Wednesday, 12 August 2015

WEDNESDAY, 12 AUGUST 2015

WEDNESDAY, 12 AUGUST 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill

Introduction

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name on extending the licensing hours for the sale and supply of alcohol for the duration of Rugby World Cup 2015, to be set down for first reading today ahead of members’ order of the day No. 1. To allow for the legislation to commence prior to the start of the Rugby World Cup, I also seek leave for the bill, following its first reading, to be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and to be reported back by 26 August 2015, and, once reported back, for the bill to be given its second and third readings forthwith on the following members’ day, 26 August 2015.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economies, International—Outlook and Impact on New Zealand Economy

1. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on recent developments in the international economy, and how will these affect the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As a small, open economy, there are always events in a global economy that we need to pay attention to. There is a recent report, for instance, that says that the Government of Greece has struck an outline deal with creditors on the proposed terms of a bailout package. This would bring some more stability to the European Union, a necessary but not sufficient condition for stronger growth in the EU, which is a market for 12 percent of New Zealand’s goods and services exports. Other reports indicate a more sustained recovery in the United States and slightly stronger domestic activity in Australia, and that the equity market in China has settled in the past 2 weeks, although risks remain elevated. Overall, the picture for New Zealand’s key trading partners is for growth of between 3.5 and 4 percent over the next 2 years, and that is an environment in which well-placed New Zealand firms can continue to grow and thrive.

Scott Simpson: What is Treasury’s latest assessment of international economic developments, and what implications might these developments have for New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury reports that the data from our trading partners in July was broadly positive, with employment growth in manufacturing services in the US, the UK recovery continuing, and both UK and US monetary policy now expected to tighten, which is actually a positive sign for growth prospects in their economies. Australian employment grew by 2 percent in the year to June, although unemployment also increased slightly. Overall, Treasury concludes that risks arising from Greece and China have receded somewhat and that there has been an improvement in the outlook for our trading partners. That is positive for the New Zealand outlook.

Scott Simpson: What factors are supporting the New Zealand economy as a whole in the wake of the decline in dairy prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think, fundamentally, that it is the pressure that has been on New Zealand’s export industries through a period when the exchange rate was very high—up to 88c against the US dollar. Export businesses had to become much more efficient simply to survive, and they did. Today the kiwi is buying closer to 65c, a 25 percent reduction, which is assisting those businesses to be more competitive at a time when they have certainly earned it. The ANZ’s measure of our commodity prices in New Zealand dollars is down 7.3 percent in the past year. This has all been driven mainly by dairy, but it makes the point that even though dairy prices have fallen significantly, the overall commodity price index has fallen only 7.3 percent. Of course, alongside that, interest rates and the exchange rate look like they are continuing to fall.

Grant Robertson: In light of his answer to the question before last—that the risk from China’s slowdown has receded—how then does he explain reports from China that there has been not only an 8 percent year-on-year drop in exports but also an 8 percent year-on-year drop in imports, and that people reporting on the Chinese economy are suggesting that the crisis is far from over?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I was reporting to the member was Treasury’s latest assessment of those developments. Although I said that Treasury concludes that the risks from China have receded, of course, on any given day, in such a large, complex economy as China, there is always evidence for the view that it is going to slow down considerably—whether you think it is the provincial debt levels or the overinvestment in property and infrastructure. Nevertheless, Treasury’s view is that China’s outlook is reasonably positive.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer then, does he prefer Treasury’s advice to that of Sharon Zollner from ANZ, who said: “It is a sea of red across the entire commodity complex, which is not telling us anything good about global growth, and resource-hungry China in particular.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that you are referring to a comment by the ANZ. It is the ANZ’s commodity index that shows, actually, the fall in the last 12 months has been—

Grant Robertson: A sea of red—that’s what she said.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A 7.6 percent decline in the New Zealand dollar value of New Zealand commodities is, I might say with respect, not a sea of red, although I have noticed a tendency among bank economists recently to compete for making the most outrageously negative comment. But, of course, they have to go a long way to be more negative than the finance spokesman for the Opposition.

Scott Simpson: What sectors are supporting growth in foreign earnings for the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The non-dairy sectors make up 80 percent of the value of our foreign exchange earnings in a typical year—80 percent. This includes information and communications technology, international education services, horticulture, high-tech manufacturing, and inbound tourism. They can all reasonably be expected to play an increasing role in propelling growth in the economy in the year ahead. The potential for further growth in inbound tourism, for instance, is significant. A Statistics New Zealand accommodation survey published this morning found that national guest nights were up for the 15th consecutive month and that 10 of 12 regional areas had more guest nights, with the South Island’s guest nights up 3.8 percent and the North Island’s up 2.7 percent. I can understand why more people want to go to the South Island than the North Island.

Health Services—Specialist Appointments

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: If Government health expenditure has not kept up with all inflationary pressures, as he admitted 2 weeks ago, what impact has this shortfall had on patients?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: When National came into Government in 2008, the total health budget in the Budget was $11.8 billion. This year the health budget is a record $15.9 billion. This additional investment of over $4 billion in tight times is seeing more patients being seen faster and being treated. National is increasing and managing the health budget, whereas Labour blew—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That part is unnecessary to the answer.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Minister say in the House on 23 July that no data was ever collected showing the number of patients returned to their GP without being seen by a specialist, when district health boards have been collecting such data for years, and it now shows large increases in the number of people not getting seen after referral by their GP?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Sorry, Mr Speaker, I just did not catch the last part of that question. Could she please repeat it.

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to invite the member to repeat the whole question.

Hon Annette King: From the beginning?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Minister say in the House on 23 July that no data has ever been collected showing the number of patients returned to their GP without being seen by a specialist, when district health boards have been collecting such data for years, and it now shows large increases in the number of people not getting seen after referral by their GP?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: If he said that at the time, then that statement stands.

Hon Annette King: Why has the number of patients returned back to their GP without being seen by a specialist increased in the Waikato District Health Board from 793 in 2010-11 to nearly 3,000—

Dr David Clark: How many?

Hon Annette King: —3,000—in 2014-15, if there is sufficient funding?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not have those figures to hand in terms of the Waikato District Health Board. But what I do know, and what the member knows, is that over the last 6 years this Government has spent more than $257 million at the Waikato District Health Board. In fact, that has funded over 124 more GPs in the front line, and that has also led to 422 more nurses.

Hon Annette King: Why has the number of patients returned to their GP without being seen by an ear, nose, and throat specialist in the Waitematā District Health Board almost doubled in the past 3 years alone?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Again, I do not have that particular figure to hand, but what I can say about the Waitematā District Health Board is that we have spent $310 million more in that district health board, and that has led to 195 more doctors being hired.

Joanne Hayes: Does he think that increased funding alone is enough to guarantee better services to patients?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It is a good question. New Zealand has had two similar periods of increased health spending recently. In the last 7 years, the health budget has increased by $4 billion, as I said in the primary answer. That has resulted in 60,000 more first specialist assessments, 50,000 more elective surgery operations, and 400,000 children benefiting from free GP visits and faster treatment for cancer. In the other period that I am referring to, it resulted in fewer first specialist—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need to carry on.

Hon Annette King: If there is sufficient funding in health, why in nine district health boards alone have nearly 80,000 patients been refused first specialist assessments since 2010-11, in almost the same period of time as the health funding has not kept up with inflationary pressures, as the Minister said in the House?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not know which nine district health boards that member is referring to, but what I can say in terms of first specialist assessments—

Hon Annette King: I’ve got the figures.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well, you can tell us if you want—table it. What I can say is that there has been an increase in 60,000 first specialist assessments since this Government took the Treasury benches.

Hon Annette King: Does he believe that delays in patients getting a specialist assessment and access to diagnostic procedures can lead to irreversible and potentially fatal outcomes for patients; if not, why not?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: In respect of the delays, that member has not tabled anything or any evidence—

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not what I have tabled. I asked a question about whether he believed delays—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to invite the member to repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.

Hon Annette King: Does he believe that delays in getting a specialist assessment and access to diagnostic procedures can lead to irreversible and potentially fatal outcomes for patients; if not, why not?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am not aware of these delays or what the member is referring to in terms of the types of outcomes that she has outlined.

State-owned Enterprises—Financial Returns

3. DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Is he happy with the financial returns the taxpayer is achieving from State-owned enterprises; if so, why?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Can I congratulate the member on his member’s bill, which will bring enjoyment to even the Green Party. The performance of State-owned enterprises is a mixed picture. Although a number of them are performing well and returning reasonable dividends to the Crown, others are not. It is the Government’s expectation that State-owned enterprises are well managed, are low risk, that they focus on their core business, and that they generate a return for the taxpayer.

David Seymour: In light of the $500 million collapse in equity value in Solid Energy since 2011, does he acknowledge that not selling the company was a terrible mistake?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Solid Energy is a company that is in a very difficult position. It has around half a billion dollars’ worth of debt, and about $320 million of that debt is interest bearing and owed to banks, some of which matures next year. Equally, the coal price was around $370 a tonne a few years ago; this week it hit $85 a tonne. The company and the banks are working constructively towards a solution.

David Seymour: Why have the dividends from New Zealand Post fallen from a yield of 5 percent through 2005-08 to only 1.5 percent since, and how is this acceptable for what is clearly not an investment in a growth company?

Hon TODD McCLAY: There are a number of State-owned enterprises that face changing and challenging circumstances. If we look at the example the member has given, which is New Zealand Post, there are now 265 million fewer items posted than 10 years ago. In fact, there were 80 million fewer letters posted last year than the year before. New Zealand Post is working through these issues. The Government is supportive of the work that the board is doing, but it is our expectation that it works constructively so that it provides a very good service to the public, and, equally, gets to a stage where it returns a better dividend to the Crown.

Internal Affairs, Department—Citizenship Applications by Refugees

4. RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he have confidence in his department?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes, I do.

Ron Mark: Did the Department of Internal Affairs advise the Minister to strip the citizenship of 27 fraudulent refugees when their fraudulent claims were discovered?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your indulgence. The answer that I am about to give, in the interests of giving all the facts, may be slightly longer than usual, and I just seek your indulgence for that.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you for the warning. The Minister can proceed.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Perhaps it would be useful for the House and the member if I just outlined the history of this situation very briefly. We are talking about people who came to New Zealand, in the main, between 1994 and 2000. They were granted refugee status at that time. That is a matter for the Immigration Service. Subsequently, ironically under a New Zealand First Minister of Internal Affairs, most of their citizenships were approved in the late 1990s. They have been citizens since that time, and many have had their own children, who are now citizens by virtue of being born in New Zealand. I am advised that at no time have any of them come to the attention of authorities as being problematic. An investigation by Immigration New Zealand in the early 2000s revealed that some of them may have obtained their residencies fraudulently; I emphasise the word “may”—it was never definitive. A subsequent approach before my time as Minister was made to the Department of Internal Affairs by Immigration New Zealand, requesting that the citizenships be withdrawn. Following legal advice and the precedent of other cases, the Department of Internal Affairs concluded that that was not only not appropriate from a natural justice point of view but it was also, given the uncertainty of the circumstances, a very uncertain set of circumstances to be following. In a number of cases, the persons affected would have been rendered Stateless by the decision to remove passports. That is the full background of the case, and I appreciate your indulgence in being able to explain it.

Ron Mark: In appreciating that long explanation I still will ask the question. Can the Minister reiterate to the House, then, and make clear to the House, why in his decision not to intervene recently did he claim that it was because of an operational matter, when he had full powers to intervene under section 17(2) of the Citizenship Act, which would have allowed those people due process through the courts?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I was actually advised some time around a year ago of this course of events and the actions that had been taken, and in the circumstances I deemed those to be appropriate.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister explain his department claiming that it acted on humanitarian grounds, when a decision to cancel citizenship would have meant that it was able to avail itself of the processes of the courts and to prove that case? Did he not think that that was the appropriate course of action—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I think I have answered that question in my first supplementary answer. There was no guarantee, given the circumstances of these cases, that legal actions could have been pursued successfully, and in any case these people have been resident in New Zealand for a very long time, have been operating effectively as model citizens, and have their own children who are citizens—

Clayton Mitchell: You can’t shift the responsibility on to anybody else.

Hon PETER DUNNE: And if that noise to my right would be quiet for a moment, the responsibility that I accepted was that in the circumstances the appropriate actions have been taken for humanitarian and other reasons.

Ron Mark: Can the Minister advise the House, then, about what steps he has taken to identify whether this is just the tip of an iceberg, bearing in mind that these fraudulent refugees have been accessing welfare, and whether or not that has allowed them to use family reunion processes to bring more refugees in, who, on that basis, should not have been brought into the country?

Hon PETER DUNNE: All of those questions actually relate to immigration and are matters for the Minister of Immigration. What I can advise the member of is that this case has highlighted an issue that the Department of Internal Affairs has addressed, and that was that at the time there was no requirement on any of these applicants to indicate that the applications that they made were made with the full information of the other facts. That is—

Clayton Mitchell: This situation requires your full ministerial attention.

Hon PETER DUNNE: Again, the empty vessel to my right proves the validity of the old proverb. The reality is that I have acted. We have tightened up the procedure. This situation would not occur now because people are required to disclose their previous circumstances, and anything that is fraudulent is then immediately drawn to the attention of the police.

Economy—Diversification

5. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received on how New Zealand’s industries have diversified since 2008?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I have received a number of reports showing that New Zealand’s industries have diversified significantly since 2008—for example, the wine industry, where wine exports have nearly doubled from just under $800 million in 2008 to $1.4 billion this year. Beef export revenues have grown from $1.8 billion in 2008 to $3.1 billion in the year to March 2015. Information and communications technology sector exports have more than doubled to $930 million in 2014. Despite the cut-and-paste negative rhetoric of some commentators in this House, it is examples like these that show that this Government is getting the settings right in order to encourage growth in diversification of the New Zealand economy.

Stuart Smith: How are Government programmes and policies contributing to this diversification and growth?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: They are achieving a huge amount. One of the key initiatives to further diversify the economy is to boost research and development investment in different sectors. The Callaghan Innovation centre that we have set up is investing a substantial amount of new spending in research and development grants, and just today I announced the availability of another 233 positions for research and development student grants this summer. The interesting thing is that when you compare business spending in research and development in New Zealand with, perhaps, Australia—we have a grant scheme and Australia has a tax credit scheme—the research and development here is skewed far more heavily towards high-tech sectors such as information and communications technology and high-tech manufacturing. Nearly 42 percent of business research and development investment in New Zealand is now in the manufacturing sector, and computer services make up another 25 percent of business research and development investment. That suggests that we are going to see further diversification and growth in these sectors in the years ahead.

Stuart Smith: What has been the impact of this diversification on the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have seen quite dramatic employment growth in these industries. For example, the information and communications technology industry has grown by around 6,200 jobs in the past year. Far from being in crisis, the manufacturing industry is employing 24,500 more people today than it was a year ago, and it is the largest it has been in 7 years. We are also seeing growth in other industries, with 50,000 more people employed in construction in the past 2 years. That is the highest level it has ever been. There are 20,000 more jobs in retail in the past 12 months, and, in fact, over 4½ years we have seen 199,000 more people in work.

Economic Outlook—Commentary

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have a “Plan B” for the New Zealand economy, as has been called for by ANZ Bank Chief Economist Cameron Bagrie, or is he satisfied with the prospect of rising unemployment, declining GDP growth and shockingly low business confidence as described by the Westpac Quarterly Economic Overview?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In answer to the member’s second question, this Government is never satisfied with the state of the economy. In answer to his first question, plan A is an economy that can continuously adapt as circumstances change, as illustrated by the fact that in the light of lower commodity prices the exchange rate has dropped significantly and interest rates are now falling rather than rising. But at the same time it is important that the Government continues to deal with the long-term issues around productivity and economic resilience. So we have a programme of microeconomic reform supporting growth through 350 actions in the Business Growth Agenda, including, just for instance, reducing ACC levies by around $2 billion a year, extending ultra-fast broadband to 80 percent of New Zealanders, and delivering more skills that are relevant to industry through initiatives like the ICT Graduate Schools. Recent reports from Treasury and the Reserve Bank suggest that they see the economy growing at around 2 to 2.5 percent—moderate, sustainable growth that will probably persist despite the excessive rhetoric of some of our bank economists.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, if it is all going so well, why is the chief economist calling for a plan B, and why has Federated Farmers joined him in calling for a plan B for the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably for the same reasons why the caucus has not yet called for plan B in the form of Grant Robertson.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact—

Hon Steven Joyce: That’s plan E.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Plan E, sorry.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will have the answer to the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The adjustments that will help underpin sustainable, moderate growth in this economy are under way, and at the same time the Government is persisting with a programme of microeconomic reform, such as, for instance, the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband, which actually is working, because people are subscribing now. It is enabling them not just to have more entertainment but also to run better, more productive, and more internationalised businesses.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, is Westpac economist Dominick Stephens correct when he says that the latest survey of business confidence has seen the biggest single decline in a 3-month period for the last 15 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He may well be. It would be a decline from the highest level for a long, long time. In any case, when you look at the Westpac forecasts they are consistent with those of the Reserve Bank and Treasury, which show a path to moderate, sustainable growth of between 2 to 2.5 percent.

Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, can the Minister confirm that the Westpac forecast in fact foreshadows growth of 1.8 percent below the 2 and 2.5 percent that he and the Prime Minister told the House yesterday we can expect?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that number appears in the calendar-year forecast as opposed to the standard version, which is the March-quarter forecast. But for a member who regards sending a tweet as work, I am surprised he got to that level of detail.

Grant Robertson: Is Dominick Stephens correct that the Canterbury rebuild has peaked 9 months earlier than expected and will no longer be contributing to growth from this year, and from 2017 will actually become “an outright drag on GDP.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I gather there is some contest of opinion over whether the Canterbury rebuild has peaked, but if it is news to that member that it will peak at some time, everyone else has known that since the day the rebuild started. It was always going to peak one day, and I think the good news is that as we get through the very successful Canterbury rebuild, overseen by Minister Gerry Brownlee, the economy is resilient to international shocks, the right adjustments that we would hope would underpin further growth in jobs and incomes are occurring, and there actually is not a good reason to panic in the way that that member is panicking.

Grant Robertson: So for the sake of clarity, can he confirm that he does not think he needs to change anything about his approach to the economy, despite the fact that the people he is accusing of panicking include two major bank economists and Federated Farmers, and he can confirm once and for all for the House that he is always right and everyone else is wrong?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In general we would pay more attention to what is happening for those who are out on the economic playing field rather than those who are sitting in the grandstand watching it, which is where they are. The Government has a programme that is designed to be adaptive in a continuous way, and that is exactly what is happening. The exchange rate is falling, interest rates are falling, and there will be adjustments in businesses and households all around New Zealand because we fundamentally believe that when the pressure comes on a bit, the last person you would go to is the Labour Party finance spokesman. People who are running their own businesses and households are in a far better position to make the judgments about what changes need to be made with support from the Government with its investment in infrastructure and in research and development and its focus on a level playing field for taxation—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —with strong focus on innovation.

Rt Hon John Key: Can the Minister confirm, if he does have the right plan B for the economy, whether he will be writing it himself or will he just cut and paste it and plagiarise it—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question will not help the order of the House. Question—

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have ruled it out.

No. 7 to Minister

Question

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I seek leave to have this question transferred back to the Prime Minister, to whom it was originally directed.

Mr SPEAKER: No, we are not even putting that leave. It has been discussed on many occasions—the Government has the right to determine where the question goes. If the member wants an answer, she should proceed to ask it. [Interruption] Order! A little less noise would be helpful.

Intelligence Agencies—Legislative Framework

7. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service: Does he stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the legislative framework of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies that “there are a range of deficiencies that they have identified”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service): Yes, although the Prime Minister made that statement about the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act 1969, not—as the member said—“the legislative framework of New Zealand’s intelligence agencies”.

Metiria Turei: What specifically are those deficiencies?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The particular deficiency that I would identify is that the Act was last comprehensively reviewed in 1969 and is expressed in 1969 language. It also focuses very heavily on issues of warrants and authorisations, and it may not accurately reflect all of the current work of the agency.

Metiria Turei: Do these deficiencies mean that the SIS is currently engaged in activities that are not authorised by the law?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No. The word “deficiency” does not signal, necessarily, a contravention of the law; it suggests the inability to do something that it would otherwise be useful to do. It may also, in my opinion, suggest the difficulty of applying language drafted in 1969 to modern technology. These are matters for the reviewers to consider, and I am sure both reviewers are going to do a very professional and competent job.

Metiria Turei: So what did the Director of Security mean when she said that “The authorising framework for all of that work is not in the legislation …”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, the director could have been referring to, for example, an ordinary, everyday activity of an employee of the SIS in talking to people, and it may be that it is adequate to spell out in the legislation all the various activities of SIS employees when undertaking their tasks.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister rule out any expansion and extension of the SIS’s current powers to spy on New Zealanders?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think “spying on New Zealanders” is pejorative. What the SIS is doing, in actual fact, is ensuring that all New Zealanders can enjoy the liberties that they were entitled to from the day they were born. What I am going to do, for the benefit of the honourable member, is wait until the review by Dr Cullen and Dame Patsy Reddy has been completed, and then I hope to be able to see legislation drafted that reflects modern conditions and is expressed in modern language.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister rule out any expansion and extension of the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to spy on New Zealanders?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, I could repeat myself, and I probably will, for the benefit of that member, who does not seem to have listened to the previous answer. The purpose of the GCSB is not to spy on New Zealanders but is, as expressed in its legislation, to safeguard the liberties of New Zealanders, particularly against foreign threats. This Government has undertaken a review of all the intelligence legislation to ensure that it is up to date and that both agencies serve their core purpose of operating under the rule of law to protect and enhance the freedom of all New Zealanders. Moreover, any agency that has great powers must necessarily be properly supervised by Parliament and by the inspector-general.

Domestic Violence—Legislative Review

8. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has she made regarding New Zealand’s domestic violence laws?

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Last week I launched the discussion paper Strengthening New Zealand’s legislative response to family violence to take a comprehensive look at the Domestic Violence Act and the intersection between domestic violence, the Care of Children Act, the Crimes Act, the Bail Act, and the Sentencing Act, with a view to starting a comprehensive rethink of how our system of laws deals with the scourge of family violence. As justice Minister, reducing family violence is my top priority.

Alfred Ngaro: How significant an issue is family violence in New Zealand?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The rate of family violence in New Zealand is horrific. Despite crime rates in New Zealand falling to a 30-year low, family violence statistics are stubbornly high. In 2014 police responded to more than 100,000 incidents, and, on average, every year 14 women, seven men, and eight children are killed as a result of family violence. Nearly half of all New Zealand’s homicides and reported violent crimes are related to family violence, and on average 41 percent of police response time is spent on family violence. These are staggering statistics and they are only the ones we know about. We know that as much as 80 percent of family violence may go unreported. Although the Government cannot solve the whole problem, we are committed to finding better ways to address it.

Alfred Ngaro: What else is the Government doing to address family violence?

Hon AMY ADAMS: The review is just one part of the work under way. Other initiatives include establishing a Chief Victims Advisor to the Government, whom I expect to be appointed later this year. There are also projects under way to speed up court cases, to improve judges’ access to information, for intensive case management practices, and for portable safety alarms for high-risk victims. The social development Minister and I have also launched a new work programme to ensure that Government agencies work in an integrated way to address family and sexual violence, identifying gaps and duplications in services, and making improvements to help break the cycle of family violence.

Housing Market, Auckland—Affordability

9. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Aucklanders are getting wealthier because their house prices are going up?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I agree with the full statement of the Prime Minister, where he also stated that the rate of increase is not sustainable, that growing supply is critical to containing ongoing increases, and that new measures like the Government’s tax changes would ensure that people buying in property for profit would pay their fair share. The PM’s statements are much more accurate than the shonky figures from the members—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That will not help the order of the House.

Phil Twyford: Why does he believe that Aucklanders would prefer to see the paper value of their houses increase rather than their children and grandchildren being able to achieve the dream of owning their own homes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is absolutely committed to people owning their own home, and that is why on 1 April we launched the HomeStart scheme, which is going great guns in helping thousands of New Zealanders get into their own home. I remind the member that the biggest increase in house prices, where houses were significantly less affordable than they are today, actually occurred during the 9 years of the previous administration.

Phil Twyford: Given the Prime Minister’s statements, what does he say to the half of the population who are locked out of the housing market under his policies and who are not generating paper wealth from skyrocketing house prices?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would say to those people that this Government has the most comprehensive programme of housing reforms that has been seen by any Government in more than a generation: the support from HomeStart, the Auckland Housing Accord and special housing areas, and the social housing reforms. And I would draw attention to the fact that over the last 3 years the rate of housebuilding in Auckland has increased from 4,000 per year to over 8,000 per year, showing that we are getting the new houses that New Zealand needs.

Phil Twyford: Is this political calculation—that enough voters are happy with skyrocketing house prices—why his Government has done nothing meaningful to tackle the causes of the housing crisis and why it prefers to roll out an endless procession of grudging half measures and tinkering and dabbling that makes no difference?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is rich for the member to describe them as half measures, because when we passed the special housing areas legislation to open up new areas in housing, that member put my face on a billboard all over Auckland, saying that I was going too far. He cannot have it both ways. Equally, this is the member who complains when interest rates go up and complains when interest rates go down. The truth is that the member is the member for moaning not solutions.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Investor-State Dispute Settlement Provisions

10. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Does he have any concerns about the inclusion of investor-State dispute settlement provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, provisions which allow multinational companies to sue governments in secretive offshore tribunals; if so, what are those concerns?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I would have a number of concerns about signing up to an investor-State dispute settlement provision in any trade agreement that did not protect the right of future Governments to regulate in the public interest, that allowed non-transparent and unfair procedures to apply, or that would encourage frivolous claims by foreign corporations that would have no merit in the legal sense. Happily, I can inform the House that this Government will not be signing an agreement that does not meet any of those basic political and judicial tests.

Dr Russel Norman: How can he be confident that investor-State dispute settlement provisions do not put New Zealand at risk, when the German Government is currently being sued under investor-State dispute settlement provisions for $7 billion for trying to phase out nuclear power plants, by a company called Vattenfall, a company that has already used investor-State dispute settlement threats to stop the German Government from putting environmental regulations on a new coal-fired power plant?

Hon TIM GROSER: I will not go into the entrails of that particular dispute, which is not, in fact, an attempt by the company to stop a democratically elected German Government from shifting its policy on nuclear power; it is about the financial implications of that decision. The reality is that we will not be signing up to an agreement that does not cover the basic interests of New Zealand.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the Minister seen the June report from the Australian Productivity Commission, a commission established by the Conservative Prime Minister John Howard, in which the Australian Productivity Commission has opposed the inclusion of investor-State dispute settlement provisions in trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership explicitly, because of concerns about investor-State dispute settlement on the ability of the Australian Government to regulate?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, I have not seen that particular report personally, but what I am aware of is that the Australian Government—and, of course, I am in closest consultation with my counterpart Australian Minister—is arguing for exactly the same balanced approach to investor-State dispute settlement provisions as is the New Zealand Government.

Fletcher Tabuteau: What assurances can the Minister give that decisions made in secret, in a secret tribunal under investor-State dispute settlement, will be fair, given that the tribunal consists of only three highly paid corporate lawyers with no actual presiding judge?

Hon TIM GROSER: As is always the case in these Trans-Pacific Partnership - related questions, when the full detail is put out into the public domain, the people of New Zealand will be able to see for themselves that the defences that I, the Prime Minister, and other Ministers have made are, in fact, entirely credible and that this will protect New Zealand from exactly those sorts of frivolous claims.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister explain how he can be comfortable that once corporate lawyers make a ruling against New Zealand within the secret investor-State dispute settlement tribunal, there is no right of appeal for the New Zealand Government?

Hon TIM GROSER: We are just going around in circles here. When the full provisions are out in the public domain, people will be able to see for themselves that there are very carefully thought through safeguards that will protect the interests of New Zealand. I would also like to point out that on the latest international net investment liability statement of New Zealand, we have about $170 billion of foreign investment in other countries. We have a very strong material interest in ensuring that our investors are treated properly by Governments whose procedures may not always be up to the same high standard.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister undertake that the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its investor-State dispute settlement clauses will not prevent a future New Zealand Government from banning the sale of New Zealand homes to foreign buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?

Hon TIM GROSER: It is not the Government’s policy to engage in such a ban. We are negotiating on the basis of this Government’s policy.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That clearly was not my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion I am going to allow the member to repeat that question for the benefit of the Minister.

Hon David Parker: Will he undertake that the Trans-Pacific Partnership and its investor-State dispute settlement clauses will not prevent a future New Zealand Government from banning the sale of New Zealand homes to foreign buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?

Hon TIM GROSER: No, I am not going to give that assurance, but what the agreement will say on that is still under negotiation. It may interest the member, at the time when I am in a position to answer that more fully.

