumption. So people need to think their way through their travel plans, etc. I think that is actually happening right across New Zealand. More responsible attitudes are being taken. So it is appropriate that between the two limits—the old limit at 80 and the new one at 50—it becomes an infringement. It sits there to serve as a reminder to people that once you go past that 80 limit, you are in a very impaired state and should not be behind a wheel. I do thank the House for the widespread support that I would expect the bill to get toward the conclusion of this debate. It is a good piece of legislation and it will be good for New Zealand. Thank you.

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is good to follow on in this debate and I want to respond to some of the things that the Minister of Transport has said about this Land Transport Amendment Bill. Labour is supporting this bill, as we have supported bills that have included these measures, going right back to 2009. I am going to talk more about the specific provisions in the bill and why we support them, but I think it is worth taking a minute or two just to reflect on the provenance of this bill. The Hon Gerry Brownlee talked about how the Government had been considering all of the international research about lowering the blood-alcohol limits and weighing up the research before it proceeded with this bill. Well, in my humble opinion, the research that actually informs this bill was Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill being pulled from the ballot. That was the thing that spurred the Minister into action; it was the prospect of Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill that would have lowered the blood-alcohol limits in exactly the same way that this bill does. The prospect of that bill gaining majority support in this House would have been a political embarrassment for the Government.

We have seen for 5 years since Darren Hughes’ bill in 2009, which would have had pretty much the same effect as this, prevarication by this Government—not checking the research in Australia, the US, or anywhere else around the world. Actually, the reason that this Government did not progress this issue for those 5 long years is that it did not want to be seen as a nanny State. Steven Joyce was so concerned about the optics of actually lowering the blood-alcohol limits and the thresholds that are contained in this bill that he was not prepared to entertain the prospect of lowering the limits. That says a lot about this Government. Steven Joyce, himself, I think, said publicly that you could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still, under the current law, be able to legally get behind the wheel. To say that publicly and then for 5 long years not actually proceed with this long overdue reform, I think says a lot. It is not at all about the international research; it was simply about Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill being pulled out of the ballot. That is why the Government brought this bill to the House and has finally squeaked it through in the dying hours of this parliamentary term. That is a pretty half-hearted effort, you would have to say.

The purpose of this bill, just to recap, is to address the problem of drink-driving with a number of amendments, including lowering the adult legal blood-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms. So that is from 400 micrograms down to 250 micrograms for a breath test, and from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams—so from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams for a blood test. That will, without a doubt, make a very significant difference. As the Minister pointed out, the data shows that there is an exponential increase in fatalities and casualties on the road from drink-driving, from a modest but steady increase in alcohol consumption of those people who get behind the wheel. So it makes a lot of sense, we believe, to lower the limits in this way and it will make a really significant difference to the carnage on the roads.

There are some very interesting statistics about the cost of drink-driving. It is one of the major causes of road accidents in New Zealand—an annual average, according to the Ministry of Transport, of 61 fatalities, 244 serious injuries, and 761 minor injuries every year. That is an extraordinary roll-call of social harm, disruption, and loss that people and families face all over this country, caused by drink-driving. Economists have calculated that the financial cost of these injuries and fatalities is $446 million. That is the cost of drink-driving every year. That is a massive cost to the country. What the officials advised was that lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit in the way that this bill does will save, on average, 3.4 lives every year—3.4 lives saved every year. Imagine that: since 2009, if Darren Hughes’ bill had been pulled from the ballot and supported in this House, 3.4 lives could have been saved every year for the last 5 years. That is the cost of the delay and prevarication that we have seen. As for the other savings, this bill should, according to the projections, save on average 64 injury-causing crashes from happening and $200 million in social costs of fatalities and casualties over a 10-year period. That is a massive cost-benefit gain that we should see from the passage of this legislation.

One of the interesting things about this bill—and I know that it was debated at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at length—is that the Government chose, with this bill, rather than just lowering the blood-alcohol and breath limits, to set up a civil infringement regime for offences that fall between the old limits and the new limits. Call me thick, but I have yet to hear in the previous debates, including in the Committee stage, when we repeatedly asked the Minister in the chair to get up and take a call—and I really did not find in the Minister’s explanation of the justification of the civil infringement regime in his contribution a very clear or compelling explanation about why. He said—and I think his words were—there is a $250 fine, and the number of demerits that you would get is not the “soft option”. Well, to be frank, it is the soft option. By definition, it is the soft option. What this bill does is it sets up a hierarchy between the criminal offences that exist from zero to the old limits, and a civil infringement regime between the old limits and the new limits. It clearly is the soft option and I am not sure why, and I would be interested to hear from the members opposite another attempt at an explanation as to why they have gone down this track. It clearly sets up a two-tier infringement system, and it is not clear to me why the Government would want to do that.

There is no doubt that, really, in our adult lifetimes there has been a massive social change on the question of drink-driving. As the Minister himself said, public attitudes now are far, far less tolerant of people who want to drink and drive. I think there is an acceptance of the point he made that the general view now is that by all means, get drunk in your own home, go to a bar, go to a club or a restaurant, whatever, but it is no longer your God-given right to get behind the wheel and subject everybody else to the appalling risks that drunk-drivers pose on our roads.

I want to pay tribute to all of the work that has been done by people—by public health workers, by public servants working in the ministries and departments, by people who have done all of the host responsibility work, and by school teachers. There has been a tide of change on public attitudes on this issue, and it has had a very, very positive effect. I think that organisations like the Drug Foundation, for example, which has endorsed this bill, quite rightly and strongly say that this will have a really positive effect in terms of reducing the harm caused by drink-driving.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): It is a shame that that member had to drone on for 10 minutes. It is a pretty effective reflection of the Labour Party and what it actually did in this area. It did nothing—absolutely nothing—when it was in Government. The Labour members stood there and did nothing, and then they sanctimoniously come into this House tonight and say “Oh, it could have been done a lot earlier. Why hasn’t this been done?” Nine years under Labour, and drink-driving did not change in the time that the Labour Party was in Government. It did nothing. That is the Labour Party of old. Then the Labour members vote for this Land Transport Amendment Bill, and then the next sanctimonious bit was to say that they do not know why there are two tiers in it. That is what they wanted, that is what they are going to vote for, and that is what the bill has. So how can you be for the bill and at the same time hop on your high horse at this point and be seen to be something other than what you are?

The reality is that Labour did nothing. National came in, we looked at the evidence, we went through it, and we have made a decision, and it is the right thing for New Zealanders. It is something that is balanced, in the sense that we have an infringement regime so that New Zealanders can work through this process, and then they go through the process of a full criminal offence if somebody is above the higher limit.

This is a good bill, it is what New Zealanders have been looking for, and it is a balanced approach. This is a Government that does something. It does not stand up and say things, and then, when it has its chance, does nothing.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): It is always a pleasure to follow David Bennett in the debating chamber. Labour wholeheartedly supports this legislation, the Land Transport Amendment Bill, and the concept behind it, which is to bring to an end legal drunk-driving. It is something to celebrate tonight that on 1 December this year it will no longer be legal to get behind the wheel of a car whilst intoxicated by alcohol.

But it has been a long time coming. David Bennett raises some interesting points, I think. The truth is that the evidence was first placed before the Minister of Transport by the Ministry of Transport in 2009. That is when the first tranche of evidence was made available to a Minister of Transport. It was in 2009, under the current Government. In fact, at the time the Hon Steven Joyce, who was the Minister of Transport, actually indicated that he was supportive of the change. He was the one who was going around and telling people just how much alcohol it was possible to consume and still be under the current legal limit. I have to say that I for one was not at first convinced when I heard about this. It was actually after a conversation with two National Party backbenchers who were privy to the information that Steven Joyce had, and who, I believe, had also participated in one of these kinds of anecdotal experiments—I suppose is a way you could describe it—and who said to me: “No, you really need to look at this issue of the drink-driving limit. It is possible to consume an enormous amount of alcohol and still be under the limit.”

That was from two National Party backbenchers. I will not name them. That would be embarrassing for them, but it was after that conversation that I went away and looked at the evidence and found that they were absolutely right. At the time I anticipated that the National Government was going to move on this, because the Minister of Transport had indicated that he thought it was something it needed to do. But somebody got to Steven Joyce, and there are a few names that do come to mind. It was those who were the chief exponents of the term “nanny State”, which was used so effectively by National Party members when they were in Opposition, and they just could not bring themselves to do anything that might appear to put themselves into that nanny State category that they had created for political gain.

So what did they do? They kicked for touch. For the sake of political expediency and for the sake of not being accused of engaging in nanny State policy themselves, they set aside something that was guaranteed to save lives. They said that the international evidence did not apply in New Zealand, and they needed to spend some time researching whether or not reducing the drink-driving limit would actually save lives in New Zealand. What that was really about, let us be honest, was kicking out this issue so that it would be addressed after the last election. That is what it was all about.

The Government had another opportunity. We have spoken a lot about how Labour drafted a member’s bill, and, yes, when it was drawn, it was in my name, but I was not the only one who held that bill in the ballot. When it was drawn it was in my name—and, yes, the Government did suddenly act rather swiftly after that bill was drawn. But the Government had an opportunity to act before then, and that was during the debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill. I put, by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, an amendment to the Alcohol Reform Bill to reduce the drink-driving limit. It was absolutely in order. For a lot of people who have been advocating for a reduction in the drink-driving limit, they saw it as part of the suite of measures that were required to reduce alcohol-related harm. Taking action on this absolutely fitted with what we were doing, and should have been doing, through the Alcohol Reform Bill.

Sadly, my amendment did not quite get the numbers. It missed out by one. The National Party, the ACT Party, and, I am sad to say, United Future, Peter Dunne, voted against it. But Peter Dunne was only really doing that because he felt that he had to stick with the Government, to which he gives confidence and supply. He said at the time, rather spuriously, I have to say, that the way to do this was not by amending the Alcohol Reform Bill; it was by amending the land transport legislation. I am glad to say that he realised he had to be good to his word, and when my bill, the Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill, was drawn from the ballot, Peter Dunne indicated that as it was indeed an amendment to the land transport legislation, he would support it. We had the numbers, so it was going to pass.

That was the point at which the Government finally kicked into action. The Government realised it was on the wrong side of public opinion, it was on the wrong side of the evidence, and it was very soon going to be on the wrong side of a vote in the House. That is what got the Government to finally move on this. Let us be absolutely clear and honest about that. That is what finally got the Government moving. Good! Are we not pleased that we are finally going to get there? On 1 December this year our drink-driving limit in New Zealand will move into line with most other Western nations. We will finally catch up with what most other Western nations are doing.

Denis O’Rourke: No. Not right. Not correct.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Denis O’Rourke shakes his head. The only two that he can think of are the United Kingdom and the United States. We should not just follow them every single time. We are smarter than that. Australia, I am sad to say, did this decades ago. We are way behind our closest cousins, the country that we ordinarily compare ourselves to most often. We are decades behind them.

Denis O’Rourke: Got it wrong.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No, it is absolutely right and I will be very pleased to hear how Denis O’Rourke will try to rebut that statement.

We are pleased that this bill is going ahead, but we do have a point of difference. We are not entirely convinced by this idea of having an infringement offence for those who are over the alcohol limit of 0.05 percent but under 0.08 percent. What Labour was originally proposing was simply to lower the limit and for it to be a criminal offence to be a drink-driver—to be drunk behind the wheel. That is what being over 0.05 percent is. It is being a drunk-driver. It should be, we on this side of the House think, a criminal offence to be a drunk-driver.

The Government has offered up a couple of different arguments for this. The Government says that the drunk-drivers who are least drunk cause the least amount of harm. Well, I am sorry but they are still a drunk-driver—they are still a drunk-driver. It has always been a criminal offence in New Zealand in the past to be a drunk-driver, and it should continue to be a criminal offence in New Zealand to be a drunk-driver.

The other thing the Government said is that it would clog up the courts with all the people who will drink in excess of 0.05 percent but under 0.08 percent. We would have to put them all through the court. That statement is based on an assumption that New Zealanders are fundamentally stupid and will not notice that the law has changed. Well, we on this side of the House believe that New Zealanders are pretty smart. They are informed. They are educated. They watch the news. They read the newspapers. They will know that the limit has fallen, and they will change their behaviour appropriately. We will not see the courts being clogged up with people who have been caught out, as the Government would say, by the change in the law.

We have not seen any strong evidence. We know that there are different regimes around the world, but we have not seen any evidence. The Minister did not refer to it. David Bennett did not refer to it. We have not seen any evidence that says that this regime is better than making it a criminal offence. We are open-minded. We are interested to see how it works, but if it is not working in the way we anticipated, we do need to come back and review it and ensure that we have done this right.

This bill is a step in the right direction. It has taken far too long. It is not the step that we would have taken, but we will support it because it is a significant improvement on the current situation where it is legal in New Zealand to drink and drive.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens on the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill, which we also will be supporting. This bill—we need to be up front about it, really—was introduced by the Government as a direct response to Iain Lees-Galloway’s popular bill, which was drawn from the ballot and which we also supported because it fitted with the Green Party policy for a reduction in the blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams, or lower, per 100 millilitres of blood. This Government bill is softer, because although it reduces that level, it only sets infringement fines and demerit points for drink-driving at these lower levels, whereas Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill would have seen lower limits and some criminal consequences; disqualification for 6 months and a $4,500 fine or 3 months in prison. We are still supporting the Land Transport Amendment Bill, because it is going towards that goal, and we will watch with interest to see the public’s response.

I have lived in a country where there was a zero blood-alcohol limit and I have got to say, on a personal level, that I am a fan of that. You cannot get simpler than that. You cannot go wrong with that. You cannot go over the limit, because you know that actually you cannot drink at all if you are going to drive.

Denis O’Rourke: Was that in Nazi Germany?

JAN LOGIE: It was in Japan. It was very effective and very simple for people, and it caused no harm whatsoever. But this bill is progress, and therefore we support it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports tougher measures to curb the worst cases of drink-driving, but this bill, the Land Transport Amendment Bill, is badly targeted and is aimed at the drink-drivers who do the least harm. It leaves the real culprits alone. Some speakers have listed research and listed casualties without tying them back to these particular proposals. They would lower the breath-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms to 250 micrograms, and would reduce the blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams. Disobedience of these new limits is to be addressed only in the form of infringement notices, like it was a parking offence, on the grounds that they are in the least-serious range of offending. That is really the issue here. The people in this range, between the existing thresholds and the new ones proposed, are not the people who cause the deaths and the injuries. By far, most of the worst accidents are caused by the heavier drinkers, who are already caught by the existing law and who will be unaffected by this bill. So targeting the people who drink to only the extent covered by this new infringement offence is not likely to have the desired effect of reducing the death and injury rate on our roads to any significant extent.

It is really just another politically correct measure to make it look as though the Government actually cares about this issue—a belated attempt to upstage the Labour proposal. The lower infringement limits as proposed in this bill may, in fact, have an unintended, perverse effect. There will be some people who will convince themselves that drinking to between a blood-alcohol range of 50 milligrams to 80 milligrams or to between 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath when driving is an acceptable risk because it is only an infringement offence, for which a small fine and a few demerit points are incurred if the driver is caught. So this bill may end up actually having the opposite effect to that which is intended.

Although there is some evidence in research that shows driver impairment between the proposed limits and the existing limits, there is very little convincing evidence that most people are actually likely to harm themselves or others if they do so. In fact, the Australian experience is that that has very little effect. It is, therefore, clear to me that New Zealand’s existing alcohol limits in relation to driving are unlikely to be too high and that lowering them would be unlikely to be effective. This is also the position taken by the United Kingdom Government, and its drink-driving regime works very well indeed. So it is hard to accept that there is any sense in the measures proposed in this bill at all. We in New Zealand First believe that a better long-term effect could be achieved, firstly, by increasing the penalties for offending against the existing alcohol limits of 80 milligrams per 100 litres of blood and 400 milligrams per litre of breath. That is what the Government should be doing. That would make the worst drink-drivers really sit up and take notice. The point is that it is the deterrence that really matters, and there is very little deterrence in this bill.

Secondly, we want people to clearly understand that the possibility of being caught is actually a probability, by having more police on the road and more random breath tests. But this Government, which is soft on policing, will not spend the money needed to do that, but instead has taken the soft option we see in this bill. The proposed new infringement penalties do not reflect the seriousness of drink-driving, and that will certainly be noticed by people disposed to drinking and driving. The proposed breath-alcohol limit will not even be a criminal offence incurring the full force of the law, but will instead provide for only a small fine of $200 and 50 demerit points, and the new blood-alcohol limit will incur only a fine of $500 and 50 demerit points. Demerit points themselves may only eventually lead to loss of licence, so their effect as a deterrent is not immediate, which is what is needed for drink-drivers, and the fines are derisory and are clearly not an adequate deterrent at all.

The public does actually want stronger action and leadership on drink-driving than this Government is apparently prepared to take. New Zealand First wants higher penalties, to raise the stakes for the existing limits, which reflects public opinion, but in the end what we really need is a culture change towards having more sensible drinking habits, especially among young people. That change in achieving the road safety objective will not come from penalties that are perceived to be soft, as these will be. They must reinforce and underpin the process for social change and better drinking habits, along, of course, with continued education and promotional efforts. This legislation, in New Zealand First’s view, fails on all counts, and for those reasons we will vote against it.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Let me start by reiterating Labour’s support for the Land Transport Amendment Bill. We believe that this bill is worthy of support because we have long sought to have the legal alcohol driving limit reduced, and this bill finally does that. What it does is it begins to address the problem of alcohol-impaired driving with a number of amendments, including lowering the adult legal alcohol limits from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms, or from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams.

This 50 to 80 range has been talked about for some considerable time. Others have alluded to various journalists and other, what you might call, stunts that have shown that allowing that drinking range and that level of alcohol is actually allowing people, legally, to drive drunk—that people are sufficiently impaired to the point where they cannot drive a car safely and are a risk on the road. They are a risk to themselves and to other people, and that, I think, is generally accepted. I think most New Zealanders support this change. Most New Zealanders have wanted a lower limit for some considerable time.

I find it interesting that the last speaker, Denis O’Rourke, has opposed this measure on the basis that this is somehow less of a risk—you know, the number of deaths and accidents are lower, so therefore this is not worth addressing. I find that an extraordinary position to take. Acting on this issue of reducing the legal alcohol limit for driving, and dealing with the particular concern that has been sitting there and has been raised over and over again for some time now, does not mean that we should not take higher blood-alcohol levels very seriously and, in fact, look at the sorts of matters that the last speaker has spoken about. Are the sanctions for those higher levels high enough?

We certainly need to continue to focus on this issue. There are still people who continue to drive with excessive amounts of alcohol. In fact, what we can all see and know is that there is a terrible problem with recidivist drink-driving—people who are seriously impaired, or who have even been imprisoned and who get out and then drive again in that state. What that says is that one of the problems we have—and this came up in previous legislation where we have talked about the blood-alcohol limit—is that we do not use the opportunity that this bill provides for dealing with the issue of alcohol abuse.

This bill has not dealt with the issue. Previous legislation around younger drivers did not deal with the opportunity that was presented. When people are pulled over and caught for drink-driving it provides a real opportunity to intervene and to provide assistance to people who have an alcohol problem. In fact, many submitters on previous legislation said that this is the opportunity. Often when people have a drinking problem it will go unnoticed for a very considerable length of time, and, in fact, often the opportunity to intervene, and the first time that it might come to a family’s attention that somebody has an alcohol problem, is when they are picked up for drink-driving. We have not addressed that, and I think that that is a serious problem, because recidivist drink-driving is something we all know continues.

However, as I said, we support this bill. It has been a long time coming. It certainly was raised extensively when we were talking about the Law Commission work, Alcohol In Our Lives—that comprehensive report that it did and that we looked at. Many submitters and many people talking to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at that time raised the issue of reducing the legal drink-driving limit.

Then again, of course, the issue was raised in the legislation that brought in changes to drink-driving for younger drivers. A former colleague had put this measure forward in a member’s bill, which was picked up by Iain Lees-Galloway. There was considerable support. What were the reasons for not doing anything at the time? Well, others have said that the Minister clearly did not end up with the political will, despite initially showing an interest in progressing it.

For whatever reason, we had all sorts of things said to the select committee, like despite the fact that there was significant evidence from other jurisdictions about the changes and the improvements that were made by reducing blood-alcohol levels—the saving of lives and the reduction of injuries—we were told that we needed specific New Zealand research on the matter. Frankly, that just seems nonsensical to me. What is it that is so different around drink-driving in New Zealand that would mean we had to have specific New Zealand research? The only thing at the time that people came up with was that we had a lot more rural roads, and that was the reason why we had to do all this additional research.

Finally, we are here. We have been out of step with almost every other Western nation. We do have some concerns, although we are supporting this bill, and other colleagues have raised them. It is the issue that the New Zealand First speaker has outlined, around whether the infringement regime is sufficient, whether it will work, and whether it is pitched appropriately. Well, it is better for us to start at least, do something, and make progress on what has clearly been a real issue and a real concern.

In the period of time between 2006 and 2008, 30 people—30 people—were killed in accidents where drivers were known to have a blood-alcohol content of between 50 and 80 milligrams. That is just the number of people who died. There would have been many serious accidents that were also within that range. The costs are not only obviously the deaths, but also the cost to the health system of serious injuries, and the emotional and other implications for families. That certainly is worth our taking action. It has taken far too long to do so.

So we do support this bill. I guess we will want to see how the infringement regime does end up working. I know that my colleague Darien Fenton is likely to raise concerns from the bill’s time in the select committee about how some of the issues around payment for blood tests are going to work out, and whether that will create some sort of strange set of circumstances, but I will let her talk about that.

I guess there is another parallel that really has struck me in looking at this bill, though, and I do want to finish by talking about another matter—a matter where we know there is a need for action and where the failure to act is costing people’s lives, causing serious harm and injury to people in this country, and is a cost to them and their family. That is the issue of violence against women and children. We know that there is a need to act. There is strong public support for taking action. Like this situation, we are well behind other Western jurisdictions in actually doing something. I say to the House that this is an urgent matter. This is an urgent matter—to deal with the problems associated with domestic and sexual violence as well. We can sit there and know that there is a problem. We can sit there and know that there are things we can do, and fail to act. In doing so, people’s lives are being lost and people are being seriously injured. There is a huge cost to them, their family, and the community.

Just to finish, we are glad this bill is finally before the House. It is a pleasure to support it tonight, here, at its third reading. I look forward to further action, particularly around eliminating violence against women and children.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am surprised to find myself on my feet, having given my valedictory speech, but it is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of this bill, the Land Transport Amendment Bill. It has been a long time coming. I think my colleagues have traversed the time frame over many years of this legislation. I do not want to spend too much time on this, because I think there is a very important bill coming up next, but I will be very, very pleased to see this legislation go through. As other colleagues have said, there are some concerns about some of the enforcement stuff and the regime around blood testing. However, we are pleased to see this bill come through, and I am pleased to take one of my very last calls in this Parliament to support this bill. Thank you.

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

Ayes 109

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.

Noes 7

New Zealand First 7.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

In Committee

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purposes of debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3 be taken as one question. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Parts 1 and 2, and clauses 1 to 3

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is very, very important. The bill strengthens the regulation of foreign-owned commercial fishing vessels operating in New Zealand waters. The bill is part of a range of measures that follow a ministerial inquiry in 2012 into questionable safety, labour, and fishing practices on some foreign-owned vessels. The ministerial inquiry, led by the Hon Paul Swain, found that although these issues are not widespread in the New Zealand commercial fishing industry, they are serious and need to be addressed in a coordinated manner, backed by legislative change.

The key features of the bill are the requirement that all foreign-owned vessels operating in New Zealand waters carry the New Zealand flag from 1 May 2016 and operate under full New Zealand legal jurisdiction. It will enable the Ministry for Primary Industries to consider employment and vessel safety matters as well as fishery matters while assessing applications for registration of foreign-owned fishing vessels. It allows the fisheries observers from the Ministry for Primary Industries to collect information on employment and vessel safety matters, as well as the scientific information they collect now, and it confers new powers to suspend the registration of non-compliant vessels. The mandatory reflagging of all foreign charter vessels will ensure that New Zealand is able to enforce its vessel safety, employment, and fisheries laws on foreign charter vessels fishing in our exclusive economic zone.

Through this piece of legislation the Government is sending a clear message that New Zealand is serious about the fair treatment of fishing crews, the safety of vessels, and its international reputation for ethical and sustainable fishing practices. The changes being made through the bill will protect our international reputation. Our trade access will also maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our very important fisheries resources. This is a robust and long-term solution that sends a clear message that New Zealand is very serious about addressing allegations of mistreatment and underpayment of crew on these vessels.

I have carefully considered the exemptions proposed by the Primary Production Committee, but before I talk about those can I just acknowledge the outstanding work of the chair of the Primary Production Committee, Shane Ardern, who gave his valedictory statement today. I also acknowledge all the members of the Primary Production Committee who have been involved with this bill. Importantly, I just want to acknowledge a couple of other members who have recently given their valedictories and who have been a part of this select committee, and they are Eric Roy and also Colin King, and, before that, Shane Jones was also involved in this Primary Production Committee.

In particular, I have weighed up these exemptions and their impacts on the robustness of the fisheries management regime and the long-term certainty for the Government, industry, and our international trading partners. I believe that exemptions to reflagging risk undermining the Government’s ability to enforce its labour and vessel safety standards on foreign charter vessels under international law. Under the exemptions, New Zealand would have only limited jurisdiction over these matters in our exclusive economic zone. Therefore, exemptions have the potential to undermine New Zealand’s international reputation by being seen as weakening the reflagging regime.

The only exemption that I consider should be retained is the exemption to enable foreign charter vessels to be used for vessels conducting fisheries-related research approved by the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries. There are minimal risks to this exemption, and it will enable the industry to innovate and move to commercially harvest new species in the event that New Zealand vessels are unable or unsuitable. In this regard, I draw the Committee’s attention to Supplementary Order Paper 429 in my name to make these necessary changes.

In summary, the Government’s objectives for foreign charter vessels are to ensure that New Zealand’s labour standards—that is, enforcing a safe, fair working environment—are applied on all fishing vessels operating in New Zealand’s fisheries waters, to protect New Zealand’s international reputation and trade access, and to maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our very important fisheries resource.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Labour welcomes this piece of legislation, the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill, into the Committee. Indeed, without the proactive cooperation of the Labour Opposition, it would not be here. We made the offer to the Minister for Primary Industries in the knowledge that it was not on the Order Paper and indeed we were going to close Parliament tomorrow without this legislation passing.

There are members of the Primary Production Committee on the Government side there and on this side who have put a lot of time and effort into this, two of whom actually gave their valedictory speeches today, Eric Roy and Shane Ardern. They have followed the fisheries legislation from 1997 right through, and will welcome this piece of legislation giving effect to what has been the intent of the legislation for some time.

In 1997 when the legislation was passed there was, through the efforts of my colleague Graham Kelly, an initiative in this House to ensure that anyone working on fishing boats catching New Zealand fish in our economic zone should be paid New Zealand rates of pay and work in conditions that we would expect for New Zealanders. We were given assurances and the legislation stated that in 1997, but actually by early 2000 it had become apparent that we were not guaranteeing those proper conditions for a lot of foreign fisherman who were coming in on foreign boats catching fish.

So there was an inquiry, and in fact Labour in Government sought further assurances from the Department of Labour at the time and from the guild, as it was then, to give better security and protection for fishermen who travelled a long way and came in these boats that were not ideal. The boats were not new. Some might have called them rust buckets, but I guess they could still float. They had come into New Zealand waters to catch fish under contract to New Zealand companies. It then threw up some very sad situations like the Oyang 70 and a number of other situations at Lyttelton Port where boats had been tied up. It had become apparent that, in fact, our law was not being properly implemented.

I acknowledge the Government conducted a ministerial inquiry. Our ex-colleague the Hon Paul Swain did a very good job and came back to the Government with recommendations. That piece of legislation came to the Primary Production Committee. On balance it was decided that reflagging under the New Zealand flag was the most appropriate way to protect the workers. They were working on those boats catching New Zealand fish in our economic zone for New Zealand companies who were profiting from this, but they were effectively being treated like slaves.

In fact, in passing this legislation we should not pat ourselves on the back too much because as a TV article just over a week ago disclosed similar conditions are being applied to workers from the Philippines in the Christchurch rebuild. So I say to the Government, in praising and assisting it here, that we have got to look at that situation here in New Zealand with Christchurch and—dare I say it—on odd occasions with Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers throughout the country. But I will put that to one side.

Labour, as I say, prompted the Government to take the initiative to introduce the bill and have it passed. We would have had it passed tomorrow if it was not for the Māori Party. I have to say it is absolutely shameful and disgraceful that a party that is here in this House to protect Māori people up and down this country—many of whom own quota, own the right to access fisheries, and in fact have many of their own people employed on fishing boats up and down this country—refused to give leave for us to pass this legislation in a way that would have seen it in place by 2016, as proposed in the bill, and passed prior to the closure of this Parliament. I think we could have all held our heads up high, because it required the leave of all parties to come in and pass this. We know it is not right. We know it is unjust. We know that we have had people treated like slaves in New Zealand in the 21st century—disgraceful.

I acknowledge the Government for its good work and the collaboration and cooperation of the select committee and all the members of it to progress the bill. I have to make mention of a last-minute amendment to the legislation after the select committee had, in fact, gone through it extensively. There were exemptions put up by the Minister for Primary Industries. I am not going to ask him why because he has pulled them back now, but they were exemptions for those who held a quota under Treaty settlements. I accept the reality that there are quota parcels owned by small iwi groups who have chosen to get that fish quota caught by foreign charter vessels because it is the only way they can realise the benefits of that quota, or it has been. So they have utilised—and I would hope reluctantly—foreign charter vessels to catch their quota and get some benefit from it. That is OK in a transitional phase, but this has been going on for too long.

These incidents, Oyang 70 and others, have been a disgrace and have put New Zealand in the spotlight of the international market place to the point where we have been struggling to sell some of our high-quality fish into Europe because of the slave conditions in which it might have been caught. It is a real dilemma. The Government has moved, so I acknowledge the Minister. But the Māori Party blocking this I find abhorrent and disgraceful. Everyone else in this Parliament has agreed that we should move it on under urgency and move it through because of its wonderful outcome for our international reputation, and ultimately for quota owners as well. I think this Parliament, if it thought that those small iwi quota owners were going to get rorted or squeezed, would have moved to protect them. They should have trusted us and trusted the system to give them due benefit from the quota allocated to them under the Treaty settlements. They deserve a fair go, but to get a fair go by way of slave labour is abhorrent to the sense of fairness and fair-minded values of just about each and every New Zealander. So we support the Government in passing this bill through.

There is a very good summary of what has happened here in the regulatory impact statement. It outlines the dilemmas we have been facing as a country. Labour wants to move all of our exports from volume to value, and move up the value chain. We do not want slaves catching our fish. We want the finest-quality fish caught by the best well-paid and protected workers and fisher people in this country. We have got 140,000-plus people out of work. Kiwis will work for the right incentive. Pay them a decent wage on these boats and sell high-quality fish to Europe or any other market, and there is money there for everyone—for the workers on the boats, for the boat owners, for the quota owners, and for the people who are selling our fish into the market. That is what Labour stands for. That is what we want to build across all of the primary sector.

Here is an opportunity to free us from the shackles of slave labour catching our fish and to move on. I trust that the block by the Māori Party now does not unnecessarily delay the passage of this bill. Labour commits, when we are in Government on 21 September, to this being the highest priority. We will move to complete the passage of this legislation. Shame on the Māori Party for blocking this. I acknowledge the good work, as I say, of my colleagues on the select committee. We did look at this from a wide perspective in trying to protect the interests of all those involved, but ultimately the flagging of these vessels as New Zealand vessels ensures proper standards of health and hygiene, and health and safety. I will not say any more than that other than to say that Labour supports this bill and the passage of it through the Committee stage. We would have liked to see it go through the third reading yesterday but, alas, the Māori Party blocked that. Kia ora.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak to the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I am absolutely rapt that the Government has managed to get this on to the Order Paper so that we are actually debating this. As I am doing this, I am also ever hopeful that the Māori Party will come across and see this bill go through in this Parliament, the 50th Parliament. If it does, this will be the end of a disgraceful era that has persisted through successive Governments. But there have been changes. There has certainly been a change of will, particularly as social agencies and civil society, I will call it—people who are academics, authors, investigative journalists, and a range of people—have come out and exposed the abusive behaviour that is going on for the sake of small profit by various fishing companies in New Zealand. It would appear that the Māori Party is persisting in supporting what we see as rather poor behaviour.

I know that a range of organisations—and I will list them: Anglican Life, Human Rights Lawyers Association, Slave Free Seas, the Salvation Army, Canterbury Indonesia Society, Maritime Union of New Zealand, Anglican Refugee and Migrant Network, Service and Food Workers Union, Canterbury Community Law Centre. There is Peter Dawson, a maritime lawyer; a crew advocate and translator, Elyana Thenu; Dr Ani Kartikasari, a crew advocate and translator; Dr Christina Stringer and Dr Glenn Simmons, who wrote the book Not in New Zealand’s waters, surely?; Guye Henderson; and Rachelle Boulton. These people wrote to everybody in the last few days. Well, they actually wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries—thank you, Minister—the Rt Hon John Key, the Hon Steven Joyce, and the Hon Gerry Brownlee to try to get this bill in, because it was not on the Order Paper and this Parliament was about to rise. Those people wanted to see the change. They are good representatives of the community and they have said that it is an opportunity to get this through.

I believe there may be a bit of politics in behind this at the moment, and I am hoping that some of these issues can be resolved overnight so that tomorrow we can see the passage of this bill through the House. I anticipate seeing the Māori Party in the Committee supporting this so we can all finish the 50th Parliament knowing that this legacy is behind us.

We recognise that the bill has exemplary aims in protecting the human rights of crew on these foreign charter vessels operating within New Zealand’s jurisdiction. And there are other aspects. This bill is to ensure a full observer programme on fishing vessels for the purposes of vessel safety, employment, and fisheries research, management, and enforcement. Further, we as the Primary Production Committee under the good chairing of Shane Ardern—who I think has been a very good chair, and I missed his valedictory, unfortunately, today—worked very hard on this bill. We really thought we were getting somewhere, and it was only at the last minute that this other exemption came in for Treaty settlement quota, which was most unfortunate.

There was another exemption, and I put my neck on the line in exposing that one because it was looking after only tuna species. It was absolutely fantastic when the Minister announced the removal of those two exemptions. It was a very, very good move. Not only that, he went further than I had expected and removed the exemption on exceptional circumstances.

So we have just the one exemption that is left in the bill, and that is appropriate only to the degree that the labour clauses and the observer angles in it are still managed on those ships in the rare event that they might be used for scientific purposes. So we are very, very pleased to see the end of those exemptions.

In recent times I have had continued communication about the abuses that went on in those ships. They are the sorts of things we do not even like talking about: the rape of crew, the beating of crew, the putting of crew into chillers for punishment, crew going without food, and all sorts of oppressive behaviours that we would not accept on land here in New Zealand. We obviously do not accept them out there either and we want that changed. So we are looking forward to a change of heart if the Māori Party has, indeed, blocked leave. I am giving it a little bit of credit for maybe half an hour to come through and show us that change. It would be fantastic. I do not really want to follow down the path of my colleague Damien O’Connor of accusing it of too much just yet, because I think there may be some politics at play. So I would welcome the Māori Party in the Committee at any moment to make some changes.

There are people out in the community right at this moment who are waiting and hoping. Some, I gather, are praying. I am not of that persuasion but I am certainly right there with them to see that change come through, through the goodwill and the humanity in all of us, including in that other party. I will have another call shortly. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am going to take a short call on this Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I just want to put on record my support for the bill and the fact that it is being debated in its Committee stage the day before the House is due to rise, and also my hope that this bill will have its third reading tomorrow. As the previous member, Steffan Browning, said, there have been a lot of calls from people in the community, people involved in this industry, and people involved in this disgraceful episode in New Zealand’s history to have this bill passed through Parliament.

What I want to do in my call is try to take us back to what this is really about. It is about the situation, the history that we have in recent years of crew who came to work in New Zealand’s waters on foreign-crewed vessels. I came in touch with some of the crew from the Shin Ji. They came mainly from the Tegal region in central Java, which is one of the most impoverished areas of Indonesia, with high unemployment and low pay and so on, so you can imagine that when they were recruited to come and work in New Zealand they thought this was going to make a real difference for them and for their lives and their families’ lives. But they had to provide condition precedent guarantees and securities to the manning agency, including a cash bond of up to US$300, which is a lot of money in that region. They were also required to hand over birth certificates, family identity documents, and education certificates just to get the job. On signing their contract with the manning agent, they signed an agreement that said that they would be completely submissive and obedient, as established by the third party—in other words, the manning agent in charge of the foreign-crewed vessel.

As I mentioned, I came in touch with the Shin Ji crew in 2011, but the first time there was a situation with the Shin Ji crew was in 2009 when there was a crew that walked off the job when the vessel arrived in New Zealand. Eleven Indonesian crew fled the vessel, handing themselves into the police. They spent the night as vagrants in the custody of Auckland police. The next day the Maritime Union officials transferred the crew to the Auckland International Seafarers Centre. The men resolutely refused to return to their vessel, alleging ill treatment by its Korean officers—things like weekly saltwater showers, no hot water, and no pay for 4 months. So that was in 2009. Two years later, in 2011, other Shin Ji crew members refused to work. They arrived in Auckland, walked off the ship, and refused to work, despite being threatened that they would be sent home and not get paid.

They cited abusive working and living conditions, the non-payment of wages, excessive working shifts, as well as sexual abuse. Earlier that year the boatswain drowned while clearing a blockage in the eel tank aboard the vessel. Half the crew were traumatised by this death and returned home, breaking their contracts. The remaining seven crew were required to do the work of 14. They were forced to work long shifts—16-hour days—and shifts up to 30 hours in length were common. One crew member reported that during the last 21 months they never had a day off, only time off at night after work finished. They often worked from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. or 4 a.m. the next day, or from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. Some of them could not stay awake for so long, so they worked until they fell asleep.

Food was inadequate in quality and quantity. Usually halfway through a voyage the food was rationed. Meals included stale bread and rotting fish bait, from which crew were forced to select the best pieces of bait to eat and were not allowed to cook in the pantry. The pantry was locked. They were often abused for taking too long to eat a meal, and sometimes had to forgo meals. There was a lack of proper protective clothing, especially boots and gloves for use in the minus 18 degrees Celsius freezer hold. Crew commonly received frostbite and freezer burns to feet, legs, and hands, resulting in walking impediments. They asked the captain for better boots and gloves but their requests were ignored. Mistakes led to one officer hitting crew around the head in a harsh punishment, and on and on it went.

The stories came through the inquiry that the Government set up on the situation of crews working on foreign-crewed vessels. I think one of the things that still disturbs me is that many of those crew were sent home and actually, I thought, quite harshly treated by the Government around immigration and so on. Many were not allowed to stay and pursue their wage claims. There are hundreds of millions of dollars still owed to many of those crews. They were forced to go home. We did not treat them that well. They have gone back to a situation where they are impoverished once more. Their so-called First World experiences of working in New Zealand in a First World job have been appalling. They came to New Zealand with high hopes and left abused, destitute, and gutted. Some of them talked about the rapes and the physical assault, the abuse—appalling treatment. This happened in our waters. That is why this bill must pass through its Committee stage tonight and have its third reading tomorrow. This happened in our country, in our waters. When people describe it as slavery they are accurate.

I give credit to the Government for the inquiry. I give credit to the Government for the fact that we have legislation. I am disturbed that it has taken this long to get us to this stage. I say to the Minister for Primary Industries that I really hope that you will do everything you can to persuade the Māori Party to pass this through its third reading tomorrow so that we can get this disgraceful and appalling incident off our books. Once having done that, we can go back and help those crew who still have not been paid, who are living in awful situations back in their country, and who cannot get jobs. This is a disgraceful incident and it is really incumbent on this Parliament to see it through, to get it passed, and to get it fixed before Parliament rises. Thank you.

RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a very short call in this Committee stage of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The reason I am making a short call is that I do not wish to contribute in any way to the further delaying of the passage of this bill. If I understand correctly, we are held up from passing all the remaining stages of this bill only by the objection of the Māori Party. I would impress very strongly on the Minister for Primary Industries that if he has any influence at all over that party and its decision to not allow the passage of this bill, that he use that influence.

New Zealand First absolutely supports the bill as it is constructed. We are extremely impressed by the fact that the Minister has gone against, essentially, the advice of his own Primary Production Committee in rejecting the exemptions that were proposed in terms of tuna boats and iwi quota. We do support the aims and intentions of the bill. We do support the bill as it stands right now. If the Minister is able to bring some pressure to bear, or some persuasion to bear, on the Māori Party to get it to withdraw its objections to the rest of this bill in all its stages going through, we will absolutely support and vote for the passing of all stages of this bill into law in the dying stages of the 50th Parliament. Thank you.

ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Like the previous speakers I will take just a short call on this bill, the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation. On a day when the Labour Party has released its employment rights and employment law policy, it is at least refreshing to see this Government, which has done so many negative things in the employment law field, to at least be embracing some progressive change, important change, and important protections for workers in the fishing industry on the high seas, with this bill. I give credit not only to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Nathan Guy, but to his predecessor who was around when the bill first came about and who responded positively to the ministerial inquiry report when it was reported back in 2012.

New Zealand’s reputation overseas on employment issues and employment rights is very strong. Notwithstanding some of the more retrograde measures in the last 6 years, nevertheless we are seen as a country that leads the way and leads many others when it comes to good positive values underpinning our employment rights.

What has been happening in our fishing industry, particularly with overseas fishing vessels, foreign fishing vessels, has been an absolute blight on this country’s reputation. It is encouraging to see that these steps are being taken, but, as my colleague Darien Fenton has pointed out, unfortunately for those many hundreds of fishing vessel workers who have gone without pay, who have been mistreated, abused, exploited, dumped onshore here, and have struggled to get back to their countries, it is, of course, even now, too late.

That is why I join with others, including Richard Prosser from New Zealand First, to urge the Minister and all members opposite who have influence with the Māori Party—if it has misunderstood the importance of this piece of legislation or has been misguided about it, I urge it to give leave so that the third reading of this bill can take place and we can all leave this 50th Parliament tomorrow with our heads held high that at least on the last day, in these last dying moments, dying hours of this Parliament, we have done something progressive and responsible and helpful and useful to those who would look to this Parliament for basic protections and to afford them some dignity and respect for the difficult experiences that they have been through. I urge that, and look forward to us passing this bill as soon as we possibly can.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you for allowing me to make a contribution. I would like to just echo the remarks from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. We do support the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is a very welcome piece of legislation, long in the formative stages.

We know that the Māori Party was very actively involved in support of the ministerial inquiry that actually led to the introduction of this legislation. I recall that my predecessor, Rahui Katene, received a petition on the steps of Parliament, signed by 12,000 members of, and organised by, the Service and Food Workers Union back in 2011. She received that petition and presented it to Parliament, petitioning Parliament that there be a ministerial inquiry into the atrocious practices on our foreign charter vessels. That led to the ministerial inquiry. The Māori Party gave submissions to that ministerial inquiry. I would just like to read one part from Mrs Katene’s submission: “I consider it is fundamental that FCVs uphold the highest standards of human rights for their crew, and I also believe that iwi and Māori expect that crew members are treated consistently with their values of manaakitanga, kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga.”

We definitely hope that that was not just rhetoric and that the Māori Party does actually front up and join with all of us other parties in the House to grant the leave so that this bill can progress through its third reading as we enter into the last sitting day of this 50th Parliament tomorrow. We are hopeful that the Māori Party can see some sense and pay tribute to Mrs Katene’s work in calling for this ministerial inquiry, which led to the introduction of this legislation. Otherwise, it is shameful that not all parties in this House are supportive of this legislation.

Let us not forget that we want to eliminate the practices of treating workers like slaves on our foreign charter vessels. There are atrocious stories and cases, which came through in the ministerial inquiry. We can mention names like the Oyang 70, terrible fatalities, poor treatment, non-payment, and lack of safety provided to the foreign workers who were working in some horrendous conditions. I am hopeful that the Māori Party can come and join with the rest of the parties in this House and allow us to let this bill progress to its third reading tomorrow, so we can complete it and pass it into law.

We know that Māori are significant stakeholders in the fishing industry. I, for one, was intimately involved in the Māori fisheries industry. Māori are the resource owners primarily at an iwi level, and, of course, for certain iwi their main revenue stream is through the sale of their deep-water annual catch entitlement. A lot of that annual catch entitlement has been sold to foreign charter vessel operators in the past, and they have been able to pay a premium for their annual catch entitlement to the iwi because they have appalling treatment for their workers in their operations. So that is the trade-off. If iwi want good returns for the sale of their annual catch entitlement, at what cost? What we have seen is that that has been at the cost of foreign workers, who have been exploited for years when fishing, much of it for the Māori annual catch entitlement, and we cannot just let that continue.

Our international reputation is at stake, and the Māori Party made it very clear at the ministerial inquiry how important our international reputation is. Well, if our international reputation is so important to the Māori Party; if the fair treatment of foreign workers is so important to the Māori Party; and if the opportunities for jobs for Māori to get into the business and activity of fishing, as promised through the Treaty settlements, is so important to the Māori Party, then I would encourage them—implore them—to please come to the House and join with all of the parties here tonight to ensure that leave is granted so we can ensure the passage of this important bill through into the final day of this 50th Parliament. That is my last plea. Let us hope we can achieve that so we can ensure that this bill is passed. Thank you.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 429 in his name to clause 12 be agreed to:

Delete clause 12.

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 429 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy be agreed to.

Amendments as amended agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 433 in the name of Steffan Browning be agreed to.

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

Ayes 15

Green Party 14; Mana 1.

Noes 103

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.

Amendments not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 116

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1.

Noes 2

Māori Party 2.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): The House has made excellent progress tonight and, on that basis, I seek leave for the House to rise early.

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

Sitting suspended from 9.52 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 30 JULY 2014

(continued on Thursday, 31 July 2014)

Business of the House

Business of the House

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I seek leave for the third reading of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to be set down as a Government order of the day today in the extended sitting, following Government order of the day No. 10.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted.

Bills

Parliamentary Privilege Bill

In Committee

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I move that the debate—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, seek leave.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I seek leave that the debate on this bill be taken as one question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Mr Chair, thank you for your aide-memoire. I greatly appreciate it. I just do not carry these arcane parliamentary formulae around in my head.

Hon Maryan Street: Why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, I apologise. Unlike Ms Street, I am just a totally inadequate member of Parliament. That would be the first and only time I admit that.

Speaking of adequacy, I read my second reading speech the other day and I think that that probably covers the major structural changes that we have made to the Parliamentary Privilege Bill, but there are just a couple of points that I thought should be read into the record. The first one is referred to on page 5 of the Privileges Committee report, and that deals with the interaction with defamation law. What we have done here is remove defamation concepts like absolute privilege. When one looks at the restructuring of the bill, one sees that the old clauses 9 to 13 and also clause 33(2) have been removed. What we have done there—and I am sure Mr Parker will talk about this later on—is remove defamation concepts from the legislation. They belong in the Defamation Act, and we here talk about “parliamentary privilege”.

The second point is a definition that has been inserted in clause 4, and that is the word “exercisable”. We had quite an extended discussion on a number of occasions through this bill about whether or not there were some terms we could modernise. One of the formulae referred to in section 242 of the Legislature Act 1908, which is going to be repealed by this legislation, is the phrase “held, enjoyed, and exercised”. That is the conventional terminology. What we are doing here is referring to the word “exercisable”, but in no way, shape, or form are we wanting to alter the meaning of the phrase “held, enjoyed, and exercised”. So there is a fascinating comment for the Committee.

The heart of the legislation is Subpart 2 of new Part 1A, and, as I said and as other members said in their second reading speeches, what we have done is restructure without intending to alter the meaning of what was the old clause 8 of the bill as introduced. We have broken it up into a number of clauses. We just want to clarify beyond any doubt whatsoever that our new clauses 8A to 8H reaffirm and clarify article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 in accordance with the main purpose of the bill. Also, we make it clear through clause 3(2)(b), (c), and (d) that what we are doing here is altering the law in the decision of Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and also dealing with the decision of the Privy Council in Buchanan v Jennings. So that is really the heart of the bill, but I think there has been quite a lot of discussion on that so far, so I will not go on at length on that question.