Dr Russel Norman: What did the Australian Productivity Commission get wrong in its report from June this year, when it said, with regard to investor-State dispute settlement provisions, that they give foreigners substantive appeal rights that are not available to domestic firms, that they risk impeding domestic regulatory reform, that they lack transparency, and that they have inadequate parliamentary scrutiny?

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, the last time I looked at it, the New Zealand Government does not control the Australian Productivity Commission. The basic position of the Australian Government is to ensure that investor-State dispute settlement provisions will be properly balanced and will absolutely protect the Australian public interest. It may well be that some types of investor-State dispute settlement provisions do, in fact, have those consequences, but I do not believe that the Australian Government will be signing up to provisions that have those effects.

Dr Russel Norman: Why is it that the European Union Trade Commissioner is now refusing to agree to exactly the same kinds of investor-State dispute settlement provisions that are proposed to be in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, because the European Trade Commissioner said “We want the rule of law, not the rule of lawyers.” and that these investor-State dispute settlement provisions are not fit for purpose in the 21st century?

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, I have had the benefit of talking to the commissioner about this issue, and what I can say to the House is that this is a process that is under evaluation internally in Europe. They have not put forward any specific proposals; they have put forward some concepts, which I think are extremely interesting, and we will see how that transpires in a negotiation between the European Union and the United States.

Meat Industry—Exports and Government Initiatives to Support

11. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Primary Industries: What recent reports has he seen on growth in beef exports?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Recent reports show that beef prices are currently at record highs and that New Zealand exporters look set to fill our US beef quota for the first time in history. Rabobank is forecasting that US demand for New Zealand beef will be positive for the next 3 to 4 years, due to an anticipated shortage of beef exports from Australia due to drought, and with the US herd still rebuilding. These high beef prices are also offering some relief for dairy farmers who are culling low-performing cows.

Jacqui Dean: What initiatives is the Government undertaking to support our red meat sector?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The Government will continue supporting the red meat sector through an extensive programme of research and development and increasing trade market access. The red meat portfolio is the largest in the Primary Growth Partnership with a total committed investment of around $357 million between industry and the Government. One example is the FoodPlus programme, which already has 12 new value-added products commercialised. One health product sold out within days when trialled in the US. According to research by Beef and Lamb New Zealand our free-trade agreements with China and Taiwan helped save $161 million in lower tariffs last year for the sector. Earlier this year we signed the free-trade agreement with Korea, which will progressively make beef and lamb exports tariff-free. This is going to be worth around $17 million in beef exports. I congratulate Minister Groser on his work in this area.

Ron Mark: Why then, given the Food and Agriculture Organization found that overall prices of meat have stabilised, has the Minister been missing in action when it comes to the farmer-led solutions advanced by Meat Industry Excellence?

Hon NATHAN GUY: No, I have not been. I am well engaged with rural communities. I am well engaged with farmers on this particular issue. What I have said is that if there is a clear strategy that links processes and farmers together, my door is always open. I do not see a clear strategy at this point, but I am heartened to see that farmers have the opportunity to mobilise and get on the boards of the two co-ops that the farmers own and control. Further discussions are under way that could lead to some rationalisation in the red meat sector in the future. We wait with interest.

Ron Mark: So having previously encouraged Meat Industry Excellence and all members of the industry to collaborate, talk, and resolve issues, is his inaction such as we are seeing the reason that the Ministry for Primary Industries is ranked 14th in this Government’s Cabinet?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Oh, how ridiculous! If New Zealand First members cared about our rural communities, they would not be protesting outside today with those Trans-Pacific Partnership protesters.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That did not address the question. That did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to go back and carefully look at his question. When he accuses a Minister of inaction he is likely to get the response that he got.

Foreign Affairs, Minister—Trade Agreements

12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement today that Hon Murray McCully was saying “he didn’t want the lawyers brought in to be talking about compensation because the deal was never about compensation and he didn’t want lawyers going in there saying that”, given that Cabinet noted the “settlement for the long running dispute” was part of the purpose of the $4 million payment to a Saudi investor; if so, why?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. I note that the reference to the settlement of the dispute was one of several things noted in the Cabinet paper with regard to the $4 million. The paper also noted that the $4 million recognises the intellectual property that the Saudi investor brings to the platform and the services and in-market networks he will contribute.

Hon David Parker: Is he aware that a month after Mr McCully’s statement that he did not want any financial contributions to be treated as compensation, Mr McCully further directed officials to find “the appropriate mechanism to meet Al-Khalaf’s concern for compensation, possibly through a joint venture”; if so, why does he still say the $4 million cash payment has nothing to do with compensation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of that particular statement, but I am sure it is contained in the 900 pages of the documents released. But the reason I say that is that it is correct. That is because there was a long-running dispute, started by the previous Labour Government, which this Government took responsibility for fixing up. There were many reasons why we addressed it. Some of them were the free-trade agreement, some of them were our relationship with Saudi Arabia, and some of them were to showcase New Zealand products.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the document that shows that Minister McCully directed officials to find “an appropriate mechanism”—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The date of the document?

Hon David Parker: It is 19 April 2012, and it is a briefing note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

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

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

Hon David Parker: If the payment was in no way compensation, why did he tell the media in May that “The view of the Cabinet was that there was a case the investor had put up that we may have to fight that in the court, but there was probably a faster way of trying to resolve that.”? Did he mislead the public in May, or did he mislead the public this morning?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, they are one and the same thing.

Hon David Parker: Why did he not answer the repeated questions on Morning Report this morning about what value New Zealand received for the money paid to the Al-Khalaf Group—in particular, the $4 million cash payment upfront?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs either to re-listen to the tape or to go and read the full transcript. I absolutely answered the question. But what I did very accurately was start by saying: “This was a mess created by Labour.” Unfortunately, Susie Ferguson did not want to hear it any more than the Labour Party did. But the problem is it is true.

Hon David Parker: How can he say that the transaction was so routine that Treasury did not need to be consulted, when the arrangement was so unusual that the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade had to go and try to explain its unique nature to the Auditor-General?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will have to show us where I said it was so routine.

Hon David Parker: Is it not now clear that the $4 million cash payment to Al-Khalaf was dressed up as a joint venture in order to get around the Public Finance Act, and does that not mean that Minister McCully broke the law?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. The official advice was quite clear that it was quite lawful and within the delegated authority that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade has.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I bring news from the political front lines. The leader of the Labour Party has been in office now for nearly 9 months—nearly 9 months—and he has stamped his authority on the party he leads. Well, he has made a lot of policy pronouncements. Can you remember them all? They have been fantastic policy pronouncements. The first one is that he is going to leave the 90-day period for new employers, small employers, in place—except he is not. He made a decision later that day that it would need to change. That was his first announcement.

He has also announced that he supports a referendum on the flag, but he does not now support a referendum on the flag. He also made a speech in which he floated the idea of means testing access to superannuation. That was a goodie. Do you know how long that lasted? Two hours—2 hours and it was gone. Yesterday he said there was too much foreign investment in New Zealand, and 1 hour later, do you know what he said? We need more foreign investment in New Zealand’s regions. This man is on fire. This man is throwing policy out there like there is no tomorrow. He wants to change the national anthem. [Interruption] No, he does not. So, actually, all his pronouncements so far have disappeared, with alarming efficiency, within hours—except for one.

There has been one announcement that continues to grind on, one contribution so far by Mr Little to political discourse, and that is—his favourite and ours—the Future of Work Commission. That is a beauty. He sent out his trusted sidekick Grant Robertson to find out what work is—[Interruption]—yes, OK, not trusted—and what is work’s future. It is a little ironic, I agree, that Grant Robertson has been selected for that task, but it is a personal journey for Grant as much as it is a political journey. He wants to know what work is, so he can get on with some. He has been sent out there. The last work he did, by the way, was winning the seventh form debating prize, and we continue to hear him repeat that success in the House every day.

So let us look at the product of the Future of Work Commission. The first report is out and it makes for interesting reading, although sometimes perhaps it is a little obvious. Nevertheless, it says: “Work done in entirely new technology businesses, the huge range of knowledge and media endeavours, the factory floor, and even family businesses have been reshaped by new pathways to information and new ways of selling goods and services.” You might think you have heard that before, and you have because that is a direct quote from the Pew Research Center. How do I know? Because one of Labour’s disaffected members decided to fisk this particular report and discovered not one, not two, not three, not four, but five or six direct lifts from The Economist, from the Business Insider, from a whole range of reports. It is plagiarism.

That is the future of work. The future of work is plagiarism, according to Mr Robertson. But that is OK. He has snuck out another report. You will notice that it is going well, the Future of Work Commission, when they release their reports on a Friday afternoon. This report is a new one that talks about the security of income and work. I decided not to read this one because I might have read it before. I thought I could save myself the time. I thought I would read Vernon Small’s article on it. At least you can be confident that Vernon wrote it originally, even if you could not be confident about the Labour Party. Anyway, it raises a very interesting thing. It talks about the flexicurity “golden triangle”, which involves “flexible rules for employers when hiring and firing”—this is the Danish model apparently—“alongside a guaranteed unemployment benefit at … up to 90 per cent for the lowest paid workers …”. So why would you work if you get 90 percent of the money for not working at all? There you go—90 percent.

So I think we have discovered that Grant Robertson’s future of work, so far, is copying other people’s work and now no work at all. Copying other people’s work and no work at all—that is Grant Robertson. Actually, when you think about it, it all makes sense: copying work and no work at all; Grant Robertson—the circle is complete. The circle is complete. The inquiry is over. Grant Robertson has described himself. He can now report back to Andrew Little: “Mission accomplished!”.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I just want to talk about the flow-on effects of this Government’s decisions of late. I want to talk about the flow-on effects of the actual foreign economic downturn. The National Government seems to be the only group in society that is still in denial about the situation that is facing this country. I want to say to its members: “Let’s talk about it, National. Let’s have a conversation. Let’s actually acknowledge that there are problems. We are heading in the wrong direction, and your go-to answer is apparently that dairy exports are only 20 percent of the export take.” Then we heard the Minister today having to resort to talking about other nations’ economies and how well they are performing. It just does not seem to make any sense.

Let us face some facts. Fonterra has slashed its forecast payout for the season to $3.85 a kilo—far below break-even point for many of our farmers. Farmer debt, New Zealand dairy debt, has trebled to $34.5 billion in the past 10 years—$34.5 billion in the past 10 years—and the National Government has made it worse. It has made it worse. It was happy to encourage New Zealanders to put all of their eggs in the dairy basket, and so players in the dairy industry expanded. Young New Zealand couples went into the dairy industry hoping to partake in that growth market without realising the realities of the market, because this Government misled them.

Last week Fonterra said that it would pay dairy farmers only $3.85 a kilo for milk solids—the lowest payment since the 2005-06 season and well below the estimated $5.40 break-even costs. What does this mean? It has already led to consequences in New Zealand—in our regions, in particular. We now have the number of mortgagee sales jumping nationwide in the past quarter, as lower dairy prices have already hit provincial New Zealand. Support industries are already shutting down. They are already shutting up shop or laying off staff in the hope of seeing the downturn through.

David Bennett: OK—tell us how many.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: I will tell you how many in a minute, Mr Bennett. Experts are warning of more foreclosures outside of Auckland’s surging property market, as financially strapped homeowners in regional New Zealand start defaulting on their mortgages: 149 people lost their homes in distress sales—149 in the past 3 months.

David Bennett: So 149 farms?

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: It is a jump, Mr Bennett—who does not seem to care—of 56 percent on the previous quarter. Five of the nation’s 14 regions recorded a jump in forced sales.

New Zealand First and New Zealanders are saying that the National Government must act now to stop the sale of our land to foreign buyers. Foreign buyers have swathes of cash that New Zealanders do not have. New Zealanders will lose large amounts of land to foreign ownership, as overseas buyers snap up what we anticipate will be cheap dairy farms. Kiwi farm owners do not want to sell their land, but when the banks are forced to act—and they will act—the people with the most money to spend will, unfortunately, not be New Zealand residents. Overseas investors looking to build up their capital while the going is good will mean that our future generations will lose out. It is intergenerational theft.

The last quarterly review from Westpac suggests that GDP will fall to 1.6 percent next year. It is also expected that unemployment will rise and wage growth will slow down even further. I beg the National Government to stop denying the facts. We now face the worse rate of unemployment in New Zealand since 2000—more than double the number that it was when National took office. Stop denying the facts. Let us have an adult conversation about this. National needs to come up with some real solutions, but, first of all, it actually needs to acknowledge that there is a problem. That is the first step in identifying how we can create a solution for New Zealanders. Thank you.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): This week we have heard Opposition parties rail large about the effect of the drop in dairy prices and the outlook for our farmers. We have heard two themes coming through that I want to touch on, and the member who has just resumed his seat, Fletcher Tabuteau, certainly repeated some of them.

First of all, you hear Opposition parties saying that somehow National is not backing the farmers. Suddenly there is a river of crocodile tears coming from the Opposition benches for the farmers. Well, I think that Nathan Guy said it exactly right in the House today: if you are going to stand in this House and talk about supporting farmers, let us look at the track record. First of all, which party in this House actually has farmers in its caucus? National. Does New Zealand First? No. Do the Greens? No. Does Labour? No. National is the party that has supported farmers for a long time.

Where are the Opposition members when we are talking about reforming the Resource Management Act? Where are the Opposition members when we are talking about backing water storage? Where are the Opposition members when we are talking about sensible, moderate water standards that allow farmers to continue to farm? They oppose all of that. They oppose all of that, and yet they have the barefaced cheek to come in here and pretend that suddenly they are the defenders of the farmers. Well, farmers are not simple folk, even though the Labour Opposition, the Greens, and New Zealand First seem to think so. They have got long memories, and they know which party backs them.

Nathan Guy said it today, did he not? How can the Opposition parties protest on the steps of Parliament against free-trade agreements, against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, against removing tariffs to our economic exports, and then come in here and say: “Oh, the poor farmers. Oh, the poor farmers.”? We want you to pay 300 percent tariffs into your markets, but: “Boy, the poor farmers.” There is a word for that that starts with “h” that I am not allowed to talk about.

Then there is the other great fallacy that we have heard from that bunch of people who have variable positions, depending on the circumstances—I say that so as not to offend the Standing Orders—and that fallacy is that somehow the National Party has been blocking a diversification of the economy. Let us look at the track record there. I can tell you that this is the party that backed rolling out digital infrastructure and digital skills across this economy, and the results are paying dividends.

We know that phase one of the broadband programme alone is worth $33 billion to this country, and Labour opposed it—Labour opposed it; it voted against it. We know that even going back to that last issue, that programme alone is worth $9.1 billion to the dairy sector over 20 years—$9.1 billion to the dairy sector, and Labour voted against it. We know that it will create 100,000 extra jobs with highly skilled, highly paid workers in our economy, and the Opposition voted against it. This is the sector—the information and communications technology sector—that is our third-largest export sector. You will not hear the Opposition talking about that anymore, because Labour knows it blocked that programme.

Information and communications technology is our third-largest sector, and last year its services were worth more than $23.5 billion—10 percent of our GDP and 3 percent more than a few years ago. In fact, exports in this sector rose 23 percent last year alone. You have got the information and communications technology sector exports going up 23 percent in 1 year, year-on-year growth across the sector of an annualised 9 percent over the last 10 years, and a sector where information and communications technology stocks now make up 10 percent of the value of all the listings on the NZX. Five years ago it was just 1 percent. So 5 years ago 1 percent of our stocks were for information and communications technology, and now it is 10 percent alone.

We on this side of the House recognise that this is because we have innovative, hard-working, imaginative Kiwis out there doing it. But the difference is that we have rolled out the infrastructure, the skills, the training, the research and development, and the free-trade agreements to allow them to do it. I say to the Opposition parties: do not come into this House and cry crocodile tears about diversifying the economy and supporting farmers when you block it at every opportunity you get.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): If ever there was an image to sum up the lazy, incompetent, complacent economic management of the National Government it was this image here from the front of the Westpac quarterly Economic Overview, released yesterday: a boat run aground, an economy run aground. That image got me thinking of another group of castaways from my childhood: a group marooned on an island who week after week tried to find their way off the island. Surrounded by opportunities to move themselves ahead, they failed consistently week after week. I speak, of course, of Gilligan’s Island. In them we see the National Government and its approach to the economy, led by the skipper, John Key. The skipper, the happy-go-lucky captain of the SS Minnow, drifted along completely unaware of and unable to control the chaos around him, distracted by irrelevancies—does that sound familiar—and completely unable to lead his team. But do not worry, the erstwhile skipper has his first mate: the bumbling, accident-prone, incompetent Gilligan, or, as we know him, Bill English. He is a man whose head is so firmly in the sand he cannot get that boat off the island and he cannot take the opportunities that are in front of him.

If people want to recall the general plot of Gilligan’s Island, each week the castaways tried to find a way to float the boat again, to find the opportunities that were there, and they would fail every time, missing the opportunities because Gilligan did not know what to do. He had no idea. But he had some assistance on the island, as Bill English does from Steven Joyce, the Minister for Economic Development—or Thurston Howell III, the bewildered millionaire who found himself washed up on the island, constantly thinking of new schemes that he could do to lift their spirits, and he completely failed. There were others on the island as well, whom people may not remember. There was Mary Ann Summers, who, for me, is summed up by Paula Bennett, the Associate Minister of Finance, who is just a little surprised—just a little surprised—at her role as the Associate Minister of Finance.

We have in our Government the Gilligan’s Island crew, completely unable to work out that right around New Zealand there are opportunities—Judith Collins is laughing, but I am coming to her—that could take them off the island. It could be investing in our regions, diversifying our economy, or adding value to products—getting that boat and lifting it from its becalmed state and taking it out there—because right around New Zealand there are businesses and there are communities that want to be part of this. There is the Ōpōtiki community, which wants its wharf to get an aquaculture industry going. There is the Wairarapa community, which could have a wood-processing industry right there right now, today, if this Government was prepared to take those opportunities on, but it is not. But do not worry, because week after week on the island there was somebody there to look out for them: Ginger Grant. We on this side of the House know that it is not up to Gilligan, it is not up to the Skipper; it is up to Ginger Grant—Judith Collins—to come to the rescue of the National Government. That is how they will get off the island.

The Economic Overview from Westpac shows unemployment going up over 6.5 percent, it shows growth going under 2 percent, and it shows the Canterbury rebuild peaking. This Government built an economic stool with three legs: the Canterbury rebuild, which is falling off; Auckland housing prices, for which the bubble will come to an end; and dairy prices, which have collapsed. There is no plan B. Plan A is not working. Government members are marooned on Gilligan’s Island.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): My goodness, that Grant Robertson is good, is he not? He is good. He is so good. Why is he not the leader of the Labour Party? He has tried three times, and three times he has been rejected, and I think it is because he will never make it with women, because he calls me “Ginger” when clearly I am blonde. The man just does not get it. Really, he is good though, is he not? He is so funny. He is so good that he is helping Andrew Little with his strategy, and it is all going so well. In fact, I think Grant Robertson is one of those people who has shown some resilience. He has tried three times to be the leader of the Labour Party—

Grant Robertson: No.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No? It is two—twice? Oh, sorry; I have pre-empted the third time. You see, everyone says I can see into the future.

What I have been able to say is that resilience is something that we are seeing in the dairying industry, that we are seeing in the country, and that we are also seeing in industry. I guess I feel very strongly for the dairying industry because I come from a family of dairy farmers, for generations, and I know that people are going through really hard times, particularly those farmers who have bought the neighbour’s property or have actually gone and upskilled and done all sorts of things to actually build their business. But I would say to them this: this is a temporary issue. It is not going to destroy the economy. It is going to be really hard for some individual farmers and they are going to need all of that resilience, but do you know what? Resilience is a great thing. I am apparently quite qualified to talk about it. I have heard that. People keep telling me I am resilient. My other good friend Shane Jones—he is resilient. I am looking forward to him coming back to New Zealand First and taking over from Mr Winston Peters, and I can see Ron Mark is looking forward to that too, but not as much as my friend Tracey Martin. We are all looking forward to resilience coming back. Resilience has a time of coming back and just doing you over, but it should be fun.

What I want to talk about today is the fact that this economy that we have in New Zealand has shown real resilience. Dairying is important, but it is actually 5 percent of our economy. It is not the 95 percent that you would think it is if you listened to “Radio Albania”, also known as Radio New Zealand National—

Hon Member: Oh, is that racist?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —but it is actually a much smaller part of the economy than it used to be. And, no, that is not racist; it is actually true. Actually, it is a nice compliment to Radio New Zealand National, because it is so ethnically diverse.

I thought that what we would want to talk about today in terms of resilience is the meat industry. The meat industry now is at the highest level of exports it has ever been—$2.8 billion of exports of our red meat. That is so much better than it was maybe 10 or 20 years ago. This is an industry that has been in decline, and now it is improving. Look at the kiwifruit industry. Wow! You just have to read the Sunday Star-Times article I wrote the other day.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Come on, stop trying to get into Cabinet.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is an industry that has gone from strength to strength. Talking about resilience, let us look at the Hon Trevor Mallard. By goodness, is he not resilient!

David Bennett: The worst Speaker ever.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I would never say that, Mr Bennett. That is a terrible thing to say.

Of course, I always look at my electorate of Papakura, an electorate that is going from strength to strength, not in—no, actually, that is in no small part because this Government is actually leading the country. This electorate has special housing areas for Africa, frankly—oh, I must not offend New Zealand First members; they will get upset. There is $280 million for the widening of the southern motorway between Hill Road and Papakura. We have the electrification of railways going through. We have a huge increase in population. In the Papakura electorate we are looking at 160,000 people going in there in the next 20 years. That is Hamilton coming into our area. This is a massive opportunity for the Auckland south area. It is an electorate of resilience and of a hard-working MP. I would say look at tourism. There were 3 million visitors last year from overseas. That is a record number.

This economy is resilient. It is moving very well. It is actually continuing to go ahead, and we should not let a significant part of the economy pull everything else down. This is a country with promise, hope, and a future, unlike the Labour Party, which is utterly hopeless.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Rock star to rock-bottom, led by the hundred-billion-dollar man—$100 billion. One thing I will say about Muldoon is that he borrowed only $19 billion. That is a pretty poor effort when you have John Key, who has borrowed $100 billion in 7 years. He is the trader, the “Smiling Assassin”, the PM who likes Hawaii. He likes hair and he loves himself. He said that he wanted Fonterra shares to be traded. He said that New Zealand should be the financial hub of the Asia-Pacific region—until he found out it was going to cost a whole lot of money and Treasury advised him not to go down that path.

He is a guy who does not have a vision. He has not developed a plan. I do not agree with my colleagues who say “Where’s plan B?”, because there has never been plan A. If I can quote Mike Hosking—and I have to say he is one of the greatest cheerleaders of the Prime Minister I have ever heard. He is usually full of it, but what he said yesterday is: “… what worries me about this country is our view is so short of term.” Well, he is right, and his mate John Key has been in charge of this country for 7 years without any plan being developed for our future. Bill English’s constituents must be horrified. What will the Diptonites think down there of their conservative Bill coming to Wellington and raking up $100 billion worth of debt? I think they will think he has gone to Wellington, and so has his sense of reality. I know that they would certainly not be voting him back in.

Where does that lack of a plan leave our economy? We have the dairy industry facing some huge challenges. It was the star of our rocky economy, but now not so. Because there has been no vision, no strategy, no plan for where we may go, and no diversification, that failing to plan has meant that we have planned to fail. Fonterra itself must take some responsibility. It set up a global trading platform that has simply driven the price down. It is the only New Zealand producer of dairy products on that platform, and there is only one other company selling. It is not an internationally recognised global trading platform, and so it is only giving indicative prices for dairy products.

Can I say that John Key has been determined to see the dairy industry on the stock market. He provided that through Trading Among Farmers, and now we have a company that is split between the loyalties to its shareholders or unitholders and those to its supplying farmers. That dilemma has distracted the directors. Can I say that on a day that the ASB has announced a record profit of $859 million, one of its directors sits on the board of Fonterra. I think when 500 staff at Fonterra are going to come under scrutiny, so too should the directors. There are three directors of Fonterra who sit on the major trading banks of this country that have, effectively, lent $34 billion to dairy farmers. We are told by cheerleaders for the Government not to call this a crisis. I say to you: put yourself in the gumboots of the farmer who has been encouraged to borrow money to grow his business, to grow the exports—double the exports, this Government has said—and now faces not only declining equity and a lack of viability but, in fact, a very, very bleak future.

It is not looking too good. Our rock star economy has got to rock-bottom. Yes, there are some stars—the beef industry temporarily, the wine industry, and the horticulture industry—but our No. 1 industry, dairy, is on its knees at the moment and it is going to be a big, big effort to get it out. We have seen no direction, no support, and no help from this National Government. What we say is that it will once again take a Labour Government to get the dairy industry out of the doldrums. It started in the 1930s and happened again in the 1950s, in the 1970s, and when we formed Fonterra and we made the hard call to take off subsidies. We are always prepared to make the hard decisions, show the leadership across the agribusiness sector, and make sure that this economy goes forward. At the moment we face a very bleak future, because the National Government has failed to plan and, inevitably, will plan to fail. The one person responsible is the trader over that side of the House, John Key, who came into this House wanting to sell off everything—

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

TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. It is a wonderful world for some in this country. It is a wonderful world for some. For example, if you are one of the people in this country who, after taking a profitable organisation and within a 12-month period taking it to a $3 million loss, then resigns and gets a payout package, it is a great country to be in. It is a great country to be in. No wonder—no wonder—everyday New Zealanders are shaking their heads and trying to look around themselves to see how they can get on in this country that is New Zealand under this National Government, when that is the sort of headline we get.

I wonder how many of the staff at Lincoln University also shook their heads when they saw Mr West, who we understand was escorted from the premises a week before he handed in his resignation. He handed in his resignation but then had a lovely conversation with the council members to make sure—and how did the council members say this—that we manage this in the terms that Andy West wanted to achieve for himself. I wonder how many of the permanent staff who were fired and who had their jobs disestablished, and so on and so forth, had a conversation as they were ushered out of Lincoln University about how we manage this in terms of what they want to achieve for themselves? And why were they ushered out of Lincoln University? Predominantly because there was a $5 million cash-in-hand amount when Mr West got there and now that Mr West has left, there is a $2 million to $3 million deficit on the books.

And how did we get to that? Well, through some really interesting decisions. But to start with, let us go to how Mr West was appointed. Let us go to 26 July 2013 and let us go to a statement by Mr Steven Joyce: “At Lincoln University and the University of Canterbury I am using an unusual number of appointment opportunities to implement a strategy that will encourage collaboration and cooperation across the two councils. This strategy will also strengthen the high-level financial skills available to councils in their deliberations as these institutions recover from the Canterbury earthquakes.” Well, that did not work, did it? That did not work, did it? So there you go: Mr Joyce; a high-level appointment; he is going to make it all right; and Mr West is then appointed, not by Mr Joyce, agreeably, but by people whom he put in place. Then there are some consultancy companies that were established—in April 2013, it looks like—so that they could deliberately get contracts handed out by Mr West in May 2013. And it goes on and it goes on. I do not have the time to go through everything, but believe me, this will not go away.

In the last few minutes, I want to talk about Salisbury School. I want to talk about Salisbury School, where I was on Monday. This school will be 100 years old, and it caters to young women with high, high special needs. It went to court in 2012 to stop this Government from closing it down. What has happened to it since? This Government has almost strangled it to death. Four years ago it had 80 students, catering for 80 high-needs students in a beautiful environment; an environment that provided excellent teaching, one-on-one learning, and peace and tranquillity for those students who need it. They boarded there and gave their families respite. How many students does it have now? Nine. How many students will it have next year? Two. Is that because there is no need? No, it is because the Intensive Wraparound Service is blocking these students. And how do I know that? I know that because our offices have had to work with students from families that are under extreme pressure—under extreme pressure—because of a philosophy that Lockwood Smith railed against when the Labour Government said that it was going to put it in.

So what has happened to the National Government philosophically so that it refuses to support these high-needs female students inside this incredibly intensive environment? We will not stop. We will continue to make sure that the families out there contact our offices, and we will fight this Government from shutting down Salisbury School and the special needs that are required for these young women. Kia ora.

Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa i tēnei ahiahi. About 2 or 3 weeks ago it was Māori Language Week, and I wanted to offer some reflections on Māori Language Week. Can I thank all members for their efforts around pronunciation of Māori names during Māori Language Week. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou.