Coming back to terminology, we had quite an interesting discussion about the words “impeaching” or “questioning”. That great modernist Dr Kennedy Graham did not like the word “impeach”. He said: “Surely to goodness we could come up with a term that is more 20th century than ‘impeach’!”. I think he had Bill Clinton on his mind. So what we did was we had a very good look at it, but, sadly, we were unable to satisfy the legitimate demands of Dr Graham, and so the word “impeach” is still there. We thought that trying to fiddle around with language that goes back to article 9 could be an exercise fraught with danger.

Then we had the definition of “proceedings in Parliament”. All members should take a really good look at that definition to make sure that we have covered all the types of business that really relate to the everyday business of a member of Parliament. Hopefully, what we have done through that definition is make it clear beyond any doubt whatsoever that the holdings in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and Buchanan v Jennings are reversed by this legislation.

The only other thing I think I need to say is that there is a Supplementary Order Paper. Most of the points referred to in it are so pettifogging that it would be embarrassing to go through them. There are new definitions of “District Court”, we are extending the definition of “tribunal”, tidying up references to article 9—

Hon Maryan Street: How wonderful to have that on the Hansard—pettifogging on the Hansard. Only this member would do that that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is a wonderful word, Ms Street—“pettifogging”. You really should memorise it and understand it, because it covers most of the contributions you make in your position as chair of the Regulations Review Committee. That is pettifoggery if ever there was pettifoggery. Then there are some references to article 9, tidying up references to that, and also to that wonderful piece of legislation—the highlight of Geoffrey Palmer’s reign as Attorney-General—the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. But I am not going to go into that in any length. That is the sort of thing that probably would amuse and titillate Mr Grant Robertson, so I will leave it to him.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): Thank you to the Attorney-General for his contribution then. For those who are listening to the radio, the man who just made reference to pettifogging on this cold Wellington day has not got his fingerless gloves on, although rumour has it that he is still sort of busy trying to finalise those appeal documents for Alldyce v Alldyce, which, of course, was the famous case in Bleak House.

I am not going to go into the detail of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill at the Committee stage. I agree with the Attorney-General that these issues as to detail in the bill have been well traversed. I want to make a brief contribution about the overall principle because I think that is what lies at the heart of why the Privileges Committee has thought it necessary to codify parliamentary privilege.

The relationship between the courts, Parliament, and the executive is a very, very important one. In my opinion history shows that the way we do that in Westminster democracies, like New Zealand’s democracy, is the best way it is done in the world. We do it through having respect for the limits on the respective jurisdictions of the different arms of democracy, or the different institutions, that between them uphold democracy and ensure that democracy endures. Occasionally, one part of democracy rubs up against another in a way that the other part thinks goes too far. As I said in an earlier contribution, I like the fact that we do not try to codify everything, because when those things happen, if you have a mature jurisdiction that has respect for the traditions, the conventions we have, the rule of law, human rights, and the separation of powers, you can effectively find a path through—not negotiate your way through, but find a path through—that is wise and that everyone can live with.

On this occasion, we are dealing with a situation where, in the opinion of Parliament, the judiciary went too far to limit the rights of the privileges of Parliament. In support of that logic, we go back to the 1688 Bill of Rights, when these divisions between what was then the King and Parliament—and also, at around the same time, the relationship with the courts—were being formalised, and they have stood the test of time for over 300 years since. One of the principles in the Bill of Rights is set out in article 9, in very brief form, and it protects the freedom of speech we have in Parliament. It says “That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament:”.

In respect of two decisions, the Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh and Buchanan v Jennings, Parliament thought that the court was constraining Parliament’s rights under article 9 with those decisions in a way that was undesirable. It has been said in earlier stages of the proceedings that those privileges do not exist to make life easy for parliamentarians. That is not their purpose. They exist in order to protect the ability of Parliament to do its work for the sake of democracy. We all know—or I think everyone in this House accepts—that democracy is such a complex web of settings, not all of which can be written down in constitutional documents, but when taken together that complex mix of ingredients means that you have a peaceful, happy, prosperous society that is fair to the people who live in it.

As a consequence of the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh, Parliament believes that the advice that ought to be available to Ministers as they prepare for question time—and that was the subject matter that lay behind Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh—should be all of the information that officials have and can bring to bear. We do not want those officials to edit what they know because they might fear they could be tied up in some proceeding. We do not accept the view that because they might have qualified privilege as officials, they would not be less open with Ministers than if they had absolute privilege.

We in this Parliament think that it is important to protect the information that comes to Ministers for question time, which therefore ensures that the public gets an unedited view as to what their leaders who have been elected to Parliament can say in respect of issues of public interest. If that is defamatory of the rich and famous in society, well, so be it. On occasions that is right. On very rare occasions a member of the public may suffer an injustice by being defamed by a parliamentarian and have no recourse for it because it happened in Parliament and was absolutely privileged. That might have been occasioned by an official within the Government giving advice to a Minister to that effect. That is the price that we pay to have an open democracy, which enables us—through this Parliament, which has freedom of expression—to actually make transparent things that might be going wrong in society and, therefore, to make sure, for example, that corruption does not creep into our system.

We have actually seen events in recent years where we have had some very wealthy people—in particular, in relation to Hanover Finance—where many hundreds of millions of dollars were lost by New Zealand investors in finance companies and allegations were made as to improper behaviour on the part of some of the directors. Those people who made those allegations outside Parliament were—and are being—subject to legal suit. Indeed, Mr Brian Gaynor is one of those who, notably, as a financial commentator in the New Zealand Herald, has been sued for defamatory comments.

Those same sorts of allegations ought to be able to be made in this House without risk of defamation. That sort of information, if it is held by a public official—and they are often the ones who look into these things—should be able to be passed to a Minister and be used in this Parliament, and if it is used by a Minister in this Parliament it should be absolutely privileged. This bill addresses that situation by returning us to the law as it was before the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh.

We think that a mistake was made imputing into parliamentary processes these doctrines of necessity, which seem to be in part taken, from the point of view of us in Parliament, from a view that defamation concepts should be imported into our parliamentary privilege law. It is actually one of the reasons why, in terms of the drafting of the legislation as to the principles behind it, at the select committee we took out reference to the defamation language in the bill to make it clear that this is not actually about defamation; it is about parliamentary privilege.

The second part of it is Buchanan v Jennings. I am not going to cover that in detail except to say that I think that most people thought it was silly that a member of Parliament could say something privileged in Parliament and could not say outside the House: “Well, I don’t resile from that.” if asked the question: “Do you resile from that?”. Obviously, if a member of Parliament repeats the defamatory statement outside Parliament, it is a new defamatory statement and they ought to be able to be sued in defamation. But for a member of Parliament to not be able to say “Well, I don’t resile from it.” outside Parliament and for the courts to effectively link “I do not resile from that.”, which is not in itself defamatory, to statements made in Parliament and to make “I don’t resile from that.” a defamatory statement, was actually, again, a misunderstanding of the privilege that we allow the courts to refer to things that happen in Parliament in a way that, actually, we did not originally.

So we are again returning that law to where it was before the decision in Buchanan v Jennings, and I think, again, we will be protecting the reputation of democracy. In the end, we need people to respect politicians and what we do in this House if we are to have respect for democratic institutions, of which we are an important part. I think it made politicians look foolish if they could not say outside the House: “Well, I don’t resile from that.”, because otherwise it looks like they do resile from it when in fact they do not.

I think this is an important piece of legislation. I thank again all of the officials, and I thank the Attorney-General for bringing it to the House. I have nothing further to add.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I think it is pleasing to mark the final stages of this Parliamentary Privilege Bill. It is not often that we pass legislation of a constitutional nature through this House. As the Privileges Committee put it in our report back, the importance of the bill for our country and parliamentary democracy should not be underestimated. It will form part of our constitutional framework and it will sit alongside the Constitution Act 1986.

As my colleague David Parker has just said—and the Attorney-General as well—obviously the bill concerns Parliament’s relationship with the judiciary. The case had prompted the Supreme Court to define and, as we saw it, restrict the boundary of privilege enjoyed by the legislature, based on the doctrine of necessity. That far-reaching judgment has—let us be frank—tested the principle of comity, which is the fundamental characteristic of that relationship. That, in turn, had prompted some push-back on the part of the legislature. We were concerned to ensure that the age-old rights and powers in the Bill of Rights that Mr Parker has mentioned are not encroached upon.

It was never the select committee’s intent—and it ought not be the intent of this Committee—to overreact to the decisions of the courts in the Buchanan case or the Gow v Leigh case. We did not wish to incorporate new absolute privilege protections into legislation. If we did, we may have risked inadvertently extending the privilege beyond what it has historically been. Rather, the intent with this bill is to restore the nature of the privilege to the status quo ante, pre-2005, essentially. But this defining moment presented an opportunity to formally shape and give expression to the principle of comity in New Zealand.

So the bill is essentially seeking to strike the point of optimality in the relationship between the three branches. Let us hope that the version before us is up to the task. I am certainly satisfied that the select committee has done an extremely good job, and we have no further comments to add on the precise provisions, including Supplementary Order Paper 482. We believe, in short, that it is up to the task. As it happens, I believe that is due in no small part to the quality advice the select committee received from our own officials and from scholars and advisers across the country and ancillary comment from other jurisdictions. In fact, we extensively revised the original version of the bill, and we are now satisfied that constitutional thought in New Zealand is about to take a significant step forward.

For once I think New Zealand has done itself proud in developing and articulating a major tenet of constitutional principle. It has done so on the basis of its own work, without importing work from outside. The Privileges Committee has done, I think, excellent work overall in the last 3 years. The intrusive powers protocol and the revision of the police and SIS agreements are items of achievement. But this Parliamentary Privilege Bill is certainly the major achievement. I pay tribute, in particular, to the chairman, the Hon Chris Finlayson, and the deputy chairman, the Hon David Parker.

So that is the achievement, essentially, of the 50th Parliament. It may be that the next Parliament might be able to build on this work and perhaps undertake an even more comprehensive kind of review of New Zealand legislation that makes up the constitution of New Zealand’s Parliament. It was part of the work that was undertaken in the independent constitutional review. I think there is a general recognition that although our constitutional tenets are good and robust, they should always be subject to scrutiny and review and reflection and, no doubt, improvement. I certainly think it would be in order for the 51st Parliament to build on the work of the 50th Parliament, both in the context of independent constitutional review and the fine work that this committee has done under the chairman.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I do not want to take too long at this stage of the passage of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill, but I did think it appropriate that someone make mention of the fact that if you pick up the bill as tabled here in the House, there have been a considerable number of changes made to the original bill. I felt that it was appropriate that someone actually comments on that. That goes hand in hand, really, with recognition of the outstanding work of the staff concerned with this.

The original bill was put together and came in front of the Privileges Committee. The Clerk of the House made, I think, the most substantial submission on the layout and the presentation of the bill, which resulted in an almost complete rewrite, not of the content but of the actual presentation of the bill. In her submission Mary Harris said that “The bill when enacted will form part of our constitutional framework sitting under the Constitution Act 1986 which provides for the Head of State and the three branches of Government.” She said: “The Parliamentary Privilege Bill will become part of the overarching legislative framework for the legislative branch of government.” That is a really important point when we recognise the importance of this bill today. She made the point that the threads running throughout the bill as it was originally designed were disparate, and she did not feel that we had accurately drawn all those threads together.

In fact, she again made the point that the bill was an opportunity to establish a very clear framework that explains and sets out the scope and the extent of parliamentary privilege by having a purpose clause that also explains why we need parliamentary privilege and the importance of it. Her suggestion to us was that we have an Act that had five parts. In fact, if you look at the new bill that we are debating here today, that is the advice that we took. So we have a purpose clause, an explanation, and an interpretation in Part 1. The second part talks about the purpose of parliamentary privilege and the privileges of the House of Representatives, and then defines “proceedings in Parliament”. Part 3 then deals with how we communicate the proceedings in Parliament and goes into the details of publishing. We took the opportunity, as we have all said in this House, to update some of the language where that was possible and take account of new technology, because it is not just about producing written copies of Hansard any more; it is immediately up on websites and people communicate through the internet.

Then there are a whole lot of miscellaneous provisions. We really owe a debt of gratitude to the Clerk of the House, Mary Harris, and Debra Angus, the Deputy Clerk of the House, who was an adviser to the committee, for the way that they were able to reshape this bill so that any parliamentarian could pick it up and have a read through. There is still a lot of legal terminology, as there needs to be in a bill like this, but any parliamentarian could follow the reasons, the need, and the protections that parliamentary privilege gives us all. I think that is a really good achievement. I would like to pay tribute, as I say, to the Clerk of the House and the Deputy Clerk of the House.

I also pay tribute to the Ministry of Justice staff who put the rewrite together and listened patiently to the sometimes lengthy discussions of the committee: Fiona Illingsworth, Sarah Carlin, Jessica Brown, and, of course, our specialist adviser, John Pike QC, who has had enormous experience in the courts with these types of legislative procedures and was able to give some very sage advice as we reshaped this bill and put it through its paces. That is the only point I wanted to make, and I thank all those staff for the contribution that they made.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Like other speakers, I do not want to go deeply into the detail of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill, either, and I certainly wish to avoid any “pettifog-ification”. But I do wish to emphasise a couple of things.

This bill is not just about protecting MPs from legal action in respect of statements they make, nor about protecting their support staff; it is really fundamentally about protecting the right of representatives’ freedom of speech. It is about ensuring that advice given by their support staff cannot be used in legal proceedings brought by others. Nothing, really, could be much more important for our democracy than these things. Recently in this House, Winston Peters revealed some disturbing information about a person behaving badly regarding the Christchurch rebuild. The purpose of that was to seek investigation by authorities and by the news media, and that was a proper use, I feel, of parliamentary privilege. It was something that needed to be said. People outside the House felt unable to do so for fear of defamation proceedings, so it was a proper use of parliamentary privilege. It is important that that be something that members of Parliament can do.

The second thing I want to emphasise is that there is no real change here. The bill really just clarifies and partly codifies the operation of parliamentary privilege. It seeks to restore and affirm the scope of aspects of parliamentary privilege and to consolidate and modernise existing legislation following the judgment of the court in the defamation action Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh. For that reason the decision of the court has to be set aside in order to restore the previous legal position. Underpinning all this, of course, is the principle of comity—the mutual respect that the legislature and the judiciary must have for each other. The courts did move a step too far, and this bill restores the balance, but the principle of comity remains.

The bill does not set out to limit article 9 of the UK Bill of Rights 1688, which is in force in New Zealand and which is the first formal instrument from a Parliament to protect freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in Parliament. Nor does the bill seek to codify comprehensively or replace entirely with rigid legislation every aspect of parliamentary privilege, and that is a good balance we have achieved.

It is aimed, of course, at one aspect, as I have said: Parliament’s freedom of speech—MPs’ freedom of speech. The bill provides a clear direction that the Act must be interpreted so as to promote the purposes of the Act and the purpose of parliamentary privilege. It sets out the purpose of parliamentary privilege, which is to make clear the privileges, immunities, and powers of the bill “to uphold the integrity of the House as a democratic legislative assembly;” and to secure its independence. Concerning statements made outside Parliament, the bill takes an evidential prohibition approach regarding liability from statements that effectively repeat statements made in proceedings in Parliament, and relies on reinforced provisions for stays of proceedings in respect of specified authorised communications of proceedings in Parliament. Other speakers have commented on the fact that MPs often get asked whether they stand by what they have said in Parliament, and it is necessary that they should be able to at least say they do not resile from that.

There was a need to clarify what the term “proceedings in Parliament”, as used in article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, means and, in particular, to seek to reverse the law in the decision in Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh to stop evidence offered or received about proceedings in Parliament being used to inform or support effective repetition claims and claims of liability in court or tribunal proceedings. Although article 9 excludes evidence where the reason the evidence is offered or admitted is to impeach or question, it does not prevent evidence being used with no impeaching or questioning to establish something that was said or done in Parliament just as a matter of fact. Qualified immunity is available as a defence still for fair and accurate reports of proceedings in Parliament or extracts or summaries of documents published under the authority of the House. That is very important, of course, for the news media.

The bill strikes a harmonious balance in the area where privileges necessary to protect the independence of Parliament and the important role of the courts intersect. New Zealand First wholeheartedly supports the bill. We think it is absolutely essential to preserve the integrity of Parliament and the right of MPs to make statements in the House without fearing defamation actions, and that applies also to their support staff. So we will certainly be voting in favour.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to make just a brief contribution to follow up on the excellent words we have heard today in the Committee stage of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill. Before I get into that, though, I do have to, sadly, correct my colleague the Hon David Parker. There is a first time for everything, and it is today. It is Jandyce v—

Hon David Parker: Jarndyce—

GRANT ROBERTSON: Jarndyce. Obviously, the Attorney-General knew that, but being the compassionate man he is, he chose not to correct David Parker when he was on his feet. But do let the record show that we have clarified our knowledge of Dickens today and that David Parker told me to say that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): But how do you spell it?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! I will leave that to the Hansard officers to work out.

I just want to make two or three remarks in the context of this bill, bearing in mind that we had a good debate on this in the second reading. The first of those is a general comment about the bill as it returns to the House for its Committee stage. It looks very different, and anyone reading through it would see a huge amount of struck-through material and believe that the Privileges Committee members, in analysing the bill that came before us, were somehow rather appalled or disgusted at what we had and that the bill had required a total and complete rewrite. That is not true. We were in fact incredibly well served by our advisers and officials, whom I mentioned by name in my second reading speech.

But what we decided as a committee was that it was important that the language that we used in this bill was able to be understood not only by ourselves as parliamentarians, for whom the privileges are an important aspect of our work, but also by the general public, in looking to see what is meant by parliamentary privilege and how it is to be implemented. That required a change in the structure of the bill, and we had an excellent submission from the Clerk of the House in that regard, and also in some of the terminology. So for anyone who is looking at the large amount of struck-through material in the bill that was returned to the Committee of the whole House, they can rest assured that it was about making this a more readable and more coherent bill and one that lays out the privileges of parliamentarians in a way that we hope the general public will be able to understand and appreciate. As I said in my second reading speech, on behalf of the non-lawyers on the Privileges Committee—Mr Hipkins, Minister Tolley, and me—we are very pleased to be able to put that before the Committee in a manner that we think many people will be able to understand; I mean no disrespect to the lawyers who were there.

Two other points that I really want to make are particularly around the question of Gow v Leigh and what is the business of Parliament. It is very important that when we consider the business of Parliament, what is seen by most members of the public as the business of Parliament is what is happening in here, right now, on the floor of the House. But the reality of Parliament, and indeed of most workplaces, is that what you see on the public face of it is very little of what actually goes on within a business. A business that sells widgets has a huge amount of production line, design, and innovation that goes into it. That is part of that business, just as in Parliament, part of parliamentary business is what happens immediately before we come to this House and in the preparation for what we do here.

We discussed the concept of reasonable preparation—the idea that it is more than just the necessary functioning of this House that constitutes parliamentary business; it is also the idea of reasonable preparation for being here, in business that takes place away from the floor. As members of the Committee know, I have worked in this building behind the scenes as a staff member, in the preparation of question time. I can assure members of the Committee that that is very much parliamentary business. A lot of work goes in. When the Opposition puts down the question: “Does the Prime Minister or Minister stand by all his statements?”—or in my case, when I was working in that role, it was “by her statements”—there was a lot of work that went on to decide what was in that material. In fact, it would be a great relief to those of us who prepared answers for the former Prime Minister in the Labour Government when we picked the right question. If we did not, we certainly heard about it. So it is an important part of parliamentary business to recognise the preparatory material. We believe that the court decision in the Attorney-General and Gow v Leigh case was wrong, and this goes some way to clarifying what parliamentary business consists of.

My colleague David Parker has already talked about Buchanan v Jennings. It is a farcical situation to have a member of Parliament unable to say that they stand by the words that they uttered when they were in the Chamber. We are not giving licence through this bill to MPs to go out and expand upon what they have said. We are merely allowing both members of Parliament—and the media, in reporting what members of Parliament have said—to acknowledge that it was said, and that a member of Parliament stands by what they have said. In the clauses of the bill that deal with effective repetition, it will be clear to everybody who reads them that if you choose to expand upon what you have said in the Chamber as a member of Parliament, or if you say it again in detail, you will fall foul of parliamentary privilege, and indeed of the laws of the land. But that is covered off here.

It is not just a protection for MPs; it is a protection for the news media as well, and that is important. It has been said that members of Parliament obviously experience—and this is in the commentary—the benefit of parliamentary privilege. That is not the purpose of parliamentary privilege. The purpose of parliamentary privilege is to allow our democracy to operate without fear and without favour towards anyone, and my colleague David Parker has talked at some length about that.

I just wanted to make those two particular points about this report. I believe that it is a very good piece of work.

I believe that the Privileges Committee in this Parliament has dealt with some interesting issues. I want to thank the chair of the committee, the Attorney-General, Mr Chris Finlayson, for his excellent work on this. We as a committee are very aware of the fact that, when we are on the Privileges Committee, we sit at that nexus—the comity that Kennedy Graham talked about—of being aware of what the courts are doing, and aware of what the executive is doing. We have dealt with two serious matters involving the powers of both the courts and the executive in recent times. That shows to me that the Privileges Committee is playing a very significant and important role. That necessary tension between the different branches of our constitutional democracy is important. There is an issue currently at play in Taylor v Attorney-General about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I suspect that at some point we may return to debating those matters here, and certainly, in an upcoming item of business, I will mention those two matters.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to lift up this debate on the Parliamentary Privilege Bill a little bit and start from a fairly basic kind of premise, and that is: what are we talking about when we talk about parliamentary privilege? I think that a lot of people listening in at home or watching this on TV, when they think about parliamentary privilege, will think about accommodation, airfares—what might otherwise be described as perks. Actually, parliamentary privilege in the sense that we are talking about it now has nothing to do with any of those things. So I want to reassure the public that we are not pulling a swiftie right before an election and making any changes to those things.

Parliamentary privilege in that sense is really about the ability of members of Parliament, when they are here in this debating chamber and when they are in select committees, to undertake the functions that the public of New Zealand elects them to undertake. One of the most important rights that we have through that is freedom of speech. We cannot actually do the job that New Zealanders elect us to do if our right to free speech is not protected. This bill certainly lends itself to protecting that right, and that right is a very important one. Freedom of speech means that parliamentarians can come to this debating chamber and speak on any number of issues. They can champion any number of causes with a degree of certainty that they are not suddenly going to find themselves up before the courts, for example.

I want to deal particularly with a challenge that has been laid down recently in the media to members of Parliament around name suppression, and I do not intend to do what Rodney Hide wants members of Parliament to do, but I do want to talk about the principle of the issue at stake here. It is that if a member of Parliament comes to the House and breaches a name suppression order issued by the court, they would not find themselves up in front of a court for breaching name suppression, but they would find themselves up in front of Parliament’s Privileges Committee. Although parliamentary privilege would afford us some protection in terms of the court’s rules, privilege itself comes with a whole lot of rules and protections around it as well.

So this bill is not about saying that members of Parliament are above the law or that we should be able to get away with anything. In fact, what it says is that Parliament itself should administer the rules around parliamentary privilege and that all members of Parliament, at the end of the day, are accountable to their colleagues in the House—the other elected members of the House—for the way they conduct themselves as members of Parliament, and that is the way it should be. We establish the laws here in the Parliament of New Zealand, and it should not be that we, in the process of doing so, find ourselves in front of the courts, basically having to justify what we have done or what we have said. Parliament is supreme in New Zealand, and should be, and the members of the New Zealand public elect us to do a job. We need to have the certainty to be able to go ahead and do that without the risk that we are going to find ourselves before the courts.

One of the issues that I particularly want to talk about, because I have been on that side of the fence, is the protection that this bill provides to officials advising Ministers. Here in Parliament one of our jobs as members of Parliament is to hold the Government to account. From time to time that can be challenging. It can be very challenging for the Government, and we will sometimes stretch the boundaries a little bit as the Opposition, and that is actually the role of the Opposition, but Ministers need to be well-prepared to be able to cope with that and to be able to answer whatever question gets flung at them. That means they need to be able to rely on free and frank advice from their officials, and if their officials will not provide them with that advice on the basis that doing so could result in that official themselves ending up in court, then the very free exchange that we have here, which we rely on as part of our democratic process, becomes compromised. If an official is sitting there briefing a Minister and they know some information that may be defamatory or that may be questionable, and they are thinking: “If I say this to the Minister, then I potentially could end up in court.”, they will not say it. Actually, the Minister needs to know that, because in order for that exchange to take place, both sides need to be able to have access to the information and need to be able to rely on that free and frank exchange.

So this bill extends a certain range of privilege to those who are providing advice to Ministers. That is vitally important, because at the end of the day I do not think that anyone in Parliament, no matter whether they are on this side or that side over there, wants a Minister to come to the House not sufficiently informed. They want Ministers to be able to answer the questions that other members want to put to them. I think that we all want that to happen, so this bill certainly deals with an issue that has come up previously.

Just in concluding, the final point that I want to highlight from this is around the inability of members of Parliament under, I guess, current arrangements to do anything outside the House that in any way even acknowledges something that they have said inside the House. We have seen situations where members of Parliament have said something in the House. They have walked out of the House and they have been stopped by a journalist. They just have this blank expression on their face and they have not been able to say anything at all because even simply saying: “I stand by what I said in the House.” or: “I’m not going to add anything to what I said in the House.” suddenly finds them potentially up before the courts. That is not right and it actually undermines the integrity of Parliament. It undermines the public credibility of Parliament.

So if they went out in public and repeated exactly what they had said in the House, then, sure, they should find themselves before the court, because they would be doing that in an open place where they are not protected by privilege. But simply saying: “Look, I’m not adding anything to what I’ve have said in the House.” or: “I stand by whatever I’ve said in the House.” is a perfectly legitimate thing for a member of Parliament to do. If anything, it actually draws a very clear line between what they are doing in Parliament and what they are doing outside Parliament. So I think that the clarifications made in this bill are very important.

I guess the final point that I would make, as I conclude this contribution—

Grant Robertson: Finally and in conclusion.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Finally and in conclusion, I conclude where I began, which is that for the public, when we talk about privilege, we are not talking about the things that members of the public will think about when they think of the privileged role of parliamentarians. It is nothing to do with what the public might describe as perks. This bill is all about us being able to undertake our duty as legislators and as members of Parliament in holding the executive to account without that fear that we will find ourselves in front of the courts.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): In conclusion, can I endorse what other members have generously said and thank the officials, particularly the Clerk, Debra Angus, and Ross Carter, for their wonderful work. As Mr Grant Robertson said, it may look as though there has been a complete redraft because we were dissatisfied with the earlier version. Far from it—we wanted to make this very important area of the law as clear as possible.

Can I simply say that the Committee stage of the debate has really emphasised the importance of what is now clause 8B and particularly subclauses (4) and (5). Clause 8B(4) states, for the avoidance of doubt: “In determining … whether words are spoken or acts are done for purposes of or incidental to the transacting of the business of the House or of a committee, no necessity test is required or permitted to be used.”, and clause 8B(5), very importantly, spells out what that test is. It is very, very important that all those who read this legislation understand the fundamental point that there is no necessity test, which can read down what members of Parliament say or do.

The final point that I would make, and it is picking up on something Dr Graham said about our constitutional legislation—and this is important constitutional legislation, and no one should be under any illusion as to that—is that today we are going to finally remove the last vestiges of the Legislature Act 1908. Anyone listening to this debate may say: “Well, gee, that’s a big change, to repeal the Legislature Act 1908.”, but the reality of the matter is that all but section 242 of the Legislature Act was repealed years ago. So we are removing the last remaining section of the Legislature Act, but it does give rise to a more general principle, and that is whether the time has come, at some stage, for Parliament to look at consolidating all the legislation relating to Parliament in one coherent piece of legislation. I see Dr Graham nodding. I think that that could be quite an interesting bipartisan or multipartisan project in the next Parliament because it is in the public interest that all provisions relating to our constitutional arrangements are there and are clear and easily accessible for people, and you should not have to go darting and diving for section 242 of the Legislature Act.

Under the Legislation Act, the Attorney-General has the power to set forward a programme for revision of statutes, and I have sent to my opposite number, Mr Parker, a proposed revision programme, regardless of who might be here after the election. But I think it could be a worthwhile project to bring all the legislation together, just as Ms Collins has done with the courts modernisation legislation. The Judicature Act 1908 was hopelessly out of date. Most of that had been repealed. So what she has done—and it is a very good piece of work—has brought together all the relevant court legislation into what will become known as the Senior Courts Act, and then there will be the District Courts Act. So I think that it is in the public interest that there be a consolidation of all the parliamentary legislation, and that could be something that all parties could work sensibly on. As Dr Graham said, it is in in the public interest that all our constitutional legislation be readily accessible and available, set out in clear terms, for the benefit of the public.

So this has been a very interesting debate. I echo what Mr Hipkins said. We looked at this word “privilege” because at first sight it looks as though we are, on the final day of the 50th Parliament, ramming through legislation in urgency to protect ourselves. Well, actually, let us be clear about one thing. When we talk about parliamentary privilege, it is not the privilege of individual members of Parliament; it is the privilege of Parliament.

Chris Hipkins: The collective privilege.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is the collective privilege, and it is there for very clear purposes. They have been very eloquently set out by Mr Hipkins in his previous contribution, and I do not need to repeat them. But when one looks at legal professional privilege or parliamentary privilege, it does have connotations of lawyers looking after themselves and parliamentarians looking after themselves. Get beyond the terminology. Drill down to what we have been trying to do in this debate—that is, ensuring that in the public interest important issues can be transacted in this Chamber, and that the important rights of parliamentarians to raise important matters is not curtailed or circumscribed in any way.

So, putting it bluntly, it was the unanimous view of the Privileges Committee and, I take it, of this Parliament that in two very important cases the courts got it wrong. That is why, with the greatest of respect, Parliament has needed to put it right.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 482 in the name of the Hon Gerry Brownlee be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Third Reading

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Parliamentary Privilege Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Standing Orders

Inquiry into Parliament’s Legislative Response to Future National Emergencies

Instruction to Regulations Review Committee

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I move, That the recommended amendments to the Standing Orders set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee on the Review of Standing Orders be adopted, with effect from the day after the dissolution or expiration of the present Parliament. I also move, That the Regulations Review Committee be instructed to inquire into Parliament’s legislative response to future national emergencies, and to report to the House on the inquiry. These two motions reflect the recommendations made to the House by the Standing Orders Committee in its report on the Review of Standing Orders. I would like to speak to each motion in turn. The first motion is to adopt the amendments to the Standing Orders that are set out in Part 2 of the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Members will see the recommended amendments shown as tracked changes at the back of the report. Once the amendments are adopted a new edition of the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives will be published before the start of the new Parliament.

The committee reviews the rules and practices of the House during every term of Parliament and recommends changes where there is overwhelming support for them. Such broad support is necessary, because the Standing Orders are recognised as an important constitutional set of rules that should not be adjusted by a simple majority. This does not mean that everyone agrees about everything, but we have discussed various proposals and arrived at something that acceptably balances the interests of the Government, the Opposition, and the institution of Parliament as a whole. Although this approach means that each review is unlikely to result in radical changes, the fact that there is a cycle for a regular review of the Standing Orders means that the House is able to update the way it operates and sometimes even come up with some innovative ways of progressing legislation. This is an important feature of our parliamentary system and should not be taken for granted. Not every Parliament regularly reviews its rules in this way.

Can I make a point that this Parliament has made significant use of extended hours to deal with matters such as the ones we are dealing with this morning where there is widespread support—in fact, unanimous in the case of this morning—across the House and, therefore, a desire that the effects given by any of the motions that have passed this morning be enacted as quickly as possible. This was a very good innovation, and Parliament should be proud of the achievements of it.

Briefly, then, I want to run through what the committee’s new recommendations are. The Business Committee, after receiving a proposal from the Prime Minister, will be able to make arrangements for what will be known as State occasions—events at which Parliament, as New Zealand’s pre-eminent forum, can mark occasions of special significance. Speeches by foreign leaders can be part of Parliament’s proceedings, and a State occasion could mark, for example, the approach of Anzac Day next year. This is the centenary year and we may in fact have some commemoration of that in the Legislative Council Chamber. Those matters are yet to be decided. The House will recall that the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard spoke in this Parliament some time ago. There was a question about whether that should be a session of Parliament or otherwise. What this Standing Order will do is allow for those matters to be sorted out as a matter of normal course, with the Business Committee making most of those decisions.

The right of members to address the House in New Zealand Sign Language is also now part of the Standing Orders. That means that alongside English and Māori, as a formal language of New Zealand, it can be used in this House, although at this stage it will need to be with some notice to the Clerk so that the translation service can be provided.

This report includes discussion about the House’s consideration of legislation and, particularly, looks at New Zealand Bill of Rights Act matters. This is a significant development. At the moment, papers are presented to the House by the Attorney-General to call attention to any apparent inconsistencies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. These Standing Orders will mean that that reference is now made directly to select committees. We have set a strong expectation that there should be good information for members when they decide whether a significant limitation on rights and freedoms is justified. Inevitably when you are passing law, there will be a question about New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues; it does not mean that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act pre-empts any choices that Parliament itself might make about those rights in the promotion of law. For that reason, we did not reach agreement about including further formal New Zealand Bill of Rights Act mechanisms in these Standing Orders.

Another new initiative is revision bills. These will start to appear in the new Parliament. They are special bills that are intended to express laws more clearly, without significantly changing their meaning. I noted hearing, on my way to the House, the comments of the Attorney-General about the 1908 Legislature Act and the need for clarity in the way law works. These revision bills will do that, and there is now a formal way in which they can be presented to the House and dealt with quickly. I would expect that before too long it may be a matter of standard course that these are dealt with in extended sittings of the House where there is widespread agreement.

Financial scrutiny will also be a little rationalised under the Standing Orders, so that the examination of spending plans and the performance of agencies can be arranged according to themes or sector groupings. The Finance and Expenditure Committee will be able to suggest groupings when using its existing powers to allocate financial scrutiny to other committees. This should flow through to a more thematic arrangement of scrutiny and debates in the House. To encourage this, the estimates debate is being lengthened, with some of the time being reallocated from the debate on the Prime Minister’s statement, which occurs at the beginning of each year. That used to be a 17-hour debate; in the new Parliament it will be reduced to 14 hours, which is still plenty of time to make comments on the Prime Minister’s statement.

The Parliamentary Privilege Bill has just been passed, and a small change is needed to ensure that the bill’s language is reflected in the Standing Orders. A new paragraph in Standing Order 3 will provide for that. Whenever proceedings are published, circulated, or made available to the public under the Standing Order or otherwise by order of the House, the communication of those proceedings is under the authority of the House or the committee. This reflects the wording of clause 15 of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill, and is intended to ensure that dissemination of proceedings is protected.

The report includes an endorsement of more extensive webcasting of select committee hearings of evidence. Select committees are also encouraged to request that the Business Committee arrange set topic debates so that committee reports and other matters of interest can be debated—for example, during extended sittings. It worth noting that the Business Committee did do that this term with debate in the Health Committee and it worked very well. We had one previously on relations with the Pacific. Those are very important occasions.

Turning then to the second motion, regarding the instruction to the Regulations Review Committee, you will recall that the previous Standing Orders Committee recommended in 2011 that there be an inquiry into Parliament’s legislative response to a national emergency but that such an inquiry be referred following a reasonable period to enable the progress of recovery from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Standing Orders Committee has suggested that this time has now come. This is not to say that there have been significant deficiencies in the way in which the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act has been used, and I know that the Regulations Review Committee has kept a watching brief on this. But I think it would be good—and Parliament agrees it would be good—to set out constitutional principles for the arrangement and delegation of recovery powers for the House’s ready reference on the next occasion, should this country be unfortunate enough to require the passing of special disaster-recovery legislation.

I think this is particularly important because when that legislation is passed, it will be because Parliament expresses a will—in most cases unanimously, I am sure, as it was in the case of Canterbury—to ensure that there is the facility for things to be done to improve people’s lives. I think it is best that the way in which the Act is tested is through having the Regulations Review Committee formally look at the way in which that Act is being used. It is generally a group of parliamentarians who are experienced and who understand the way in which legislation should be interpreted. It is always chaired by a member of the Opposition—these are very important points, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, as was a valedictory speech that went well over time yesterday, I might point out—and I think it is important that we establish a way that gives some surety, particularly to the courts, that Parliament is constantly reaffirming what it intended when it passed legislation. With those comments, I commend these reports to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): Thank you very much for letting me take the call, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, and I would also like to acknowledge the excellent speech you gave in your valedictory. In fact, I acknowledge all of the excellent valedictory statements given yesterday, whatever their length.

These are important matters, as the Leader of the House has said. I want to work through the areas that the Standing Orders Committee considered and to pick up on one or two matters. Some matters have resulted in recommendations and some have not, and I believe those matters should be revisited by the Standing Orders Committee in the next term of Parliament.

What I would say at the outset is that I endorse Mr Brownlee’s views that these regular reviews are an important occasion for Parliament to look again at how we do our business and what we can change to improve that business. There were many innovative ideas put before the Standing Orders Committee both by members of Parliament and by parties, and also by those who submitted. I would like to thank all submitters for their contributions. Not all of the innovative ideas have made it back to the House, and it is fair to say that on the committee there was a range of views about just how far we could go, but it always important to respect your elders, I find, and those who have been here a little longer than myself. So we attempted as a committee to come to a consensus, and it is those recommendations that are with us today, but there are a number of matters that could be considered again in the future.

Just working our way through, one side note is that a very minor change has been made to the Standing Orders to recognise that if Anzac Day or Waitangi Day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday, the following Monday is not a working day. That is a good reminder of the excellent piece of legislation that was passed in this term of Parliament under the name of Dr David Clark.

Sue Moroney: But who was it written by?

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, my colleague asks who it was written by. I am too modest to note who the author of that legislation was, but I do just say that it is good to see that particular law now having some effect. We look forward to 2015, when that has its first—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Always looking for a day off.

GRANT ROBERTSON: We are just giving hard-working New Zealanders their full allotment of holidays every year, and I am sure that even if Mr Brownlee voted against it, he is pleased that it has now happened.

I want to also make reference to the question of a review that the Speaker will be undertaking of the prayer at the start of each day. The current prayer was adopted by the House in 1962. Its wording is very much evocative of that time and perhaps does not take into account the increasing diversity of New Zealand and the increasing range of faiths and beliefs that we have in our country. On a personal note, I would say that it is very important that this House starts the day with some time for reflection. I think that is an excellent thing. We are all elected here as honourable members—as you often tell us, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson—and it is important that we take a moment to consider what that means. We need to do that in such a way that every member of this House feels included in that reflection, and my view is that there is now an opportunity for the Speaker to review that issue. There is no outcome that is specified; it is merely something that the Speaker will now do in the next Parliament, and I look forward to the outcome of that review.

I also want to pick up on Mr Brownlee’s comments about what I think is a very important change, which is the amendment to Standing Order 105 to recognise that any member may address this House in New Zealand Sign Language. That is an important development. New Zealand Sign Language is an official language of this country. It is about time that this House recognised that, as it does with Māori, and also English, which is not actually an official language of this country, but is obviously the most commonly spoken language—

Paul Foster-Bell: Yes, it is.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Not by law, it is not. It is, in fact, not by law an official language.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No, it’s not an official—you’re quite right.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, but it is obviously the language of convention. The Attorney-General has—for the second time, actually—said I was right about something. We had better get that in the Hansard. Yes, it is a very important moment.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: Don’t worry.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Ha, ha! That is right. He will return to type later—it will be fine. But what we do strongly understand and appreciate here is that as members of Parliament move to being able to use sign language more often, we will be working in consultation with the Speaker’s office on that. But it is an excellent development for this House.

The area that I want to dwell on for just a couple of minutes is the question of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vets that are undertaken. The committee had a significant discussion about this, and certainly some of us on the committee believe that the recommendation we have here—to amend the Standing Orders to provide that a paper presented by the Attorney-General about the inconsistency of a provision with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act stands referred to a select committee for consideration—is a good first step to ensure that select committees will look at the Attorney-General’s section 7 comments. However, there were a number of members on the committee who felt that that did not go far enough, and, certainly, Labour members on the committee would have preferred that a report from a select committee comes back to Parliament after the reference of an Attorney-General’s section 7 recommendations.

We feel that this is an important area. If Parliament is going to say that we are going to allow an inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, then that is something that should be debated openly and clearly and should be given some attention in a select committee, and at the moment we do not believe that is certain enough.

The other area that concerned a number of the members on the committee was when very large Supplementary Order Papers find their way into the House at the last minute and we do not have time for the Attorney-General to look at those in the same way as substantive pieces of legislation are looked at. We have seen in this Parliament very large Supplementary Order Papers that have not had substantive consideration, and certainly have not had the Attorney-General’s oversight in terms of their New Zealand Bill of Rights Act consistency. So on those two matters, certainly, the Labour members of the committee would have liked to see this go further, but we are pleased to support the amendment to Standing Orders that will at least mean that select committees will always consider the Attorney-General’s wise words on inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

We made an important decision to increase scrutiny in a number of areas. The time for the Budget debate will now move from being 14 hours to 15 hours and the estimates debate will now move from being 8 hours to 11 hours. Those two debates are very important parts of the scrutiny of what the Government does with the hard-earned dollars of taxpayers, and the committee agreed that more focus on that would be beneficial to the House. That sees a reduction in the time allowed for debate on the Prime Minister’s statement from 15 hours to 13 hours. It has been the practice in the last few years for that debate to become a bit of a catch-all, and I do not think that losing 2 hours off that versus having an increased financial scrutiny would be a bad trade-off at all. So we are pleased to support those amendments and changes in the way in which debate takes place.

Another area where we felt that the committee did not go as far as it could have was on the question of what to do with petitions and e-petitions and online engagement. I am of the strong view that this is an area where Parliament could do a lot more to engage with the communities that are interested in our work. So much of what happens in political debate nowadays happens online, and all of us know that the signing of e-petitions is now the way in which many people express themselves politically, rather than going to a public meeting, or rather than even filling out a written petition. It is my strong view that we would encourage more interest in Parliament if we were to adopt something like a process where a threshold is reached on an e-petition and that then generates a debate in Parliament or, at the very least, results in a petition being referred to a select committee for some significant consideration.

We need to do more to engage with the public about how our democracy works and what people can engage on. We could have taken that opportunity here, and I am sorry that we did not. There are, as Mr Brownlee has mentioned, occasions for set topic debates, which we also endorse. I do believe that the debate on the Health Committee report was a very, very good one. We can do more of that, perhaps by using the extended hours provision a little more there, and we can look at that in the next Parliament. But we do need as a Parliament to think of new and innovative ways of engaging with the public, and I would urge the Standing Orders Committee to take another look at this next time.

I will not dwell on the changes to the pecuniary interests register except to note that, obviously, members of Parliament will need to look carefully at the changes, particularly around the question of the definition of “gift” and to note, in particular, that multiple gifts from the same donor that breach the $500 threshold now need to be declared. That means that members of Parliament will need to look much more carefully at the number of gifts that they receive and keep a record of them, should they end up being over $500—if you get, perhaps, three or four smaller gifts from the same person within a 1-year period. There are a number of changes around the definition of “gift”—description of real property, unit trusts, discharged debts, and so on—that will make a change for us.

Overall, there are some very useful advances in the report of the Standing Orders Committee. We would have liked one or two more, but we are happy to support the report.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I would like to rise to support the two motions related to the triennial review of the Standing Orders. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Standing Orders Committee, Mr Speaker. I would like to acknowledge the members, the submitters, and the officials. We did a good job.

I guess I would like to start with an apology. We have got a bunch of students in the Chamber today. Sorry, guys, I think you have walked in on the most boring, dry debate Parliament could have. But it also gives you a bit of background on how Parliament works. [Interruption] I am not speaking of myself. What we are doing is that every 3 years—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for this particular contribution to be wide ranging so that it might be more entertaining.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is hardly a point of order, Mr Brownlee. In fact, Mr Brownlee, I thought that you were going to raise with me Speaker’s ruling 47/3 that addressing people outside the House, radio listeners, or those in gallery was out of order.

GARETH HUGHES: I would not dare try to top Gerry Brownlee’s entertaining Standing Orders Committee speech.

What we are talking about is that every 3 years Parliament gets together and reviews its rules—the laws that Parliament operates for itself. It is a triennial review. It is critically important because the way we operate in this Chamber is how we make decisions, how we hold the Government to account, and how we act—our code of conduct. I see—I will not make a joke about the departing students. As the former Speaker Lockwood Smith used to always point out, we are the fourth-oldest continuous democracy in the world. This is something we should be proud of. We should be proud of our heritage and our traditions. But we should also be open to the future—open to new ideas, new ways of doing things, new technology—and I think in this Standing Orders review what we are seeing is some modest progress. It is not as wide ranging as we saw in the last Speakers’ rulings and Standing Orders review, but it is some modest progress all the same.

The Green Party made a submission. I understand it was one of only two parties to do so. We made a number of points covering improving legislative quality, improving accessibility for members, recognising New Zealand Sign Language as an official language, improving the lobbying disclosure regime, recommending a code of conduct for MPs, positive suggestions on voting reform and the process for amending the parliamentary prayer and members’ oaths, improving executive scrutiny, and, lastly, ensuring that international treaties are brought to Parliament before ratification. We put a great deal of positive solutions into the mix. Some of them were picked up; some were not. We would like to acknowledge the changes in this Standing Orders review. I think the tidying-up of the pecuniary interests register is particularly good. Moving some of the financial debate times around will, I think, make a difference, but very modestly. So, in a nutshell, what I was trying to achieve through this process was some practical steps to make Parliament more accessible, more transparent, and more democratic. I think it is fair to say we are not there entirely. We have still got a long way to go to actually make Parliament more accessible, transparent, and democratic, but I would like to point out some highlights from the Standing Orders review process.

First up, is amending Standing Order 105. In this term of Parliament we have seen New Zealand’s first ever profoundly deaf MP elected to Parliament, Mojo Mathers. To be frank, we had to fight to get her the resources she needed so she could participate like any other member in this Chamber. It was a battle played out through the media, through backroom pressure, and it was good that Mojo Mathers got the support she needed so she can follow what is happening in this Chamber. But, of course, there was always the inconsistency that, despite being fluent in New Zealand Sign Language, she could not address the Chamber in that language for want of interpreters and also for want of a Standing Order that reflects the law of this land. As has been pointed out in the previous contributions, New Zealand Sign Language is an official language of New Zealand. It was outrageous that a member could not speak to this Chamber through New Zealand Sign Language. I think it is an incredibly positive step that we are taking, because I think Mojo or any other member could have tried to address this Chamber in New Zealand Sign Language and it would have been incredibly embarrassing for this Chamber to have had that contribution struck down. So it is incredibly positive, it is something that we have pushed very hard for, and we would like to acknowledge the committee members.

When it comes to select committees, which are the workhorse of our Parliament, where parliamentarians work together and where real change actually happens, it is good to see three big areas of change. First of all, is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act reporting and the section 7 reports of the Attorney-General. I would like to acknowledge Minister Finlayson, in particular, on this section. The text in the Standing Orders report gives members, I think, some good guidance. The text is: “We consider that papers presented by the Attorney-General under section 7 of the NZBORA should receive detailed consideration by being referred automatically to select committees. We encourage committees to invite officials or Ministers to assist them in their consideration of these issues.” That is a very positive step.

In my 5 years in Parliament, what I have seen is some amendments called Supplementary Order Papers that were, in fact, larger than the primary legislation they were seeking to amend. I am thinking of the ultra-fast broadband legislation and other ones passed under urgency, such as the so-called Anadarko amendment, which criminalised protest activity at sea. That had huge human rights implications, but because it was passed as a Supplementary Order Paper, there was no section 7 scrutiny and there was no chance for a select committee to investigate it, talk to the experts, and think through those Human Rights Act implications. So it is good that the committee is encouraging select committees to bring a Minister in to analyse and consider that section 7 report.

We are seeing members being granted wider access to select committee papers. As someone from a small party—well, we do not call ourselves a small party anymore; we call ourselves a medium party in the Greens, now—where you have got to sub on to numerous select committees, it can be the bane of an MP’s life trying to get access to committee papers in the select committee portal. This change is incredibly good and will really help those single-member parties or smaller parties.