Mr Speaker, can I thank you. I have got to say that on that Tuesday when you came down the aisle here I am pretty sure everybody was watching you and you had plenty of eyes on you. You went up to your platform and you started with our karakia. So koinei te mihi ki a koe. I want to say thank you. Although you took your time over it, it was brilliant that you set the scene for the House. I want to say congratulations for that. Maybe next time relax a bit, only because I think everybody was watching. I just want to acknowledge you for your efforts. Thank you so much for setting the scene for the week. The hope will be that we take it up and not have that focus for just the 1 week but indeed offer our karakia up in Māori throughout the year. I just ask you to give some consideration to that. But I do appreciate you setting the scene because that set the scene for the rest of the House, although I think we have fallen backwards a little bit over the last week.

Māori Language Week—I should thank the whole nation because the whole nation came behind that whole campaign. Broadcasters attempted speaking in Te Reo. I had a hui with Government agencies that said that they will give bilingual signs a go. I want to acknowledge the father of the member Peeni Henare. His dad, Ērima Hēnare, was honoured out at Waiwhetū for his work for Māori language. He was one who was hugely passionate about our language. But I suppose, in the end, I have got to ask the question: what are we going to do to look at increasing the number of speakers? “What do you really need to do, Te Ururoa?”, I was asked. I said: “Basically, it’s all about a heart thing. You can teach people as much as you like, but unless your heart believes in it, it isn’t going to happen.”

We thank the Black Caps for coming out with “Aotearoa” on the one-day cricket shirt. That is pretty awesome, and they are thinking about having a bilingual website shortly. In my office, we raised about $30 from those people paying fines for speaking English in our offices. So just know, everybody, that if you visit the Māori Party, there is a Māori-speaking zone there. I want to pay tribute to Finnian Galbraith, the young boy from Kāpiti College who set the web alight by asking everybody to give consideration to pronouncing Māori properly.

When I started my teaching career in a place called Kaikōura, all of the children I taught said “Kaikoura”. Their parents said “Kaikoura”. Their grandparents and great-grandparents said “Kaikoura”. I was a Māori language teacher. Was I going to turn that tide round? Probably not. But what it did do was remind me that what we learn as kids is likely to be the way that we will stay, generation after generation after generation. So even 2 weeks after Māori Language Week, I have been sitting here listening, and I have heard the word “Wairarapa”, I have heard “Taranaki”, and I have heard “Papakura”, and I am saying to us, as members of Parliament, that if we can do it for 1 week surely to goodness we can do it on a daily basis so that Papakura is Papakura, so that Papatoetoe is Papatoetoe, so that Taranaki is Taranaki, and so that Wairarapa is Wairarapa. So I ask members to think about that. It is not too hard. If it is good enough for Finnian, then it should surely be good enough for all of us.

Shortly, the Te Reo Māori bill will be coming into the House. It, hopefully, sets the framework around strategies for Te Reo Māori in this country. But strategies are just strategies. It really does come down to what we believe in our hearts and our minds.

In wrapping up, I suppose there are some things that rest with me as a Māori. On our marae, we need to take up the challenge to speak our language there, because you have to feel safe about what you do in utilising the resources around you. But Te Reo Māori is from this land. It belongs to me, it belongs to you, and it belongs to all of us. I enter this plea in Parliament this afternoon: that the catchphrase for this year is whāngaia te Reo Māori ki te whānau—feed the language to our children. And it cannot be hard for us to start doing that with our children and our grandchildren, because what we learn as young kids will stay with us when we become parents and become grandparents, and if we start now with our own, in our own families, that will set the scene for the country. If people are looking at us in this Parliament to set the scene, I think it should not be too hard for us to follow on. Having said that, I thank all members for their efforts during Māori Language Week. Tēnā koutou katoa.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): One of the key themes that have been coming through in questions and through the talk today is the economy and how it is being run. I would definitely say that in this Government’s hands, it is being run very well and strongly, and a big part of that is that we on this side of things actually recognise—

Dr David Clark: More debt than Muldoon.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Gosh, those members are already attacking Rob Muldoon, you know? I mean, that is absolutely desperate. He is well respected still in the wonderful place of Tāmaki. I think I have got that pronounced right—I am a bit nervous now. But one of the great things about this Government is that we actually recognise that economies go up and down. There are times when things are going really well and there are times when challenges kick in, and instead of holding up pieces of paper and trying to do—as was noted earlier—sort of seventh form or maybe fifth form rhetoric and debating, this Government gets on with the economy and supports Kiwis where it matters. It is very easy to just sort of make these statements, but I thought something that would give some example to it all is what is actually happening in Tāmaki, after some of my journeys of late, and around the country.

One element is that question of diversity in the economy, and I am happy to report that we actually have a very strong economy, well beyond dairy. That is obviously a big part of it, but I think of friends of mine who are involved in the gaming industry, of all things, who are producing remarkable new technologies and gaming systems for people, not only for fun but for education. More recently I visited the faculty of medical and health sciences at the University of Auckland. You will forgive me for not remembering exactly what the ophthalmological condition is, but they have created a game there that actually helps correct your sight, and that can go out to Kiwis for their treatment. Again, that is really neat stuff.

I think that if I can continue with the medical theme, I have visited in recent weeks those involved in digital health, everything from Vigil Monitoring to Orion Health to Simple IT. An amazing array of Kiwis are developing technologies that are not only going to help us—and, in fact, are already helping us in ways that most members probably do not know about because it just happens—but, equally, this intellectual property is product that we can sell, and are selling, overseas. There is some fantastic stuff happening there.

But also diversity, when I think of my own electorate, is manifested in the new businesses that have started up in recent weeks in my area. I think of John and his—it is called Tinman. It is a wonderful little vehicle down on Felton Mathew Avenue—

Tim Macindoe: Mathew Felton Avenue.

SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes, I know. Well, this is a great one for spoonerisms, really. It is absolutely fantastic coffee. There is a really neat new place in—

Tim Macindoe: There used to be an Icebreaker down there.

SIMON O’CONNOR: There did, indeed. But, no, that has gone now. But thank you, Tim. We will continue this dialogue here as I try to address the nation. You have got something called The Local Coffee House, which has started in the St Heliers Bay mall—a great new cafe and business—and then just further up the road you have got something called The Honest Food Co., which is working very much in the paleo and sugar-free diet area. That gives you just three examples of new businesses starting out in the electorate.

But all of that also sits, I think, on having a strong education system. As we have heard in recent weeks, particularly from the Opposition when those members have been plagiarising material, first and foremost, there is not the originality of ideas, and, secondly, they have not learnt the basic art of referencing one’s work.

Education is important, and in Tāmaki most recently it was very pleasing to see that 40 new classrooms have been announced for schools within Tāmaki at the likes of St Thomas School, Ōrākei School, Selwyn College, Tāmaki College, and Glendowie College. There are 40 new classrooms, plus five further classrooms that are being renovated. So this is going to start happening over the next 18 months, and it is something that I have been very keen on and very aware of when talking to the boards and the teachers, and the parents as well. There is a growing need for these classrooms.

Yesterday, I think it was, there was an announcement of $156,000 going into Tāmaki, and not just into Tāmaki but it is $156,000 to facilitate the learning of Asian languages, which I think is tremendous. Again, that is benefiting quite a range of our schools—St Thomas School, again; Churchill Park School; St Heliers School; Kohimārama School; and then our two colleges, Glendowie and Selwyn. The value, or the diversity, if you will, of languages is, well, almost incalculable. We know from the research that a child learning whatever language at a young age—it does not matter whether it is English, Māori, Samoan, Tongan, Latin, Greek, or Mandarin—is actually going to have real cognitive abilities. I am slightly biased. I have learnt six languages in my life. Whether it has helped me or not, I am not convinced completely.

But the other thing I would just note is that there is $13.1 million for a cycleway in Tāmaki from Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive. Again, great investment is going on there, and I think it is just fantastic.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare, tēnā koe. Three years ago I had the benefit, I guess, of being able to spend a day in the Fukushima exclusion zone, which is the 25-kilometre radius zone round the Fukushima nuclear power plant. Within that zone created in Japan, nobody was allowed to live because of the radiation and contamination from the explosion at Fukushima. Going around that zone was extraordinary because Japan is so crowded, but there was nobody there at the abandoned rice paddies, the abandoned villages, and so forth. You got a real sense of the genuine dangers of nuclear power in that context. The German Government took note of the Fukushima disaster and made the decision that it would phase out nuclear power, which is its democratic right.

A decision to phase out nuclear power over time passed through the Bundestag, the German Parliament. This, it seems to me, coming from nuclear-free New Zealand, is a perfectly reasonable position for a democratic Parliament to take. The problem was that Germany had signed an investment treaty with Sweden that had an investor-State dispute settlement clause within it. So a Swedish nuclear power station operator decided that it would take a case against Germany for about $7 billion—an investor-State dispute settlement case. It was suing the German Government because the German Government had the temerity to democratically decide that it wanted to phase out nuclear power.

This is a classic problem with investor-State dispute settlement clauses: they give investors special rights to sue Governments in secret tribunals for very large compensation. The biggest case that we know of is US$1.3 billion, which was awarded against Ecuador. The reason why Vattenfall, the power company, was so confident in its case—this case is ongoing against the German Government—was that Vattenfall had previously taken on the German Government over a coal-fired power plant. Hamburg, where the plant was to be built, had put a whole bunch of environmental protections on the plant. It put a whole bunch of environmental rules around the new coal plant, which were designed to protect the River Elbe. Vattenfall, the Swedish power company, did not like these environmental rules so it sued the German Federal Government, under investor-State dispute settlement clauses for a little over €1 billion. The German Government settled out of court. You might say: “Oh well, that proves that Vattenfall did not win.” Well, in fact, it did win, because the settlement out of court was that Hamburg had to remove all of the environmental constraints. That is a classic example of how investor-State dispute settlement clauses undermine the ability of Governments to regulate to protect the environment. This is just one case amongst hundreds. These cases are now multiplying. There are more cases than ever every year over investor-State dispute settlement clauses.

The problem with these investor-State dispute settlement clauses is that there is no international court that you can go to. You go to a three-person panel, a tribunal—one person is appointed by the company, one is appointed by the Government, and one agreed in the middle. The decisions of these tribunals are binding. There is no appeal. The proceedings happen in secret, literally in secret. Often people do not know until some time afterwards what the decision was—how much the costs were that were awarded. So the impact of these is a chilling effect on regulation—the regulation by Governments in order to protect human health and the environment. This is why the European Union Trade Commissioner has now come out and said that these clauses are no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century, and they will not sign up to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which is the equivalent agreement to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, if you like, between Europe and the United States. The obstacle to signing that at the moment is the investor-State dispute settlement clauses, because the Europeans are saying: “We will not sign up to these clauses, which prevent our Government from regulating to protect the environment or human health or anything else.” Let us remember that Egypt was sued because it raised the minimum wage in one of these cases.

These clauses are a fundamental constraint on democratic regulation, and that is why they are so problematic in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The clause that Tim Groser is so keen to sign up to in the Trans-Pacific Partnership is exactly the clause that the EU commissioner described as no longer fit for purpose in the 21st century. That is the clause that the EU refuses to sign, and Tim Groser is rushing in to sign it. What is it all for? Well, according to the US Department of Agriculture, if New Zealand gets everything it wants in the Trans-Pacific Partnership, all the agricultural tariffs are removed, all the agricultural trade-related quotas are removed, and New Zealand’s GDP will increase by 0.01 percent in 2025. And for that we are willing to trade our right to pass democratic law to protect the environment and human health. That is a bad deal.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. In this country, we are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants, whether we can track our ancestry to the waka or to the sailing boats of the early part of the 1800s—whether we are of European descent or of Chinese descent. That is how long the Chinese have been in this country—for more than 200 years—and I think that it is a disgrace that the Labour Party has picked out people with Chinese-sounding names and is blaming that group of Kiwis for a housing shortage.

Hon Maggie Barry: It’s a disgrace.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: It is a disgrace—playing the race card and picking on a group of people that has been here for hundreds of years. Perhaps if you look at the statistics, in fact, the people who are buying more houses—

Dr David Clark: Tell the truth.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: I will tell you the truth.

The people who are buying houses in Auckland look more like Mr Twyford. I would be betting that the people who are buying houses in Auckland are white and male. That is what I would be putting my money on. They will be people who have chosen to live in Auckland. They will be people who have moved, perhaps from Christchurch, bringing their tools of trade, and they will be working on the large—[Interruption] They may not be moving into a very desirable place. There is lots of work going on, and they are going to Auckland for work. These are the people who are going to be moving to Auckland, and more recently, in this generation—whether it is Australians, Americans, Somalians, Afghans, Filipinos—they are all coming and choosing to live in New Zealand. They bring the skills and the finance. They contribute to our economy. They create jobs, they pay taxes, and they are welcome. In the Wairarapa, we have chefs, teachers, movie producers, and winemakers—all recent immigrants. They are all contributing to the local economy. New immigrants will now find it easier to come to Masterton to set up home, because this Government is giving a greater number of credits to those who apply to live in New Zealand away from Auckland. This is fantastic for the regions.

The dairy sector is going through a rough patch. I can assure you, though, that the sky is not falling in. Sheep and beef production has good days and bad days. The wine industry has had good days and bad days. The kiwifruit industry has had bad days and good days. There are swings and roundabouts, and the sanctimony from the other side, treating people like they are idiots, is just not appreciated. People who are in business understand that there are risks. People understand that there are commodity cycles. People understand that there will be good years and there will be “less good” years. It is important for the Government that it creates a framework for business people to operate within—not to tell them how to operate or to subsidise their business but to create a framework that they can operate their businesses within. So that is why we have not put the agricultural sector in the emissions trading scheme, as opposed to the Opposition, which would suggest that. There is no capital gains tax, as has been flip-flopped around by the Labour Party. There is no water tax or anti-irrigation theme, which is what the Opposition is promoting. There is, I can assure you, strong research and development in the Primary Growth Partnership programme, which is all about agriculture and primary production.

Last but not least, we do support free-trade agreements. We want our products to be sold throughout the world, and we want to open up markets for our primary producers. That is the solution to increasing jobs and increasing wealth for all New Zealanders. The Government has recently announced, for the dairy sector, an investment, if you like, of half a million dollars to support mental health in the rural sector. That is something that the Government can do and has done. That is more than 100 rural-focused mental health practitioners, which is very much appreciated by the rural sector. Having a diversified, resilient economy enables us to invest in the future. I am pleased to continue to support this Government in the things that it does for the rural sector.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe. Tēnā tātou katoa, e ngā mema o te Whare nei. National members’ complacency in the face of plunging global dairy prices is recklessly irresponsible. As farmers in communities around them have said, billions of dollars disappear in front of their eyes. National cannot turn a blind eye to the crisis in dairying. Last year the economy lost $7 billion—$7 billion—from lower dairy prices. We seek to lose at least that much again. Fonterra’s dairy payout drop means that dairy farmers are $5.7 billion in the red, over two seasons, compared with a break-even payout of $5.70. Dairy farm prices are falling, down 18 percent since October, and banks are starting to foreclose on over-indebted farmers. The price of dairy products is beyond the Government’s control, but National’s policies made us more dependent on them. It has encouraged dairy conversions and subsidised irrigation while failing to invest in research and development, manufacturing, and to make sure we extract greater value from our produce.

I am the proud member for Ikaroa-Rāwhiti. It is 762 kilometres in length. I cover the Hawke’s Bay, the East Coast, Gisborne, Central Hawke’s Bay, Wairarapa, and the Hutt Valley. Our economy is very reliant on farming, fishing, and forestry. Hence the reason why, when I hear from this Government that things are doing really well, that is not my reality when I travel up and down the breadth of my electorate. There is clearly a disconnect with what the Ministers and the Prime Minister are saying in this House, in telling every New Zealander that the regions are thriving.

Can I tell you from my trips that I have both up the East Coast—around forestry, around transportation issues—and Gisborne, in terms of shipping out our logs, which are still very much raw, from the harbour there, that there are no jobs being created. In fact, when I have a look at the latest unemployment statistics for Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay—let us compare them. In 2008 we had an unemployment rate for Māori of 8.5 percent. In 2008, in quarter two, we had 8.5 percent of Māori unemployed. In quarter two, in this year, 2015, Māori unemployment is at 15.3 percent—15.3 percent! So how can we stand here in this House and say that the people of the Gisborne area are benefiting from a growing economy? Those statistics clearly say that they are not.

But hold on, let us look at gender. We see that 3.2 percent of males in 2008 were likely to be unemployed and this year it has almost doubled to 7.2 percent. Female unemployment rates have gone from 5.7 percent in 2008 to 8.2 percent this year. Clearly, the unemployment statistics are not showing the benefits that this Government, this National-led Government, wants New Zealanders to believe in.

In the short time I have to stand and speak in this general debate—there is an issue very close to my heart that aligns with this Government’s economic growth agenda, and that is around He Kai Kei Āku Ringa, the Māori economic strategy. Part and parcel of that strategy is the reviewing of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I want to point out and raise, for all members in the House, the concerns from the four consultation hui that I attended throughout my electorate and what Māori landowners were saying. They were, basically, complaining that the review of this Act was coming in a very hurried and unconsidered way, and that the exposure draft that we were asked to comment on removed the preamble. The preamble part of the original Act talks about Māori landowners’ connections to whenua, which is around whakapapa and identity. It does not talk about utilisation of land. It does not talk about commercial gain or profit. It talks about our whakapapa to whenua. That is what is in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, as we speak, in the preamble.

What the exposure draft presents is the removal of that and a replacement with the words “better utilisation of land”. I bring it to the attention of the House that if you ask Māori landowners, that is a real concern for many of them. The second point I want to make about the—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The time for this debate has expired.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill be now read a first time. I will nominate the Government Administration Committee to consider the bill. Christian Churches New Zealand is an association of more than 30 congregations that began in Nelson in 1844. I have the privilege, as the local MP, to sponsor this private bill, which enables these Christian churches to modernise its property trust board.

The Christian Churches movement began in the early 1800s in both the UK and the US, out of concern that the more traditional churches were too rigid and authoritarian. Their focus was on unity and teachings of the New Testament. The church grew rapidly in New Zealand from its Nelson beginnings, soon after which the nation was formed with the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. New congregations were formed in Auckland in 1845, in Dunedin in 1858, and in Christchurch in 1870, and by 1885 they had grown to 25 churches across the country. I am particularly proud of the strength and contribution of the six churches in the Nelson region: the Unite Church in the city, the Annesbrook Church in Stoke, the Church of Christ in Richmond, the Alive Church of Christ in Motueka, and the Church of Christ in Tākaka.

In my work previously, as the MP for Tasman and the MP for Nelson, I have seen in person the huge contribution these churches have made in working with youth, in supporting family members in their time of bereavement and in supporting families in hardship, and that generosity has spread well beyond just those members in their fellowship. The churches have grown strongly over that time, and I have been the benefactor of some of that growth. Twenty years ago the Annesbrooke Church congregation in Stoke outgrew its premises and built a wonderful new complex in Saxton Road. I purchased their old hall and church manse for my electorate office and home. The media at the time joked that it was probably my best prospect of becoming a Minister—by purchasing a church. I do recall at that time my dealings with the church property trust members and I was impressed with their honesty and with the integrity of that transaction.

The reason for this bill is that the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, which governs the management of these church properties, is outdated and needs modernising. It is a private bill and does not impact on any other people’s property. I have met with all of the churches concerned at their annual conference and noted their strong support for this sensible reform. The bill dissolves the existing trust, repeals the existing Act, and transfers all properties to a new, standard charitable trust under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. It ensures that all the legal obligations of the old trust transfers to the new. It also transfers all of the properties from the old to the new. It is worthwhile noting the history of the current Act in setting out the planned future governance of these church properties.

Initially, each of the church properties was vested in each autonomous congregation in the name of church elders. This was not entirely practical, and in the 1920s the conference of churches decided to have a legal entity that could own all the properties. The legal entity was incorporated as the Church Extension and Property Trust Board of Associated Churches of Christ in New Zealand. There was some doubt then about the legal capacity of the board to hold all those properties vested within it, so the private Act was passed by this Parliament in 1929.

A new trust was formed after agreement at the 2013 conference of the churches, but this bill is required to execute the transfer. The new trust has interim trustees and has appointed a solicitor, Mr Viesturs Altments, whom I have worked with. I pay tribute to him for his work in bringing this bill to the House. The key difference enabled by this trust change is that the new trust has a wider reference. Whereas the 1929 Act has limited the assets to be used only for property purposes and any properties sold would be able to be used only for that purpose, the new Act and trust would enable the assets to be used for the wider mission and outreach work of the associated churches. The churches resolved in 2012 also to change their name from the Churches of Christ to Christian Churches New Zealand.

I am of the Christian faith and hold huge respect for the role churches play in our communities in the development of our society. I cannot speak for all of the 40 congregations across New Zealand, but I am a strong admirer of the work of these Christian churches in my home community of Nelson. This Parliament should support this quite sensible reform of its property governance structure. I did note, somewhat jokingly, from my colleague the Attorney-General that he would be fronting an amendment to enable the churches to be able to return to the true faith in Rome. I am hoping that other colleagues will take a more charitable and Christian perspective.

I do note the degree to which Christian Churches New Zealand is already engaged internationally with the wider family of churches, and many of the parishes in New Zealand—10 of them, in fact—are union churches involved in partnerships with other denominations. This bill is simply about letting these 40 churches more flexibly manage their own property, and I commend it to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call Stuart Nash.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh, excellent choice.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): A wise—actually, not—choice. Look, we support this bill. It seems like it is a very non-contentious bill. I note, as the previous speaker, the Minister Nick Smith, stated, that the bill replaces the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929. Whenever I see this sort of bill, which really is non-contentious and, basically, just changes the legal structure under which assets are held, I always have just one question—and I think the Minister answered this, but it is one that has to be asked—and that is whether all the members of all the parishes actually agreed to the change of structure. Obviously, there are legal implications from changing the structure, even though I note that the new trust, under the bill we are talking about now, will still be bound by all of the deals, contracts, and obligations of the old trust. In fact, it appears, reading through the bill, that very little will change except the actual name. Again, we just need to know that every parish member, or every parish that is part of this, actually agreed to this. I think the Minister alluded to that.

I also note that things change over 85 years. Back in 1929 who knew what was going to be happening in 2015? They set up a structure 85 years ago to meet the times, and times have changed. It is quite interesting, and I have reflected on that. Obviously, the country was in the grip of a recession in 1929; there was record unemployment, and people were worried about their jobs, their future, their children, and their families. Although some things change a lot in 85 years, some things do not change either. We are still in a period, 85 years later, where we have record unemployment, where we have a global financial crisis, where people are still worried about their future, where we have a commission for work because we do not know what work is going to look like. So although much changes, a lot does not change.

We are supporting this bill. It is a non-contentious bill. It is sensible. I doubt that all the property is going to be returned to Rome. Is there such a thing as a true church?

Tim Macindoe: Your great-grandfather would have liked it.

STUART NASH: Yes, Walter was a lay preacher, actually. He believed in this. In fact, he was what you would call a Christian democrat, as opposed to a social democrat.

Tim Macindoe: He’d be proud of you.

STUART NASH: He would be very proud—a lay preacher; there is no doubt about that. He was in Parliament in 1929, so he probably spoke on this very legislation all those years ago. Minister Smith, you can nod if you like—you are not concentrating. I sort of expect that from Nick Smith. We support this bill, and I commend it to the House.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you very much for this opportunity to rise in support of the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill, and what an empowering piece of legislation it is. I would like to start in the same vein as the Hon Nick Smith and acknowledge the work that the associated churches do. Whether you are Christian or not, their work in the ministry and bringing people together and engaging in their community is admirable and it deserves commendation.

As we have heard, this bill is a tidy-up bill. The existing legislation is terribly old and is not a vehicle that is fit for purpose for the associated churches. It is out of date, it has old language, and, basically, the churches cannot manage their resources appropriately in this modern-day world. They are more than just a venue—churches—albeit that churches still have a place in our communities as a venue, but they need to be able to deal with their resources appropriately in order to deal with the programmes that they have with regard to helping youth to engage in communities and to engage with people, to make them feel hopefully more loved and more integral in a community that can sometimes be quite a lonely place when you live in an age of TVs, the internet, and things like that, and you just crave some human contact. This bill will dissolve the old board and transfer the property to the new board. As part of that, the bill gives the board the power to use its resources appropriately and enrich communities.

There is an associated church in Invercargill, which is the Freedom Community Centre, in the Glengarry area. The building is well known and plays an integral part in the Glengarry-Richmond community. I too praise the work of the trustees at that church in building a community and enriching the lives of children, mothers and fathers, and the elderly. It is integral in that community and has done some extremely good work.

As for matters that will not be affected—although the bill provides for the dissolution of the old board and transfer of its property, the obligations to the new board are not to be treated as placing a person in breach of, or default under, any contract or in breach of any trust, and are not to be treated as entitling a person to terminate, cancel, or modify any contract. So these are administrative things that will not occur. The transfer will not entitle a person to enforce or accelerate the performance of any obligation of an existing contract, require the performance of an obligation not otherwise arising for performance—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Can I remind the member that just reading the bill out is not actually debating it—OK? Thank you.

SARAH DOWIE: Back to the purpose of the bill, anyway—it is to enrich the lives of people, through the vehicle of the new bill, to allow the trustees to deal with their property more appropriately and to invest in activities that are not just at the venue of the church.

So, with regard to that, I think this is going to be an excellent bill, given that the previous Act is old. They need this vehicle to make the change, to move on into the 21st century in dealing with their property. We support this bill. With regard to the Freedom Community Centre in Invercargill, I know it will be very pleased to have this in place. I commend this bill to the House.

DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a very brief call on this bill. I suspect I am one of the many people in the House who perhaps were not aware of the existence of this organisation. It is perhaps one of those interesting little statutory anomalies that pop up from time to time. Clearly it now appears to be necessary for a legislative instrument to rename, I guess, to remake, a trust board that has existed since about 1929.

It was interesting reading the history behind this bill. Genuinely, I have recently been reading a book called Bible & Treaty: Missionaries Among the Māori—A New Perspective, which talks about the influence of the early missionaries in Northland, especially around Pēwhairangi. It is a good reminder, in fact, that the churches were part of the fabric of our culture—our shared culture—over many years and indeed, still are, albeit perhaps in a different and arguably somewhat less persuasive form.

We have read the bill, obviously; we have had a look through it. We are persuaded that it is a well-drafted piece of legislation. The responsibilities, rights, obligations, contractual arrangements, and so on of the existing board carry forward to the new arrangement, and that is as it should be. We see nothing in the bill to suggest any malice or anything other than a pragmatic response to a situation that has emerged over nearly 100 years, so we are very happy to support this bill.

MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am happy to take a call. I have to say that I did get some very good-natured ribbing from my colleagues when I was picked to speak on this bill, as I am a Catholic boy who was born and raised on the North Shore and schooled at Rosmini College. I grew up in the parish of St John’s in Mairangi Bay. But I am very happy to speak to this bill.

I want to acknowledge the Minister Nick Smith because if there was any Minister who was going to sponsor a bill, be passionate about it, and make sure that it travelled safely through its passage in this House it would be the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I was very pleased to see that one of the churches—[Interruption] Sorry, what was that, Ruth?

Hon Ruth Dyson: You need to repeat them. He’s not listening.

MARK MITCHELL: No, he got it—do not worry. He knows. I am very pleased to point out and acknowledge one of the churches—and it is really pleasing to see that the churches are spread right throughout the country. So although the bill has been sponsored by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, it is actually relevant for a good part of New Zealand. One of the churches is the Mairangi Bay Community Church, which I know very well. It does terrific work in our communities. It is really pleasing to see that what this bill is going to do is allow it to use its assets for a much wider outreach in terms of the work, the services, and the care that it is going to be able to deliver into the communities that it serves. Of course, this relates to all the churches and the Christian centres that are going to be affected by the bill. So I am very, very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First also has no objection to this bill and will be pleased to vote for it. I see that the matter has had quite a long history and that initially church property for the various churches concerned was held in the names of elders of the congregations. You can understand the practical difficulties that might have arisen from that and that did, in fact, occur, resulting in new legislation in 1908 when a board was incorporated under the Religious, Charitable, and Educational Trusts Act 1908.

But even then it did not solve the problem, because I see there were doubts as to the board’s ability to legally hold the properties vested in it and that a private Act of Parliament was necessary and was enacted. That was the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, which did contain a provision defining the trusts upon which the board was to hold the real estate and, indeed, other property concerns. So it took rather a long time even to get to that position, which is quite extraordinary.

But, of course, even now it is not a satisfactory situation because over the years, as you would expect, a number of church properties have been sold and the proceeds of that have to be invested and then applied for the purposes of the trust. As it has transpired, of course, the legislation and the definition of the powers—especially the administrative powers under those trusts—have not been adequately set out. So we now find that there is wording that does create significant doubt about how the funds can indeed be applied. That is the matter that this bill specifically addresses.