Lastly, the webcasting of select committees is something proposed by the cross-party internet forum, which I worked on with Clare Curran, Simon O’Connor, and Tracey Martin. It is great that the trial was a success. I understand that more than 7,000 people have tuned in and seen our select committees do their work, and now this is going to be rolled out across the entire range of select committees. It is incredibly positive because what it means is that submitters who want to hear what other submitters are saying do not have to travel all the way to Wellington if they are from out of town. They can follow and engage in the committee at home by computer.

When it comes to questions for written answer, we have made a slight change here. I put up some proposals to actually encourage Ministers to answer them in a timely fashion through a transparency regime where those Ministers’ results and answering times are reported to the Speaker. What we are seeing is a modest change that says an interim reply is not a final reply. Phil Heatley, last night in his valedictory speech, reflected on what I think is the funniest answer I have ever had to a question, which is when I lodged a written question asking where in New Zealand fracking had occurred. He replied: “Underground.” It was a perfect ministerial answer—absolutely accurate, and absolutely useless to the Opposition member asking it. It was a perfect ministerial answer. To his credit—and he did not say it last night—he did answer the question in full the next day, so I would like to acknowledge Phil Heatley for doing that. It was hilarious. What a great answer. For the rules that would have been fine. Even an interim answer saying: “I will answer it later on.” is an answer for the questions for written answer rules, so it is great we are making changes there.

We are going to be reviewing the prayer, which is something I feel very strongly about and want to see progress in the next Parliament on. Something the Greens were the only submitters to push for was an inquiry into the preparedness of Parliament for a natural disaster. It is great that that is going to be commencing next Parliament.

We also had a great number of missed opportunities. I would have preferred to see greater financial scrutiny of Parliament. We saw the Clerk of Parliament offer an estimates week idea, where we could have a week to go through the Government’s books line by line, which I would like to see progress on in the future. There was the proposal of a human rights select committee to do justice to human rights challenges and issues.

I would have liked to see a greater ability for Parliament to send substantive Supplementary Order Papers back to a select committee. Obviously, members can seek leave to do it, but any member can block that. So when you have got Supplementary Order Papers that are larger than the bills they are seeking to amend, and often with no heads-up to Parliament, I think it is important Parliament has greater powers to get them back to select committees in order to hear from the experts, the submitters, and the Government.

I would like to echo Grant Robertson’s call to modernise our petitions. Our Parliament, even if we are the fourth-oldest democracy in the world, has to be able to engage with the people. In 2014 and in other years we are going to see people going more and more online. We need to be where they are.

When it comes to members’ bills, I put up a proposal so that if a member’s bill had the support of half of the House, including non-executive members, it could be put to a first reading vote. What I would like to encourage, as we see in other parliaments around the world, is MPs from across the aisle working together. I proposed also that MPs from different parties could jointly sponsor a members’ bill and, lastly, we proposed having a code of conduct and a lobbying regime.

So we made a lot of good suggestions. A lot of them got adopted. Not all of them did. We will continue to work constructively and positively with other parties to improve our Parliament’s laws. Kia ora.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports nearly all of the amendments to the Standing Orders that are proposed. We have participated in a collaborative process that has resulted in a number of very worthwhile changes. I wish to refer to only three of them.

The first one was proposed by New Zealand First and was adopted by the Standing Orders Committee, amending Standing Order 34, “Recognition of parties”. We were very concerned at the events that followed the registration of United Future recently. We were especially concerned at the way Standing Order 34 was applied to the situation that United Future was in. We considered the reregistration of that party for parliamentary purposes following its new recognition under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 to be illegal under Standing Order 34.

It was New Zealand First’s understanding that the status of a party for parliamentary purposes is determined at the date of the last election or, where relevant, at the date of a subsequent by-election and at no other time. This is clearly expressed in Standing Order 34(1), which requires, firstly, that the party be then registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 and, secondly, that it have a member elected in that party’s interest as at the last general election or subsequent by-election.

It is also clear that following deregistration of a party under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 during a parliamentary term, Standing Order 34(4) applies, and that any member of Parliament who had been one of that party’s recognised members of Parliament as at the last general election or subsequent by-election then becomes an independent member for parliamentary purposes under Standing Order 34(4). With regard to the new recognition of an independent member as the member of a recognised party, Standing Order 34(2) has two components. One component deals with an existing recognised party, and the other with a new party that becomes recognised under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 and has at least six members. It is the situation in paragraph (a) that caused concern, and that was the part applicable to the situation that United Future was in, with only one member at the relevant time.

It is particularly the use and meaning of the word “existing” in paragraph (a) that was the root of the problem. It was New Zealand First’s understanding, based upon the usual rules of interpretation and the scheme and intent of the statute as a whole, that the word “existing” can only mean existing as at the date of the last general election or subsequent by-election, having regard to the content of Standing Order 34(1). Therefore, in the case of United Future, once it had been deregistered and its one member had become an independent member, that member could not subsequently be recognised as a United Future member again even if the party was reregistered. This is because under paragraph (a) the party, having been reregistered with new or additional members, could not be the same party as the one that had been existing as at the last general election or a subsequent by-election. And nor could United Future have been recognised under paragraph (b) as a new party, because it did not have six members.

New Zealand First believes that whether our interpretation is correct or not, it would be very desirable for Standing Order 34 to be amended and clarified in these respects. New Zealand First therefore proposed that Standing Order 34 be amended accordingly. That change, I am pleased to say, will now be made, but it is subject to the prior requirement that the Speaker will have the authority to grant parties temporary recognition for a reasonable period. Thereafter, if a party ceases to be recognised, it can then subsequently be re-recognised only if it meets the criteria for a new party—in particular, it would then need to have at least six MPs.

Another change, but one with which New Zealand First did not agree, concerns the way that bills that are thought to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are handled and how they are to be dealt with. We believe that the recommendation for reference to just a standing committee is insufficient. We all know that the result of that can be little or no real consideration at all, and that is really not good enough for something as important as the possibility of inconsistency of proposed legislation with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—an incredibly important matter. We felt that reference to the Committee of the whole House and a full debate with the benefit of comprehensive reports would be necessary at least. So this is something of a work in progress for us. We believe that it is something that will need to be followed up at a subsequent time.

The only other change I wish to comment on is the new rules and procedures for members of Parliament’s attendance. The Standing Orders needed to be updated on that, and it needed to be made clear that there would be a sanction for MPs who do not attend regularly. There have been very few who have fallen into this category because party discipline has usually taken care of the issue, but with some MPs becoming independent or being one-person parties, it is wise that these new rules be incorporated. So with those changes, the ones that I have mentioned, and with our approval also of the various other changes—and there are many—New Zealand First will be happy to vote for both of the motions.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): I intend to make a reasonably short contribution on the review of the Standing Orders, which would reflect my relatively short period of time on the Standing Orders Committee. I came on to this committee part-way through this process and, therefore, missed many of the submissions, which I felt was a great shame because certainly there were some very important contributions that had been made.

Before I talk in substance to the review, I would just like to make a couple of acknowledgments. First of all, to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, for your fine valedictory speech yesterday. All the best for your future and the next journey in your life that you are about to take. Can I also acknowledge Fay Paterson, who is in the Clerk’s chair at present, and congratulate her on her 25 years in this Parliament. I congratulate her, on her final day of this sitting in this Parliament, and wish her well for the next adventure in her life, as well. Thank you, Fay.

Hon Trevor Mallard: She looks the same.

SUE MORONEY: Yes, well, my learned colleague Trevor Mallard—well, he is not learned—my honourable colleague Trevor Mallard says that she has not changed a bit, and she would probably be alone, in terms of that observation, in this Chamber.

I want to reflect on a couple of the Standing Orders provisions because certainly for me, when I came into this place, I was quite a stranger to parliamentary process, and I can well understand people who may be listening to this debate wondering what on earth the importance of the Standing Orders is. Not only do they guide what occurs in this place but they also have a very practical application. I want to use a couple of examples of some of the things that came before the committee for discussion with this review. I will give some examples of a piece of legislation that I have been intimately involved with to show how the review applies to that.

One of the issues that was raised by submitters that the committee could not find a way forward on—as many other members have already said, this is a committee that acts on consensus. Therefore, by definition the recommendations of the Standing Orders review are often pretty conservative on that basis, because it does require the agreement of all the parties sitting round the table before we can make progress. None the less, we have made some progress, and it is incremental progress that will continue in future parliaments. The issue that came before the committee that I had a close and personal brush with was the issue of financial veto. There were submissions from members of the public around the idea that if a bill has majority support in Parliament, a Government should be able to put a financial veto on such a bill.

Louise Upston: Who pays the bills?

SUE MORONEY: Well, it was an issue that was raised.

Louise Upston: Who has to manage the Budget?

SUE MORONEY: Pardon?

Louise Upston: Who has to manage the Budget? The Government of the day.

SUE MORONEY: Well, that is exactly the issue that I am just about to raise, actually, Mrs Upston. The members opposite are very, very nervous about discussion of the financial veto, and I understand that. I get that. What submitters said was that they had an issue to raise around democracy and how that actually played out. Some submitters, I understand, raised the prospect of—because the bill, of course, was the bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. People said: “Well, look, actually, yes, you do have a Government that has a mandate to run the books and to make decisions on what the finances are spent on.”, but on this occasion, one of the votes in favour of the bill was from a party that was voting to give the Government supply and confidence, a party that actually gave the mandate to the Government of the day to make decisions about the priorities in which it spent its Budget. So that was a really interesting dilemma—a very interesting dilemma, I think—that that bill posed, because here were some of the votes that gave the Government the right to set its Budget actually voting for some of that money to be spent on a measure that the Government opposed. I think that that caused a really interesting dilemma, which I do not know that this Parliament has ever seen before.

Hon Anne Tolley: Oh, rubbish!

SUE MORONEY: Well, Mrs Tolley says: “Oh, rubbish!”, but I am not sure that there has been a situation where a vote that has actually been used in the main for supply and confidence has been used to vote for another measure that a financial veto was going to be used on. So it was a very interesting issue.

I think that during the course of this debate we have been trying to focus on issues of democracy, issues of how we improve democracy, and issues of how we continue in the future. It has not been a controversial debate, but I noticed that the minute we discussed the issue of the financial veto, the Government benches became quite hostile to the idea of us actually having something to say in debating this in this context. However, it is right and it is proper to do so. It was raised through the select committee and it was an issue that the committee gave some consideration to. Where we landed I think was also right and proper. Where we landed is that it is the right of a Government to make determinations in this area and that Governments should use that veto infrequently. In fact, the report says that the use of this procedure has been relatively restrained, and I think that probably is correct. But it was also correct for the committee to consider that issue and wonder whether we had that in exactly the right place. We did come to the conclusion that it is, for now, but I think it is something that, as MMP continues to test the processes of this Parliament, we will continue to think about.

The other issue that had a direct bearing on the procedure of that bill through this House was the new provision—now codified through the review of the Standing Orders that we are debating here today—for a Speaker to grant compassionate leave. That was a relatively new policy that was brought in and it is now being codified under this review of the Standing Orders. I welcome that because I think it has worked well. One of the times that we got to test that, literally on its feet, was during the second reading of the bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks. When we had a bill that was passing through its second reading by one vote, every single one of those votes was important, but because of the Standing Orders in this Parliament we had a situation where one of the parties that was supporting the bill had a member of its caucus leave the precinct, and that therefore meant it could not vote legitimately at its full strength. How ironic it was that we were debating extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks and the reason that the member of Parliament had legitimately needed to leave the parliamentary precinct was to attend the birth of his first grandchild. It is that sort of irony, which actually happens quite regularly in this parliamentary debating chamber, that makes it a very, very interesting place to be operating in.

Of course, what we tested on the floor of the debating chamber right there and then was the ability of the Speaker to grant compassionate leave on those grounds. It was something that had not been tested before. It was tested that night, and I am pleased to report that it was tested successfully. Compassionate leave was granted by the Speaker and that member’s vote was therefore able to be counted in the vote. How it got cast is a different matter entirely, and I will not go into that because the members opposite are already getting tetchy enough at the mere mention of the paid parental leave bill, which always does cause them quite a bit of angst.

In conclusion, I hope that people listening can see the practical application of the issues that were debated by the Standing Orders Committee. I hope that they will be able to see how it makes a real difference to the way the debating chamber operates and how laws are made in this country for the good of its people. There are areas where we can always make more progress, but it is a start, and as we always do in each Parliament, we will continue to refine and improve the processes. Thank you.

Motions agreed to.

Bills

Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister for Sport and Recreation: Might I add my congratulations to you, Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson, on this being your final day not only in Parliament but in the Chair. I acknowledge your 27 years of very good service to the people of Manukau East and its various guises under the boundary changes and everything else, and the hard work you have done for them. On their behalf you have been a great local MP, and I know that you will be a great local board member as well. I look forward to seeing you at various events in that role.

I move, That the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. This is a short but very important bill. It is designed to protect the integrity of New Zealand sport. New Zealand has a well-deserved reputation for playing fair, and this bill aims to protect that. Match fixing is a growing problem internationally and has been described as the No. 1 threat to sport. As we have seen from recent events, New Zealand is not immune to this growing threat. That is why the Government is taking action on this matter. The International Centre for Sports Security has estimated that over $140 billion is laundered worldwide every year through sports betting. This illustrates the extent to which organised crime is seeking to exploit the sports sector. Although there are some existing offences that may cover match fixing, this bill will put beyond doubt that match fixing falls within the scope of deceptive conduct covered by the Crimes Act. This will give enforcement agencies the ability to investigate and prosecute instances of match fixing.

This bill is particular timely given the New Zealand co-hosting of the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 Football World Cup from early next year. Both football and cricket are known internationally to present match-fixing risks.

Match fixing involves deceptive conduct aimed at predetermining aspects of a game or race in order to make betting returns. There is the potential for large amounts of money to be made from match fixing, and this inevitably attracts criminals. Match fixing not only misleads those who place legitimate bets on a game but also deprives New Zealanders of an honest sporting contest and affects the integrity, growth, and development of New Zealand sport.

Besides being a national pastime, sport provides significant benefits to our nation. The economic, social, health, and personal benefits of sport and recreation in New Zealand are estimated at $12.2 billion. Criminal sanctions are needed, therefore, to deter match fixers from damaging our sporting sector. Our counterparts in Australia have recently acted to address match-fixing risks. Various Australian states have now passed legislation that specifically criminalises match fixing. Given our close sporting ties with Australia, it is important that we also move to deter match fixers.

This bill is not the only thing the Government is doing to protect the integrity of New Zealand sport. The Minister for Sport and Recreation, the Hon Murray McCully, recently announced the release of the New Zealand Policy on Sports Match-Fixing and Related Corruption. The national match-fixing policy provides a comprehensive framework for collaboration across Government, the sports sector, and the betting industry to address it. The policy will, amongst other things, help to ensure that national sporting organisations have sufficient processes and procedures in place to protect their sports. This will include such measures as regulations prohibiting match-fixing activity, with associated disciplinary procedures and sanctions; placing appropriate restrictions on sports betting; and ensuring that education is available on match-fixing prevention strategies. This bill therefore forms part of a package of measures the Government is progressing, the cumulative effect of which is to create a strong framework to protect New Zealand sport.

Importantly, those who engage in match fixing, including players, coaches, officials, and administrators, will face very serious consequences for their actions, whether from the criminal justice system, their sports organisation, or both. The bill makes it clear that anyone who obtains a benefit or who causes a loss by engaging in match fixing will commit an offence against section 240 of the Crimes Act and will be liable to a maximum penalty of 7 years’ imprisonment. I consider section 240 of the Crimes Act to be the appropriate vehicle through which to make it clear that match fixing is a criminal offence.

It is possible that section 240 already captures a range of match-fixing conduct; however, this has never been tested in court, so the bill removes the uncertainty around that. The amendments contained in the bill are relatively minor and are designed to clarify the application of section 240 to match fixing. The bill is not designed to affect the application of section 240 to other, non-match-fixing - related offending; indeed, that is why new section 240A has been created. To make it clear that the bill applies only to match fixing does not change how section 240 applies to other offending.

In drafting this bill it is important to avoid criminalising the kind of rule-breaking that will inevitably occur in sport. This might include, for example, ball-tampering in cricket or deliberate foul play carried out for non-betting purposes. Such rule-breaking can be dealt with by the national sports organisations in a way considered appropriate for their sports. It is not something we necessarily want to have criminalised. What this bill does is to criminalise acts or omissions aimed at manipulating a match for betting purposes rather than for tactical or strategic sporting reasons.

The bill applies to the manipulation of the overall result of a match or any event within a match. This has been made deliberately broad given the range of betting options that are now available. Match fixers may now seek to influence only small aspects of a match, such as the timing of a no-ball bowled in cricket, or the first point scored in a rugby match. This is known as spot fixing and is perhaps the hardest form of match fixing to detect. The bill does not criminalise the use of inside information, such as information about pitch conditions or team strategies. I consider the abuse of such information is better dealt with by the governing sports bodies rather than the criminal law.

The last technical point I would like to make about the bill is that it also applies to races, including, for example, a horse race, dog race, car race, or boat race. Races, just like sports matches, are susceptible to being fixed.

Match fixing is a growing threat. That threat will be heightened when New Zealand hosts the Cricket World Cup and the FIFA U-20 Football World Cup early next year. This bill helps to address that threat, and it does so—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just draw the attention of members who are interrupting on each other to the fact that that is out of order in the people’s House. If you want to make interjections, then it is fine to do so on the person who is addressing the House—in this case, the honourable Minister—but not on each other.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is always good to end Parliament on the right note. The body of case law under section 240 relating to, for example, what constitutes obtaining pecuniary advantage or causing loss will apply to the amendments contained in the bill. Consideration was given to a stand-alone match-fixing offence or to a regime of match-fixing offences. However, while many other countries are grappling with how best to tackle this issue, and whether specific offences or the general law is best to prosecute such activity, an amendment that links in with section 240 was considered appropriate. This section of the Crimes Act has been identified as most likely to capture match-fixing conduct. Its application to match fixing can be put beyond doubt by the short amendments contained in this bill.

The bill will protect the integrity, growth, and development of New Zealand sport. It will deter those in a position to improperly influence a betting outcome by manipulating a sports match. Sport is a huge source of national pride to us Kiwis and is something that must be protected from criminals. I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour - Hutt South): I am pleased after 27 years of working together that you are able to do that. Mr Assistant Speaker, I do want to acknowledge your service to this Parliament and say that if this Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill is the last bill that you are dealing with, it is something that is appropriate, given the fact that you are, yourself, a proud parent of an international athlete. I want to acknowledge that, acknowledge you, and thank you.

I am going to ask for a little bit of indulgence to wish a couple of teams all the best. I want to say that the Commonwealth Games team, I think, is going exceptionally well. I follow the cyclists, and clearly what has happened is that in the last decade or a bit more, as there has been less doping, New Zealand athletes have been doing better and better at cycling relative to the rest of the world. I think that is something that is really good.

I want to wish all the best to the Black Ferns, who are about to enter into the International Rugby Board Women’s Rugby World Cup, and say to Fi and the team: you are in Paris. When I last watched a World Cup, it was in Edmonton and I know where I would rather be. Edmonton was an awful hole in the cold and the snow when the world cup was there. I want to wish Jackie Patea, who is the second Wainuiōmata Black Fern, all the best, as well as Claire, Kelly, and Kat, all of whom I was touch judge for over a period of years when they were playing in Otago. I sort of regard them as like my own kids. I have watched them grow and develop into great rugby players. To Linda Itunu, who is my bodyguard on occasions—my plus-one for this year’s Steinlager Rugby Awards—I would just hate to be anyone who was tackled by her. She is one of the hardest tacklers I have ever seen.

With a little bit more indulgence, I would like to refer to another major sporting event, a historic event, that is occurring at the Hutt Recreation Ground this Sunday, when Hutt Old Boys Marist play Wainuiōmata. One thing that we know is that this one is going to be so hard fought that there would never be any suggestion of match fixing in it. The people out there know that I have strong family links to the Hutt. Again, I was a touch judge for several years for one of the Hutt teams and, in fact, not much over a decade ago I had to turn out for a senior second team in an emergency, when the alternative was the coach who had concussion playing for them. I think it is fair to say that all I did was run up and down the 15-meter line, asking them not to give me the ball, but, of course, they did every now and again.

There is a history of people going over the hill between Wainuiōmata and the Hutt. The earliest example I know of is Kara Puketapu, who was a Wainuiōmata resident, a very, very good rugby player, but, unfortunately, he used to play for Pētone. Currently there are the Risdon brothers, Wainuiōmata residents—a prominent Wainuiōmata family, both parents and grandparents. Piri Weepu actually played for Hutt Old Boys Marist before he played for Wainuiōmata and probably played more games against Wainuiōmata than he played for Wainuiōmata against the Hutt. So there is a history of people going over the hill. But for the first time these two teams are going to meet in a Jubilee Cup final. That is the premier final for Wellington, and for Wainuiōmata it is our first time in that since the club was formed in 1946. So, as a local resident, as someone who has followed the team for a number of years and watched some great young men develop into great rugby players, I want to wish them all the best and say, notwithstanding my family contacts, I will be calling out for Wainuiōmata.

Just to make clear, we are talking about a match-fixing bill, the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. It applies to sport, it applies to racing, and, notwithstanding the comments of the colleague to my left, Andrew Williams, it does not apply to the Ōhariu or the Epsom electorates. If it did apply, I think it is fair to say that there would be some questions because people are going into a race saying: “Please don’t vote for me.” I would generally be absolutely opposed to that, other than the fact that my very good friend and colleague Holly Walker in Hutt South is taking a very similar approach. I just want to say that I have therefore got slightly mixed feelings about people who are running in an electorate and are saying: “Give us the party vote but not the electorate vote.”

The bill itself makes a minor but important change. It makes it very clear that match fixing is a crime. I think, arguably, looking at the face of the legislation, match fixing is probably already a crime, but what this bill does is put it beyond any doubt whatsoever, and it is being done in time for the football under-23s and for the Cricket World Cup, both of which are not far off as far as we are concerned.

I do want to thank the Minister for Sport and Recreation for his consultation. Like most legislation in the sport area, it is something that we do on a bipartisan basis wherever possible. Even though this is relatively minor, it does do the trick and therefore we will be supporting it. I am very pleased that the Minister has chosen not to go as far as organisations like the International Rugby Board has gone in its draft rules. My view is that the draft rules of the board are nuts. To take an extreme example using Piri Weepu and his mum, theoretically if I have a cup of tea with Piri Weepu’s mum, I am not allowed to then go and bet on a sporting match, because there is a relationship between him and his mother, obviously, and his mother and me—one of friendship—because that relationship would be caught by the International Rugby Board rules. I think that that is something that goes far too far.

I regret that this bill has taken so long to get in. We knew from about October of last year that it was coming. I regret the fact that it has been relatively low on the Government’s priority list, as far as passing it is concerned, but we will support it. If there is a requirement—and I think there probably should be—for a shortened select committee period, I do not think we need to do it as part of the motion in this House, but we will facilitate it through the select committee after the election. I hope, as a result of that, it is passed before Christmas and the rules will be very clear before the cricket. I think, as all of us know, there is more money bet on cricket than any other sport in the world by quite a large factor. We support the bill, we support our Commonwealth Games team, we support the Black Ferns, and we support Wainuiōmata. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour - Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I begin by congratulating you on what was a wonderful valedictory speech last night, along with the other members in the House who gave their valedictory speeches as well. As a colleague from the adjoining electorate of Manurewa I want to pay tribute to the work you have done in South Auckland and the work that you will continue to do. Thank you very much for the way in which you have helped me in terms of understanding the processes in the House. I certainly wish you all the best for the future.

I also want to begin by congratulating our Commonwealth Games team. We got our 12th gold medal this morning. Congratulations, Val Adams. It is the 600th medal that New Zealand has won in the Commonwealth Games. I think as a country we are certainly a superpower within the domain of sport, which is why this Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill is so important. I too want to wish the Black Ferns all the best. If they win in France, that is five world championships in a row. I think it is a pretty outstanding achievement. Maybe they will be a finalist in the Steinlager Rugby Awards this year, if they achieve that feat. They have never been a finalist, and this could be an opportunity for the New Zealand Rugby Union to acknowledge them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s their time to win.

LOUISA WALL: Maybe this will be the pinnacle for them—that is correct, Mr Mallard.