I also see that the churches have had a conference back in 2013. They have formed a new trust. Real and personal property held by the board now needs to be transferred to that trust, and the specific terms of new trusts need to be properly set out. That is what the bill provides for—those two things: the transfer of the property, and provisions to widen the administrative powers of the trustees so that they can apply to property, especially the proceeds of sale of church property for the purposes of the trust. It has been determined that such a transfer would require a further Act of Parliament for the purpose.

The terms of the new trust are wider than in the previous legislation. They will allow the churches to consider their wider mission and outreach, not only in terms of buildings but also in using their funds for other activities of the churches. New Zealand First certainly approves of both of those objectives: the updating of the legislation to ensure that for this day and age the church property can be held under a new trust with new legislation, and wider powers to create the administrative ability that the trustees need to properly administer those funds and that property for the purposes of the churches involved.

So it remains only for New Zealand First to congratulate the churches and the trustees involved and to wish them well in their future endeavours in the administration of this property under the new Act and with those new powers.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise and speak in support of this bill. I have to say there is a bit of a love-in going on today. There are Catholics and Anglicans getting together like they never have done in history. My history in this may be limited, but there was a time when they would greet each other with stick implements and fire and do bodily damage. I would say that if they could extend this fellowship and bonhomie to heathen atheists like me, we would be singing “Kumbaya” before we knew it.

But I would just like to talk to the bill, if I might. What I would say is that the reason we are here to talk about this is just an illustration that needs, requirements, and situations evolve over time. So if we look at the private Act that exists, that is in force today, the Associated Churches of Christ Church Property Act 1929, it is a very, very valid and good piece of legislation for its time. That was a time when over 30 congregations came into an association under Christian Churches New Zealand and looked to pull property under a trust so that they could continue their social good and charitable acts across not only their own congregations but, in fact, across the public of New Zealand.

At the time I understand that a lot of the property was held in the names of the elders of those churches. Any view on governance would suggest that that would hold some real challenges in terms of what we would today call best-practice governance. So that association put together a trust structure to help manage those property assets and govern those property assets in a more appropriate manner. In the sense of giving legal certainties of the day, that led towards the Act that exists and that we are not only amending but going to repeal if this bill goes through.

At the time it removed risks that there could be legal challenges to the rights of that association or that trust to hold those property assets, which would in turn provide the foundation for the charitable works that they would do. We have a bit of a converse but related issue now, and that is the case that the churches have in fact disposed of some of those assets over time. They may, in fact, wish to do more of that. Doing that would not only be possible or desirable; it could actually be a far better use of the money or the proceeds gained, to use them in a different form to support the charitable and good works they do in society.

At the moment there is a real concern—a real concern—that if the churches liquidate some physical real estate property held under the Act as it stands today, they must replace that with real estate assets to use those proceeds, whereas it might be better for them to use the cash and provide charitable works in another way.

So what we are doing, as well as modernising the situation and bringing it in line with other trust practices across our society, is making sure that this association of churches that does good work in our society is not going to be placed at risk of legal challenge for the good work that it does simply because of some archaic provisions, which at the time were very, very valid but which, I would argue, are outdated now.

I think, as other members have raised in the House, there is a very, very strong presumption that the funds received from the current assets can be used only in real estate and that they cannot be used as cash assets for other purposes. So the action we will take as we proceed through the stages of the bill will certainly give greater flexibility to this association of churches to do the work that it does.

I think it is important to note though that although we will be making some modernising changes, we are being very careful to ensure that all of the rights, responsibilities, and obligations that exist under the existing obligations, particularly in respect of honouring leases or the management thereof, or any contracts that might be held—potentially things such as maintenance contracts on existing property—will remain in force and that the association will be obliged to continue to honour those. That is a very important thing. We are not about breaking something here; we are about modernising it and giving it some flexibility, but also maintaining fundamental good governance. So I support this bill and I commend it to the House.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am happy to make a short contribution on this particular bill. As my colleague Stuart Nash said earlier, there does not appear to be any controversy with the bill and the information therein. It is, basically, straightforward. It is a transfer of all rights, obligations, and contractual arrangements from the old board to the new board. It is dissolving the old board, under the legislation, and removing it from the register of charitable trusts. The third point is that it is repealing the legislation that was the basis for the old board.

The only thing that I would raise at this early stage and suggest that the select committee could, I believe, look at is that the bill does not make any reference to the trust deed. It does not make any reference to how the members of that trust will be elected. It does not make any reference to whether the trust deed will be changed; yet, in the explanatory note it makes reference to the fact that the old board was set up, essentially, for property purposes—for real estate. The new board wants now to expand its obligations, and so I think—particularly with the chair of the Government Administration Committee here—that that is an area that I hope that members of the association may want to enlighten the committee on.

I want to acknowledge the fact that the churches, or whoever drafted the legislation, have provided a fairly comprehensive history of the organisation. It is wonderful to note the wonderful work that they have done, not only in New Zealand but also on an international level. But I think we owe it to the wider membership to have a little bit of a better look at those things, and I am hopeful that the people who make submissions to the select committee process will raise that.

The final point that I would make is that I find it really interesting that on occasions such as this, we have members on the Government benches revealing their Christian backgrounds. I am hopeful that by their revealing those, they acknowledge the work that church organisations are doing right at this very moment. They are dealing with the very difficult issues that people are facing the length and breadth of New Zealand. When members reveal their Christian backgrounds or their affiliation, I hope that they take note of the struggles that the church organisations are having to deal with, in particular the housing crisis and a range of other difficult tasks that people are dealing with. When members raise these issues, I want to remind them that they have an obligation to minimise the inequality that their policies have caused. Thank you.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to talk to the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill 2015. Fundamentally, as has been said, this is a bill that empowers the transfer of property from an old board to a new board. I thought it might be kind of interesting to maybe look at the first property that the church acquired to give a bit of background to that, and then bring it forward into modern days.

On 2 March 1844 the first Churches of Christ preacher in Wellington came from Scotland—Thomas Jackson, actually—and his first converts were Thomas Butler, James Barton, Thomas Magarey, Charles Nichol and wife, John Batt and wife, George Taylor, whom I will come back to, and John Griffiths. In 1844 they had no trained ministry; they were all lay people. In fact, they followed the British churches’ formula, if you like, which had lay people preaching. So they ministered their faith using borrowed periodicals. Why I mention George Taylor is that it was very fortuitous that when he came from Yorkshire he brought a whole lot of British periodicals with him. Subsequently the congregation reached out to James Wallis in Nottingham and Alexander Campbell in the USA, who regularly sent theological periodicals for the burgeoning faith to use. A few years later in an economic depression the church actually discontinued, and then it recommenced in 1879 with a total of 13 members. As you will see, over the next 50 years it actually got to a maximum of 4,900, but I will come to that.

In 1883 here is the church’s first building, its first property, now Hocton hall. The land was donated and it paid £350. So here is one of the properties that are being transferred from the old board to the new board, Hocton hall. After that the church had rapid membership growth. In fact, no more than 2 or 3 years later it had 25 churches and 1,238 members, and had engaged a full-time evangelist, Edward Lewis. If we could jump 50 years, if you like, I said the church’s highest membership was actually in 1938, when it had 4,962 members in New Zealand. That brings us through to today when, as it openly states, its membership is declining a bit, and may be around about 1,800. But I would like to look at some of the achievements of the Churches of Christ, as it was known as then. Of course, now it is the Christian Churches New Zealand. The name was changed in 2012.

If we look at some of the achievements of this organisation—firstly, it was represented at the first World Convention of Churches of Christ in 1930. Secondly, in 1955 the Churches of Christ became members of the Joint Standing Committee on Church Union. That had been set up by the congregational Methodist, Presbyterian, and Anglican churches. Thirdly, in 1940 it was a foundation member of the National Council of Churches in New Zealand and the World Council of Churches. Fourthly, it has had members who have been associates and the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, and one of its members was an executive director of the Christian World Service. Finally, some of its members have also been chaplains and exhibited leadership in a number of groups, including the Bible Society and the Leprosy Mission. In fact, it contributed some of the early missionaries to Southern Rhodesia in the late 1800s, which was, you know, a really good mission.

If we look today, as has been commented, the initial property was in the names of the elders of the congregations. Well, clearly that did not work in a modern world. In 1924 at a Dunedin conference the church formed a board, and all the property has since been authorised and held by the Churches of Christ under the Associated Churches of Christ Property Act 1929. That brings us to 2013 when the church reconfigured and formed a new entity, and a new structure was formed. It is that structure, that entity, that this Act authorises.

This bill vests property appropriately. It also says there is no breach in fiduciary duty from old to new. It also says there is no cancelling of existing contractual arrangements and, I think importantly and practically, there is no requirement for retrospective name corrections on any existing instruments. So I think this organisation has had a fine history and foundation in Nelson. I think it has contributed to New Zealand and around the world. I have no hesitation in recommending this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Just to exercise my right of reply, I thank members from each of the parties for their contributions. I acknowledge the broad support in the House for this bill. I particularly welcome the reflection of the rich history of the Christian churches from my colleague Shane Reti, which I think reminds us of some of the struggles of the early people who founded our nation and their work as missionaries, both in New Zealand and overseas. As members of this House have noted, this bill is simply about allowing Christian Churches New Zealand to be able to modernise the governance of their properties. I welcome the ongoing work of the House, through the Government Administration Committee, to be able to progress this bill and enable Christian Churches New Zealand to have a more governance structure of their church properties across our country.

Bill read a first time.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill

First Reading

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill be now read a first time. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. However, I am going to keep my remarks very short. Several people have criticised the bill and Parliament’s use of time on this matter. This Parliament debates a great deal of matters, and I do not believe that it is anything but churlish to deny New Zealanders the opportunity to watch the rugby in a pub or club, surrounded by their friends, and that we should not begrudge a small amount of Parliament’s time to make that possible. Indeed, people have asked: “Is this needed?”. Well, the fact of the matter is that we do not need rugby. We do not need pubs. We do not need a Rugby World Cup. None the less, if we took our actions on the basis of what was absolutely needed, we would have a very dreary world indeed. So I turn the question round and ask why responsible New Zealand adults should not be able to enjoy watching the game amongst friends and families over breakfast perhaps, or coffee perhaps, or perhaps a pint in the fabulous clubs and pubs that our community is lucky to have.

The bill in its present form allows for licensed pubs and clubs to open outside normal licensing hours in certain circumstances. If a Rugby World Cup 2015 game or series of games begins within 2 hours of normal closing time, then that venue will be licensed automatically to stay open under its usual terms until 1 hour after the end of that game. If a game begins more than 2 hours after the usual closing time, then in that case the licensed venue can reopen—that is, serve alcohol—half an hour before kick-off and stay open until 1 hour after the game. However, there are several conditions. The primary purpose of that opening must be to watch the game. The venue must have at least one television, and it must have a system to ensure that watching the game is the primary purpose. It must display the details of its extensions prominently prior to the extension occurring. It must notify the district licensing authority and the police at least 1 week before the time of its opening.

Those are the details of the bill. I expect that there will be some changes in the Committee stage over the next 2 weeks. Democracy is about other people choosing from time to time. However, I would make just one point: the bill in its present form applies to all games of the Rugby World Cup. I would like to say that I am proud to live in a country that is one of the most diverse and harmonious societies that this world has ever seen. I am proud of the fact that when the Indian team won in the Cricket World Cup the celebrations in downtown Auckland seemed bigger than the celebrations in downtown Delhi. I am proud of the fact that at the last Rugby World Cup Mount Eden village in my electorate, if I remember it rightly, embraced being the cheer village for the Tongan team.

I hope that this House will see its way to have the bill passed for all games, reflecting that New Zealand is a country with a quarter of a million people of British descent, 50,000 Australians somewhere, many South Africans, Tongans, Samoans, and so it goes on. There are many nationalities or citizenships represented even in this House. None the less, politics is often the art of compromise and if this bill emerges as applying to at least the All Black games and finals, then that, I believe, will be a great victory.

I would like to thank my colleagues from around the House: from the National Party—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Oh, so he’s been talked down by his National Party mates.

DAVID SEYMOUR: —and from the Labour Party, with the exception of Clayton Cosgrove. I would like to thank New Zealand First and, in particular, my colleagues in the Greens, who initially disagreed with this course of action but have shown that they can reach across the aisle and work for a positive outcome for New Zealanders, and, of course, my colleagues from the Māori Party and from United Future. All of us have had constructive discussions about this bill because it is fundamentally what New Zealanders want.

So with all of that in mind I welcome the debate. I hope that the bill will have a speedy passage through this House and will be able to enable people to do what they want, which is to responsibly enjoy using our community facilities when the games happen to be outside normal licensing hours, this 2015 Rugby World Cup. Most of all, despite what I have said about our diverse and harmonious culture, I really hope that the All Blacks win. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Bills

Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill

Referral of Bill to Government Administration Committee

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): In the excitement of the moment I forgot to invite Nick Smith to refer his bill to the select committee. So to correct my error I seek the leave of the House for the Christian Churches New Zealand Property Trust Board Empowering Bill to be referred to the Government Administration Committee. There being no objection to that, we have handled that one.

Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The presiding officers have had some inquiries as to whether the vote on this bill will be a conscience issue determined by a personal vote. Normally the sale of alcohol is treated as a conscience issue by parties, and that fact is known generally well in advance of the first reading of a bill. In the case of this bill, which was introduced by leave today, there has not been the opportunity to gauge whether in fact parties have positions on it. Therefore, people in the Chair will determine during the course of the debate whether parties have positions on the bill or whether they are treating it as a conscience issue, and the obvious things will flow from that.

Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): I am pleased to take a call in support of the first reading of Mr Seymour’s Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. Just noting your ruling, Mr Assistant Speaker, can I begin by indicating that the National Government will be supporting the bill at first reading. That is the decision of our caucus, and I am very pleased to be able to indicate that support to Mr Seymour.

There is no doubt in this House, I think, that we have a very unique situation here, which deserves a unique response. We have a tournament being played on the other side of the world, representing not only the third-largest sporting event in the world but also, more important for most New Zealanders, the game that I think New Zealand really considers its national game and that is featuring our own very much beloved All Blacks. Not everyone in this country is sports mad, but a vast majority of us are absolute, diehard All Blacks fans—and the sensible ones are also Crusaders fans; but that is another debate, which we will not get into—and watching the All Blacks is something that I think New Zealanders really do regard as a critical part of being a New Zealander. Certainly, the Rugby World Cup comes around once every 4 years, and there can be no doubt that it has a special place in New Zealand—from both the attention it gets and our focus on it to the very mood you can feel on the streets as you walk around New Zealand, depending on whether the All Blacks have played well. On the very rare occasion that that has not happened, you can certainly pick that up in the air.

In this particular case, as I mentioned, the tournament is being played on the other side of the world, and, uniquely, the way that the scheduling has worked means that almost every single game will be played in the few hours that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act deems as prohibited hours for trading for licensed premises. Although the Act certainly provides a framework for special licences to be granted—and that system works very well in the vast majority of cases—in a situation like this, when we will have a huge number of licensed premises from Cape Reinga to Bluff wanting to be able to offer their communities an alternative to get along and watch the game live in a group situation where they can feel the excitement of the crowd and they can feel not quite as if they are there but as good as it gets from this side of the world, it is not something that we would want to see affected by a process of unnecessary levels of bureaucracy. I think the intent of this bill, which is to ensure that that is not unreasonably disrupted, is a good one.

To be fair—and Mr Seymour and I have had this discussion—it is the National Party’s view that there are matters within the bill that we think we would want to look at more closely. In particular, we have a view about the games that should be covered by this blanket granting of a special licence for every facility in New Zealand. That is a very, very high threshold, and it is a unique set of circumstances that justifies it. Certainly, going into this process, our initial view is that that sort of blanket granting of special licences to licensed premises around New Zealand is certainly warranted for the All Blacks’ games and is warranted for the play-off matches, but it is hard to make the same level of argument for some of the other teams that will be playing. That is not to say that there will not be interest in them for some New Zealanders, but not to the level that would warrant an automatic blanket special licence for every game for every bar in New Zealand. That is certainly something that we will be wanting to discuss.

In addition, it is important, I think—and I am sure that many members of this House will agree—that the bill fulfils its purpose of removing unnecessary hurdles in compliance, so that New Zealanders can watch the game, but not in a way that takes away from the core host responsibility provisions that we would expect our licensed premises to comply with. I think that there are some very simple, practical changes that can be made to the bill, just to ensure that we get the right balance between facilitating New Zealanders’ enjoyment of the tournament but not seriously degrading any of those host responsibilities and, actually, neighbourhood responsibilities that licensed premises need to be mindful of.

The other issue that is worth picking up is really just one of the workability and the application of the bill. As the Minister responsible for the underlying legislation, I certainly have an interest in seeing that any amendment to the Act that is passed is workable, is clearly understood, will be easily applied, and if reference needs to be sought to it for enforcement purposes, that that can be done without any debate over what Parliament meant. I appreciate absolutely that the circumstances in which this matter arose, on a reasonably fast-moving playing field—to make a reasonably unfortunate pun—have shifted quite a lot in the last few days. Mr Seymour has worked very hard to try to navigate his way through that, but the speed of drafting and the limited resources available for a member to put up a member’s bill mean that that process is a challenging one. I think that there are certainly some drafting opportunities in the bill, which we can work on together, to improve the bill and to get it into as good a shape as possible.

The last point that I did just want to make is simply to say that, actually, the underlying framework of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act works very well. I am very comfortable that the framework is right. This is not some sort of signal that there is an issue; this is a signal of one thing and one thing only, which is that this is a unique set of circumstances that holds a particular place of importance to New Zealanders all around the country and deserves a response in this House. In the vast majority of cases when events occur at odd hours around the world, with different sporting codes and events, I think that the special licensing provisions work incredibly well, but the National Government recognises the uniqueness of this situation and the uniqueness of rugby and the All Blacks to New Zealand, and we commend this bill at first reading.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I begin by giving the indication that you sought from the Chair as to whether parties are addressing this as a conscience issue. The Labour Party is addressing the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill as a conscience issue and would like the Speaker to conduct the voting accordingly. There are a number of ironies in this bill. The first is that if you are talking about responsible drinking, then maybe you should have a provision in this bill that prohibits people from being on licensed premises when they are meant to be voting in this House. The second irony is that, actually, this would not be nearly as necessary in this country if it had not been for the fact that parties like the ACT Party have so undermined public broadcasting that you cannot see most of these matches on public television.

David Seymour: Aw! Tragic, tragic.

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is also true. You know, if the member really wanted to do good in New Zealand he would have brought forward a bill here that said that the same rules should apply in New Zealand in respect of major sporting events on television as apply in Australia. Every time there is a major sporting event like this that goes up for tender in Australia—you know, the Rugby World Cup or the like—public television rights have to be in the rights that are offered. Yes, you can have Sky having all of the rights to the paid version of the game, but you have got to have, amongst those who succeed at tender, a public option. Those people compete and they have got to pay advertising and they do not get it for free—

David Seymour: They should have to give you a television too, and a house to put it in, for having a television without a house.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, the member is so ideologically blinkered that he will never agree that New Zealanders should have the right to see the major sporting events. He gets all jingoistic and says how this is the Kiwi way and we all need to be able to watch our rugby, but he does not think they should be able to do it on public broadcasting in the way that it happens in other countries like Australia and the United Kingdom. I think it is shameful that in this country we have got to the point where people, unless they can afford pay-per-view television, cannot actually watch these major events on television.

I for one will be supporting this bill to select committee. I agree that it should be a conscience issue. I am not quite sure whether we should be too broad in the application of this to all sporting events. You know, there are a lot of licensed premises that are very close to residential areas and they do have time limits. Indeed, when I am in Auckland I live 20 metres away from licensed premises, and they are loud, and that is the reason why they have time limits on when they shut because otherwise they are too disruptive to adjacent residential users. We are thankfully past the point when we used to have a few enormous taverns that were generally in commercial areas and were separated from residential areas. It is good that we have more socially responsible drinking and smaller institutions, but we do need to take care that we get the balance right between the rights of adjacent people to have a night’s sleep and the rights of those who want to have a good party. But in respect of the forthcoming Rugby World Cup, it is good that we are, through this legislation, facilitating the ability of New Zealanders to go and watch this at a public venue where they can see it on television, because they cannot see it on television at home because the current laws do not require a public option.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill, and to look forward to this bill being considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Reading the debate notes and reading the bill take me right back to the previous Rugby World Cup and the empowering legislation that this House put through to expedite some of the matters around the previous Rugby World Cup. Having done that, I remember the excitement that gripped New Zealand during that Rugby World Cup, as our All Blacks, of whom we are all so proud, did so very well. Those many, many gatherings that we had in New Zealand were of course within our time frame, so that suited us all very well. I was involved in organising quite a large series of events around North Otago and it was very satisfying to be part of that. Rugby fans and families alike certainly turned out for a number of these fanzone opportunities to see the games on the big screens, have food festivals, and all sorts of things surrounding the Rugby World Cup when we took it away last time.

Having said all that, this is not the case for this coming Rugby World Cup because, of course, the time zones are completely different and we are going to find ourselves having to get up in the very early hours of the morning to enjoy the matches if that is what we want to do, and there are many of us who will do that. Although some of us enjoy a cup of tea and a biscuit while we watch the rugby, other people like to go down to the pub and enjoy a beer, and that is what this bill, on behalf of David Seymour, is going to allow us to do, assuming it has a successful passage through the House, which indeed I hope it does.

The Justice and Electoral Committee will consider a number of matters around this bill. I think it is worthwhile to remind ourselves that if the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act does provide for special licences to be granted for this kind of event, why it is that this bill is before the House. It is to expedite those events, as this Parliament did for the previous Rugby World Cup, for people to have the opportunity to watch their beloved game of rugby.

It is worth noting that upon the passage of this bill—and I am anticipating that it will go through—it will not in any way negate the current requirements for host responsibility, which people with liquor licences have under the special licence regime at the moment. There would be the same degree of host responsibility and the same degree of criteria with those liquor licences as exist in the current legislation. What this bill is doing is expediting the opportunities for New Zealanders to go down to the pub, watch the rugby, and then, I would imagine, have a good hearty breakfast before they go off and bask in the glory of yet another glorious win on behalf of the All Blacks team—I just know it is going to happen.

There will still be those requirements around intoxication, so I think the argument that this bill may encourage binge drinking will not be borne out. Host responsibility acts against binge drinking now, and no provision in this bill will allow for or encourage binge drinking. The host of the licensed premises will still be obliged to turn away people who clearly have had too much alcohol.

The point of difference that the National Party, which supports this bill, has is around the very strong case for these provisions to apply only to All Blacks games. Why would we not be one-eyed? It is the Rugby World Cup, for goodness’ sake! Why would we not be one-eyed about the All Blacks? So I think a point of difference with the author of the bill would be around games that involve the All Blacks and games that involve the elimination rounds—perhaps the semi-finals, quarter-finals, those sorts of things. These matters will be considered by the select committee in the very fast turn-round before we return the bill on or around 26 August. The committee is prepared to work hard on this bill and to return a good result to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Just before I call Kevin Hague I will remind members that, to date, this is being treated as a conscience vote. Therefore, the strict rules around the order of calling parties do not necessarily apply. Although my successor is about to come into the Chair, to date all of the people who have been speaking have been speaking generally in support of the bill, without major reservations. If people either want to speak against the bill or have major reservations about it, the normal practice is to approach the Chair quietly and inform the Chair, and that will increase a person’s chance of getting a call on a conscience vote.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Pursuant to your request, Mr Assistant Speaker, I can indicate at the beginning of this contribution that the Green Party will, as a party, vote for the first reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill.

Some members will be familiar with an extraordinary piece of work undertaken by the Law Commission. This is the Law Commission’s report from 2010, following a really extensive piece of work involving many public submissions and a great deal of involvement from stakeholders right across the sector. That report generated—eventually, some might say—from its recommendations a Government bill, which, in turn, went to select committee and also received very many submissions from the public and from stakeholders about alcohol law in New Zealand. It was in 2012 that this House passed that legislation, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The evidence in this Law Commission report and the precursor reports was that the consumption of alcohol in New Zealand is associated with harm. I have New Zealand Police statistics, for example, that say that one-third of all offences that the police deal with are committed by someone who has recently consumed alcohol. For some offences, like serious violence, it is one in two offences. So there is serious harm associated with alcohol, and the Law Commission concluded, on the basis of its review of evidence, that the more available alcohol was, the more would be consumed, and the more harm would be caused.

That is why the Law Commission in its recommendations to the House, and this House’s treatment of those recommendations, basically sought to strike a balance between people’s freedom of choice and the need to protect people from harm. That is why we set up a regime that provides for a local process in which premises are allocated locations and hours and conditions. It is designed to protect people from harm. If premises want to serve alcohol outside of those licensed hours, there is a regime that we set up in the law for special licences. In its report, in fact, the Law Commission uses international rugby fixtures as an example of the kind of special event that would be appropriate for the use of special licences. Those members of the House who were present for the debate in 2012 may well recall that, actually, our debate also specifically talked about the Rugby World Cup and its appropriate use for special licences. Certainly there is nothing at all in the existing law that actually would prevent special licences from being used for Rugby World Cup fixtures. That is the appropriate mechanism. So why is there a problem now? Well, it turns out that the police in some parts of New Zealand are saying that Rugby World Cup fixtures do not qualify for special licences. What that suggests to me and to the Green Party is that what we need is a review of how Parliament’s intentions around special licences have been implemented. That is how we should proceed, but we do not have time right now. What we have to do right now is actually address the fact that the Rugby World Cup is just around the corner.

We saw David Seymour’s bill for the first time yesterday morning. We denied leave for it to be introduced yesterday because we had major concerns. We are now confident as a result of the discussions we have had with David Seymour, the assurances he has given us, and also the good-faith discussions we have had with the Government, that the issues we had—issues around a bill that covered all games, in other words, most days over a 6-week period; and that covered all licensed premises, including those operated by licensees who had previously breached licences and those that were in locations that were just around the corner from a kindy—are, in fact, going to be dealt with. We still believe that this measure ought to have been dealt with not as a member’s bill but as a Government bill. We believe that that is the appropriate way of dealing with an issue of this sort, for some of the reasons, actually, that the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, discussed in her contribution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but the member’s time has expired—

Kevin Hague: I have got more, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): About 2 minutes ago. [Interruption] No, it was 2 minutes ago. I was conferring with my colleague, so you got more time than you needed. I am going to call Clayton Mitchell.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I just wish I could swap places with Kevin Hague and have those extra minutes. I have got a lot to say—[Interruption] Yes, I hope he did not eat into my time. But before I get started I have to talk to a couple of things that Mr Hague brought up. I do commend him for supporting this bill through, and I also commend the member David Seymour for bringing this bill forward, although it is a band-aid on the bigger problem here.

We talked about harm minimisation, and I just want to reflect on that for a second. Harm minimisation is a buzzword of the 21st century, and we are living in a period of harm minimisation. If you go back to the 1990s, the 1980s, the 1970s, and the 1960s when binge-drinking on licensed premises was rife, and look at what we have today, you see that we are in a much safer environment. In fact, drinking on licensed premises today is much better than it has ever been. You have to have licensed managers, duty managers, security that has been licensed, and you have to have food available. You have to have all of these things to make sure that your licence is operational, and, of course, you are very, very heavily regulated by the police, the health department, and all other departments, if you have gaming and so forth.

When I consider that 75 percent of all alcohol consumed is consumed off licensed premises and is generally sold to people by 17-year-olds in supermarkets, there is very little being done about managing that harm. I could go off and talk on a tangent, but when 25 percent of alcohol is consumed on premises that are safe and sound and fit for purpose, it brings me to the point about the current legislation not being fit for purpose. I think of all the consultation that was put through 2 years ago to push that legislation into place, and the engagement process that was designed in order to get the communities to come up with the decisions about what they want for their community—i.e., allowing them to decide how late licensed premises can operate and what days they can operate on. Those are the sorts of things that the district licensing committee has the power to do. Yet this legislation—this clunky, not-fit-for-purpose legislation—is outdated in so far as it is very ambiguous when it comes to a special licence condition.

When we look at a special licence it says that for a special licence to apply the social gathering must involve people sharing a common interest with the principal activity of the function being other than the consumption of liquor. Yet I have been dealing recently with a liquor licence application that has gone through in Rotorua where the police have come out and said that this event is not fit for purpose. The council has signed off on this, which is the voice of the people. The health department has signed off on this and is making sure that they are complying with all the health issues, and the police are saying—and this is for Hennessy’s Irish Bar in Rotorua: “Nothing in this application is special. It is simply an extension of the trading hours to watch a televised event. With no pre-sale tickets, the applicant is allowing anyone to attend, which is by default a way of extending the hours, and this approach goes against the nature of a special licence.”

Goodness me! I could have myself a birthday party and go to a licensed premises and invite a hundred guests and get an extension of hours, yet I would suggest that rugby, netball, and many other events that we have got going on around the country are at the heart of what New Zealanders give themselves national pride about.