Labour does support the bill, and as Labour’s associate spokesperson on sport and recreation I am going to highlight a few points about why this bill is really important. This bill will criminalise core match-fixing behaviour. The regulatory impact statement says the focus on core match-fixing is for several reasons, the first of which is that “core match-fixing behaviour presents the biggest risk to the integrity, growth and development of New Zealand sport.” Sport in New Zealand contributes over $5 billion to our economy, and I think what we have seen this week is that in addition to that economic benefit, it also contributes to our sense of identity, our sense of pride, and actually our place in the world. The reality of this bill is that if anything is going to challenge or inhibit or interfere with sport and the place it has in terms of our society, then we must do all that we can.

The context of sports betting in New Zealand is interesting. The Department of Internal Affairs website says the 2012-13 statistics show that gambling in New Zealand is a $2.1 billion industry. In terms of specific TAB sports betting, it totals $294 million. That is a lot of money, and I can see why some people would be interested in putting some of that money in their pockets by doing things that are completely contrary to what sport is all about. Having been a sportsperson myself, I say that sport provides the opportunity to set goals and to work hard; to invest time, effort, energy, and family and community support to achieve a gold medal or a personal best. That is actually what sport is all about. The contribution of sport to our society in terms of providing the framework for people to be successful and to achieve and to be part of teams is something I do not think should be underestimated.

The second part of the regulatory impact statement that I want to highlight is that a more significant set of offences would likely be unachievable within the time available. We want this bill enacted by the end of the year because of the Cricket World Cup. The Hon Trevor Mallard is absolutely right. A one-day cricket match generates over $6 million of sports betting. So when we look at it in that context, it is incumbent on us to enact a piece of legislation before the Cricket World Cup, which will begin in early 2015.

The other context that I wanted to highlight was actually around sports codes and their responsibility within the context of sports betting. I am going to take a counter view to the Hon Trevor Mallard in that I actually endorse the International Rugby Board’s anti-corruption policy. The board has been really staunch about this because it thinks that this is a big threat to the integrity of its code. If you are caught participating in match fixing, that means a lifetime ban. If you are caught betting once, you can be banned for a year. But what I want to highlight is that the National Rugby League, for example, has been incredibly proactive. In fact, it banned David Williams, who plays for Manly, for the remainder of the season because the league had caught him betting not only on other National Rugby League matches but on matches where he himself was involved. It took a very staunch stance. There were other players who were caught betting, and they got a two-game suspension.

But the relevance of any information, Mr Mallard, can be seen from the weekend, actually. The Warriors were playing Manly. No one knew that Shaun Johnson was injured, up to almost before kick-off. What is the relevance? Shaun Johnson is a very good player, and anybody who has been watching the Warriors lately would have seen what an instrumental player he is. He does have the ability to affect the outcome of a match. Knowing that Shaun Johnson was injured and he was not going to play would have affected somebody’s ability to make or not make a bet, so whether anybody gets any inside information that then puts them at an advantage to make a bet and to make money absolutely falls within the remit of this piece of legislation.

I guess the third point from the regulatory impact statement was that we do not anticipate high levels of corruption, but the reality is that there is an international threat within the context of sports betting and match fixing. Sport is a huge business today.

So I want to congratulate the Minister for Sport and Recreation on bringing this bill to the House. I want to congratulate my colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on being involved in discussions with the Minister. This is one of those pieces of legislation that has support across the House, so we will be doing everything that we can to support the passage of the legislation. Finally, I just want to congratulate Kereyn Smith, Rob Waddell, and the team at the Commonwealth Games, particularly the cyclists. What I have seen in their teamwork is the ability for some of them to put in the hard yards during the race without an expectation that they are going to get a medal. I think that that level of teamwork epitomises what I would like to see across society—that it is all about the greater good. It is all about an outcome where New Zealand gets a medal. It is not about the individual doing what they do based on self-interest but actually based on their identification with something that is bigger than themselves. The members of the New Zealand cycling team are fundamentally doing what they do because they are proud to be New Zealanders. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

MARK MITCHELL (National - Rodney): I will take just a short call on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill, a very good bill. The previous speaker spoke about Shaun Johnson. I just want to mention the fact that of course Shaun Johnson is an Ōrewa College old boy from my electorate. So I just wanted to highlight that fact. We are all very proud of him, obviously.

I also wanted to mention—I see the Hon Trevor Mallard is in the House—Anton Cooper and Sam Gaze, because he is a cyclist himself. I was the first secretary of the Rotorua Mountain Bike Club. We built a lot of the technical tracks up in the Redwoods there. I want to acknowledge those guys, because all of our athletes are doing a fantastic job, obviously, in being ambassadors and representatives at the Commonwealth Games. But, actually, these two young men have put in an outstanding performance to take the gold and the silver in what is a very difficult and demanding sport. I wanted to acknowledge them.

This is a very important bill. We have seen what has been happening recently. It has obviously been highlighted with what has been going on in the cricket world. It is very important that we have integrity within our sport.

Louisa Wall: I forgot to say: “Go the Crusaders!”.

MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, exactly. Louisa was just saying: “Go the Crusaders!”. I do not know whether I can join her in that sentiment, being from Auckland, but anyway. It is our last New Zealand team, so of course we will get behind them and give it heaps. Give it heaps, guys.

This bill will clarify that match fixing is a form of deception under section 240 of the Crimes Act—the offence of obtaining a benefit or causing a loss by deception. I was just talking with my colleague Alfred Ngaro, and I notice that Kris Faafoi is opposite. We are all members of the Parliamentary Rugby Team. We have just watched the Football World Cup. Half those falls that they take—we do not really know what they are about. [Interruption] I think this is a really important part of the bill. Like I said, I will take a very short call. I am very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is rare that the sport and recreation spokespeople of parties get to speak on a bill. We are usually congratulating some sports team or other on fantastic efforts overseas. So I am very pleased to take a call on this bill, the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. I personally am an obsessive follower of particularly cricket, cycling, and rugby. Some say that we are, in fact, a sports-obsessed nation. I guess there is some evidence for that. If I think back to 1981, there were plenty of people who were saying that sport, in fact, with the opportunity for the rugby tour from the Springboks, should take precedence over fundamental human rights breaches. The sense of priority evident in that line of thinking suggests that there is something deeply askew in the minds of many. We still see that kind of thinking today. My personal favourite example of that askew thinking came in the 1980s when a magistrate was found dead in the Huka Falls after being murdered when a bondage session went wrong. The comment from Auckland Cricket, because this magistrate was also an umpire for Auckland Cricket, was “We can’t afford to keep losing umpires like this.”

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

KEVIN HAGUE: Although I am a cricket tragic—not to that extent!

Why is sport so important to us? Partly, it is that as human beings there is something great about seeing human beings test the limits of what is possible in terms of their ability and skill, and so seeing any great sportsperson performing is fantastic. There is also something inspiring about the effort. One of my earliest memories of sport was from the 1968 Olympics. It was right at the very end of the marathon when a guy called John Akhwari, representing Tanzania, limped into the Olympic stadium. People had gone home, the lights were off, and the TV cameras followed him through the streets of Mexico City when all of the other competitors had gone. His spirit, his endurance, and his commitment to finishing were deeply inspiring.

Perhaps even more important is the sense of representation. At the weekend I had very considerable interest in the Crusaders game. I was interested in the rugby regardless of whether it was a good game or not between the Warratahs and Brumbies—as it turned out, it was a pretty rubbish game. But, actually, my sense of stake in the game and my sense of stake in the outcome were not nearly as great as for the Crusaders’ games. Why is that important? It is because of that sense of representation that we have when we feel a sense of connection to the person or team that is competing. That sense of representation is important because we feel a sense of ownership of the success or otherwise of that person or team. When they succeed, it feels like we ourselves have succeeded a bit.

I join with others in congratulating the success of our Commonwealth Games team. I am very pleased that Mark Mitchell mentioned the achievements of Anton Cooper and Sam Gaze. Anton Cooper is a great young guy whom I met through the Tour of New Zealand a few years ago. I know that right now kids are competing against each other on their way to school on their bikes—you know, who is going to be Anton and who is going to be Sam. That is fantastic, because that inspiration that they are providing will lead to that next level not only of competition at that elite level but also of increased physical activity, which goodness only knows this nation certainly needs.

But what about the other side? At one point in my life I worked in the evenings for a cleaning company. The cleaning company was owned by a guy who trained racehorses in the Waikato and the other cleaners were jockeys and people who worked in the stables—people who worked in the industry. After listening to their conversations during our breaks about what was coming up in the weekend’s races, there is no way in the world that I would ever bet on horse races unless I had inside information about who was actually trying to win a race and who was deliberately just stacking the odds for their next race. The industry is rigged.

As people know, I am a cycling obsessive as well, and I am one of those people who believed, against all the evidence, in Lance Armstrong. I followed his career, and I wanted to believe that he had transcended that terrible illness that he had and through his own efforts achieved that amazing success. It came as a body blow to me—and I know to others who perhaps had suspended their disbelief—when the evidence finally became irrefutable. Cheating in sport is like a cancer to sport and to those benefits that we get from it.

I well remember a fantastic whirlwind century that Chris Cairns scored in a 1-day international against England. It stayed in my memory for a long time. What should I make of that now? I am not sure. I am a person who loathes sports betting. I wish it had never been introduced and that it was not a part of the sporting scene now. For me, match fixing is another form of cheating, and cheating undermines all of that nobleness of spirit that we encounter in sport, that we derive from sport, and that we celebrate in sport. Match fixing has absolutely no place in sport, and the Green Party fully supports this bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First): As everybody knows, New Zealand First lives in the real world. New Zealand First recognises—

Alfred Ngaro: Which world is that one, Winnie?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: We will tell you shortly; just be patient. I know it is going to be good and I know it is going be relevant to the National Party, but you are going to have to be patient. We recognise that national threat assessments are warning of the increasing risk of crime syndicates and individuals targeting Australasia for sports match-fixing. What is match fixing about? It is about paying someone to underperform. It is about paying someone to not do their job and to actually put in an inferior performance. There have been high-profile match-fixing cases in Australia, and unless we address this practice and take it seriously, match fixing will significantly damage the integrity, value, and growth of New Zealand sport and our reputation as a nation.

We agree that the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill will address match-fixing risks, and that those risks are real. We have the Cricket World Cup coming next year and we have the FIFA U-20 World Cup here next year, so it is pretty important that we get on top of this legislation now. We know that, of course, match-fixing worldwide is dynamic, and it is a fast-developing area of law globally in terms of what countries are seeking to do.

Although we support this bill, we consider that it does not go nearly far enough, because match fixing in sport is bad and must be stopped, but match fixing in politics is much worse—match fixing in politics is much worse. We have heard Judith Collins talk about integrity and issues like that. Match fixing undermines the very core of our democracy. It pays people to underperform and not do their jobs. It pays people like Goldsmith to pull down his hoardings in Epsom—to pull down his hoardings in Epsom. How National members can possibly talk of integrity and get up in this House and extol the virtues of what they are doing is simply beyond any rational, reasonable New Zealander. Match fixing in politics stinks. It is corrupt. It goes to the very character of our society and it is being condoned by the National Party members today because they are its main proponents.

Needless to say, one party in this Parliament has never done that and never will. For 21 long years and 21 to come we have stood on our own. We have never taken money off people like that for any political purpose. They can make allegations, but I fought a court case, you recall, on an electoral petition, and Nick Smith fought a defamation case, right? Did he ever declare it? No, he did not. He told Parliament this, and yet Margaret Bazley, the registrar, told me in a letter, which I am happy to table, that he never did declare it. In short, Mr Smith, you deceived Parliament, so do not sit there thinking you can get away with that fraud and deceit today.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, yes, that is true. I have got Margaret Bazley’s letter. Do you want to see it? If you do see it and I am telling the truth, will you promise to resign? No, you will not.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member is far wide of the intent and the principles of this bill. This is about sport, crimes, and match fixing, so I ask the member to come back and relate to the principles of this bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have never left those principles. I am saying that match fixing stinks and it stinks at all levels of society. It stinks if somebody fixes, for example, nomination forms or scholarships for a certain family to go to university and denies more talented families the chance. All those things are rotten. They corrode society.

At its highest level, we have got match fixing in politics. So how can you possibly say to the sportspeople that this is wrong, this cannot go on, we are going to stop it, and yet condone it in your own business or your own profession? Pray tell me that, Mr Ngaro. Mr Mitchell, can you possibly tell me that? And for the faint, embarrassed voice from down in the South Island of Jacqui Dean, why are you smiling? Does Jacqui Dean believe that rorting the system, cheating the system, is right? Jacqui Dean comes from an electorate where people down there believe in the law. They have got principles. Why is their MP out of step? Why does she think it is a laughing matter to match fix?

Jacqui Dean: Because you’ve got your grumpy face on.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Ms Dean, do not try to shout out—you know, just opening your mouth and letting the wind blow your tongue around. We need a better performance from you than that. In fact, there are only 7 weeks to go and it is quite possible that member will not be here. We know that we will be. For example, if you come down to Kelston Hall on Sunday, 10 August at 1.30 p.m., you will see what show time looks like, as we launch our campaign. To anybody who hears that out there, will you please tell your neighbour, especially if you are in west Auckland. Come down yourself. It is free, you are welcome, it will be enlightening.

There we will be talking about sports match-fixing, but, particularly, we are going to be talking about political match-fixing, because if the principle is wrong for sport, then it is wrong for politics. How can the National Party say one thing about sport and match fixing and yet be its main guilty proponent when it comes to the big issue of democracy in our country? It is just wrong.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Lead by example.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, the Labour member from the West Coast, Mr O’Connor, is right. He says: “Why don’t they lead by example?”. But then, there is an old saying—

Hon Anne Tolley: Why don’t you win a seat?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes. Here is the Minister of Police. “Lead by example”—that struck a nerve, did not it? Now she starts shouting. This is someone who jacks up and match fixes the crime statistics.

Hon Members: Oh!

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, she has. She got caught doing it. This is what she said when she got caught: “It’s not happening, but if it is, I am going to investigate it.” All in the same sentence—“It’s not happening, but if it is, I am going to investigate it.” Now you try and rationalise or make logic of that statement.

Hon Anne Tolley: Get on with it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh yes, I know that the member is embarrassed. I know that the Minister of Police is seriously embarrassed, because it is all about the old saying: he who pays the piper calls the tune. It is bad in sport and it is revolting in politics.

It lowers the standards of this once-great democracy. Can you imagine Keith Holyoake or people like that condoning this sort of thing? He would be rolling in his grave. But, then again, there are some members there who have never heard of Keith Holyoake. They have never heard of him. They do not know what he stood for. Mind you, he was a nationalist. He did believe in putting New Zealand first. He certainly did believe in putting New Zealand first and not trying to buy a result. That is why he was our longest-serving National Prime Minister, and, boy, I think you guys are in trouble this time, because you ain’t going to make it. I know what the National Party’s latest polls say. I know what they say about New Zealand First and you cannot match fix those. [Interruption] Oh no, no, no, Mr Smith. You are going to be seriously concerned, because there is one thing that is going to happen—match fixing in sport or whatever—in these 7 weeks. Every week we are going climb, and every week you are going to be more and more nervous, and the match fixing will not save the National Party. What a tragedy!

Mind you, National members could disown their practice. They could say: “Put the hoardings up, Mr Goldsmith. Put them up in Ōhāriu. Campaign real hard for the National Party.” But no, they will probably make that fatal mistake of thinking that everything of value can be bought. Well, it cannot.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour - Mana): Can I just start my contribution by wishing to all those members who have chosen not to return to this House all the very best—to the Assistant Speaker who was formerly in the Chair, Ross Robertson, from our side of the House, 27 years of service to this House is obviously something worth celebrating, and to everyone else who has chosen to leave politics.

This Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill is a very important bill for the purposes of making sure that we are ready for two events: the Cricket World Cup, which kicks off, I believe, in February next year, and also the FIFA U-20 World Cup. We also want to make sure that for the integrity of those two events we stamp out any sense of match fixing that may go on around them, and also, in a sense, that for the children in our own communities who play sports every weekend, they grow up making sure that the sports heroes they watch on their television screens are out there doing as best as they can.

Can I acknowledge Trevor Mallard and his contribution. I think Hutt Old Boys Marist versus Wainuiōmata this weekend at the Hutt Recreation Ground. I just want to tell a quick story about Trevor Mallard and his love for Wainuiōmata. One Saturday afternoon I invited him to Porirua Park as Wainuiōmata played the mighty Norths rugby club in my electorate of Mana. He was lucky to get out of there alive, to be honest, because of the amount of barracking and abuse of people from my electorate. From a member of Parliament it was, to be completely honest, unbelievable. I thought that kind of behaviour from a member of Parliament was unforgiveable. I actually told Trevor that he was lucky to get out unscathed. What was unfortunate was that Wainuiōmata won that game by one point in a last-minute intercept and a length of the field try. So at that stage Trevor Mallard was being chased by someone trying to serve a summons on him, and I tweeted exactly where he was and that they should come and get him.

That kind of passion for sports in our communities is really important. The fact that people travel long distances and fervently support their rugby clubs every weekend is something that we want to maintain in our communities, something that we should not lose. If we are letting the scourge of sports betting infiltrate the higher levels, then I think what we will see happen is that people will not give a damn about sports whatsoever, which would be quite sad. We need to make sure that we protect the integrity of our highest levels of sports to make sure that our grassroots sports do survive.

I am also a cricket tragic, like the Green Party member Kevin Hague. It has been nice to leave Parliament and go home to watch an hour or two of India versus England, which is going on at the moment, but that is obviously the sport that is at the moment in the spotlight in terms of match fixing. Louisa Wall mentioned earlier that the regulatory impact statement showed just how widespread fraudulent betting and match fixing is. I think it was something like $140 billion in 2010. That being 4 years ago, I think it has probably got a lot worse than that over time.

This year has been an unfortunate year for that sport in terms of a couple of instances. I guess it is sad that we are having to bring this bill through, but we are naive to think that New Zealand is not going to be hit by this in some shape or form. So it is for all those kids who are playing cricket, probably not now but in the summer. I played cricket for the mighty Hoon Hay club, which is in the fine electorate of Wigram, which is represented by my colleague here, Megan Woods. I think for the sense of those kids to have heroes—certainly Richard Hadlee, Stephen Boock, Ken Rutherford, Lance Cairns, all those guys whom we believed in when we were growing up, wearing their test cricket beige and white with integrity and playing their guts out to make sure they would win for their country, Lance Cairns and the Excalibur, Martin Snedden and that catch that should have been a catch. It was a great thing to watch Sir Richard Hadlee get those 400 wickets at Lancaster Park and Nathan Astle get, I think, 286. You know those guys are in there giving their all for their country. To think that sports betting could cast a shadow over those kinds of things for our youngsters. I think we need to make sure that we are stamping down on this kind of behaviour and this type of match fixing quite well.

So, in a sense, what I think we have got here is probably the first step, and we should take more action when this Parliament has more time. We do need to make sure that we are ready for those two events: the Cricket World Cup, which a lot of eyes will be on, and the FIFA U-20 World Cup, which officials tell us could be open to some form of match fixing. As we have said on this side of the House, we do support the Government’s move to make sure that we stamp out any allegations or any hint of anything that may go on during those two tournaments that may not be above aboard.

Can I also take the chance to congratulate our Commonwealth Games sportspeople. They have done great work over there. Our Silver Ferns are, I think, up for a gold medal in a semi against England, and, hopefully, for a final against, I believe, Australia—another mammoth showdown. I know I am a Wellington-based MP and I do support the Hurricanes, but I was born and bred in Christchurch, so the Crusaders this weekend will bring the Super 15 title back home to New Zealand. I know that those red and black boys are above reproach. I wish them all the best. For that, we support this piece of legislation, not only for the highest level of sport but also for the integrity of sport at a community level. Thank you.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe i te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. The Greens will be supporting this bill—of course we will—because we believe that there should be regulation to prohibit international crime syndicates from operating in New Zealand. We agree that it should be illegal to influence a betting outcome or to improperly manipulate a sporting match or a race. But I would like to note that this is the fourth bill in this term that protects and advantages the betting industry. Those in the industry are obviously very good friends of the Government.

So, just to recap, we have had the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill, which was Te Ururoa Flavell’s failed attempt to reduce harm from pokies. That is the one that galvanised the pokie industry. The Commerce Committee received 30,000 or so submissions from community organisations that had been whipped into a frenzy by their pokie trust funders.

We have also had the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2), which was in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. That bill has been on the books since 2007. It has not been heard yet, but it is on the Order Paper.

There is also the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3), which is yet to be heard but is scheduled for December this year. That bill puts in place some of the regulation that was talked about in the harm reduction bill that Te Ururoa Flavell put forward in the House, and it has the laudable aim of focusing on class 4 gambling—that is, pokies in pubs and clubs. It says that its policy objectives are to “increase transparency of grant-making … improve transparency surrounding management companies … simplify compliance and reduce costs for societies and venue owners … and ensure the efficiency of the appeals process is not undermined.” So this is the one that says that pokie venues can be paid a percentage of the pokie takings, which really sets up the pubs and the clubs to incentivise problem gambling, because that way they can make more money.

Who could forget that last year we had the Hon Steven Joyce’s New Zealand International Convention Centre Act? Its stated purpose was to give effect to an agreement between Skycity Entertainment Group Ltd and the Crown. The agreement that it referred to was that in exchange for a $402 million convention centre, Skycity would get an increase in gambling opportunities. It would also have a new system called ticket-in, ticket-out, which is a method of gambling that increases the opportunity for money-laundering. This brings us back to today’s bill, which is, of course, about crime.

The fact is that if we had passed the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (Application to Casinos) Amendment Bill—which was the member’s bill in the name of Metiria Turei and which was, again, about crime and gambling—last year, then we would have absolutely dealt to money-launderers. They absolutely love casinos—and they love the sports betting industry, as well, because that is where they launder their money—and we would have been able to put a stop to the fact that money-laundering does occur in casinos in New Zealand. We would have put in place a situation where money going through casinos that has been stolen or obtained as a result of crime would have to be paid back. Given that a lot of the money for betting, whether the betting is in casinos or whether it is sports betting, comes from small businesses or not-for-profit organisations and has been stolen by people with compulsive gambling habits, that bill would have meant that the money would be paid back to them. The fact is, however, that the bill that was in Metiria Turei’s name, which did deal just with casinos, was voted down by this Government.

We Greens love New Zealand. We think that we can have a fairer society and a smarter, more diverse economy that is based on a cleaner environment, and we do not think this bill is going to deliver that. But it is clear that this Government loves to gamble. It has been gambling with our laws, it has been gambling with our economy, it has been gambling with our people, and it has been gambling with our environment. But, having said that, we will be supporting this bill because we believe in fair play.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour - Rimutaka): Irony abounds in this particular debate on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill. How ironic that the Government brings this bill to the House the very week when John Key is trying to stitch up the general election result with his dodgy deals in Ōhariu and in Epsom. I want to turn to some definitions in this bill. For the purposes of this bill, “deception” includes any act or omission that is done with the intent to influence a betting outcome of an activity of a kind, which includes any rallies involving human participants. People do gamble—[Interruption] People gamble on the outcomes of general elections, and John Key, with his dodgy cup-of-tea deals, is trying to fix the outcome of certain elections.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Centrebet.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Centrebet takes bets on elections. iPredict takes bets on elections, effectively, and John Key is trying to fix the results with his dodgy deals in Ōhariu and in Epsom.

So what is the National Party doing in Epsom, for example? It is saying to old Paul Goldsmith, the man whom the National Party affectionately knows as “Goldie”—he should probably be called “Silvie”, because he prefers to come second. But National is saying to old Paul Goldsmith “Don’t campaign. Don’t campaign at all.” National is basically trying to fix the deal in Epsom so that the ACT Party gets a free ride into Parliament. The party of independents, the party that basically says that you should have self-reliance, is basically relying on a dodgy deal with National in order to get an MP into Parliament in a deal that is fixed by John Key. What happens to people who are betting on that outcome? People take bets on outcomes of general elections. Will John Key be infringing this law if he is trying to fix the outcome and if he is trying to influence the outcome in a way that is not transparent, that is dodgy all over, and that is an absolute rort of the MMP electoral system? Where does that leave him? He is fixing that particular match in Epsom, just as he is trying to fix the match just up the road from where I live in Ōhariu, where he is trying to basically ensure that Peter Dunne can get back in—Peter Dunne, the man who, it has been well established now, leaks sensitive information to journalists. John Key does not seem to have a problem with that.