I want to say New Zealand First does not condone the liberalisation of liquor licensing laws. We merely want to get some clarity around those special licence applications particularly, as so many of these applications have been turned down around the country by police and yet have been supported by the councils. This is the problem that we have got. The only way to thrash this out is in the select committee stage to go through those issues. I would like to hear from submitters. A lot of people are very passionate about this. New Zealand First does not support liberalisation, but some clarity is required to get the current legislation ironed out once and for all. Thank you.

JONO NAYLOR (National): I heard the bell to end that contribution, and for someone who said he wanted an extra minute he sold himself a minute short. But anyway, I thought it was kind of interesting, actually, listening to the previous speaker, Clayton Mitchell. He talked about this being an outdated bill. Considering it is dated today, how quickly it becomes outdated.

Clayton Mitchell: Current legislation. You’re a bit slow on the uptake.

JONO NAYLOR: I think the word used was “bill”, whereas the other one we have got is an Act. But, anyway, I just thought it was kind of amusing that he was referring to his own birthday as perhaps being as nationally significant as an All Blacks game. But that is all right; we are allowed a little narcissism in the House from time to time.

I just want to talk about this briefly because there has been a lot of focus on the licensing issues, and I agree that is an important matter that we are going to need to work through. But my perspective, and the reason why I am happy to support this bill, is that it is actually about the people of New Zealand being able to witness and enjoy something that many of them hold dear, and that is rugby. I know that some people will call rugby the religion of New Zealand, and that is kind of what people are so heated up about, and it is, I guess, from time to time seen in that way. But it is something that is significant.

As has been alluded to by other speakers, we went to a lot of effort when we hosted the Rugby World Cup here to ensure that people could have access to seeing it, and that, to me, is what this legislation is primarily about: ensuring that New Zealanders can have access to seeing these games. Mr Parker, when he spoke earlier, said, somewhat cynically, that if Mr Seymour was interested in New Zealanders being able to view this game he would be moving legislation to have it publicly broadcasted. I thought: “Of all the years that Mr Parker’s been in Parliament, I’ve yet to see him propose any legislation to do that.” So it seemed a little bit rich to be laying that solely at the feet of Mr Seymour today.

If it was not for the fact that it is only licensed premises in New Zealand, as far as I am aware, that are set up and equipped for people to be able to gather around in large numbers to view these kinds of games, I may have been less sympathetic to this bill. Actually, there are not the opportunities in any other settings that I am aware of particularly for New Zealanders to gather in large numbers to watch the All Blacks and to watch the Rugby World Cup in action. So I am quite happy with this.

We are going to have to do a little bit of work. I would say that if the bill turned up for its third reading in the state it is currently in for its first reading it would not get the same level of support that it is having at its first reading. But, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I have confidence in our committee. It is a fine committee, actually. There are really good sorts of people working hard there for us to be able to iron out some of these things. There have already been some conversations, as Mr Hague referred to. Conversations have already been going on to iron out the kinks in this legislation so that we can bring it back to the House in a reasonably short space of time in a shape that actually achieves the outcome that we are really looking for, which is for New Zealanders to be able to see and witness firsthand the Rugby World Cup.

Not every New Zealander can afford Sky. Not everybody is going to be able to get to their friend’s house to watch it. Indeed, I think that many visitors to New Zealand, knowing that it is a significant sport in our country, would be hoping that while they are here they will be able to sit down and watch the game with a bunch of New Zealanders rather than sit in their own hotel rooms, or otherwise, to watch it. So this is really about including people and allowing people to be a part of the process.

I think we have got to just be careful that we do not get too hung up on this being about liberalising New Zealand’s liquor laws. This is very much a one-off occasion that we are talking about. It is very specific to this time frame. I think we can do some good work on tidying it up, as Jacqui Dean so eloquently put.

Hon Member: What?

JONO NAYLOR: No, she did. She spoke eloquently. Host responsibility is still going to apply. We are going to be able to make sure we have the right parameters in place. I have got confidence in the select committee to do a really good job so that we can ensure that New Zealanders will get to watch the All Blacks play in the Rugby World Cup and, as we have all said, we certainly hope to see them in the quarter-finals and the semi-finals, and winning the final again.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I am really looking forward to participating in this debate about the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. I want to begin by highlighting my colleague Kevin Hague’s focus on Alcohol in our Lives: Curbing the Harm, the Law Commission report that actually had over 3,000 submissions to that report. It is true there is a negative correlation between alcohol consumption and some of our sporting events and, in fact, a challenge by the ministerial group around the link between alcohol sponsorship and sport and its detrimental consequences on our community. But what I would also like to highlight is that 2,036,900 Kiwis actually watched the 2011 Rugby World Cup final. So the relevance of rugby to New Zealand actually is immense.

The first game was played in Nelson in 1870, and the statistics last year were actually really interesting. We have got over 150,000 players, but there was a 12 percent increase in women playing rugby last year. We have over 600 clubs. And so for me this legislation really is about whether it should be specific to the 2015 Rugby World Cup or, actually, whether it should be generic.

As we saw in the Major Events Management Act 2007 we made it a generic piece of legislation that named specific events. So those specific events were the Rugby World Cup in 2011, the World Rowing Championships, the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup, and the Cricket World Cup that we hosted earlier this year with Australia. Within that piece of legislation there was an ability for the declaration of a major event that then qualified the legislation to a future event.

I actually think it is worth the Justice and Electoral Committee considering replicating that particular clause within that Major Events Management Act, because what we want to do is use the time of this House wisely. I think there is an opportunity to, potentially, extend what this bill is trying to achieve, which, actually, is to make it easier for those people who have existing licences, whether they be on-licences or club licences, to provide for 25 of the 48 matches that include the semi-final, the bronze final, and the final, which will be partly or completely outside the national default hours, to be able to provide New Zealanders with the opportunity to watch the Rugby World Cup.

I want to commend, actually, in the time I have got left, the Auckland Council, which has been incredibly proactive. Through the Auckland Council’s local alcohol policy development it had over 2,600 submissions. What it has done is create on its website, in the special licensing area, a 2015 Rugby World Cup special advice information sheet.

A number of the councils have taken this issue incredibly seriously and, actually, there are provisions currently for people who want to extend their hours to do so, but, essentially—and I have tried to google it and find out how many on-licences we are actually talking about. We know that there are 600 rugby clubs and, presumably, they will all want to open and provide the opportunity for rugby-loving people to watch within their premises, but how many on-licences have we got in Aotearoa New Zealand? I have got no idea, but I am presuming that there are thousands—absolutely thousands. So the other part of this legislation that I do want to highlight is in Part 2, clause 5(5)(a) and (b), which means that if you have got an existing licence, there is a responsibility, if you want to qualify under this legislation, to advise the relevant district licensing committee and the police. So there are safeguards built into this legislation, and I look forward to further debate. Kia ora tātou.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. I want to pay tribute at the start of my speech to my friend and colleague David Seymour for his foresight and wisdom in introducing this sensible and prudent measure. I also want to pay tribute to the Greens, as well, who over the last 24 to 36 hours have played quite a constructive role in working with David Seymour and members of the Government in allowing this bill to be introduced and allowing it to be read a first time and to be sent to a select committee. The Greens have legitimate concerns about the operation of some of the bill—which will, hopefully, become an Act—and they have legitimate concerns, I think, about some of the scope of what we are trying to do here. Some of those issues are going to be thrashed out at the select committee, and it may well be that the bill that emerges from the select committee will be in quite a different shape from what it is now. That is perfectly appropriate. That is the parliamentary process at play. That is why we have the select committee system, but I think that the Green Party has played quite a constructive role in facilitating this bill to take place.

The aim of this bill is quite a simple one, and I regard it as a noble one. It is to make it easier for New Zealanders to watch the Rugby World Cup. As the Minister of Justice rightly pointed out, and as I think the member in charge of the bill pointed out as well, we do have this unique situation where a lot of the games in the Rugby World Cup are being played outside the standard licensing hours. Some of the evidence that we as Government members have received—and I am sure that the member in charge of the bill has received it as well—is that the process of applying for a special licence to open is quite a cumbersome process and the process may be deterring some people from opening their licensed premises at those times. So the aim of the bill is to make it easier for New Zealanders to watch the Rugby World Cup.

The act of watching a sporting match with friends and family, or even with complete strangers, at licensed premises is something of a New Zealand tradition, and it is not so much even about the actual game. In my experience, it is certainly not about the drinking, and there have over the last 24 to 36 hours been some quite odd claims made about how this is facilitating public boozing and drunkenness, and things like that. With some of these events that you go to that we are talking about with regard to this bill, it is not really so much about the game and it is not really about the drinking at all, but it is about the collective endeavour of people coming together as a unit and as a body to express pride and to show passion and to enjoy the game of rugby. [Interruption] You know, Andrew Little may well be singing along to the Australian anthem in his licensed premises over a couple of beers at 5 in the morning. There was a slightly strange comment from him this week. My personal view is that I hope that at some point in the future we have a new New Zealand flag, so that when we all go down to the pub to watch the All Blacks play, we can raise a new New Zealand flag and not one that is not representative, in my view, of New Zealand today. But that is slightly off the main point of this bill.

That is what the bill is about. I think it is a simple objective and it is one that is a noble one, and the bill deserves to be sent to a select committee. As I think other members have noted, there are some issues around the margins of the bill that will, rightly, be considered in the select committee process. One issue that has been mentioned already in the House is whether or not the bill should apply just to the All Blacks games or whether or not it should also apply to, say, South African or Australian games.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Manu Samoa.

CHRIS BISHOP: You know, I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. “Manu Samoa.” says my friend and colleague Trevor Mallard, over on that side. There are legitimate arguments about that, and I think that the select committee process is the right way to thrash them out. I am conscious that I have used up most of my time and I am also very conscious that I have got a member’s bill later on tonight, which I am very keen to get to, so with those quick remarks, I want to endorse this bill to the House. I look forward to examining it in further detail on the Justice and Electoral Committee.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. I rise to take a short call and speak to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. It might interest the House to know that during the 2011 Rugby World Cup I was an employee of the Māori Television Service and I had the good fortune of commentating most of the rugby games held here in this country, of course, all the way up to the final. Although rolling down to the local pub and sharing a few beers with your good friends is not quite up close and personal—certainly not as up close and personal as my experience during the 2011 Rugby World Cup—it was one of those fantastic opportunities to see so many people come out and support the Rugby World Cup; not only just the locals but, of course, the many tourists who came to New Zealand to support it.

I do have a few numbers here that I thought might interest the House. These numbers are around the viewership of the Rugby World Cup of 2011. Over 2 million viewers tuned into the Rugby World Cup final in 2011 from here in New Zealand. That actually makes it the most watched event in the history of television in New Zealand. It is interesting to note that in the top 10 of most watched events, most of them are sport, with the exception of the tragic passing of Princess Diana. That speaks a lot about just what our people think about and how we feel about certain things. I just want to point out that most of the most watched events in the top 10 are sports-related. Of those, rugby certainly dominates. So that is the viewership locally.

I want to touch a little bit on the international viewership. The Rugby World Cup 2011 final was the most watched event in New Zealand, as I have already mentioned. In France, however, the final attracted the largest television audience for the calendar year, with an average of 13.4 million viewers, a peak of 18.1 million, and an audience share of 82 percent, despite the early kick-off in France. Seventy-three percent of France’s total population of 63 million watched at least 15 minutes of the Rugby World Cup final. Those numbers are staggering. Those numbers are absolutely staggering, and although I do not think we will quite match France’s viewership numbers, I certainly do hope that we will get along and support our team in black.

However, I do welcome this bill’s referral to the Justice and Electoral Committee—the hardest-working select committee in the Parliament, I would argue. We look forward to debating some of the more technical points with regard to the bill. Some of those are around compliance and some of those are around the licences, and I think it is timely just to remind the House, as our colleague Kevin Hague did, of some of the social costs around alcohol abuse.

Although I could not quite find the numbers in respect of when alcohol abuse numbers spike—at what time of day—I think it is fair to say that a lot of those crimes that are alcohol-related do happen in the wee hours of the morning. So I do have a wee concern about those numbers. One of those numbers that members might be interested in is that the tangible social cost of harmful alcohol use was just over $3.3 billion approximately a decade ago. Those numbers are concerning.

What is also concerning in the breakdown of those numbers is the labour cost. We know from extended hours—so you can go to a pub, enjoy yourself between the hours of 4 and whatever it might be, share a beer with your colleagues and hope that you are OK to go to work—that over $1.7 billion in labour costs was lost just in relation to alcohol use. So those are some numbers that I do have a few concerns about. I do hope that that can be fleshed out and discussed robustly at the select committee, and I look forward to making this bill a bit more robust to ensure that, firstly, we enjoy the Rugby World Cup and, secondly, we do it safely. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call David Seymour—5 minutes in reply.

DAVID SEYMOUR (ACT—Epsom): I exercise a very short right of reply. I would like to thank the previous speaker, Peeni Henare, for his very informative speech. It is not without trepidation that I realise that the French team will likely have more than 1 million audience members per player on the field. None the less, I believe that our All Blacks will prevail. This debate on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill is ultimately about whether we take a permissive approach to responsible adult New Zealanders being able to choose their own values, their own behaviour, and what is important to them. So I am very proud that some of the details of the bill will be able to be debated as we constantly seek to refine that balance between freedom and harm, but, none the less, I think the important thing is that the debate is taking place and I look forward, as the House has given leave, to the bill being referred to the select committee and being reported back on 26 August for its second and third readings forthwith. Without any more from me, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Bills

Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 22 July.

SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this very good bill, which has been brought to the House in the name of my colleague the Hon David Parker. I want to congratulate him on having this bill drawn. It is a very important bill. It is about minimum wages for people who are classified or known as being contractors. This should be a no-brainer, actually, for a civilised society. When we set a minimum wage for all New Zealanders who are in paid work—this bill is really going to be the expression of whether this Parliament believes that that should be extended to all people who are, in fact, in paid employment. What we have is a situation that certainly the Labour Party believes is untenable and unfair and not the sort of decent treatment that we believe all New Zealanders expect from a civilised society, and that is that people who are providing a service should be paid at least the minimum wage. For many New Zealanders that is not currently the case.

I want to give a few examples of the types of work that now fall into this category, because once upon a time when we talked about employees and we talked about workers it all used to mean the same thing. It all was basically a nine-to-five job and it was an employment relationship, but these days some of the work that was traditionally done in that way is being done by people who have no option but to do it as independent contractors. They have no option but to do it as independent contractors because that is the requirement of the person who would once have been called their employer.

People who deliver pamphlets are often employed in this way. This is obviously work. It is work that needs to be paid for, but far too often these people are paid less than the minimum wage because they are offered it as an independent contractor. They are given an amount of money to deliver X number of pamphlets, and depending on the terrain that they are working in or the weather or the nature of the pamphlets that they are delivering it might take them longer than was anticipated. When that is broken down hour by hour, sadly, it often means that they are being paid less than the minimum wage for that work.

Another example that is much closer to my heart, because it happens to be an area of work that is largely performed by women, is the area of home-based care—home-based care for the elderly, for the disabled, for the people who need to have personal cares taken care of in their own home environment. That is also an area that is predominantly, I would say, contracted out. It is done in this way where there is a care package that is contracted for and there is a certain amount of remuneration that is given to the people who perform that very important work. It does not really matter how many hours it takes them to perform that work; they will get just that same amount of money. For far too long in this country, here is what has transpired for that very important work. Because people have to travel to get to the homes to deliver the care, often, if we took from the time that they start their work at the beginning of the day to the time that they finish their work—if you broke that down as an hourly rate—those women were ending up getting paid less than the minimum wage.

So that is the importance of this bill. It would ensure that that could never happen—that however the employment situation is described, however the employment relationship is structured, we would always ensure, as we should in a civilised and decent society, that people doing all of that important work would at least get the minimum wage. I say “at least get the minimum wage” advisedly, because it is my belief that women performing that very important work in people’s homes—which actually requires a lot of mental energy, a lot of knowledge, and a lot of physical activity—should, in fact, be getting paid more than the minimum wage, but this bill will do for me for now.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Andrew Bayly—at short notice—

Carmel Sepuloni: Wake up, National! Gee!

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): I am awake, thank you! What a great opportunity to talk about the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. I think we all share the intent of this bill, which is to try to look after the lower-paid members of our community. It is great from that perspective, but I think the reality of this bill is that it is deficient in a number of ways and, no doubt, many of our colleagues have talked about this. What I find interesting is when you look at the amendments to section 2 inserted by clause 6 and the definition of “principal, in relation to a specified person,”—we need to get an explanation around clause 6, which sets out that the principal has to apply this in a situation, and there are a number of specified services. Of course those are all set out in schedule 2. Many of those are fine and appropriate if you were to adopt that, but the interesting exception is in the definition of “principal” “(b) does not acquire the services for the person’s personal, domestic or household use or consumption.”

For many this bill imposes a number of additional requirements, primarily on the employer, and what I just want to draw your attention to is new section 4B of the Act inserted by clause 7—I have read the bill. The four additional tests, I think, are not particularly pertinent and impose a much higher cost. First of all, new section 4B states: “The following matters must be taken into account in establishing the actual rate of remuneration …”. The first of which is, obviously, “(a) the terms of the contract;”—that is fine. Second is: “(b) whether the principal and specified person have agreed on what is a reasonable amount of time …”. Third is: “(c) the information in the remuneration record [is] required to be kept under section 8B;”. And fourth is any other relevant information.

For full-time employees you have a contract, and if they are on a fixed basis all you would need do is to report in and make the necessary payments to the Inland Revenue Department. What this bill does is actually take the information requirements a whole lot further for those who would normally be regarded as casual employees. I am not saying that they are less important, but it just seems perverse that we end up imposing a much higher information requirement on employers to keep track of it. It is almost like the proponents behind this bill want to make sure that we have got a really good wrap around our employers, because the underlying assumption, which I do not believe in, is, in my view, that it is almost as though we do not trust any employer who employs someone on a contract basis. I do not think that is correct in today’s environment. There are of course poor employers but that assumption, which I think pervades this bill, is actually inappropriate.

The other thing is that clause 11, which inserts new section 8B, goes on about additional records to be kept. It talks about the name of the specified person, the postal address, kind of service, the hours, if remuneration payable at intervals the hours in relation to each interval, the remuneration paid to the specified person for the service and the method of calculation, and any other particulars. Again, it is getting into a level of detail that is simply not relevant and is probably inappropriate. I think, in the end, what we are trying to achieve with this is that we want to make sure that contractors who are legitimately employed by employers are not exploited. That is first above anything. Of course that is covered by their normal employment laws we already have in place. But the requirement to be overly prescriptive around how we employ these younger people—and I note that the bill proposes that that reduces down to age 16 and over—is in my view, just totally inappropriate.

What we really want to end up with is a fair exchange between an employer and an employee. We do not want to clutter it. We do not want to actually create a disincentive for employers to actually employ these types of people. I think on that basis that this bill is inappropriate and actually probably out of date, given all the substantial changes we have made to employment law in recent periods. So on that basis I oppose the bill.

DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a call for the Greens on this, the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. We will be supporting this bill, and I sincerely hope that it will pass its first reading and be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I congratulate the member of the House David Parker who has brought this bill here today through the ballot process.

I want to acknowledge the fact that this bill follows on very strongly from a previous bill that was brought to a previous Parliament by Darien Fenton, a previous Labour MP, who was actually my previous boss at the Service and Food Workers Union. That bill was very similar to this one, although this one makes a few more amendments to the Minimum Wage Act that would make it easier to investigate and enforce remuneration rates of the contractors who would be covered specifically by the clauses in this bill.

The Greens support an industrial relations environment that is fair to those who work and is fair for employees too. Unfortunately, what we see at the moment is a situation where the balance of power that is the employment relationship has been tipped more in favour of the employers and actually into a situation where bad employers have been given an incentive to exploit people. We have seen this Government deliberately and systematically undermine the rights of ordinary working New Zealanders and allow exploitative practices to flourish.

I will give you a few examples. The previous Labour speaker alluded to some of them. Just to recap, there are things like the introduction of youth rates, which means that young people can legally be discriminated against in their pay rates. There is the fire-at-will legislation that allows workers to be sacked for no reason whatsoever in their first 90 days of work, and, of course, there were the changes to the Employment Relations Act, which included things like the removal of the requirement for new employees to be offered the existing terms and conditions of a collective employment contract when they start the job, if there is already one in place. There is another one too. That was the removal of the protection for continuity for people like cleaners when their employer’s contract changes hands—Part 6A, it was. So those protections have all been eroded, if not removed. My point is that these were all vulnerable workers.

This bill is an attempt to try to ensure that another group of vulnerable workers have some minimum protections—that is, that they have access to the minimum wage. We see it time and time again where certain workers are exploited. They are taken on and called contractors, and I have seen it in my home community. I have seen it with a cleaner there who was in tears when she told me that she had to work longer hours, despite the fact that she was not being paid any more money, because she was a contractor. This is a woman who had to wear the logo of the employer, who had to wear the uniform of the employer, who had to go where the employer directed her, and had to work the hours that the employer told her to. Her wages were halved as a result of the employer saying that her contract needed to include more work. She was also responsible for paying her own tax, for paying her own ACC, for providing her own cleaning equipment, for providing and buying her own uniform that she did not actually want to wear because it was her employer’s, not hers, and she was also responsible for her own health and safety.

We are seeing this more and more. The previous Labour speaker alluded to the issue that is happening with home-care workers, where they are frequently being told that they are not employees and that they are contractors. It is about time we stamped out the exploitation of vulnerable workers, and this is one step towards it. We support this bill.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I am happy to say from the outset that the National Party is not going to support this legislation. That is not to say that we are not sympathetic with what the intent is. It is the fact that this is one of these pieces of legislation that when you look at what was intended and what it will actually do, they very, very much part company.

This legislation also comes under the category of the old Steve Maharey principle. There will be a lot of new members here who do not remember Steve Maharey, but he was a Labour Minister and he had this wonderful saying: “Oh, that’s what you say when you’re in Opposition. That’s what you say when you’re in Opposition; not what you do when you are in Government.” The Maharey principle was when you are in Opposition you do it; soon as you get into Government, you say: “Oh no, there’re good reasons why we don’t.” In fact, this legislation is the other way round. This is sort of the Steve Maharey principle in reverse. When Labour was in Government, it did not want to do this. When Labour was in Government and Darien Fenton wanted to do it, Ministers on that side—including David Parker, a Minister in the Labour Government—said: “Actually, this is a piece of rubbish and we’re not going to have anything to do with it. Best thing you can do, Darien, is put it up as a member’s bill.” They made her do that, hoping that it would never get drawn from the ballot—absolutely hoping against all hope that it would never get drawn from the ballot—because if they had supported it, if they had thought there was merit to this, if they had thought that, they would have done it as a Government bill and they would have put it through.

They knew right from the outset that it was rubbish and David Parker knew that, and now, when Labour is in Opposition, here is the Steve Maharey principle: “Let’s go in and try to make out we are on the side of these people. Let’s make out that we think this is a wonderful thing to be doing.” The question that anybody out there should be asking themselves, if they truly think Labour believes in this nonsense, is: why the hell were you not prepared to back it when you were in Government? They were not, they did not, and they would not, and that is a fact. [Interruption] You can have all the catcalling from the other side that you like. Labour would not do it. Labour’s Ministers would not allow it to go through as a Government bill—they would not.

So officials have been telling us that this will not work, that the risks dramatically outweigh the benefits of doing it, and that it would not achieve the goals. In fact, there are some quite perverse little fish-hooks in this legislation that might actually see a contractor, if they were put on to the minimum wage, have things that were adverse to their income as compared with a worker on the minimum wage who will get all sorts of weighting with regard to their holiday pay and their sick pay and so on.

So we are not prepared to support the bill. As I said before, there is nothing wrong with the intent. But I have to say that I am one of these members of Parliament—I am happy to put my hand up—who has got real nervousness about the idea that a minimum wage law will fix things. If that was the case, we could get China to implement New Zealand’s minimum wage laws in China. What that would do is have 1.3 billion wealthy Chinese—no, actually, it would not; it would have about 99 percent unemployment in China because you cannot just fix wage levels without the economy actually generating jobs that are real jobs, which are able to pay at that level, etc., etc. So when contractors are out there working—and remember this: sometimes contractors are able to deduct a whole lot of expenses as they are doing their business. If they are contractors using equipment or vehicles, they can have a totally different tax regime to a worker who is just being paid a wage and salary. So to try to say that we are going to put them on the exact same regime does not make sense.

David Parker knows that. He would have got that advice when he was a Minister in Cabinet. He would have got that advice. His Cabinet would have sat—

Hon David Parker: No, no.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, he would have—I know him. In fact, if he was asleep at the wheel that is his problem, but the officials would have been telling their Ministers that stuff. I absolutely agree with the officials’ advice on this bill. This is one of those pieces of legislation where, if you just, on the surface of it, say to some people “How about someone who goes out delivering pamphlets or who works under a different regime from waged workers—how about they get the same pay as the people who are just waged workers and getting the minimum wage?”, you know, on the surface of it most people would say “Oh, yeah—sounds sensible.” But as soon as you, and the devil in these things is always in the detail, get into understanding what a contract worker is and the terms and conditions and their ability to claim certain things that the worker cannot—and, by the way, the worker earns some things that a contract worker does not. When you are a contract worker you are not getting sick pay and annual leave grossed into your pay, and so on.

There is a really good example that officials worked up for us. I am not going to try to go through it now—

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

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I have to say that I know the real reason why Maurice Williamson will not support the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill to go to select committee. It is because it would go to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, and we know how work-shy you can be sometimes, Mr Williamson. So I understand your standing up and being opposed to this coming on. We have also in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee gone through a very long-winded process to get the Health and Safety Reform Bill put together, but that is the real reason. If you are going to be honest, mate, you should just say it, nice and loudly. I would like to, while I have got the floor, commend David Parker for bringing this bill forward and putting it in as a member’s bill. But, more important, for the first time in 10 years, I believe this is the first opportunity he has had to have his bill pulled out and called. So congratulations.

Hon David Parker: 13 years.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thirteen years—goodness me. That is a big deal in itself. New Zealand First will support this bill to the select committee. I think it is very important that we actually hear from submitters about the concerns they have. I see Mr Bayly nodding in agreement, which would say that we want the work in our select committee do we not, Mr Bayly? He is nodding in agreement, but of course his party is going to vote it down, which means that it is going to go nowhere, back into the ether.

This bill is really, on the surface of it, about getting a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. That is what it comes down to. We have got to look after our workers to ensure that they are actually getting remunerated fairly for the work, time, effort, and energy that they have taken to do the job. They have got to get paid and remunerated properly. We have some reservations with the bill, Mr Parker, I have to say, and there is a little bit of trepidation, but I believe that through the select committee those little areas can be ironed out. I will particularly just bring your attention to probably three of the areas in the contracts for service department that you have alluded to, out of the 14 that have been listed in the bill, and that we have some reservations about—in particular, and I know that Ms Moroney mentioned it, to do with pamphlet deliveries.

Understanding how pamphlet deliveries work, and having been a young man once, when I used to go out there and deliver those pamphlets myself—

Sue Moroney: Still young.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Thank you, very much. I will take that as a compliment, Ms Moroney; I am still young. But the reality is that this is a job that is designed for young people before school, after school—doing newspapers, handing out those flyers. Goodness me, when it is electioneering time who are the young people who come around to your neighbourhood to put those flyers in your box? Some people, I am sure, would like to see that practice be removed, because you see all the “No circulars” signs. The whole point is that a big sector of that market is done by young people. The other people who are actually filling this void are the elderly. Elderly people are taking up this job—some in their 70s, some in their 80s, and some in their 90s, whom I have been speaking to—and take, sometimes, 4 days to go and deliver pamphlets quietly. They take it as a social engagement outing—a little bit of social intercourse with their neighbours by getting themselves around the neighbourhood to go and deliver those pamphlets. So what is reasonably expected of them if, all of a sudden, the pamphlet-delivering companies have to say: “Well, look—I expect this job to be done in 2 hours. You’re going to take 4 days to do it.” They will miss the opportunity to get employed—to get gainful employment. That is the reality of the downside and the unintended consequences of the bill, which will have some dire effects on the people who actually work.

Hon David Parker: Not for you. Under-13s.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: No, well—youth will continue, but what will happen is that the youth will continue to pick up that void. This is a great opportunity for elderly people within our communities to get these jobs that children and young people on their pushbikes can go and do in 2 hours, and the elderly take 4 days to do them. That will actually remove them from being eligible to work because of course it will not be financially viable for those pamphlet companies to employ them.