Match—

Hon Trevor Mallard: “Stalker Peter”.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Ha! Match fixing is a serious issue in New Zealand and it is important that we do something about it, and that is why the Labour Party will be supporting this legislation. It is about fairness. It is about making sure that when people go and participate in sports, it is genuinely competitive and it is a genuine competition. That is something that we believe in for the sporting community. It is something that we should believe in in politics as well. It should be a genuine competition. It should not be about dodgy deals; it should be actually about getting out there, giving it your best, and actually seeing what happens on the day.

It is not about trying to stitch things up in back rooms, which is what the National Party seems to think politics is all about. So how ironic that it is saying it does not want that happening in sports. We do not want that happening in sports. We do not want that happening in politics, either, unlike this current National Government, which seems to think that general elections are something to be bought and traded, not something to be fairly contested in an election campaign, where the voters get a say based on the ideas that they want to have represented in Government and the people they want to represent them in Government. This Government seems to think that it can simply jack it up with dodgy deals that are done over cups of tea. I think New Zealanders have had a gutsful of that. They have had a gutsful of that. They have as much contempt for that kind of approach from the National Government as they have for match fixing.

So I think that this bill is a welcome piece of legislation. It will ensure that New Zealanders can have confidence in fair sports, and I think that is a very good thing, but I think that we should make sure that the same kind of transparency and fairness that we are wanting to see in sports, and particularly around betting around sports, should happen around elections as well. It should not be the case that the Government can jack up particular election results that suit its interests; it should be the case that it is the voters who get to decide who they want to have representing them in Parliament and who they want to be the Government. This Government does not seem to have any respect for that whatsoever.

This particular piece of legislation is very important because there have been international threat assessments that warn of increasing risk in New Zealand of match fixing and increasing risk that crime syndicates and individuals are targeting Australasia for sports match-fixing. There have already been high-profile cases in Australia. There have been one or two New Zealand sportspeople involved in allegations around this too, and we want to make sure that New Zealanders can have confidence that that is not happening. It would significantly damage the credibility, the value, and the growth in New Zealand sport, which is already contributing around $5 billion per year to our economy—probably more than that, actually. So we should have confidence in our sporting institutions and in the players and make sure that there is robust legislation in place that makes it clear that match fixing is a crime under the Crimes Act. That is something that the Labour Party absolutely supports.

I am going to leave my contribution at that, and simply say to the Government that this is a good piece of legislation in the sporting arena. The Government should apply the same principle to the way it deals with politics.

ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to take the final call on the Crimes (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill in its first reading. I want to say to the member Chris Hipkins that obviously he has probably not had a one-to-one lesson on the history of the Labour Party and its dodgy deals and the match fixing he talked about. I actually think that that is the fault of the Hon Trevor Mallard. He should have done the 101 lesson. Chris Hipkins missed a class. If Trevor Mallard had taught him, he would have told him about what happened in 1999 when Helen Clark actually did a deal with Jeanette Fitzsimons down in Coromandel. That is right, “Chippy”—sorry, Chris Hipkins—that is what they did. They did a deal there. He talks about dodgy deals, but that is OK because Chris Hipkins was not born in 1999. He is still quite young. He is still quite green, so he can be forgiven. He can be forgiven. He was not even a twinkle in the eye, so he did not know—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Those sorts of comments are a personal attack against a member. I ask the member to come back and just be very careful about what he is saying.

ALFRED NGARO: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. They were just a rebuttal to the comments in the debate that were made by Chris Hipkins, just to sort of set the story straight in the sense of talking about dodgy dealing and match fixing. This is a serious bill.

Dr Megan Woods: Don’t be nasty, then.

ALFRED NGARO: The intent of this bill is about integrity. Oh, Megan Woods said: “Don’t be nasty.” Well, it is interesting because you know we just heard the attacks that have come from Chris Hipkins. I wish that Megan Woods had actually said that to him. But, no, that is OK—“Don’t be nasty.”

Well, this bill is actually not about being nasty; this bill is about integrity. This bill is important. For those of us who have actually coached, who have actually managed sports and a number of people in sports, it is really important. I know that from many years helping to coach the rugby teams and the netballs teams of my children as they have gone through them. We know that as young children grow up they love the ability to be able to go out to enjoy sports, to have fun in sports, and that is really important. So this bill is about that. It is ensuring there is not that sense of corruption inside sports, even at the highest level. Why? Because our young people look at our most senior sportspersons and they see them as their role models, so that becomes absolutely important. This bill is about the aspect of ensuring that corruption is not in there.

I was actually in Melbourne over in Victoria last year, and I remember that at the CPA Australia conference there the Australian members of Parliament talked about their anti-corruption legislation. They talked about its impact and the need for it inside sports, especially around football and especially around cricket. So this is a good bill. The Government is taking a lead in this. We know it is getting unanimous support around the House. It is a pity that it has become a little bit of a political football that is going back and forth. What it is doing is actually important—this bill is important. It is about integrity inside sport. There is not much more to say.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The member is running in West Auckland; he needs to know the difference between soccer and league.

ALFRED NGARO: A lot has already been said, and I know that Mr Mallard is there sort of chirping away. We know that this bill is important to the House. We look forward to it going through to the Law and Order Committee and being in force, because the key word in the intent of the bill in regard to sport is “integrity”, which New Zealand upholds in this Parliament and in this country for all sportsmen. I commend this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.

Bills

Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill

In Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I seek leave of the House for the Committee stage to be taken as a single question.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Leave has been sought. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. Leave is granted. The question is that Parts 1 and 2, clauses 1 and 2, and schedules 1AA, 1, 2, 3, and 5 to 7 stand part.

Part 1 and 2, clauses 1 and 2, and schedules 1AA to 3 and 5 to 7

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I firstly want to say that the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill being the very last bill passed by the 50th Parliament is something that in my view all parties of this Parliament should take pride in. It is actually possible only because of the cross-party agreement that has been reached. I want to acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson for her support, which is enabling us to take this measure. I know she has been a supporter of improved marine management across our New Zealand coastline. I also want to acknowledge Eugenie Sage and the Green Party. I note that Supplementary Order Paper 481, which I have tabled in my name, brings forward the review of these Kaikōura marine management measures from the period of 25 years that is in the bill to 10 years, which is part of a compromise that enables this bill to be passed today.

This is actually a very significant bill. I note that the Chairman is one who has a passion for marine life—or, generally, hunting it—like crayfish. The bill actually creates New Zealand’s largest whale sanctuary, a sanctuary of over 5,000 square kilometres. That whale sanctuary could not be placed in a more appropriate place in New Zealand than Kaikōura. That is a place in which every New Zealander takes pride in the development of whale-watching, and particularly the way in which a local rūnanga and Ngāi Tahu have developed an incredibly successful globally recognised tourism business with Whale Watch Kaikōura, which has not only benefited Whale Watch Kaikōura but completely rejuvenated that community of Kaikōura.

I also say that this bill provides for New Zealand’s very first seal sanctuary. The truth is that the very first interaction between Europeans, Māori, and these islands was from the wholesale slaughter of fur seals at an incredible scale of not millions but hundreds of millions. This bill provides for the very first area of New Zealand fur seal sanctuary. I would invite any member of this Committee to visit Ōhau Point to watch the baby seals play in the waterfall where I was 3 or 4 weeks ago with my own family—just to see the joy of hundreds of New Zealanders and visitors who see that very special experience of baby seals playing in a waterfall. It is an experience that is actually listed in that global magazine Lonely Planet as one that every person on the planet should experience and enjoy.

This bill also provides for the biggest marine reserve adjacent to the New Zealand main islands, the North Island and the South Island.

Hon David Parker: What about the Kermadecs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new marine reserve—and I am happy, Mr Parker, to respond to your point, but I want to talk just about the Kaikōura marine reserve. It will be the largest marine reserve on the North Island or the South Island. It will go to the deepest waters. I think that marine reserve is very well justified. I do not think that many New Zealanders appreciate that the marine life in that Kaikōura trench so close to our mainland islands is the richest of anywhere on the globe. In fact, my Department of Conservation scientists have said that the second-most abundant marine life at depths greater than 1,500 metres has less than 1/500th of the abundance of marine life that is in that Kaikōura trench. It is absolutely right that we are protecting it.

To respond quickly to the interjection from David Parker about the Kermadec Islands, the Government’s position on the Kermadec Islands is that when you make decisions about marine protections and other use, you need knowledge. That is why the Government is spending extensive money with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and also with other partnerships to actually get better information about both the conservation resources that are in the Kermadec Islands as well as the economic potential so that we can make a well-informed decision. It is the Government’s view that the Kermadec Islands are an area where there needs to be additional marine protection, particularly with those “black smokers”, the volcanic vents that exist in that area. It is our view that whether we are privileged to be the Government, or, dare I fear it, the Opposition, we would be supportive post the election of making progress on that front as well for marine protection.

The other part of this bill provides for both mātaitai and taiāpure reserves for Ngāi Tahu and its local rūnanga. It also makes provision for significant reductions in recreational catches in that Kaikōura area.

My last point would be to pay tribute to the collaborative process that has delivered these measures. I make no apologies for saying that New Zealand makes better progress around marine and other conservation issues by getting warring factions together and coming to an agreement. If there was anywhere in New Zealand where we should celebrate a successful outcome of that, it is here at Kaikōura. When I went to Kaikōura 20 years ago and talked about marine reserves, I attended a public meeting of over a hundred people where there had to be a police presence, such was the tension between the protagonists and the antagonists around these sorts of measures. The fact that the Kaikōura community has come to a 100 percent agreement on this is a remarkable achievement. I say on this last bill on the last day of this 50th Parliament that it is equally true that we should take some pride in there being unanimous agreement by Parliament on these marine protection measures.

The last thing I wish to say is I want to pay a tribute to retiring Kaikōura MP, Colin King. He got me out in a wetsuit even before he was an MP—

Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not retirement as such when you de-select a guy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —because he wanted to see progress being made on this bill. Well, we have a contestable, open process in National. [Interruption] Actually, I tell the members opposite that the new candidate for Kaikōura, Stuart Smith, will be an outstanding member of Parliament for that community. He is strongly supported by Colin King. We are a party that is going through rejuvenation. I would remind members on the Opposition benches that they could learn from the experience of Kaikōura as to how to run candidate selections with class and democracy, the way in which the National Party runs them. I know that Colin King takes great pride that on his very last day in Parliament he is seeing a dream and a vision of what would take place in his community being brought to fruition. Finally, I do want to acknowledge Ruth Dyson and Eugenie Sage for the agreement that has been reached on this bill to enable its passage today.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour - Port Hills): Mr Chairman, can I first of all briefly take the opportunity to acknowledge you and your role in this Parliament as you head into the last few hours of your time, and say how your fairness, guidance, and gentle sense of humour have been greatly appreciated by this House, as has your sense of dress. Your pink shirts show leadership as a Southern Man, and I particularly want to acknowledge that.

I agree with the Minister of Conservation, who has just resumed his seat, that the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill is a very good note, as Parliament moves towards the end of this 50th session—it is not the last bill; there is another one on the Order Paper after this—to nearly end this session of Parliament on. Can I acknowledge the four Ministers of Conservation who have progressed this legislation: the Hon Chris Carter, the Hon Steve Chadwick, the Hon Kate Wilkinson, and the Hon Nick Smith, who is now seeing it into the final stages before it concludes in its third reading.

I also want to add my acknowledgment of Colin King, who has, as the local member of Parliament for Kaikōura—prior to being dumped by the National Party—strongly supported this legislation. I think it is a good thing that the Minister urged other parties in Parliament to support its progress so that Colin King could still be a member of Parliament during the third and final reading of this legislation. I was very happy to support this initiative by that MP.

I want to acknowledge the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, who for 7 years have worked, following a request from the Minister of Conservation at the start of that time, to make this perhaps unthinkable agreement a reality. The Minister is right that such areas of proposed protections are often the cause of huge division in a community. In this instance, through a lot of goodwill, a lot of common sense, and a lot of hard work, the agreement has been reached, and we are now able to progress a large area of marine protection. It is not perhaps what best practice would have dictated if it had been done from central direction rather than from a locally driven agreement, but it is a huge step forward, and the fact that it has got the agreement of all parties means that it is more likely to be enduring.

The fact that the Minister supported, through his Supplementary Order Paper 481, a change to the length of time for the review from 25 years to 10 years was, I think, a good thing, and I assume that the guardians are supportive of that, as well. I think that the general provision of review of marine protection is good as long as it is not one that then opens up that division again. The Minister nodded as I gently requested confirmation that the guardians are in agreement with that review. I think that it is a very good step, and we will be supporting it.

I also want to acknowledge the Local Government and Environment Committee. We held hearings on this legislation in Kaikōura. I think it was great that we went to the local area. We were obviously surrounded by the beauty of that part of New Zealand, but we were also very much aware of the passion, the energy, and the commitment the local people who made submissions on this bill have for their coastline. The pride, the understanding, the knowledge, and the commitment they had made to put aside many differences and work collaboratively together were very obvious during our day of hearings. I want to acknowledge the select committee for the respectful way we heard the submissions and the contributions made by the submitters.

I also want to acknowledge the officials. They worked hard; I think they enjoyed it. We are probably one of the most satisfying committees to work with because we put quite a lot of energy into our consideration. The officials were very responsive to our requests, some of which they might have felt were a little bit obscure. For example, we were very puzzled by the differences—and I know this is one that exercised the mind of my colleague Moana Mackey—in the measurements that are undertaken by different departments, and whether the measurements go to two or three decimal points, or one, and what difference that makes to the actual measurement of the coverage of the marine protected area. So I want to acknowledge and thank the officials for their work.

This bill establishes marine reserves of different types around the Kaikōura Coast—the whale sanctuary that the Minister referred to in his contribution, and the New Zealand fur seal sanctuary. As the Minister alluded to, we think of times when fur seals were part of the produce of New Zealand, and now we so much enjoy being able to see the pups and their transition to adult life, and being able to drive down the coast and see the fur seals at close hand—not too close, though, because they are not pets. It is a very fortunate thing for us. Many countries are very jealous of our ability to show off our animals in that way. We have different types of marine protection. We have sanctuaries as we know them, but we also have the taiāpure and the mātaitai. The bill establishes an advisory committee, and I think that that is a good model to hold. I look forward to seeing how that, as the model for marine protection, develops and whether there are some opportunities for other areas to take advantage of that. Obviously, there are also fisheries regulations that are specific to this area.

It is a pleasure for me, as the Labour conservation spokesperson, to be able to put Labour’s name alongside supporters of this area and to say that even though significant concerns were raised with the select committee by people who know this area of science very well that this bill is not in accordance with best practice—and I take those concerns seriously—we considered that the work that was done over so many years, under request from four Ministers of Conservation consecutively, deserves the respect of responsive support from this Parliament. Had there been different instructions given to the guardians or had the rules changed part-way through, there may have been a different consideration, but it is our view that the work that the guardians have undertaken, in an area that they know best and that offers much better protection than we currently have, and with the opportunity for a review in just a decade’s time, is certainly worthy of support.

I think that the changes that the select committee made improved the original legislation. Combined with the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is offering, they give us something for this whole Parliament to be proud of, something that has been worked on for many years, and something that will have a great third reading to go through in these final stages of the House, as we progress this Committee stage and move to the third reading shortly afterward. Thank you.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou, kia ora. It is fantastic that in the last hours of this Parliament we are seeing marine reserve and marine protection laws passing through our Parliament. So I would like to do a round of thanks—thanks to the Minister of Conservation, thanks to the officials, and thanks to the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, Maggie Barry, who was actually a very surprisingly good chair. I would like to thank all the members, all the submitters, and most of all I would like thank Te Korowai, the collaborative group that worked in Kaikōura to develop the policy that we see before us, soon to become an Act of Parliament, the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill.

It is fantastic that we are protecting our waters. It is something that we need to do more. We have got only 0.41 percent of all of our waters, less than half of 1 percent, protected in marine reserves. We have got the Māui’s dolphin on the cusp of extinction, Bryde’s whales going that way in the Hauraki Gulf, and the New Zealand sea lion critically endangered. We are seeing our oceans in crisis with climate change, acidification, pollution, waste, and overfishing all threatening the health and viability of our oceans. The Pacific forum meets right now to discuss the moana, this blue highway that connects our Pacific States. It is important that it has put the oceans on the agenda, and it is great to see this Parliament doing something about it.

I want to say very loudly and very clearly that the Green Party supports this bill. We support it. We voted for it at every stage. We have worked constructively in the Local Government and Environment Committee within the constraints to try to improve it. There have been some improvements such as the 25-year review now being reduced to a 10-year review, once we see Supplementary Order Paper 481 agreed. In saying that we support it, and we will be voting for it, I do want to get three concerns on the Hansard of our Parliament. The first is that the Marine Protected Areas Policy and the marine protected areas classification protection standards and implementation guidelines were not applied. This is something that officials and Ministers have put a great deal of work into over the years. It is disappointing that these guidelines have not been applied in this case.

Secondly, we see the Hikurangi Marine Reserve. It is fantastic to be doing a marine reserve covering an oceanic trench—a biodiversity hotspot. Part of the thriving Kaikōura economy is built on the whale-watching industry, which is associated with the trench. It is great to be doing it, but what we see with this marine reserve is only a tiny amount touching the coast—1.97 kilometres. It must be the oddest marine reserve we have got in the country—a 12-sided irregular shape. I do not think there is a name for the type of shape that describes this marine reserve, which only touches the bottom, the benthos, of the Hikurangi trench, not the sides, which are the real ecological hotspot areas. Given that we have heard advice from marine reserves and marine science experts that the boundary effects are magnified, the enforcement obligations are made more difficult, and the difficulties of communicating such a complex 12-sided shape is not ideal—obviously, it would not meet those guidelines—what we would have preferred is a more regular, consistent shape where those boundary effects are reduced, it is easier to communicate, easier to enforce, and easier to protect. So we have some concerns over the process. We have some concerns over the trench reserve, in particular.

Thirdly, when it comes to the whale sanctuary, the Green Party would have preferred to have seen the other marine mammals species protected. It is great to see a whale sanctuary, but we need to be protecting all of our marine mammals. So we would have preferred to have seen a similar marine mammal reserve as under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, which could have protected the whales, could have protected the seals, and could have protected the Hector’s dolphin, which brings me to my final point.

Kiwis have a very clear choice on the oceans this election. We see that this bill will pass, which is fantastic, but what we have not seen action on from National is real action to save the Māui’s dolphin. What we see is National opening up a third of the Māui sanctuary to seabed mining. What we see is National wanting to see seismic testing, which can deafen the dolphins and drive them into lethal trawling nets. In fact, we still see those lethal legal set nets and trawl nets in the Māui sanctuary. We see our New Zealand sea lions on the path to extinction and action not taken to save them. We see a Government that is literally subsidising with taxpayers’ money tens of millions of dollars to seabed miners, despite the Department of Conservation itself saying that it is troubling and likely to degrade the environment—for example, risking the survival of the Māui’s dolphin.

So for people watching the parliamentary broadcast, if people out in New Zealand want to see a party that is going to stand up to protect what we love, which is the oceans, the ability to catch a wave, catch a cray, and go for a fish, and the ability to protect the oceans, which are the lifeblood of our economy, of which our prosperity is built on, the Green Party is the clear choice, because the Green Party will act to protect our oceans.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I rise to take a short call in the Committee stage of the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. Certainly, it is a piece of legislation that the Labour Party supports. It has had a somewhat unusual development path compared with other marine reserves. I want to acknowledge the concerns that were raised by submitters—not from Kaikōura but submitters who submitted here in Wellington—around, I guess, the bypassing of the regular mechanism for establishing marine reserves. Certainly, there were concerns raised about the size of the reserve, the shape of the reserve, and the process that had been undertaken in order to get the reserve in place, but I think any concerns that we had from the Labour Party perspective were allayed when we travelled to Kaikōura and heard from the Korowai group, the guardians, who had put together the marine reserve package. When we talked through the process that they went through, the collaborative process, and when we heard the submissions from all the different groups that have interests in this particular piece of ocean, we certainly were convinced that it was a very good piece of work, and a piece of work that should be supported notwithstanding the somewhat unusual process—or not unusual; that is probably the wrong word: the different process—that had been gone through in terms of establishing this marine reserve.

Marine reserves are often contentious, and you are dealing with a piece of ocean here that actually has, I think, far more existing rights in terms of use, in terms of people making their living off the sea. Fisheries are always difficult to manage when you are establishing marine reserves—fishing rights and the rights of those who have been fishing there for a long time and who make their livelihood off that activity. But, also, of course, in Kaikōura a lot of tourism activities occur around this area. So to go to Kaikōura and to hear submissions that were unanimously in favour of the marine reserve was a somewhat surreal experience, in my experience, but a very, very positive one. To hear the pāua fishermen, the cray fishermen, the tourism operators, iwi, the local community, and the local Forest and Bird organisation all coming to give very, very positive submissions on this piece of legislation was a very rewarding experience and a very unusual experience for a select committee. Certainly, we enjoyed visiting this very beautiful part of the country and being able to hear firsthand the positivity and the passion for this particular marine reserve, knowing that it simply is not going to be left to the Department of Conservation to manage.

This marine reserve is something that is owned by the local community, by the local iwi, and as they said to us, this is a starting point. We appreciate that this is slightly unusual, in terms of the scope of the marine reserve, but we view this as a starting point and we want to build on it from here. Do not think that this is all there is going to be. Certainly, they acknowledge that the lack of shoreline in the marine reserve was unusual, but there were reasons for that and they were aware of them, and they were going to build on that. I think that is a very positive message that we can take out of that. Although I acknowledge the concerns that were raised more generally about the scope of the marine reserve, I think that when you spoke to the people who had developed it, and had gone down there and heard their reasons and their stories as to how they got to where they were, I do not think any reasonable person could say that it is a negative.

I want to thank the officials for the work that they did on this particular piece of legislation. It is not always easy, as we said. My colleague Ruth Dyson alluded to one very bizarre problem we had, and I notice in the schedules that it has been completely rewritten to ensure that the GPS coordinates for the marine reserve go to three decimal points and not two. We did discover that the GPS coordinates in the legislation put the marine reserve about 20 metres out of place. I notice that the Minister for Primary Industries is in the House. Maybe he can answer a burning question that the select committee members had, which we were not able to get fully answered. Why does the Ministry for Primary Industries have a policy of going to only two decimal places and not three decimal places? It seemed to us that if you have got three decimal places, use them. It is going to be more accurate. We were just told, in what was a very Gliding On moment, that “It’s just MPI policy—two decimal places.” That is very efficient, but I wonder whether the Minister for Primary Industries could tell me why—[Interruption] That is right. Why has the Ministry for Primary Industries got a strict two decimal place policy instead of a three decimal place policy? I hope that the Minister for Primary Industries will bring his ministry into the 21st century and move to a three decimal place policy as quickly as possible. Having a marine reserve that is 20 metres out of place, in the legislation, is not insignificant.

As I said, this marine reserve was started by Chris Carter. It has gone through four Ministers of Conservation. It will, hopefully, get the unanimous support of this House. I am very, very pleased again. It is a slightly unusual process that we are going through in order to ensure that this bill passes before the election, but I am very, very pleased that my last speech in this session of Parliament is on something positive and on something that we have unanimous agreement on, and on something that I am sure will benefit generations to come—not just on the Kaikōura coast but right across New Zealand. The Kaikōura coast truly is a very special part of the country. I was privileged to visit it for the first time when the select committee was hearing submissions.

I want to wish you well, Mr Chair, in your future endeavours. I acknowledge your valedictory speech last night. As we close this session of Parliament, I think this is an extremely good bill to go out on.

ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. It is a great pleasure that the last speech I give in this session of Parliament will be on such a great piece of legislation.

Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura marine group in Kaikōura and all those involved in Te Korowai are to be highly commended for the exceptional work they did as a community in helping to bring this all together. When we, as the Local Government and Environment Committee, sat and heard the submissions, including the hearings in Kaikōura itself, it was most impressive to see how that community had come together across so many different entities and groups, including Ngāi Tahu and local iwi and hapū, the cray fishermen, the pāua divers, the many involved in the tourist industries there, and the many involved from the community, including Forest and Bird and other environmental groups. So many organisations came together collegially to come up with this, and then took it through the necessary legislative processes with our various ministries to get it to this point.