The other area that we have some concerns about is public entertainment services: actors, musicians, and singers. The reality is that—and emerging artist I am not, but many of my friends are—the best way to get yourself out there is to give your time and be support to some of those up-and-coming bands. The reality is that the likes of the Wellington musical theatre and the operatic societies give gainful employment and pay less than the minimum wage, but they pay for costs and some of the time that is spent. We could not afford to have that industry. The industry would actually go to sleep and disappear into the ether. We are not big enough to say that we can afford to pay a minimum wage to everybody who is working in those sectors of the market. A lot of them do it for love, a lot of them do it for practice, and we need to be very mindful of that.

I just want to finish off by saying that the manufacturing of clothing, footwear, or textiles is another area that we have concerns with. All the other areas we actually support you on, particularly around pizza deliveries, truck driving, etc., etc. I am getting the hurry-along—5 minutes is not long. Thank you; we will support this bill to select committee and we look forward to ironing out some of those unintended consequences.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in opposition to this bill, being the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. Look, I like to think of myself as pretty centrist on the spectrum but, as we have heard in previous speeches, this is just an impractical bill. We have heard from officials that the risks outweigh the benefits, and this bill will certainly not achieve its goal. At the end of the day, contractors can often write off their own expenses—they like the flexibility that the law provides around that. It is about the structure of employment that is suitable for that worker.

This is a Government that supports measures that are going to grow the economy and give that worker the flexibility to go into business, to get into work, and to choose the structure by which they want to operate. With regard to some of the things that the Government has put in place to grow the economy—and I heard one of the Opposition speakers talk about measures that she thought were exploitative—well, I can talk about the 90-day work trial period. That has worked extremely well in Southland, especially in the agricultural sector. It has allowed people a chance to get into work—to achieve their hopes and dreams by convincing an employer to give them a chance. They have entered into these employment relationships and have had that opportunity to work hard and prove themselves and to get into employment. It is the same with the youth wage. Not everyone is going to take a chance with youth, but the youth wage allows these people to get into work—

Andrew Bayly: Worker participation increasing.

SARAH DOWIE: Exactly—worker participation is increasing. That is a good thing. People are getting into work, and what does work do? It brings people out of poverty and helps them achieve their hopes and dreams. This is an economy that has been growing. In the past 4 years it has grown at 2.6 percent and Southland is no different. In Southland things are going extremely well, notwithstanding, obviously, the drop in dairy prices, but we have got other things going on there. There are other industries that are growing. You can look at tourism, aquaculture, whatever—manufacturing, international education.

But I want to just move on to New Zealand Aluminium Smelters. Obviously, we are quite relieved that the smelter has achieved a deal with Meridian Energy and has got that deal on the supply of electricity across the line. And what does that mean? Well, the smelter employs—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted, and I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m.

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

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Kia ora mai tātou. Tēnā tātou katoa. The House is resumed. When we paused for the dinner break Sarah Dowie had 2 minutes remaining to speak, which is available to her.

SARAH DOWIE: I would very much enjoy taking the rest of the 2 minutes available to me to speak on the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. Where I left off, I was talking about how it was wonderful down in Southland to have Tīwai Point, New Zealand Aluminium Smelters across the line, having reached a deal with Meridian Energy as to the power costs. That smelter is directly attributable for 1,000 jobs, direct jobs, in the community and 3,000 indirect jobs. Could you imagine if there was extra cost put on those contractors? Most of those indirect jobs are contracting jobs. If there was extra cost put on those contracting jobs we would see the unemployment rate escalate and the participation rate in jobs go down. That would not be good for Southland given that we generate over 15 percent of New Zealand’s total export receipts.

We have a fantastic reputation to uphold and we want to do so by taking up the measures that this Government has put in place. They are practical measures to keep the economy growing and to move people into work through such measures as I have already mentioned—having firm written terms and conditions in an employment contract, 90-day trials, and having youth wage rates to get people into work—rather than making the employment regime more rigid. We want to keep people moving through into work, achieving their hopes and dreams, and moving out of poverty. It is with that that I say that this bill is one that is not practical. The risks outweigh what could be some benefits and that is certainly something that has been communicated through the officials and, therefore, I do oppose this bill.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party is very pleased to be able to support the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill. I would like to acknowledge and thank David Parker for getting this bill drawn—his first in 13 years, I understand. They say good things take time. The Government, sadly, though, has already indicated that it will not be supporting this bill. For a party that says it is about addressing child poverty, a party that says it is about a strong economy, and a party that says it is sympathetic to the intent of this bill, I am struggling to understand why it cannot at least support the bill’s referral to the select committee.

The arguments that I have heard so far from listening to the members on the other side of this House are pretty much that it would create too much paperwork for business and, well, that would be a disincentive for employing people. That really is an indication of where power lies in this country. Earning less than the minimum wage is not stopping people taking those jobs at the moment, because they are desperate for work, and, of course, with more and more people being required by Work and Income to take these contracts, there is no choice. That is OK in our country—that people are paid less than the minimum wage for skilled jobs. Yet, on the other hand, a bit more paperwork for employers and the Government says: “Hold on. That is not right. We cannot support that.” I think there is a bit of a power problem here.

We have also heard from the member Sarah Dowie that employees need flexibility, which is why we should not support this bill. I am really not sure when flexibility included wanting to be paid less than the minimum wage. She also said that work brings people out of poverty. Again, I think she is missing the point of this bill, which is to try and make that true. Sadly, that is not true at the moment because so much work is short-term, part-time, contract work that is paid below the minimum wage—precarious work on very low wages. We know that two out of five children in poverty in this country are living in families where their parents work.

Work is not a pathway out of poverty in this country with the way our employment laws are. This bill is a chance. It is not going to fix that problem, but it sets a pretty basic standard so that when we say “minimum wage”, that is actually what we mean and we deliver on. The Green Party believes that as a condition of a decent society, people should be able to get a fair wage, a living wage, for their work, and that we as a country should be actively seeking to eliminate structures that perpetuate discrimination and inequality.

I am very pleased to see home-care workers specifically covered by this bill, because this is an area of massive exploitation in this country. It is a largely female workforce, a workforce with many Māori, Pacific, as well as migrant workers. It is a skilled and physically and emotionally demanding job with a huge amount of trust and responsibility in the hands of those workers. It is clear that it is so poorly paid only because caring work has traditionally been considered women’s work and therefore outside of the mainstream economy. We do not live in the 1950s any more. These women deserve to have their pay packet reflect their skill and value. The minimum wage goes nowhere near achieving that goal, but by God it is an absolute bare minimum that this House could deliver on.

The Government has been tipping employment policy and law framework more and more in favour of the lowest common denominator employers. It is time that stopped. The Green Party is pleased to stand and offer our support to a bill that will make a difference to the working poor in this country. Kia ora.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill, in the name of the Hon David Parker, in its first reading. I acknowledge the effort of the member to bring this bill before the House. I also note, as mentioned by previous speakers, that this is a reproduction of a previous Labour member’s bill.

I oppose this bill because I believe that the entitlement to the minimum wage is only for employees. Contractors are like businesses. They do their job in their own time. They decide the amount of payment they should receive for delivering their services. And not just that; they also decide the time frame in which they will deliver their services. They work their own hours and they can even have people assisting them to finish their contract. They enjoy huge flexibility. They could be working for one business or entity, or they could have multiple contracts at the same time, whereas employees are required to have a much higher level of commitment in terms of the number of hours they work, the number of days they work, and the number of days off they can have.

To me this bill is saying that all business people should be entitled to the minimum wage, which to me sounds like we are underestimating our innovative people, who take the risk and start up their own businesses. People become contractors because they believe in their ability, and they believe that there is demand for the kind of service that they want to provide.

Contractors set their own terms and conditions when they go to work on a contract basis. Once that contract is finished, there is no ongoing expectation from them. If this contractor business is run by just one person, it is easy to establish. Another thing to keep in mind is that there is no one supervising the number of hours that contractors put into the work they have taken up. So it is totally up to them. They have to come up with the number of hours. They do their own calculations, put their margins on, and then decide the payment and also the time frame in which they will deliver those services.

Contractors enjoy greater independence, and also there is a greater perceived level of income security when compared with traditional employment. They work the hours that suit them. Employees have a fixed number of days they can have off every year. If they take more days off, then they have to go without pay. But for contractors, if they take more days off than they originally estimated, there is no reduction in pay. On the other hand, as the Hon Maurice Williamson mentioned, there is no holiday pay. If we put contractors on the minimum wage and compare that with casual employees, the casual employees get holiday pay; contractors will not get holiday pay. If we take into consideration ACC levies, then contractors on the minimum wage are going to be worse off when compared with casual employees.

Contractors are not bound by the timings or the rules of the workplace to which they are providing their services. They are like their own businesses. As I said, contractors can even hire people to assist them. But employees cannot do that. If traditional employees try to hire someone to assist them, then there is the risk that they will lose their job—and that means they are not capable.

Contractors can also decide the flow of income. Contractors can decide to have 50 percent, 70 percent, or 80 percent of an amount paid at the start, as soon as the contract is signed, and then the remaining payments will be made in instalments as the work progresses. They can control the flow of income, whereas employees cannot control the flow of income. Contractors are contractors because they like to work in a non-employee capacity. They do not want to work as employees. They believe in their services. They know they can do better.

Carmel Sepuloni: Contractors are contractors—wow. Far out.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: Yes, people become contractors because there are financial and non-financial benefits. Those people who are contractors are not there just for financial gain; they are there for the non-financial benefits as well, which they enjoy and which I have already spoken about. I do not see this bill achieving anything for anyone. Actually, it is going to make the financial conditions of contractors worse. I oppose this bill. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I thank members for their contributions, can I encourage members to vote for this bill to go to the select committee, and can I take the time to deal with some of the issues that have been raised. Before I do that, can I say to the National members that if this bill does pass its first reading and goes to the select committee, why not try to make it work, rather than try to demolish it? There are many countries that have a minimum rate of remuneration rather than a minimum wage. If you only have a minimum wage, people can get around it and can abuse the most vulnerable in society by not paying them fairly. That is all this bill tries to do. It does not apply to everyone in society. It applies to a discrete list of occupations where these problems are most prevalent.

Mr Clayton Mitchell said that we need a Zimmer amendment for people who are over 90 who cannot deliver pamphlets fast enough. There are already provisions in the law that say that if people cannot work in a way that would enable them to work as people normally work, as a minimum they can get a special rate of pay. That is already provided for. That, for example, is how people who have a disability are paid lower than the minimum wage if they are not of normal capacity.

I have already noted that the world is becoming a more ruthless place. This bill, contrary to what the last speaker, Parmjeet Parmar, said, does not give contractors a rate of pay that would include holiday pay or sick pay or ACC levies. It just says that the minimum hourly rate can be no lower than the minimum wage.

I thought that Clayton Mitchell raised a good issue in respect of what you do with this interface with something that is almost volunteering when compared with work—like people who are putting on an amateur dramatic production. Well, of course, if they are just getting their expenses recovered, that is not actually getting paid, so that is not a complication. But if there is a complication around that, and it is too hard to fix in this bill, strike it from the list. I am not actually trying to cure all of the world’s problems here, but I am trying to make things better.

The reference to young people under the age of 16 is mistaken by people. People who are under the age of 16 do not get the minimum wage. This bill would not change that. This bill would not affect kids who are out doing milk runs or paper runs. It is aimed at adults who, because of the increasingly competitive and ruthless world that we live in, are being abused by being paid less than the minimum wage. Why is that fair?

Newspapers compete against people who are selling advertising services. Newspapers are generally large organisations. They actually do not employ people through these arrangements. They are either employing kids or they are employing people properly and paying them the minimum wage. If they are competing against other advertisers who are not paying the minimum wage, that is not fair to them. It is undermining their competitiveness, and that is just too tough.

Can I deal with one of the speeches earlier that said if someone offers to paint a fence and then it gets washed off in the rain or something and they have got to do it again and it takes them twice as long and they drop under the minimum wage—look, this is not intended to address that sort of situation. This is intended to address the situation of people who are getting around the minimum wage by employing people on something that is similar to a wage and similar to an employment relationship. These sorts of things are more frequent now, in part because the Government passed poor legislation relating to The Hobbit. It deemed employment relationships to be contractual relationships even when they were employment relationships, which is bad law. The Government should not have done that; it has actually made this problem worse by doing so.

I do not know what the outcome of this vote will be. I know it will be close. I think this bill is worthy of consideration by the select committee. I do not accept the assertions from the other side that I am somehow being doctrinaire in trying to drive up the minimum wage. I am not. I readily concede there is a proper argument to be had as to whether the minimum wage should go up or not. That is a separate argument. This does not increase the minimum wage for everything. It just means that some people in New Zealand who are currently being abused and not even being paid the minimum wage would get it.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minimum Wage (Contractor Remuneration) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 61

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.

Noes 60

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

Bills

Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill

First Reading

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): I move, That the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. [Interruption] It is fantastic that the members of the Government are so keen to hear this bill, because I know that the vast majority of these members represent constituencies that want this bill to go through.

Democracy gives us the mandate to be here and to make decisions on behalf of New Zealanders that will, hopefully, benefit all. But Parliament, of course, is not the only place where democracy rules, and it is not the only place where rules are drafted that govern the behaviours that rule our everyday activities. Local councils are also hotbeds of democracy. We vote for them every 3 years, they run campaigns like us, and they work tirelessly to represent their constituencies. They know their constituents well and they often do it for very little money. But for these local councils it is never about the money; it is about the communities they represent and it is about the people they care about, and they work tirelessly.

As MPs we know that every time we turn up to a local function there will be one or two councillors there, and usually the mayor. This is not a 9 to 5 job; this is a job that often starts at 8—often before 8, actually, at breakfast functions—and it goes all the way through to the evening. We know this because we have similar jobs and we see these councillors at all the functions we attend.

I have immense respect for the councillors who represent the communities. I know all the councillors in Napier, and I know the hard work they put in. The politics of the councillors in Napier are wide and varied, and that is what makes the Napier City Council and a number of our councils so fantastic. The debates are robust, but we always know that the Napier City Council and the councils, which represent our constituencies as well as we do, come up with decisions that are in the best interests of our communities.

That is why when the Local Government Act was changed in 2012 it was a travesty for democracy. What happened before 2012 was that if there was to be an amalgamation of councils there had to be a majority in each jurisdiction. This is democracy. In 2012—under the former member for Napier, I must admit, the Hon Chris Tremain—the Government changed the law and it stripped away local democracy. What it did was it said: “Now if there’s to be amalgamation across a number of jurisdictions, all that they have to do is get a majority across the region.” What that did was to take the ability of local councils and of local communities to determine their own future, and for me this is the crux of this whole matter.

I firmly believe that communities deserve the right to determine their own future. The Labour Party is not against amalgamations at all. If communities want to amalgamate and if councils want to amalgamate, that is their right—that is their democratic right. But what we believe on this side of the House is that if amalgamation is to occur, then local communities must determine that for themselves.

Let me give you an example that is very salient to the region where I come from. We have four communities that the Local Government Commission is seeking to amalgamate. There is Napier, there is Hastings, there is Central Hawke’s Bay, and there is Wairoa. They are diverse communities representing about 150,000 people across a very, very wide geographic area. Pre-2012, for that amalgamation to occur, there would have had to be a majority in each one of those jurisdictions. As it now stands, all that has to happen is there has to be a majority right across that region, and the way it stands is that Hastings has about 78,000 people, Napier has about 56,000 people, and Wairoa and Central Hawke’s Bay have around about 6,000. So what could conceivably happen in this amalgamation referendum that is coming up is that Hastings could vote for amalgamation, the people of Napier could vote no, the people of Wairoa could vote no, and the people of Central Hawke’s Bay could vote no, but because Hastings has a much greater population it goes through, and that is not democracy. That strips away the ability of the people from Napier, Central Hawke’s Bay, and Wairoa to determine their own futures, and I do not think that is right.

In fact, it is most interesting—that is not the only erosion of democracy. What happened in the Bay is a group of business professionals put forward a proposal to the Local Government Commission. None of them were democratically elected councillors in any way, shape, or form, but this group set in train the process that could lead to regional amalgamation. These were not elected councillors. They were not representing the constituency in any way, shape, or form.

What it says in the Act is that there has to be demonstrable support for amalgamation before the Local Government Commission will recommend a referendum. Well, what happened is that the Local Government Commission went around and those commissioners spoke to the Hastings District Council, they spoke to the Napier City Council, they spoke to the Wairoa District Council, and they spoke to the Central Hawke’s Bay District Council, and they held public meetings, and three of those four councils told the Local Government Commission in no uncertain terms that they did not want amalgamation.

The interesting thing is this level of consultation with these councils happened about 6 months after local government elections had taken place, and the really big issue in the local government elections across Hawke’s Bay was amalgamation. So three of the four councils said no, and yet this is being forced ahead. The cynic in me says the reason this is going ahead is Wellington was a complete and utter disaster and Northland was a complete and utter disaster, so the Local Government Commission said: “Goodness me, if we don’t do something here, people are going to question our reason for being. Let’s do this in Hawke’s Bay.”

But the worst thing still, when we are talking about democracy, is that the Local Government Commission is not subject to Official Information Act requests. My office and I and the Mayor of Napier have put through a number of requests to find out what has gone on in the process, who has liaised with whom, where the recommendations are, and where the drafts are. We have been told: “No, as a member of Parliament, you are not allowed to have our deliberations. You are not allowed to know whom we have spoken to, and you are not allowed to know the process that we have taken to arrive at this decision.” That is undemocratic, but it gets worse.

The Minister of Local Government has now appointed a new board and a new set of commissioners for the Local Government Commission, and the chair of that commission, whom I personally have immense respect for, is Sir Wira Gardiner. He is the chair, but he sat on the Wellington Region Local Government Review Panel, which recommended Wellington amalgamation. Wira Gardiner is a man of immense integrity. I believe that. I believe that he should have said to the Minister who tapped him on the shoulder: “I have a conflict of interest here, because I have recommended amalgamation in the past, so I cannot sit here independently and put forward proposals in the best interests of community.”

The reason that I am so passionate about this bill, the reason why I would love it to go to a select committee and the reason why I think as a Parliament we really do need to support this, is communities need the ability to determine their own future. Communities need the ability to say: “This is where we want our community to go forward.” The amazing thing is that in Australia there were a number of forced amalgamations. These are now de-amalgamating because it simply has not worked. When forced amalgamations occur they do not work because they do not get community buy-in.

If there was an amalgamation referendum and 50.1 percent of the people from Napier said yes, then I would accept that, because that is democracy. But until that happens, I simply cannot accept the fact that amalgamation can be forced on communities without them wanting it. If this occurs in Hawke’s Bay there will be one council representing 150,000 people. Across the OECD only Denmark and the UK have larger councils than New Zealand’s. In fact, most countries—Switzerland, Canada, Germany, United States—have bodies representing fewer than 18,000 people.

But for me the main point of this, the reason I am passionate about it, the reason I have brought this bill to the House, the reason why Local Government New Zealand supports this bill, and the reason why every single mayor I have written to who has written back to me supports this bill is they understand that communities deserve the right to determine their own future. That is what democracy is about. Thank you.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to stand and speak in this first reading debate on the bill sponsored by the member for Napier, Stuart Nash, who speaks passionately on this subject. But, at the outset, may I just say to the House and remind the House that passion does not necessarily always represent what is right, correct, or proper. Merely being passionate does not mean that your argument is an argument that is sustainable or one that should be followed or pursued.

The member has had his bill drawn from the ballot, and that is something that is worthy of congratulation because it is a rare thing. In the previous debate we had a long-serving member of this House, David Parker, who had not had a member’s bill drawn from the ballot for 17 years, so I want to congratulate the member Stuart Nash on the luck, if you want to put it that way, of having this bill drawn from the ballot.

The sponsoring member is a passionate member for his local constituency and his local community. Those of us who are constituent MPs are almost invariably always passionate, committed, and supportive members of our local communities and our local government structure in our areas. I heard with interest Stuart Nash talking about the hard work, the dedication, and the diligence of elected local government representatives. All of us know how hard-working, how diligent, and how thorough local government representatives are across the nation.

But this bill is not a question of how hard our local government representatives work or not, because we know that they all do. This bill is about a definition of what democracy is. At this stage of the debate I venture to suggest that democracy can be a little bit like beauty—it is in the eye of the beholder. We on this side of the House would say that the version of democracy that the sponsoring member is speaking of is actually not the same version of democracy that we would see on this side of the House.

This bill would require a vote on the amalgamation of councils held in any affected area or district to be held in blocs in the sections of the wider area that is being considered. The difficulty that I have with that is that that is exactly the problem that needed to be cured and fixed when we first came into Government nearly 7 years ago. We had to fix that because there was simply no mechanism for amalgamating councils in a way that allowed it to be progressed in a democratic process.

The one forced amalgamation that occurred was in the Auckland area, where that did go through as a forced amalgamation. But since then, all Ministers of Local Government in this administration have been at pains to make clear again and again and again that there is no intention by this Government to make any further forced amalgamations. For instance, in the area that the member represents in Hawke’s Bay, there has been significant and considerable debate going on for years about the potential for amalgamation, about the potential for improvement, and about the potential for improved efficiencies in that part of the country. The member, to his credit, has followed the old adage that all politics is local to the nth degree, and, indeed, has carved out a niche career and a niche political spot for himself by advocating for the retention of the existing status quo within Hawke’s Bay.

In the short term that may fulfil the goals of an aspirant local constituent MP or candidate, but it does not necessarily improve the local government quality of service or supply or efficiency to the good people of Hawke’s Bay. What I find most concerning about the bill as introduced by the member is that this bill would revert to the situation that was in place prior to the changes that we made back in 2012. The problem with that is that a minority can actually veto the intent of a majority. That is not democracy. That is not democracy in anybody’s books. To simply create a system where the individual blocs of voting are so small that each one requires a majority in its own right, and if you do not achieve that majority in each one of the little blocs it enables a power of effective veto—that is not democracy. That is not how any kind of change will ever occur.

The Minister of Local Government addressed the Local Government New Zealand annual conference only a week or two ago. She made the point in her speech to the Local Government New Zealand conference that inevitably the conversation about how local government plays its part in embracing growth and addressing challenges usually turns on what the structures look like. She is absolutely right on that point. She also made the point in her speech to Local Government New Zealand that local government in New Zealand has developed over the years in a pretty ad hoc sort of a way.

As a nation we are now faced with a modern country, with demands of growth, the pressure of new and required infrastructure being developed, and a local government model that in some parts of the country is no longer suitable for purpose. So the real question for us is how we ensure that the local stays local in terms of local people and local entities coming to a conclusion and a decision about what the best type of local government structure in their areas is. Should that mechanism be one that is as it used to be, which was effectively one that enabled the minority to veto the majority? Or should it be, as we have created in our 2012 reforms, a situation that enables adequate and very full and comprehensive community involvement, discussion, and debate on any potential changes?

In his introductory comments, the member sponsoring the bill, Stuart Nash, made mention of the situation regarding Wellington and the Local Government Commission’s decisions or plans there that have, in fact, now been negated and it has gone back to the drawing board. The reason it went back to the drawing board was that, demonstrably, the people in the Greater Wellington area did not like what was being suggested by the commission. I would venture to suggest that it is a very good example of the reforms that we made in 2012 working effectively and as they were supposed to.

The reforms that we put in place in 2012 rest fairly and squarely on local communities and local regions making the decisions for themselves. If there is demonstrably and clearly a wish by locals not to go forward with a plan, whether it is suggested by the Local Government Commission or not, then that plan should not proceed. That is exactly what has occurred in the Greater Wellington area, and I would venture to suggest that it is proof that it is working well and does not need changing.

This bill is a bill that I think is an earnest one. It is a bill that panders nicely to the political niche, branding, and marketing that the member has carved out for himself on his local patch, but the question I ask the House tonight is: is this bill in the best interests of the people of Hawke’s Bay, or indeed of any other part of New Zealand, who may eventually, at some point, want to consider how their local government is best structured and how local government services are best provided for local ratepayers in their area?

In my view, this bill simply does not enhance local democracy; it really, effectively, just blocks it. The Government will not be supporting this bill. We do not think that it achieves anything. In fact, I think it reverts to a situation that was not tenable and not one that we could support. We made changes in 2012 to prevent the exact situation occurring that the member now seeks to reintroduce.

This bill is an earnest bill, but it is not a bill that is going to achieve the purposes to which it seeks a result, and if members give it careful consideration I do not think they will come to the view that they can support the proposition put forward by the sponsor, Stuart Nash. I regret that I cannot support this bill, nor can the Government. We intend to vote against it at its first reading.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): For the past 7 long, dark, and dreary years the Government has set out to systematically remove and strip the democratic rights of all New Zealanders. It has—

Joanne Hayes: No.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Yes—when I hear those members oppose my colleague Stuart Nash’s bill, that is what they have gone out and done to systematically, deliberately, and determinedly strip local communities of their democratic right to participate and have a say. That is what democracy is about: allowing New Zealanders to participate instead of being dictated to by that grubby National Government. Democracy is about allowing New Zealanders to have a say in the future of their local communities, not about the way that this Government has determinedly set itself up as the dictator of local government.

Once the National Party became the Government it deliberately went out and started undermining local government, beginning with the Auckland region. That is what it did. The Auckland region said that this was a hostile takeover, and that is exactly what has happened. The Minister of Local Government even announced, in the early stages when the Government forced the amalgamation in Auckland, that the ratepayers would save on rates. For goodness’ sake! That is what the Government promised—that under this structure Aucklanders would save on rates. Then it attempted to drag down Northland. It dragged Wellington to try to force the amalgamation, and what did the people do? They rebelled. They rebelled against this grubby National Government. They did not want this Government. In fact, that is the only reason that the Government has now changed the local government commissioner—because its determination to undermine local democracy has failed.

The Government has failed, and it knows that all the mayors, some of whom once used to be National Party members, no longer have confidence in that Government. They do not. The Government is afraid that come 2017 the mayors are going to rally against it and vote it out, because instead of doing a cost-benefit analysis in Auckland, it did not do anything. It did not do a cost-benefit analysis in Wellington. It was just determined that instead of local government and mayors and councillors having a say, it thought it was smart enough to dictate to all local government that it knew best. Well, it does not. It does not know best, and Wellington, rightly so, opposed its amalgamation, despite the fact that the Government tried to drag it over the coals and drag down Northland.

I am so grateful that those people knew better, and that is what this bill is about. It is about trusting the people of New Zealand. It is about recognising that they have every right to have a say in the amalgamation of their particular region. That is what this is about, and if this Government trusted New Zealanders enough it would know that the collective view of the people is far better than its members’ collective view. I say that with every confidence, because that is what the mayors are saying.

This grubby National Government thinks it knows it all, but it does not. It does not know about local government. It talks about partnership, but it has sheer contempt towards the councils and mayors. I would say this lot is going to be turned out—turned out—come 2017.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Those members laugh about it. They laugh about it. And do you know what? The mayors and the councillors who are part of the National Party cannot stand them. When we visit the regions these mayors cannot help wanting to download about how angry they are with this lot.

Nobody is taking any notice of regional economic development. Nobody is taking any notice of the housing crisis. Nobody is taking any notice of the unemployment situation. Yet we have $100 million of national debt, which this Government does not give a damn about. That is why this lot is going to be turfed out in 2017. The fact that those members cannot trust New Zealanders is the reason they will not vote in support of my colleague’s bill. The Government does not trust New Zealanders, and I believe that New Zealanders have cottoned on to this grubby lot. New Zealanders do not trust them either. In 2017—bye-bye, guys.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā Tuarua. Tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o te Whare Pāremata o Aotearoa. It is a pleasure to follow on from that enthusiastic—if nothing else—performance from the member who just resumed his seat, Su’a William Sio. Given the somnambulant front bench of the Labour Party, perhaps the honourable member should be nominating himself to be the next deputy leader. He would be an improvement, at least on energy if nothing else.

In speaking on the first reading of this Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill, I would like to begin by saying that the Government will be opposing this bill. I have respect for the member Stuart Nash, who is a hard-working member in his own constituency. He had great luck in having this bill being drawn from the ballot, and also great luck in beating the excellent candidate Wayne Walford, who, I am sure, will be back for another run in Napier at the next election. But there are several problems and, actually, several ironies with regard to this bill.

We have heard about the different views of democracy. We have heard from the honourable member Scott Simpson, the very fine MP for Coromandel and chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee, that there are different views on democracy and what constitutes good and fair democratic process. There is an irony in this bill being from a member of the Labour Party, which has a leadership election process that gives particular weightings to different groups, that gives special preference to the unions, and that gives the members of the caucus a disproportionate say over other members. There is an irony that a member would bring a measure along these lines to this House when, in fact, members do not practise what they preach in his own party. So there is an irony in that, and I do not think it adds anything to New Zealand’s democracy.

We have a democracy in place. The people of Wellington and the people of Northland spoke, they were listened to by this Government, and in the end the plans, which did not prove to be popular with the public of Wellington, were dropped.