I would like to acknowledge the excellent work that has been undertaken by the officials from so many of the different departments involved, from the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Primary Industries, the fisheries people, our parliamentary counsel, and others—whom I have not mentioned but they know who they are—who did a huge amount of work on this bill to bring it all together so well. We certainly enjoyed working on this bill. I think this was one of the most enjoyable pieces of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee worked on in the 3 years of this term. We knew that it would have such a great outcome.

I would like to acknowledge the Minister of Conservation, Nick Smith, as well for his work on this and his commitment to marine reserves. Minister Smith, I know how committed you have been to creating so many marine reserves.

We also sat on the Subantarctic Islands marine reserves legislation, which was a magnificent outcome for those outlying islands, as we did on the legislation for the Akaroa marine reserve and others. Again, it is something that all New Zealanders can be proud of, because at the end of the day we are the guardians of our marine estate. Marine reserves depend on humans to ensure that we take care of them, and we are the guardians of these incredible resources that we have out there. In that respect, every one of these marine reserves just adds to the special nature of New Zealand and our geographical position in the world—our isolation as islands in the South Pacific—and the fact is that we do recognise the need to ensure that these marine reserves are put in place to protect the environment for future generations.

It was interesting to learn about some of the aspects of this bill, and to go to the likes of the fur seal colony and see how that beautiful coastline in Kaikōura exists. For the people of New Zealand to be able to see those fur seals so close to the main highway, so close to the railway line—the fur seals are all there, basking in the sun and lying around on the rocks and scratching themselves and having a jolly good old time and jumping off into the water, and doing it all, right in front of people—is just extraordinary.

I say to any New Zealander who has not had the opportunity to do that, if you are able to go down the Kaikōura Coast, it certainly is well worth doing, as is the visit to the small area that is the creche for the pups, or the seal calves, as they are known. It was amazing to see them in the pools of water there. The select committee went up to the pools of water and watched 50 or 60 of these young seals frolicking in the water. They stay there during the day. Apparently, they go back to see mum and dad at night time. They get a bit of a feed—a bit of kai—from mum and dad, and then the next day they go back up to the pools and have another play around. It was marvellous to see that and to see how they were in the natural environment. The fact that all this area will be protected as a result of this bill is excellent.

In terms of the whale sanctuary and the canyon off the Kaikōura Coast, it is a very significant canyon, a very deep canyon, and one that is quite unique as it has significant food resources for the whales. One of the reasons why they have had such a longstanding habitat there is that it is such a special place for the whales to exist. As a result, it is wonderful that Ngāi Tahu, with their whale-watching tourism venture, were able to put in place the necessary infrastructure to allow people to go out and take part in the whale-watching there and see these majestic animals in their natural habitat. Again, that is wonderful. The fact that we have this marine sanctuary will ensure that that is preserved and protected and that New Zealanders and international tourists can take benefit from it. That is marvellous.

It was interesting when we heard about some of the more technical areas of this bill—when we looked at the maps and at how the area was all clearly defined with the borders and boundaries of the different sanctuaries involved here—that we were down to debating decimal places. The whole debate about whether it should be to two or three decimal places was interesting. We were told initially that “The system works to only two decimal places. That is how it is.”, but, as we all know, in this modern generation, computers can go out to as many decimal places as you like. We said that for the benefit of the environment, we would have to go to whichever decimal place is required to ensure that the proper protections are put in place for these marine sanctuaries, and it was very pleasing to see that the officials from Ministry for Primary Industries and the Department of Conservation recognised the fact that going to three decimal places would ensure greater certainty over that. That was a great thing. We hope that it applies elsewhere in New Zealand in future as well. That would be a good thing.

In closing, can I just say that I have enjoyed my 3 years on the Local Government and Environment Committee. It has been a very interesting committee. We have had a huge workload. It is a very busy committee. If you can imagine both the local government side of things plus all the environment side of things, you know, it should almost be two committees because the amount of work covers such a huge, huge area.

We have literally worked very hard, and I commend all the members, not only the present members but members who have been on it during these 3 years of this term. Everyone has contributed well. We have had some very, very good outcomes. We have looked at submissions from the public from all over New Zealand on so many different subjects. As a result, wherever possible, we have ensured that best outcomes have come as a result of that. We do not always agree with the outcomes, and New Zealand First has raised concerns in some areas, but, at the end of the day, democracy is upheld, and we are a better place for the fact that we have a system of select committees that gives thorough scrutiny to all these areas.

I commend the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill to the House. New Zealand First is very proud to have been part of this process.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. This bill, the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill, addresses the significant biodiversity and the uniqueness of the Kaikōura coast. It has been very interesting to listen to the speeches on it so far—in particular, when the Minister of Conservation and also Andrew Williams acknowledged the Kaikōura Canyon. In my research of the Kaikōura Canyon it says that the canyon contains a hundred times the biomass of any other equivalent sort of environment. That contributes to the orange roughy and hoki industry down there. It is really important that this area is protected. This marine reserve and the whole bill go some way to doing that.

The bill talks about kaitiakitanga. I would just like to explain the notion of kaitiakitanga. We use the word quite often and assume that people understand what it means. The base word of kaitiakitanga is the word “tiaki”, which means to care for something. The prefix “kai” is the equivalent of having “er” on the end of an English word. So “kaitiaki” means a carer or a guardian and kaitiakitanga means the guardianship. This bill talks about kaitiakitanga and local leadership.

It is really important that we acknowledge the number of local people who have been involved in this. We have heard of the diverse interests, such as the crayfishermen, the fishermen, and local iwi. It is really important that we recognise everybody who has been involved in this, in particular the group known as Te Korowai o Te Tai o Marokura. Korowai is another Māori word, which means a cloak. They are laying their cloak of guardianship across this area.

I agree with our colleague Gareth Hughes about the shape of the marine area. Looking at schedule 1, the shape looks similar to a capital F lying on its side, and it is a 12-sided shape. Not having been part of the deliberations at that stage on the select committee, it sort of made sense to me looking at things now that point (f) in schedule 1 could well have been connected directly to point (e), which would have taken out eight sides of that irregular shape, or, at the very least, point (m), connected to point (j) and then (j) to (e), which would have reduced the weird shape of the marine area. As Gareth Hughes has pointed out, having such a long boundary around this marine reserve sort of dilutes the effect of having such a large reserve. I do not understand why it is in this shape; I was not part of the deliberations. I am sure there was a very good reason why it is in the shape that it is.

Regarding the whale sanctuary, I think we need to go back a bit and examine New Zealand’s history around whaling, which would bring us forward into why we need a whale sanctuary at this time. Apparently, Māori used to hunt whales, although very irregularly. I do not know how they managed to do it in the small waka that they would have paddled around in, and I do not know how they would have harpooned them, but certainly Māori partook of the bounty when a stranded whale washed up on the shore. In fact, because they subsisted on such a paltry diet of crayfish, oysters, kinas, wood pigeons, berries, and things, when a whale washed up on the beach they probably would have thought all their Matarikis had arrived at once.

There is a very famous story up north in Ahipara, that when one tribe was living up on the top of a quite impregnable pā by the name of Whangatauatia, another tribe was down below on the beach wondering how it could get these other guys to come out when they hit upon the idea of killing and skinning a number of dogs, and sewing the skins together and wrapping them around some sort of frame in the shape of a whale to make it look like a whale was beached part-way up Ninety Mile Beach. The people in the pā came racing out and subsequently were dispatched, as we did in the day. It just goes to show that Māori had interests in whale-meat; 10 tonnes of protein turning up on your doorstep was considered a bounty.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What does it taste like?

KELVIN DAVIS: Mr Mallard, I would have no idea what it tastes like.

The other two points I would like to make are around the mātaitai. We also talk about mātaitai and taiāpure and people do not really know what they are, so I would just like to spell it out. A taiāpure is a local management tool established in an area that has customarily been of special significance to an iwi or hapū as a source of food, or for spiritual or cultural reasons. This is spelt out under section 174 of the Fisheries Act. Taiāpure can be established over any area of estuarine or coastal waters to make better provision for rangatiratanga and for the rights secured under article 2 of the Treaty. Taiāpure provisions are contained within sections 174 to 185 of the Fisheries Act. All fishing including commercial fishing can continue in a taiāpure, and this tool offers a way for tangata whenua to become involved in the management of both commercial and non-commercial fishing in their area.

A mātaitai is slightly different. Mātaitai reserves are areas where the tangata whenua manage all non-commercial fishing by making by-laws. The by-laws must apply equally to all individuals. Mātaitai reserves may be applied for over traditional fishing grounds only, and must be areas of special significance to the tangata whenua. Generally, there is no commercial fishing within mātaitai reserves.

To go back, slightly, to whaling and the reason we need to have the whaling sanctuary, in the 1800s it was estimated that there were some 70,000 southern right whales in the southern hemisphere; by the 1920s there were just 500 estimated to be left. It is estimated that over 2 million whales had been slaughtered in the southern hemisphere. This demonstrates the reason we need to have these whaling sanctuaries, so we can try to do our small part in making sure the whale population regenerates. We know now that instead of trying to make money out of commercial whaling, it is better to protect them and allow economies like those in Kaikōura to make money through people going whale-watching. When we explore what happened to whales, parts of the whales were used for such essential items as making corsets and headwear. I believe flexible riding whips were another reason whalebone was used. The oil was used to lubricate machinery and things like that. It is just an utter waste and an utter travesty, and that is why this marine reserve is such an essential thing. Kia ora.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I am pleased to take a call on the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. It is unusual to have such a short Committee stage and no debate on the third reading. The Green Party has agreed to this so that the bill can be passed by this Parliament and the marine protected areas that it establishes can go into law before the House rises later today for the election campaign.

As the Minister of Conservation and others have noted, the Kaikōura coast is unique because that very deep Kaikōura Canyon lies so close to shore. It is the canyon, with its rich marine life, that attracts the whales, particularly the sperm whales, and they are, of course, the basis of the $30 million marine tourism industry, which is the basis of the whole economy for the township of Kaikōura. This bill and the fact that it establishes the Hikurangi Marine Reserve, a whale sanctuary, and a sanctuary for the fur seals, should help protect the base of that marine tourism industry. As well, the bill establishes two taiāpure areas and three mātaitai reserves, and they will certainly help to safeguard customary fishing and allow for the restoration of Ngāti Kuri’s traditional rights in those areas. As well, the bill makes some changes to the recreational fishing regulations, which should also benefit marine life in the area by reducing bag limits both for some species of shellfish and for fin fish.

The protected areas that the bill establishes are very welcome but they are only the proverbial drop in the marine protection bucket, because the area of territorial sea and the economic exclusion zone that we have protected in New Zealand is still 0.41 percent. The Hikurangi Marine Reserve, as Kelvin Davis noted, is indeed a very odd-shaped drop in the bucket with the “F” on this map lying on its side. That is because, as we understand it, the boundaries were drawn to have the least impact on crayfishers and others and they avoided two quite important sea mounts. It has been really disappointing that it has got these odd-shaped 12-sided boundaries because, as the Department of Conservation officials recognised, that would make it much more difficult to enforce the prohibition on fishing within the marine reserve. As submitters like the Marine Sciences Society and Forest and Bird noted, because you have got these odd 12-sided boundaries, it means that the edge effects from fishing outside the reserve will have an impact much further in the reserve than would otherwise occur.

The other thing that is disappointing is the lost opportunity. When we have got the State highway along the coast and it is very easy for people to access the coast, we have got less than 2 kilometres of the really dramatic Kaikōura coastline protected as part of the marine reserve. Again, we understand that that was to protect the crayfishers, but visitors want to get up close and personal with nature in an unfished state, and, given the importance of marine tourism to Kaikōura, it would have been a great opportunity to provide more chance for snorkelling and diving in areas where fishing does not occur.

We welcome the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 481, which reduces the review period from 25 years to 10 years. That is a very good initiative because we hope that the Kaikōura community will recognise the major benefits of the marine reserve and will want to see more of the shoreline protected when it goes through that review. But the marine protected areas in this bill do not make up for the fact that National is encouraging high-impact exploitation and potential devastation of parts of our marine environment through its encouragement and promotion of deep-sea oil drilling and seabed mining. We have had 11 oil company executives wined and dined by the Government, soliciting their oil rigs and their oil drills. They will put our coast at risk of a catastrophe like the Deepwater Horizon one. The Green Party wants clean beaches that are safe from oil spills and no deep-sea oil drilling, but National with its encouragement of deep-sea oil drilling risks our beaches being smothered with a thick and deadly blanket of oil if we have a catastrophe like Deepwater Horizon.

Although we are establishing in this bill a fur seal sanctuary on the one hand, on the other hand the Government has failed to outlaw the deadly fishing methods like set-netting on the west coast of the North Island to protect the threatened Māui’s dolphin. As others have noted, we have more MPs now than we have Māui’s dolphins. The Green Party announced yesterday its plan to protect Māui’s dolphin and to make that sanctuary a real safe haven by outlawing set-netting and trawl-netting and providing assistance to fishers to move to dolphin-safe methods. So although this Minister is certainly an enthusiast for marine reserves, of course it was a previous Minister who rejected the Akaroa marine reserve. Even with this marine reserve of over 1,000 hectares, it is still very small compared with the area that National has opened up to oil exploration.

I have been on the Local Government and Environment Committee since 2011. On first coming to that committee we had marine reserves legislation that had been languishing in front of the select committee and this Parliament for more than a decade. We have had repeated promises by National that we would have new marine reserve legislation introduced to this Parliament. I expect the Minister will do it again at the Environmental Defence Society conference next week and tantalise the environmental sector with the prospect of better legislation for marine protection. We need that legislation to avoid ad hoc bills like this one.

The other comment I would like to make is that the bill provides for the establishment of an advisory committee, the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians, to advise the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries. We hope that given the international significance of the Kaikōura Canyon and the Hikurangi Marine Reserve in protecting a small portion of the area, the Ministers will recognise that it is not just the Kaikōura community that should be represented on the advisory committee but the national and international interests in marine protection.

We have got the University of Canterbury, which has had a longstanding teaching and research laboratory in Kaikōura. It would be very useful to ensure that there is strong science representation on the Kaikōura Coastal Marine Guardians because this would help provide good, objective baseline research to help inform the review of the marine protected areas in 10 years’ time, and it would help, we think, with the work that will be done by Ngāti Kuri and others in restoring the taiāpure and the mātaitai areas and the fisheries in those. Good science is the basis of good management.

As Gareth Hughes noted, we would have liked to see the whale sanctuary established under the Marine Mammals Protection Act so that it could have protected other species like the dusky dolphins. But we do acknowledge the work of the Minister in getting this bill through and the work of officials, both here in Wellington and in Kaikōura, when the select committee travelled there. We would also really like to acknowledge the huge amount of effort that the members of Te Korowai put into this—the numerous meetings and discussions, and the better understanding of the different points of view around the table. That collaborative process is an improvement in terms of the opposition we have seen in the past to the establishment of marine reserves. But, as we have said before, it does need to be done in the context of the marine protected areas policy and the guidelines in that.

We applaud the work that everyone has done in getting the bill to this stage, and we look forward to it being passed. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour - Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. It is a pleasure to stand in support of this bill, the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill. I want to make just a brief contribution on behalf of my whanaungas in Ngāti Kuri of Kaikōura. I would just like to put this on the record for the Committee; it is a mihi from my whanaungas.

Tēnā koutou katoa. E ngā kārangatanga maha tēnei mātou e hari ana ki te mihi atu ki a koutou i runga tonu nei i ngā āhuatanga o te tika me te pono o tēnei kaupapa manaaki taonga ā-whenua, ā-wai māori, ā-wai tai. He kaupapa nui, whakaharahara te mahi ngātahi tēnei iwi me ngā iwi katoa e nohonoho nei ki tō mātou takiwā. Hoi anō, i runga i te peha o tōku tūpuna nōki te kori, kia kori mai hoki koe ka whakatau i te kaupapa. Ko Tapuwae-o-Uenuku kei runga hei tītīreia mō te iwi. Ko Waiau Toa kei raro, i hono ai ki tōna hoa ki te hauraro ko Waiau Uha. Ko Te Tai o Marokura te moana i ū mai ai a Tūte urutira, kia tau mai ki tō Hineroko whenua i raro i Te Whata Kai a Rokohouia. Ko tōna utuanga he tāngata, arā, ko ngā Tātare o Tānemoehau. Ā, he tātai mai ki tēnei ao. Mā tātou anōngā awa me ngā awaanga, me ngā hiwi, me ngā toropuke, me ngā maunga, me ngā awa nunui kei runga i a Kaikōura whenua e tiaki, e atawhai. Ko Tahanga te marae. Ko Marukaitātea te whare tipuna. Ko Ngāti Kuri te hapu, Ko Ngāi Tahu te iwi.

[It is with delight that I extend this acknowledgment to you all, the many callings, with regard to the appropriateness and validity of this proposal, of caring treasured inland fresh and coastal waterways. It is indeed a significant and marvellous scheme to work in unison with this tribe and all the tribes settled here in our tribal territory. Therefore, we acknowledge the saying that was uttered by my ancestor: “The move is mine, so it is you who must move in my direction to settle it.” Tapuae-o-Uenuku is indeed above, as a chiefly comb for the people. Waiau Toa is below joining up with his partner Waiau Uha further down. Te Tai o Marokura is the ocean that Tūteurutira crossed over and came ashore at the land of Hineroko, beneath the lofty food-gathering cliffs of Rokohouia. His cargo was people, the brave warriors of Tānemoehau, which serves as a lineage to this world. It is for us now to protect and care for the rivers, valleys, hillocks, ridges, mountains and broad, braided rivers upon the lands of Kaikōura. Takahanga is the marae, Maru Kaitātea is the ancestral house, Ngāti Kurī is the kinship group and Ngāi Tahu is the tribe.]

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 481 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to clause 5C(1) be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Parts 1 and 2, clauses 1 and 2, and schedules 1AA to 3 and 5 to 7 as amended agreed to.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I seek leave of the House that the House continues into the lunch break beyond 1 p.m. if necessary to enable it to complete the remaining items on the Order Paper.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Bills

Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill

Third Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): I move, That the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I move, That the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader - Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased that the House has got a little bit of time just before we close off business. I wanted to make a statement on behalf of the Māori Party, in particular around our influence in the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill.

I do this because last night in the Committee stage there were a number of statements made, in particular by the Labour members, about whether or not we were for or against this particular bill. I did want to acknowledge one of the members who called me to apologise for the misinformation that was released into the public about the fact that we were supposedly blocking the bill from progressing through Parliament. For the record, there was no notice of motion put to us on whether the bill should be read. The Māori Party also did not call for the bill to be withdrawn; nor did we block leave, because leave was not sought. So I leave it there for the record and hope that our Labour colleagues will have heard that loud and clear.

We did, however, express a different point of view—a strong and independent Māori position—on the debate, which we continue to uphold. The reality about this bill is that it is not a black and white moment in time, without having the ability to question what is going on. As Martin Luther King said: “The time is always right to do what’s right.” That is pretty much the Māori Party view—that we will always speak up on issues that really matter. So can I say that we are really aware of the conflicts and compromises that have been associated with this bill, and we will not ignore all of them merely for the sake of forcing the bill through the House, but I am hopeful that we will be able to do at least that today.

I want to be clear from the very start that we, the Māori Party, have zero tolerance for companies that exploit workers or do not follow the rules—absolutely. The Māori Party has from day one supported the drive to put better safeguards in place for foreign workers on board foreign charter vessels. Indeed, it was our own very productive and constructive member for Te Tai Tonga in the previous term, Rahui Katene, who put forward a petition from the Service and Food Workers Union, Ngā Ringa Tōtā, that stated that this whole process needed to be kicked off, and she was the one who basically did that.

In response to that petition, former Ministers Phil Heatley and Kate Wilkinson called for a ministerial inquiry into the foreign charter fishing vessels. The inquiry was established to enable a comprehensive look at the state of our fishing industry following concerns that New Zealand jobs were being lost to foreign crews who were working in substandard conditions. We believed then, and we believe now, that it was an indictment on the industry itself that it would not employ New Zealand crews on New Zealand vessels. There is a whole industry—ship building, maintenance, and engineering, and net making and fishing—where we should be encouraging and preserving jobs for New Zealanders. Whoever is working on our boats, the Māori Party believes that we need to maintain New Zealand’s safety, pay, and employment standards for any worker within New Zealand waters. That is a basic human right that has been missing from foreign crews on foreign vessels in New Zealand.

There is, of course, a huge issue about the contribution of whanau, hapū, and iwi in the commercial fishing sector. The purpose of the Māori fisheries settlement was to return Māori to the business and activity of fishing. But the quota that was delivered to iwi through the settlement process failed, really, to give each individual iwi an innate ability to run economic fishing operations across the whole value chain. The restrictions that the law places on our quota mean that any adjustment for iwi to meet the new rules will take longer than it would for a standard commercial fishing operation that has been in business for decades. The objective of our involvement in this bill was always about creating a time for that evolutionary process. It was certainly never to dodge our obligations. The Māori Party actively worked with iwi to develop amendments and to try to make sure that this bill would be workable for all iwi involved. From an iwi perspective, iwi were certainly not opposed to ensuring that workers’ rights are safeguarded, but what they were asking for was lead-in time to be able to implement the changes. In the meantime they would be happy for their boats to be monitored to ensure that they are meeting labour and human rights standards.

At the second reading and, indeed, at the Committee stage, the Māori Party opposed the Supplementary Order Papers and the revised bill because we actually believe they undermine and devalue the Treaty settlement package negotiated by iwi. We know that the changes may mean that some iwi will no longer be able to operate. Big companies are better able to absorb the costs of changes, but those iwi and other operators who fish low-yield catch cannot. There is a real risk that it will threaten their business, no matter how small they are.

We believe that the Māori fisheries settlement must be durable. The Crown must act in good faith to ensure that we as Māori have a fair opportunity to catch up with our industry counterparts. The iwi leaders group has worked with us through its advisers, such as Te Ohu Kaimoana, to put its case to the Government, and we will continue to work with the Government, whoever that Government is, to ensure that these genuine issues raised by iwi are taken seriously.

The key for us is to ensure that iwi Māori are able to participate and directly benefit from having a sustainable New Zealand fishing industry. This House is very aware that rangatahi Māori have the highest rates of unemployment. Much more needs to be done to encourage them to move into the fishing industry. We need the money and those jobs in the fishing sector to stay right here where they belong, and not to be contracted out to foreign crews. We want to see rangatahi Māori employed in the fishing industry.

But I say that we are not about to be bullied or silenced in terms of raising the issues that whanau, hapū, and iwi have raised with us, and in a due and proper process. I can say that the Māori Party has brought those issues to the House and to the debate in question time. We have also called various Ministers to caucus to have the face-to-face discussion that we need. We have brokered meetings between iwi leaders and Ministers to ensure that their genuine concerns are aired. We have crafted amendments to reflect those concerns. We have written directly to the relevant Ministers. We have also voted accordingly. So to those various members across the Committee last night who said that we should be ashamed, I hope that they think again today. In fact, I would have a good guess to say that we have probably done most of all of the parties to facilitate an outcome for this bill.

Iwi leaders told us, as they did the Ministers and anyone else who bothered to listen, that the alleged breaches of human rights—the widespread abuse that was being discussed—was never proven in an inquiry. It was their absolute belief that the legislation that evolved was an approach that was sort of like a sledgehammer to a peanut. They always knew that there could have been a far more effective approach to resolving issues than what was eventually developed. Iwi leaders pointed out time and time again that there could have been a different way ahead. The Minister for Primary Industries, the Hon Nathan Guy, agreed to the approach, but as a result of the political pressure from other parties, that support was withdrawn.

So, in wrapping up, we will continue to keep all parties accountable for how the proposed changes impact on iwi and their capacity to make the best possible use of their Māori fisheries settlement. At the end of the day, this bill is about health and safety issues on foreign vessels chartered to fish in deep-water fisheries. We need to ensure that we are getting the best economic return from our deep-sea fisheries, that the robust employment protection provisions that are available on land are also reflected at sea, and that the monitoring of foreign charter vessels and domestic deep-sea operators in our waters is adequate. So on balance we vote in support of the work our party initiated 3 years ago to ensure that all human rights protections are upheld to affirm our international reputation as a world-leading fisheries manager. We acknowledge the iwi leaders group for their advice, and we say there will be another day when iwi will come back to raise those concerns that they have raised, and we look forward to being here to take those up. Kia ora tātou.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 12.58 p.m. (Thursday)