Secondly, I would like to respond to a point made by the member Su’a William Sio, who said how hated National MPs are and how hated this Government is by the mayors of New Zealand. Well, I can tell you that I have a very warm relationship with our local mayor here in Wellington, Celia Wade-Brown. I speak to her on a regular basis. We do not agree on much, but I can tell you that we have a respectful and decent relationship. I know that my colleague Chris Bishop has a very warm relationship with his mayor, Ray Wallace, in the Hutt and also with Wayne Guppy. [Interruption]

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Can members take a breath and allow the member with the call to speak.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: We have fine mayors and we have very good councillors serving us in this city and throughout this country—

Chris Bishop: Don’t forget about Wayne Guppy.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL: —and Wayne Guppy from Upper Hutt is a very, very fine mayor. So I think that is a scurrilous accusation that the member was casting.

I would like to turn to the Local Government Commission. We have recently appointed a new chief commissioner of the Local Government Commission, Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Harawira Gardiner, a very fine New Zealander, a man with a proud military career, a public servant of this country in the civil service, and the notable biographer of our late, lamented former colleague Parekura Horomia. He is a person of fine standing and good repute in this country, who will do an excellent job. He is a fair-minded man.

We will ensure that our cities do have the right structure going forward because, unlike some members opposite, we do not think that we should be ossified in the distant past. Our country is changing. Our cities are expanding. We have heard recently from the Minister for Building and Housing about how many consents are being granted to create new housing in this country. Our cities are changing, the world is changing, and technology is leading to a greater need to align our services.

Here in Wellington, for instance, we have seen the councils working together effectively, and I applaud them for actually reaching an agreed position on the increased internationalisation of our airport. Although that is situated in Wellington City itself and is owned by a private company and the Wellington City Council, and, therefore, the ratepayers, it is an asset for the whole region. It feeds into not just the other Wellington local bodies, including the Hutt and up to Porirua and even Kāpiti, but even the top of the South Island benefits from having a more internationalised airport here in Wellington.

This is a party on this side of the House that trusts the intelligence and discernment of the citizens of this country. We believe in letting them make the call. Ultimately, there will be a vote in the Hawke’s Bay on whether one council will be formed. That is democracy, Mr Nash, of the sort that New Zealanders respect and practise. It is not democracy of the sort that has led the Labour Party into its current trench of unpopularity. I will not be supporting this bill further.

JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to take a call for the Green Party on the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill. We are pleased to support this bill, and offer our congratulations to the member Stuart Nash on getting a bill drawn. I am supressing my envy—I just have to put that on record.

The Green Party has a charter that guides all our policy and decision making to ensure that it is consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, ecological wisdom, social responsibility, non-violence, and appropriate decision-making. [Interruption] Appropriate decision-making does not include cellphones in the House, but it is, in particular, what guides our support for this bill, which will, if passed, provide for a poll of affected electors in each district or region relating to the reorganisation of local authorities.

This bill removes the existing provision of the Local Government Act 2002 that allows for petitions for holding a poll about a final proposal rather than automatically requiring a poll. It also ensures that a poll must be held in each district or region of the affected area. This will then ensure that the final proposal cannot proceed without the majority of votes in each district or region being in favour of the proposal.

Obviously, there has been a bit of discussion tonight about some of the recent reforms in Auckland during a previous term of this Government and the proposed reforms in Wellington. We were promised so much in Auckland. We were promised lower rates, we were promised greater efficiency, and we were promised greater democracy, but I must say that the data, as well as the word on the ground, does not seem to be matching the promise.

In Wellington we so recently steered down the possibility of a massive Wellington super-city—of eight councils, I think—being created on top of us, spanning right around from Masterton to Kāpiti. It was not at all guaranteed that the Local Government Commission would revise or scrap its proposal in response to the overwhelming number of submissions opposing the merger. There was no guarantee in the process that that would happen. It honestly did seem ridiculous that after submissions to the proposal, there might even be the possibility of the need for a petition to enable a vote to ensure local voters could have the opportunity to veto the proposal if they were opposed, as so many clearly were, as indicated through the submission process.

Although the commission did listen to opposition in Wellington and ruled out a merger for Northland councils, it has left the merger of Napier, Wairoa, Hastings, and the Central Hawke’s Bay into one single authority on the table. So it is absolutely apt that this Parliament considers the question of whether the residents of those areas should automatically have a say on whether they get to keep their own council, as they identify it now, or not, and it is appropriate that the member Stuart Nash brings this bill, as he is a representative in this House for those communities.

We currently have a very low voter turnout for local government elections. And despite many in our district and city councils doing their best to get out in their communities, attending every possible event, and taking every opportunity to engage with their local communities, voter turnout for local elections in 2013 was just 45 percent. The turnout in metro areas was down to 40 percent of people voting. This reflects a longstanding trend of lower voter turnout in metro areas and higher turnout in small communities.

The scale of councils is an issue of enfranchisement. The scale and boundaries of councils are essential to our understanding and our connection to our councils. They are a reflection of us, and the change in those boundaries has the ability to eradicate that connection. It is essential that people have a say in any change in that process. The Green Party supports this bill.

JOANNE HAYES (National): Kia ora and thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. What a fire it was tonight with the member Su’a William Sio. That “grr”, real guttural stuff happening—“grr”. It got me going over here in the back—“grr”. [Interruption]. It is, it is.

I am really pleased to take a call in the first reading of the Stuart Nash bill, the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill. I am really, really surprised at some of the things that I have come across tonight from the Opposition. How can anyone on this side of the House support a bill when all it is doing is taking away and blocking changes for people who may want to have some changes in their area and may want to do it? It takes away their democracy. It does not even enhance local democracy. So what it really does is it just halts the process of reorganisation, it slows it all down, and makes it more difficult. That is where that real “grr” starts to happen, and it gets my blood going.

Where there is always a vote on a proposal of reorganisation, even if there is no opposition to it—no opposition to it—we would still have a vote anyway. What kind of bill would actually advocate for that? I think that this bill actually insults the communities by taking away their right to determine their own destiny of their respective local government regions. Let us face it, the only thing that this bill is trying to do is to unwind the good work of this Government. That is what it is trying to do. That is the underlying current. That is what it is trying to do. Over on this side of the House, that is what we can see happening. It is not about the people. This is about how those members can get in there and usurp the National-led Government’s bill that we made in 2012.

National’s Better Local Government reforms are part of this Government’s broader agenda to build a more competitive and productive economy while also improving the delivery of public services to all New Zealanders. This is really key for the growth of communities. As I stood here tonight I heard all the whinging and moaning around what happened with the Auckland super-city amalgamation. But what I can tell you right now is had that mayor been right-leaning, everything—absolutely everything—that we put together for that amalgamation would have come true, because that is the work that right-leaning mayors do in our cities. Had that happened—

Carmel Sepuloni: Oh, come on, Jo.

JOANNE HAYES: You will never know until a right-leaning mayor ends up in Auckland who can push through all the things that the whole amalgamation process was to be about. It is very difficult when you are union-led, I can tell you that right now. We over this side see it.

The Minister of Local Government has been clear that she has no interest in imposing unwanted changes on communities and that she will also not legislate for big organisations. This is what our Minister, the Hon Paula Bennett, is about. She is about shaping up and making sure that all local government organisations are working to their fullest potential. That was the speech that she gave at the Local Government New Zealand conference just recently. This Government is very, very clear that any amalgamation of councils is up to the communities, and this has been evidenced a couple of times with the proposed Wellington amalgamation and the proposed Northland amalgamation. The Local Government Commission sat down, it listened, and it took on board everything that was happening. Just when people in the Opposition thought that they were winning—no.

This is a Government that listens. We have ears to listen. We have eyes to see. We have a voice, and we are there to represent this country at a local government level. When I hear members make comments about our new local government commissioner, Sir Wira Gardiner, being the husband of a Minister, well, I can tell you right now that the Opposition has had that on many occasions, so I would not even go there. He has a great history as a Public Service person, and also within the armed forces and defence as well.

I want to agree with the chair of our Local Government and Environment Committee, who said that this bill is all about defining democracy. That is all it is about. It is all about defining democracy. Based on all the points that I have spoken about and all the points that my colleagues here on this side of the—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, I start with a little mixed emotion here, because I have to say I am a little bit annoyed with Stuart Nash and the Labour Party, because one of the reasons I decided to give up my position of the mayoralty of Carterton, a position that I absolutely loved and cherished, was what this Government did in 2012 with the Local Government Act 2002.

I had the realisation that local government was not being listened to and that local government was being abused by a particular Minister who held the portfolio at the time and who unfairly and unjustifiably stigmatised and demonised local government in order to ram through the legislation that sought to achieve the National Government’s objectives, that being that local government needed fewer councils and bigger was better and that it was going to come in by hook or by crook methods—let us put it that way. By hell or high water, it was going to do that.

As the mayor, it astonished me to hear card-carrying members of the National Party who were solid, hard-working councillors, deputy mayors, and mayors being described by the National Government as being lazy, incompetent, and incapable of running their communities. It said that they could not run a balanced budget and that they ran up deficits. Excuse me? In the time that I was out of the House this Government has racked up, what, $83 billion or $86 billion in debt, and yet every year Carterton runs a surplus. Every year Carterton runs a balanced budget, and over the last 4 years, it has actually run a surplus. This Government and, in fact, central government, has very rarely, if ever, run a balanced budget—if ever.

We sat there and we watched the disaster that was the Auckland super-city. What was interesting was that a year or so after it had happened, we had corporate people come to us and say “You know, we believed what the Government was telling us about super-cities being good and costs being lowered and rates going down.”, but one, who was the chief executive officer of a very major international firm with a head office in Auckland, said: “But in 1 year our rates have gone up by 22 percent.”

So the bottom started to fall out of it, and now what are we seeing? Well, Rodney wanted out, and now Waiheke Island wants out. Waiheke Island—the home and the bastion of the country’s millionaires, the people who fund the National Party, the people who supported the National Government’s amendments that removed democracy and installed what we in the Wairarapa called the hostile takeover clause. That is what we called it. This clause made it possible for the tyranny of the majority to reign over small communities. That particular amendment became the most hated amendment out of everything that the Government did in the Local Government Act. I am not telling you anything from New Zealand First’s perspective; I am telling you what the Government’s own card-carrying members of the National Party who are councillors, regional councillors, deputy mayors, and mayors all over the country are saying.

I welcome having the National Government vote this down. I am loving it, because I can assure the House that every speech made by every National Party member—and I am looking at my good friend over there who is going to stand up and represent Waimakariri, Matt Doocey. You know, Matt, I am going to have to send your speech to every councillor in rural, provincial New Zealand—every councillor, every mayor, and every deputy mayor—so they can see that this Government believes that getting rid of the hostile takeover clause is undemocratic. Why should Wellington City—220,000 people—dictate to Carterton, which has been running its affairs very efficiently and is consistently rated by Business and Economic Research as one of the top nine performing councils in New Zealand? It would blitz Auckland—blitz Auckland. Why should it be dictated to by the majority?

Here is one of the other bizarre things that is an unintended consequence. When the Government changed that Act and it required people to petition for a referendum—not have it as a matter of right; they do not have a democratic say as a matter of right, but they have to put a petition together to get a referendum—it then made it possible for a little enclave up in the Tararua, which is an affected area, to sign that petition. Ten residences—it only needed one of them, under the Government’s own silly legislation, to sign that petition and the referendum was automatic.

The problem is the tyranny of the majority over some good, small councils, which actually, when one looks at the performance, are outperforming many of the so-called bigger is better councils. New Zealand First supports this bill. We actually look forward to the Government voting it down, and we so desperately look forward to the fallout and the consequences on the National Party in the 2017 election. Thank you for voting it down, National. You have done us well.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I am a bit confused. I am standing to speak against the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill at its first reading. This is a bill that I will not be supporting, and I refute the claims from across the floor that National MPs do not like local government. I must say of the members of my local government in Waimakariri, whom I work with: I love them, I embrace them, I work with them, and they are leaders in New Zealand. What they are doing at the moment is playing a key role in leading the recovery. I think that we have got to remind ourselves that it is not the Christchurch earthquakes but the Canterbury earthquakes, and the town of Kaiapoi was hardest hit in the September 2010 earthquake. I enjoy working with that council and working with the community boards to support them with the recovery and the anchor projects. We recently opened the Ruataniwha Kaiapoi Civic Centre.

It is also about working together—central government, local government, and the communities—around legislation. I think that we have got real lessons that can be rolled out around the rest of the country, around housing supply and around how we have freed up land, which has increased supply, which equals demand. Average annual house price inflation is about 7.5 percent—try 5.5 percent in Canterbury and 3.5 percent in “Waimak”. We are the third-fastest growing electorate by population, in the third-biggest district, having just taken over from Invercargill. So I embrace local government. It has got a fantastic role to play, but I cannot accept this bill.

Why I say this is that, currently, when the Local Government Commission issues a final proposal to reorganise councils in a region, there is an ability that if 10 percent of electors who are affected object, they can trigger a poll. So there is already a mechanism in place. I can say, from my own region of Canterbury, that there is absolutely no appetite for an amalgamation or a super-city. So I know that if this were ever raised in the towns of Rangiora, Oxford, or Kaiapoi, there would be 100 percent of people against it—so we would quite easily trigger the 10 percent needed for a poll.

But I must say that there is a role for councils working together. What I mean by this is that if we look at an issue like transport, as we rebuild and as Canterbury and Christchurch redraws itself, we need to ensure that councils such as Waimakariri District Council, Selwyn District Council, and Christchurch City Council are working together. We know that we have got $900 million worth of roading investment going into the roads of national significance, with $300 million of that going into my area of North Canterbury alone. We have about 60 percent of working-age adults commuting into Christchurch City, so it was really disappointing to hear that the Christchurch City Council has voted down the Cranford Street extension, which would have added increased reliability for commuters coming in on the northern corridor and the Northern Motorway. So we must realise that although we might not want amalgamation, we need to work in a system. We are all connected, and decisions made in one part of the system influence other parts. So I would urge councils to work together to support their communities.

Really, being a centre-right Government, it is not all about small State; it is about big communities. What this Government does very well is listen to those communities. We care for those communities and, at the end of the day, we are there for those communities. So I do not support this bill. Thank you.

NUK KORAKO (National): Kia ora, e te Mana Whakawā. It looks like I am the final speaker before the MP Stuart Nash has the right of reply. I must ask Mr Nash, what have you done? What you have done, actually, is create some really interesting discussions from both sides of the House. From that side of the House we have had fire and brimstone, we have had passion, and we have had confusion, as well. On this side of the House we have had fine, well-thought-out, articulate responses. So it is indeed my pleasure to add my bit.

What I want to do is respond to Mr Nash’s original introduction to his bill in its first reading. It is a great name for a bill, Mr Nash. It is a great name for a bill: the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill. All of us are here as a result of the democratic system we have in this country, and so I hope that everyone in this House believes as strongly as I do in our democratic system. Who could possibly object to the name of this bill, which, as I said, includes the words “(Greater Local Democracy)”? If we look at the bill, though—if we actually look at what it does—it is not about greater local democracy. It is about greater local bureaucracy. Not democracy—bureaucracy.

The local government reforms put in place by a National-led Government in 2012 made local government reorganisations easier and more flexible, and cut out a lot of the unnecessary bureaucracy. So what is it that Mr Nash wants to return us to through this bill? He wants to return us to a state where every single local government reorganisation required a referendum even if there was no opposition to the proposal. And it would not be just one referendum; this bill would require a separate referendum in every single district or region that the reorganisation proposal covered. Nothing in this process increases democracy; it increases only bureaucracy. This bill is nothing but a solution in search of a problem.

Under the current legislation, a reorganisation proposal that is overwhelmingly supported by its local communities will go through without the added bureaucracy of a referendum. But if there is opposition to a proposal, it is very, very easy to trigger a referendum. It takes only 10 percent of the electors in any of the affected areas. We have only to look at the current proposal in Hawke’s Bay. Under the current law it could take just three voters signing a petition to trigger a referendum. One of the affected areas contains about 20 voters, so it takes three people to trigger a referendum under the current legislation, but, apparently, Mr Nash is not satisfied with that. Apparently, it is just too arduous to collect three signatures and that referendum should be automatic.

Of course, in some cases it would take more than three voters to trigger a referendum, but it will never be more than 10 percent of eligible electors. The voting in this area of 20 people would be able to veto a proposal, and that is efficient local government. I think that is the whole essence of this. Under the current legislation local government reorganisation is efficient, it is streamlined, and, most important, it is democratic. Under this bill that Mr Nash wants to introduce, reorganisation would be slow, difficult, and bureaucratic even when there is widespread support for change. National cannot, and I will not, support the bill. Kia ora.

STUART NASH (Labour—Napier): A number of National MPs have spoken on this bill, and I am unsure from their rhetoric whether they are for or against it. The last National speaker, Nuk Korako, missed the point completely. This is about getting a majority in each local government jurisdiction for any amalgamation to occur. It is not about the original 10 percent. It is about a majority in Napier, a majority in Hastings, a majority in Wairoa, and a majority in Central Hawke’s Bay, not across the region.

One of the National members stood up, and he said that I was doing this for cynical reasons and that I was doing this because it is local politics. I can inform that member that my family has been living in Napier for 150 years, and I am hopeful they are going to be there for another 150 years. I would never ever do anything that I thought was not in the best interests of Napier, and I would certainly not play cynical politics with my constituents.

Matt Doocey really hit the nail on the head. He said that the people of “Waimak” would be dead against amalgamation. But what Mr Doocey does not understand is that under this law, as it stands, “Waimak” would get subsumed into a whole Christchurch super-city anyway. If your constituents, Mr Doocey, were against amalgamation, it would not make a blind bit of difference. Under my bill, if they voted against amalgamation then they could preserve the unique character of their town.

I want to just give five quick points as to why I think that this bill must progress through the House. The first and most important one is that I believe that local communities deserve the right to determine their own futures, and not have a situation forced upon them that they do not want. Secondly, Scott Simpson, the National MP for Coromandel, said that a small community could overrule the whole process and that that is not democracy. My contention is that if a small community does not see value in an amalgamation and a super-city, then it should not go ahead.

Ron Mark: That’s right.

STUART NASH: And Mr Ron Mark used Carterton as the classic case. Carterton is an exceptionally well-run city. It did not want to be part of Wellington, so why should that be forced to happen? It should not.

The third point is that the Nats said that their definition of democracy was different from ours. That is a shame. For me, democracy is about the right of communities to determine their own futures. I cannot see how you can dress up democracy differently and say that this bill is not about democracy, because it is so much about democracy that it is in its title. It is why I have put this bill forward, because I passionately believe that communities deserve the democratic right to determine their own futures through a poll, and if the communities vote 50.1 percent in favour, then the democratic system says that it will go ahead, but if there is not a majority in that jurisdiction, then it should not go ahead. That is democracy.

The fourth point is that this bill is actually the policy of Local Government New Zealand. Local Government New Zealand is the representative body of all the councils across New Zealand. It is clear that this bill is the will of those who represent those who are in charge of the governance of our communities. This bill represents the will of the mayors and the councillors right across the country.

By not supporting this bill, is the Government saying that the mayors and the councillors—whom a number of speakers purport to have such a great relationship with—are wrong? I very much doubt, judging by the speeches, that any one of those National MPs went to their local city councils or district councils or their mayors and said “How would you like me to vote on this bill?”, because if they had, the mayors and the councillors would have said: “I would like you to support that.” I know this, and the reason I know this is that I wrote to every single mayor in this country. And every single mayor who wrote back to me said: “We need this bill to go through. We need this bill to go through, because what this bill does is it takes the legislation back to how it was in 2012.” So we are not doing anything revolutionary here. All we are doing is taking it back to how it was.

Someone mentioned the Minister of Local Government and how engaged she was with local communities. Well, I can tell you that during the election campaign the Hon Paula Bennett came down to Napier. At a public meeting on this, the Deputy Mayor of Napier stood up and she was told by the Minister: “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” Whoa, whoa—that was fantastic!

The last point I would make is that if this was not the right thing to do—if this bill was not the right thing to do—then believe me, I would not be so passionate about it. I would not be championing it in this House. But the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill is, quite simply, the right thing to do for our communities and for our constituencies. The reason I know that is our mayors and our councillors have told me that this is the case. I urge the House to support this bill to the select committee. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

Tim Macindoe: The Noes have it. A party vote is called for.

Carmel Sepuloni: We said party vote. Party vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): All right—the Clerk will conduct a party vote. It is slightly unusual when someone voting for something calls for a party vote, but both sides have, so we will have one.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Local Government Act 2002 (Greater Local Democracy) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 60

New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2.

Noes 61

New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill

First Reading

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call on members’ order of the day No. 3. [Interruption] Order! I think the member has to ask for the call first.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): I move, That the Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill.

New Zealanders are amongst the most generous people in the world, per head of population. In 2010 New Zealanders donated just under $1 billion, while in 2014 this increased by 25 percent to just under $1.25 billion. The median amount of money New Zealanders donate now sits at around $40 per person per month. This is the highest amount of charitable donations since the Canterbury earthquakes, when 46 percent of the population made a donation to charity. Generally, around 41 percent of the population donates to a worthy cause.

It is important that New Zealanders know that the donations they provide to those in need are going to legitimate charities, and are aware of just how much of their donation reaches those it is intended to help. Statistics show that my electorate of Waimakariri has 6,207 registered volunteers—this being 14 percent of the Waimakariri’s population. My region of Canterbury has not only 2,500 registered charities but over 52,000 volunteers who contribute over 239 hours per week to the community. This can be compared nationally, with New Zealand having just under 470,000 volunteers, or 15.5 percent of the country’s population. It is no surprise, then, that—[Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I would request my colleague Stuart Nash to be seated when he is talking to someone like that. It is very rude.

MATT DOOCEY: It is no surprise, then, that New Zealand is ranked in the top five most charitable countries in the world since 2010 on the World Giving Index.

The aim of this bill is to require that any person collecting donations, subscriptions, signatures, or other support for an organisation or cause in a public street or place must disclose the existence of payment or remuneration for performing that collection or solicitation, in order to ensure that members of the public are informed whether a public collector or solicitor is being paid to solicit or collect donations, signatures, or other support. The bill provides that anyone who is collecting donations, signatures, or other support for an organisation in any public place, and is receiving payment or any other remuneration for engaging in such activity, must disclose the existence of this payment or remuneration to relevant members of the public.

However, the bill also provides that where the organisation or cause is a registered charity, disclosure is not required to be made. The bill provides that disclosure may be made orally or in writing and must be made to each member of the public who is solicited or from whom a collection is taken. The disclosure must be made before any collection occurs and must include a statement that the person collecting support is receiving payment or other remuneration from whichever person or organisation is providing the payment or remuneration.

I believe that most people want to know whether a public collector is a volunteer or is being paid to collect donations or signatures. This bill will guarantee that transparency. The bill will require anybody collecting donations, subscriptions, signatures, or other support in a public arena to disclose whether they are being paid or remunerated for their service. In the case of donations for a charity, this bill will help people to be confident that the charity will actually be getting all of the money they are donating.

This bill will bring us into line with the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom, which already have transparency measures in place regarding public collections. Kiwis have a true spirit of voluntarism, but in recent years there appear to be more people who are paid for collecting, whether it be for signatures or donations. This is a change in culture for us. I believe that the public has a right to be informed about where donations are going. The bill aims to bring transparency to public collectors who are paid to collect donations or signatures. This is to ensure that members of the public are fully informed when signing, paying, or donating to any cause.

New Zealand has a great culture of voluntarism. New Zealand has a mixed economy of care that consists of private, Government, and community provision of care. I value the contribution the voluntary sector makes to the well-being and care of New Zealanders. I believe in big communities. The work our volunteers do makes New Zealand a better place. On average there are just over 400,000 Kiwis volunteering every week for a charity, adding up to over 1.5 million hours contributed to our communities. New Zealanders are traditionally good at volunteering. We are amongst the very best in the world.

When there was a great need in Canterbury after the earthquakes, lots of people, especially the young, inspired all of us with their commitment and endurance in helping others. As an example, the town of Kaiapoi in my electorate was hardest hit by the September 2010 earthquake. In the days immediately following the 4 September earthquake, the Student Volunteer Army was a visible force on the streets of Kaiapoi. It started with a Facebook event and resulted in thousands of student volunteers car pooling out to the Waimakariri, baking food for the affected residents, and cleaning up liquefaction left on the streets and in people’s gardens. This example of voluntarism soon grew up to over 2,500 volunteers contributing to the clean-up, and now the Student Volunteer Army is seen around the world as a model of best practice for how to make a difference in your community.

The bill seeks to achieve its objectives by requiring that any person collecting donations or support for an organisation—except for registered charities—in a public place must disclose the existence of any form of payment, and by requiring that the disclosure must be made orally or in writing to each member of the public who is solicited or from whom a collection is taken, before any collection occurs. The bill contains a strict liability infringement offence for collectors failing to disclose payment or remuneration information as required under the bill. The penalty is a maximum fine of $1,000. Infringement offences do not carry the possibility of conviction.

The bill provides that where a police officer observes a person committing an infringement offence or has reasonable cause to believe that such an offence is being or has just been committed by the person, the police officer may issue an infringement notice in respect of that offence. The bill builds on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. That bill amends the Fair Trading Act 1986 and imposes a requirement on professional fundraisers acting on behalf of charities that retain more than half the money collected in fees to disclose the percentage retained. The Charities Commission reported regularly receiving complaints relating to third-party collectors, and noted a rising awareness in the media of the use of third-party contractors.

To conclude, I received an email of support recently from Tony Duncan, the chief executive of the Heart Foundation. Mr Duncan told me that the Heart Foundation is generally supportive of this bill, as, like many charities, it relies on the generosity of donors and it is hearing more regularly that donors are intimidated into donating by some of the aggressive sales tactics being employed by commission-based sales staff. For example, in the past 18 months the Heart Foundation has had more than 20 complaints from another organisation’s donors, who thought they had been donating to the Heart Foundation. The Heart Foundation passed these complaints on, but the damage is already done. This charity believes that if the public knows where their donation is actually going, and that those collecting are genuinely engaged in the charity and are not being paid per sign-up, it will only encourage more generosity and more engagement. If there is more transparency it will help the sector.

New Zealanders are amongst the most generous people in the world per head of population. I believe that most people want to know whether a public collector is a volunteer, or is being paid to collect donations or signatures. This bill will guarantee that transparency. This is to ensure that members of the public are fully informed when signing, paying, or donating to any cause. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly, may I commend Matt Doocey for getting his first member’s bill into the House out of the ballot. It is a special day for you and I want to acknowledge that.

I want to say that we support the bill to select committee, but there are one or two things that we are not entirely sure of and that we are hoping, through the passage of this bill—if it does actually go through to select committee tonight—will be resolved over the course of this discussion.

First is the question of what the purpose of this bill is. I am not entirely sure that the general policy statement actually outlines exactly what that member across the other side of the House has just disclosed to us. The policy statement says that the bill seeks to bring transparency to public collectors who are paid to solicit donations or signatures, to ensure that the public is fully informed as to all the relevant information when signing, paying, or donating to any cause.

I am not sure that this is actually a huge issue in the community sector, because this bill does not actually relate to registered charities. Registered charities will be exempt from this bill and they would be the lion’s share, surely, of the charities out there soliciting donations. Every lunchtime, just about, on Lambton Quay, there will be someone with a bucket or a charity stall set up on a table, or someone looking for signatures on a petition or for a particular cause who would not be covered by this member’s bill. So I am not entirely sure about whom is going to be captured within this bill, and whom it is particularly that this bill is wanting to actually incorporate within it. So I am really looking forward to that discussion at some point, about finding out who the intended groups or people are who are supposed to have the issue of these “chuggers”—these donations that are solicited by people who do not declare their status in terms of whether or not they are a paid employee. We are talking about 26,000 registered charities in this country that will be exempt from this bill.

Just on the issue of “chuggers”, I suspect that the bill is designed to reduce the impact of those charity muggers, or “chuggers” as they are called. But, as I say, where we most often encounter them, when we are talking about some charities—and I will name a couple: perhaps Greenpeace or Oxfam or Save the Children; some quite large charities—by and large they are registered charities so they will not be covered by this bill.

Those who are employed to collect the donations or signatures and are paid commission will need to disclose that before the signature or the donation is made. How will that apply if somebody is dropping a coin into a bucket on a stand in a shopping mall? Will the person who is actually collecting the donation be then required to chase after the person who has made the donation into the bucket to tell them to make that disclosure about whether they are a paid employee or on commission? It seems like a little bit of overkill.

I have actually spoken to not only the Heart Foundation, as Matt Doocey has, but to many other community organisations to ask their opinion of this bill, and most of them are saying that it is not going to apply to them. One of the responses that I got was: “Does this member of Parliament not have anything better to do with his time?”.

I got a very interesting response from Surf Life Saving New Zealand, which said that all of the “chuggers” that we see on the streets are all working for legitimate charities, and the significant players are already ahead of the game due to previous bad publicity. So rather than pay for the services of the “chuggers” from the funding they collect on the street, they fund them from other sources, which allows them to legitimately make the claim that 100 percent of what the donor pays goes directly to the charity. So there are already mechanisms in place for charities to use to facilitate the fact that they can get around the provisions of this bill.

But there is another issue at stake here, and that is the reputation of charities. The reputation of charities can be called into question if the public now has to have disclosure statements from them. That would be an unintended consequence, and I do not know whether the member has actually thought that issue through. Charities being required to disclose does put a negative slant on the reputation of charities. One or two charities have indicated to me that they are a little disquieted about that.

Let us look at the organisation that is responsible for the professionalisation, I guess, of fund-raisers, and that is the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand. What it has to say is very interesting. It says that there is the old concern about the public having the right to be informed about where their donations are going to and the overall cost of fund-raising, and that it is trying very hard to professionalise the profession of fund-raising. Fund-raising is a difficult and complex profession. It is something that I have been involved in throughout my community career, and reputation is everything. Relationship is everything. Any bill or any discussion that gets in the way of that relationship, particularly if you are trying to build trust with people over the long term, has an impact on your ability to fund-raise successfully. So while the Fundraising Institute is looking seriously at increasing the professionalism of fund-raisers, this bill seeks to do the complete opposite by throwing into doubt the professionalism of the fund-raising fraternity.

Let us face it: there are many, many organisations that would not be able to fund the services that they currently undertake unless they have the services of professional fund-raisers. Professional fund-raisers are not to be dismissed. They are a very important, vital part of the community sector, and many organisations that are partially funded by Government, for example, rely on professional fund-raisers to make up the shortfall.

While we are on the matter of registered charities, at the beginning of this speech I said that there were about 26,000 registered charities in this country. Unfortunately, what has happened over a very short period of time is that many of these charities, through perhaps not filing annual returns or perhaps not completing information for charity services, have been deregistered. In fact, I think somewhere in the region of over 1,000 have been deregistered since the beginning of the year.

I wonder about this Government’s intention to continue to support the charitable sector if, on the one hand, they are criticising the ability of professional fund-raisers to actually raise sufficient funds for charities to continue to do the good work that they do, and then, on the other hand, they are deregistering charities, which means it is impossible for them to get Government contracts, and also to secure funding. It seems very counterintuitive to me. Anyway, on that note we will be looking forward to more discussion on this and to resolving many of those issues. Thank you. We support this bill to the select committee.

ALFRED NGARO (National): It is an honour to stand and take a call on this Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill at its first reading. I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Matt Doocey. Again, it is always an honour for any MP, and especially when you are a backbencher, to be able to have your member’s bill drawn. To Mr Matt Doocey, I congratulate you on having that opportunity. There are many members who have been here for a long time who have never had a bill drawn, so it always—

Chris Bishop: You’ve had one.

ALFRED NGARO: I have had one too. So it is an honour to be able to do that.

I just want to make some comments about the previous speaker Poto Williams making what I thought were some slightly uncharitable comments about Mr Doocey, asking whether he has anything better to do. Most members’ bills are actually small bills that make amendments to other pieces of legislation, or they introduce a small form of legislation around the change. Although we are talking about the big shifts and changes, most members’ bills are not earth-shattering, they are not moving the world in significant ways, but they do look at things and they do ask the right questions.

I do want to make this point. The question is this: what is the mischief, what is the area of concern and need that needs to be changed or addressed in this bill? This bill talks about the aspect of requiring all persons who are “collecting or soliciting donations, subscriptions, signatures or other support for an organisation” to disclose any payment or remuneration for performing that role. In other words, it is wanting to assure that there is some transparency.

The comments that have been made are that, yes, we have a strong volunteering culture. We also have a very charitable culture. Mr Speaker, you probably remember back in the days when we used to have the telethon. There were lots of fund-raising activities right up and down the country. I remember that our family used to bunk down in the sitting room and watch that 24-hour cycle where people would raise money and they would sing that song “Thank you very much for your kind donation”. That is the sort of culture that New Zealand has where, even today, just last year, there was $1.2 billion worth of funds raised by New Zealanders, given to charities right up and down the country, both for purposes in New Zealand and also abroad as well. It shows that we have this culture, and we want to protect this culture, not only of volunteerism but also this culture of having a charitable nature. This bill, then, is wanting to say this, though it is not trying to and will not address those who are volunteering for a charitable organisation. What it will do, though, is protect those charitable dollars and those charitable funds.

We have nicknamed them “chuggers”: in other words, people who for devious reasons will turn around and try and take those charitable dollars that are meant for good intentions and may use it for their own. That is the area of concern that Mr Matt Doocey has actually raised here. It is an area of concern. We know it happens. Just a couple of weeks ago Ronald McDonald House was robbed, and families were in there. What we thought was actually sacrosanct, places that we thought were sacred, that were tapu to us, OK—

David Shearer: What’s this got to do with the bill?

ALFRED NGARO: It has a lot to do with the bill. What it does is it talks about, Mr Shearer, the volunteering aspect and the charitable dollars that we spend and how we protect those who are most in need as well. That is what this bill actually talks about, and the other parts of the bill also talk about this. It talks about subscriptions and signatures. There was a concern at one time that there were potentially political parties that were using taxpayer-funded dollars to allow their staff to go out and potentially get signatures for petitions. That is a concern that New Zealanders would have because if they had not disclosed their intent, where they come from, and the purpose for which they were gaining those signatures, then I think that the public needs to know whether there needs to be a disclosure and whether people need to be aware. So this bill has a good intent.

I think as it goes from its first reading we will hear a variety of different submissions. I know that Mr Matt Doocey will be able to support that as it is going to the Social Services Committee. It will be simple things like this: if Mr Matt Doocey went out into the public and said that he was going to gain a subscription or some support, maybe even a signature, then he should be able to say “Good morning, I am Mr Matt Doocey. I am actually here on behalf of this organisation wanting to raise some funds or a subscription.”, and be able to declare that so that it is transparent. There is nothing hard or difficult about that, but what that does do is it creates a sense of honesty about the intent and the purpose for which that person or the organisation is gaining.

I support this bill to select committee. I look forward to the submissions. There will not be hordes of submissions, but there will be enough that turn around and say: “Look, there is a concern here.” We should make sure that we protect those charitable dollars. Like I say, $1.2 billion of charitable funds that go out to our communities, and, yes, it is the surf lifesaving groups and it is the hospices. I went to a fashion show in Te Atatū community centre just last weekend. It is organisations that provide much needed service—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I apologise. I was distracted. The member’s time expired some time ago.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It is with pleasure that I rise for the second time this evening to offer our support for a member’s bill, this time the Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill. This time it is a bill sponsored by a Government member, my fellow Social Services Committee member Matt Doocey.

This bill seeks to bring transparency to public collectors who are paid to solicit donations or signatures, to ensure that the public is fully informed as to all the relevant information when signing, paying, or donating to any cause. Under the bill, collectors who fail to make adequate disclosures as prescribed commit an offence. The Green Party is happy to support this bill to the select committee and for us to have the discussion.

Basically, when we consulted with members or representatives of the community and voluntary sector about their views on this bill, what they told us was that they were not convinced that this is wide enough to be really useful in terms of the issue around the neologism that is being quoted already around “chuggers”, and giving people that sense of security on the streets or in their homes around the validity of an organisation. They noted that from their perspective the goal is to give people information when they are approached for donations or signatures on the street, over the internet, and over the phone by people who are being paid to do this on behalf of any group. What this bill provides for, though, is to give people information when they are approached for donations or signatures on the street by people who are being paid to do so on behalf of groups that are not registered charities.

So already, if you think of the streets of Wellington or of most other streets in New Zealand, the main people whom we see collecting are young people paid by Save the Children or Unicef or Greenpeace. These are all registered charities, and therefore not covered by this bill. I do take Labour colleague Poto Williams’ concerns around creating a sense of public distrust in fund-raisers, and that is not something that we want to do. I am not, for any second, suggesting people should have concerns about people collecting for Unicef, Greenpeace, or Save the Children. But I do think that there is an issue that the sector has raised about ensuring confidence in fund-raising so that people are more confident about giving. What they are saying is that there need to be protections like this right across the board for all methods, not just on the street and not just for non-registered charities.

I do think the point that was raised in the example that was given, of political parties that have staff members who were collecting, was interesting. I think the provisions around name and organisation and being paid are not too much to ask. I do not think anyone would have an issue with that. I think it will be interesting to see us, as MPs, when we are on the street, getting people to sign petitions, whether it will apply to us—whether we will have to go through a pro forma disclosure when we are interacting with people. That might be an interesting process, and not necessarily a bad one—placing us solidly within our communities and having the same responsibilities as others. But it will be a different scenario.

In summary, I do not want to speak for too long. I think this bill will go to the select committee and we can consider the detail of the bill and the possibility of expanding it there. I hope we can move the business before the House tonight a little bit quicker. We have had discussions around being able to drink during the Rugby World Cup. I would also like us to be able to ensure that organ donation is properly supported, so I will finish my speech here.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill in the name of Matt Doocey. I am very happy to take this call in support of this bill, and I congratulate my colleague Matt Doocey on having his bill drawn from the ballot.

The Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill requires anyone collecting signatures, subscriptions, or donations in public places, if collecting for organisations other than registered charities, to disclose if they are being paid to do that activity. If they do not disclose, then they can be fined up to $1,000.

When I see people collecting donations, signatures, or subscriptions in a public place it does not cross my mind straight away that they could be being paid. Then, later on, finding out that they were being paid gives the feeling of being misled. If it is about some kind of donation, then you know straight away that the entirety of that donation is not going to go to the cause you donated it to. If you signed for something, then you know that the person who convinced you to sign was doing it for some extra income and does not actually believe in the cause behind the collection of those signatures.

This bill will not affect organisations or people who recruit volunteers, and that is fair because it means that they are recruiting people who are available to give their time and put effort into the cause that the organisation is trying to benefit.

Often there is a lack of passion when people are paid to do such activities as collecting signatures, donations, or subscriptions in public places. For them, the incentive is just their own monetary gain. They are not required to believe in the cause. The impression that a signature collector is a volunteer is a common one. When there are quite a few people doing that activity, collecting signatures or donations, it gives a misleading impression that there is a lot of interest in that activity. Those people who are collecting signatures and donations stop people who are walking past and try to convince them to donate, so in a way they are paid campaigners.

This bill is about bringing transparency to the process. Registered charities are not required to make this disclosure. They are already required to include information about their income and expenses with their annual returns for all of the different parts of the charity. That is why they are not required to disclose whether people collecting donations for them are paid or not paid. Also, collecting donations for registered charities in public places is quite a common channel, and this is quite an acceptable manner for us as well. The people who work for these charities feel connected and passionate about them. A general observation is that the people who are paid to collect signatures or donations are normally aggressive because they have some targets to be met, compared with volunteers. They want to earn more. This can actually create the impression among people about all those who collect signatures and donations, and then maybe people do not want to stop and talk to people collecting donations because they do not want to face their aggressive approach.

I recognise and highly value the significant contribution that our charitable and voluntary sector makes. These entities range from the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Neurological Foundation of New Zealand, to different sports clubs. A very close member of my family has been a volunteer for the Cancer Society of New Zealand for more than 20 years. There is no pressure on him. He does it when he can get away from work, and he does it because he really believes in helping people. He likes to help people who are suffering from cancer. But what happens with a mix of people, those who are paid and those who are not paid, is that it is very hard to identify and know who is paid and who is not paid in that mix.

This bill is about improving transparency and putting a disclosure mechanism in place for the public. Currently, there is no such rule to have this kind of disclosure if people are being paid to collect donations, signatures, or subscriptions. This bill will give more confidence to the people—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired. Can I just give a bit of general advice—to occasionally address the Chair, and then members are likely to get a signal to wind up or of how long they have got to go.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): I would like to acknowledge Mr Doocey tonight. I asked to speak on this bill. It is not my usual specialist subject, but I would like to acknowledge the fact that Mr Doocey had his member’s bill drawn from the ballot. But I would say that it is a bit of a doozy of a bill. I beg your forbearance, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Let me just read from the purpose statement. A lot of what Mr Doocey said in his opening speech I would like to take this time to contest and ask questions about. But it comes from the purpose clause—to bring transparency, which is fantastic, to public collectors who are paid or remunerated to collect or solicit donations, subscriptions, signatures, or other support for an organisation or cause in a public street or place. This is part of the issue—the main issue. It is to ensure that the public is fully informed of all relevant information.

Mr Doocey acknowledged quite a few of the deficiencies in this bill, in terms of that transparency. I will just go into that now. Firstly, New Zealand First would like to acknowledge that, yes, the intent of the bill is right. I think that what you are trying to achieve is appropriate. We would add that we are one of the top five charitable countries in the world. New Zealand First has asserted that volunteers are the fabric of New Zealand society and enable society to continue almost day to day.

Numbers were spoken about tonight—$1.2 billion in the last financial year, with 400,000 New Zealanders contributing to charities. We think that is remarkable, and long may it continue, but here is the rub. We think that Mr Doocey is misinformed. He says that having collectors declare that they are going to be paid will increase transparency. Well, that is a very small part of the costs of a charity and an organisation of this type. What we have seen in the very recent past is the reality that wages are often a very small part of what charities around the world, whether they are registered or not, have decided to allocate to the end beneficiary. So then the question is whether this actually improves transparency. The wages may be part of it, but what charities have chosen to incorporate in costs and retain from their collections varies widely and this, Mr Doocey, is only a very, very small part of that.

The next point that Mr Doocey raised was the Kiwi spirit—this is the intent. It does not sit within the Kiwi spirit that people are being paid to collect money for charities, and then he talks about transparency. Well, where were you when I had my member’s bill a couple of weeks ago—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order!

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Excuse me, my apologies. Where was the member when I was asking for exactly the same thing about transparency and about democracy for this nation? It does not seem to sit well and there seems to be a conflict there.

Then there is the other issue that has been raised. I think I heard it only once tonight, but it is a huge issue, actually. It is where the collection takes place and it speaks about public places. The issue there is that if I am in a supermarket carpark or in its entrance or in its foyer, this does not apply. It has no bearing on anything I do, whether I am a registered charity or not. So there is a huge disparity, and I would suggest that it creates huge gaps. Another speaker who spoke earlier, Jan Logie, asked about phone solicitation. So there are a whole lot of questions about consistency in how you would apply this. The issue also is: why not make it apply to everyone—why not a registered charity as well?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.

STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on this member’s bill, the Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill. I would like to begin by congratulating my colleague Matt Doocey. It is remarkable that he would have a bill pulled out of the ballot so quickly, and I wondered whether it was Bedian luck or the luck of a Bedian that has led to this fortuitous event. But whatever it is, Matt, I cannot become a Bedian, I suspect, but perhaps you could give me some advice on how I might get some luck going my way in that department. I have to say after hearing a previous speaker that I am confused—or perhaps he is—on a number of issues that were raised there, but I will come to that in a moment.

New Zealanders, as has been stated earlier on in the piece, are a very generous bunch. We give, as my colleague pointed out, $40 on average per person per month to charities, and that is a phenomenal amount of money when you think about it. But that relies on people’s confidence in the people and the charity that they are giving that money to—that the money going through to the charity is going to achieve the things that it is being collected on the basis of. I do not think that there is anything wrong with people being paid to solicit money on behalf of a charity or other organisation, or, indeed, to solicit signatures for a petition. But there is a rider on that: so long as the person who is being approached and solicited for money is aware of that and they can make that decision. It is about transparency, and unfortunately we have not really had that until today—or until this bill comes through, and it looks like it is going to be supported across the House to go through to a select committee.

A number of the questions that were raised by the previous speaker, Fletcher Tabuteau, I think are valid questions—or some of them were, at least—but the select committee is the place and the process in Parliament where those particular issues can be addressed and fully canvassed. That is where bills get their polishing and get all the bugs out of them, hopefully, before they come back to the House. I think that is where this bill should go—to the select committee—and I will certainly be supporting it to that stage.

There was a point made earlier about when you put your coin in a bucket, for example, and the person then has to chase you down the street and tell people that they will actually be paid for collecting that money. It quite clearly states here that those people must be told before any solicitation or collection occurs. We have talked also about signatures on a petition. It may very well change a person’s decision as to whether they are supporting a petition or not if they find that the people soliciting for those signatures are being paid. So I think it is right and proper that we should have that transparency.

Most of us in the House, I suspect, have had plenty of contact with charitable organisations and public-good organisations, and most of us, I suspect, have done a lot of work on behalf of those organisations, raising money for the local sports club with a bucket or selling sausages at a barbecue on behalf of a charity. In all of those situations, certainly in my case, the people whom I have been getting money off or asking for money to support those causes have been well aware that I am not being paid, and well aware that the money is going directly to those organisations that I am working on behalf of. I think it is a great thing that New Zealanders keep their confidence in those particular organisations and that we really celebrate our volunteers and our voluntary organisations and the way that they are funded in New Zealand.

There have been some examples of behaviour that this bill will help to alleviate. Certainly, there were a couple of monks and a nun—or they were people masquerading as monks and a nun—in Auckland who were arrested or chased off the streets for soliciting for money. So it is with great pleasure that I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I want to take just a short call on the Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill and, first of all, congratulate Mr Doocey on being a new member and pulling this out of the ballot with tinny luck. To someone who has listened to these debates in the House for a little while it has all the appearance of one of those bills that he was given when he came into the House as a new member and told: “Mr Doocey, this is your bill.” He delivered it without any passion and without any understanding, really, of what was going on. I made contact with his office today. I said: “The Labour Party actually would like to support this but we are not sure what it was all about. Could you send us something?”. So he sent through the Bills Digest, which exemplified to me that, actually, this had not been given a great deal of thought and that Mr Doocey had stood up on an issue that had well and truly passed, which was that the Green Party had been collecting signatures with paid volunteers or people who were being paid. The National Government had put this up and Mr Doocey had the misfortune of picking up this bill. It was given to him by the whips, it was stuck in the ballot, and, unfortunately, it was pulled out.

Actually, when you look at this bill, it is an answer looking for a problem. There is not actually a problem there. It is something that is trying to resolve something and, quite frankly, nobody knows what the problem is. When you look at the agencies and the various voluntary sector people who will be caught up in this, there are, in fact, so many exceptions that it is very hard to find who will actually be caught up in this net and how the legislation will give us this so-called confidence that the last speaker, Stuart Smith, talked about when we address our voluntary sector. That is not just my opinion; it is also the opinion of the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand, which said about the bill that its “concern over this well-meaning but generally unhelpful bill is that it misunderstands the role and availability of volunteers and criticises our moves to professionalise charity fundraising which provides better value for donations raised for charities.” That is the crux of the problem. Those charities out there are trying to professionalise, and all this does is sail right across the middle of it without really understanding or without even talking to the various charities to ask them what the real problem is. Labour will support this bill to the select committee, if only—if only—just to have people like the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand come along here to the select committee and explain what we really need, as opposed to the manufactured problem and solution that Mr Doocey has come up with in the House today.

MELISSA LEE (National): I rise to take a very short call in support of this wonderful member from Waimakariri, Mr Matt Doocey. I have to actually echo previous members who have shown their jealousy of his success in the members’ bills ballot. I have had a member’s bill in the ballot for I do not know how many years, and I am hoping that perhaps it might actually get drawn fairly soon. I too will actually seek the luck this way, Mr Doocey.

The Public Collections and Solicitations (Disclosure of Payment) Bill deals with a matter that sits at the back of the minds of many hard-working New Zealanders. The member who has just sat down, Mr David Shearer, was rather uncharitable in his comments about how Matt Doocey might have just picked up the bill off the National Party. I could be just as uncharitable and comment about the two fish that he held up. I am sure he actually got advice that that was a good thing—but I will not go there, otherwise I might in get into trouble with you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

This bill addresses the concern that many of us actually have when we go to give money to an organisation soliciting in a public place. Admittedly, other members have raised the issue that perhaps it is the issue of telephone canvassing or other means by which they actually collect. When we give to a charity, often we want to know that that money that we give is going to the purpose that it is supposed to be going to, and not used to actually line the pockets of people who run it as a business. We have had instances where people who actually work for charity get phone calls from people who say: “Oh I’d like to actually maybe reduce my sub or increase my sub.” And the callers then realise that they were not paying to the charity that they thought they were paying into, and that it was actually a third party who had maybe changed some of the spelling of the charitable organisation and collected on their behalf, perhaps, in a fraudulent manner.

These are the kinds of things we are trying to prevent with this bill, I am guessing, Mr Doocey. So I am very much in support of this bill going to a select committee, to hear from the public as to what they think and how far this bill should actually go. I commend this bill to the House.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): Can I first say that I am very honoured and humbled to receive the support around this Chamber tonight. It is great to hear people joining in support—that the intent of the bill is right, and it is only right that the bill will now go to the select committee. It will be great to review the scope of the bill; there have been a lot of suggestions tonight, so I am looking forward to that. I must say, as someone who comes from a background of working in mental health and who has worked a lot with charities and volunteers, it is great to work with people who want to make a difference in their communities and in people’s lives, and I am more than happy to support them with this bill. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.

Bills

Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill

First Reading

CHRIS BISHOP (National): I move, That the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill. I would like to start by acknowledging my friend and colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse, who first proposed this bill as his own member’s bill and whose reasons for doing so are similar to my own, which I will touch on in a second. I would also like to acknowledge Dr Cam Calder, who took up the bill and kept it on the ballot after Michael’s much-deserved promotion to the ministerial ranks. It would also be appropriate to acknowledge the efforts of Dr Jackie Blue, who previously attempted to improve organ donation legislation through her own member’s bill in 2007, and to acknowledge the tireless campaigning of people like, in particular, Andy Tookey, who support this bill and continue to support the cause of organ donation. I have had preliminary indications of support for the bill from many members in the House, and I thank them for that.

This is a very focused and specific bill that aims to deal mainly with two issues surrounding live organ donation. The first purpose of the bill is to adequately compensate altruistic New Zealanders who, through the goodness of their hearts, choose to donate an organ to a friend, a loved one, or even a stranger. The current compensation amounts to the equivalent of the sickness benefit, and inadequately recognises and supports the hardship these individuals face when they make the choice to give up an organ in order to save a life. The bill would allow donors to be paid up to 80 percent of their average wage for 12 weeks of recovery, along with other childcare payments.

The second purpose of the bill is to reduce the financial barriers to becoming a live organ donor. Although the reasons for New Zealand’s low organ donation rates are varied and many, one significant barrier is the financial hardship a donor suffers through lost wages and other associated costs of recovery. This bill will seek to address that issue by ensuring organ donors are supported in the same way that we support injury and recovery through the ACC system. This bill replaces and improves upon the 2005 ministerial direction, and it is only right and proper, in my view, that we elevate such an important issue, which impacts relatively few New Zealanders but affects us all.

Like many members’ bills, and like the Hon Michael Woodhouse before me, I was motivated to take up this cause after meeting the very people who have been affected by it. During one of my first candidate meetings in 2014, I spoke with 68-year-old Sharon van der Gulik, who had been living with renal failure for more than 2 years. She could barely walk and needed 15 hours of dialysis a week. Her story will be familiar to many New Zealanders, and like many in her situation her best option was a live kidney transplant. She was at one point given just 2 weeks to live, and dialysis had become so awful that she could not think of continuing treatment past the age of 70.

Fortunately for Sharon van der Gulik, her incredibly brave 27-year-old grandson Matt was able to donate a kidney to her. But it was tough on him. The $206 or so paid by Work and Income was not enough to cover half his mortgage, and Mrs van der Gulik herself had to help keep Matt financially afloat. Mrs van der Gulik and her grandson are, in my view, exactly the kind of brave people this bill attempts to support through proper compensation. There are numerous other examples of organ donors and donees around the country, and I am sure members will have their own stories from their own constituencies.

I think it is wrong that at the moment live organ donors are essentially penalised for their altruism, facing a large loss of income even though their actions save lives and contribute to a healthier New Zealand. Moreover, the current system in many ways actually favours the wealthy. If you have a relative who can afford to take time off work and make the financial sacrifice is entailed in donating an organ to you, and they are a match, then you have a good shot of getting that organ. But if you have someone who is a match but cannot afford to take time off work to donate an organ to you, then you are obviously in a less advantageous position. That is an inequitable situation; this bill improves upon it.

The second issue the bill seeks to address is New Zealand’s low organ donation rates. It is relatively common knowledge, I think, for members in the House that our rate of organ donation in New Zealand is low by international standards. It is about half that of Australia and it is well below Spain, which is the world leader when it comes to organ donation. There are more than 550 New Zealanders waiting for an organ transplant, and 450 of these people are waiting for a kidney transplant. People waiting for a heart transplant, a lung transplant, or a liver transplant may die without a successful transplant, and those waiting for a kidney transplant lead lives restricted by long-term dialysis treatment, which is very debilitating.

There are many reasons for this lamentable situation, and the Government actually does have quite a comprehensive and wide-ranging work programme to address that. That programme is starting to work. The numbers of New Zealanders receiving an organ transplant rose from 176 in 2013 to 217 in 2014, which is a 23 percent increase. This includes an increase in kidney donations from live donors as well, but it is clear we must do more.

So one barrier to people being willing to donate is the financial sacrifice they are forced to make. This bill reduces that sacrifice considerably, and I have described it as a small but useful contribution to the Government’s wider work programme to improve our organ donation rates. In the words of Elsie Howard, who was on the front page of the Dominion Post recently and who donated a kidney to her father: “You’re being penalised for working and then doing this for someone … If you want people to step up and donate, make it worth their while. Don’t make it so hard to do something for somebody else.” That quote really encapsulates what this bill is all about.

The bill will have a small fiscal cost, but I believe that taxpayers will be better off if it passes into law, if it works as intended, and if it does increase organ donation rates. The reality is that organ transplants save the taxpayer a lot of money. This is good economics. A recent study by Elizabeth Prasad of the University of Canterbury indicates that it costs taxpayers $281,000 to treat a 50-year-old male with dialysis over his expected lifetime at a 7 percent discount rate. That compares with $149,800 if he was given a transplant. There are, therefore, very large fiscal gains for the taxpayer and for the Government from increasing organ donation rates.

In conclusion, this bill greatly increases the support for those brave New Zealanders who every year sacrifice part of themselves to save the lives of others. It will also go some way to removing the financial barriers to live organ donation and help address aspects of New Zealand’s low organ donation rate. It recognises, rightly, the large commitment these altruistic New Zealanders have to those in need, and acknowledges how grateful we are as a country to them. Let me close my speech by paraphrasing the former colleague of my colleagues here, Dr Jackie Blue, who said during the first reading of her own organ donation bill 8 years ago that we propose many pieces of legislation that deal with Government efficiency, updating legislation, and making the lives of New Zealanders easier, but very few can lay claim to improving the quality of life, or even save the lives, of New Zealanders. This bill is one of them. She was talking about her bill, but I believe that is equally true of this bill, and on that note I commend the bill to the House.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): I will just say from the outset that Labour has decided that we will support this bill to a select committee. Before I get started on the content of the bill, I just want to acknowledge Sir Pita Sharples, because, actually, his own wife just recently had a kidney transplant. So our thoughts—from the whole of Parliament, I am sure—are going out to Pita Sharples and his wife. I also acknowledge his son Te Hira Paenga, who recently blessed my, Kelvin, and Peeni’s office on West Coast Road in Glen Eden. So I am thinking of Pita Sharples and his family at this time.

This is an issue that many New Zealanders will look at and think: “OK, this needs to be done.” It is such a selfless act, for anyone to consider the idea of donating an organ while they are still alive. It is a selfless act, and so it is something that we support.

I do want to reflect back on Labour’s time in Government, when Annette King was the Minister of Health, when the Labour Government did attempt to address this issue. Annette King introduced changes in 2005 that put in place minimum standards for the weekly amount of income assistance granted to live organ donors, to offset some of the donors’ income loss. That was so that they could actually receive the sickness benefit, in terms of being able to hold them over while they took that time off work. The ministerial direction also provided for childcare assistance, and that could be claimed for up to 12 weeks after the operation. This childcare support will be continued under the new bill, which is good to see. Before the Labour Government’s changes in 2005, live donors had to rely on employment support to take extended leave.

We support referring this bill to a select committee, but we believe that there are some anomalies that may need to be fixed at the select committee, and we can have that conversation there.

What we see is that this bill would revoke the 2005 ministerial direction and increase the level of financial support to live organ donors to be the same as what would be paid to a donor under the Accident Compensation Act 2001 if the time off work had been due to injury, which is 80 percent of pre-operation earnings for a maximum period of 12 weeks. As I said, the bill also provides for childcare assistance for up to 12 weeks if the donor is the principle caregiver for a dependent child who is less than 14 years old, and the amount payable will be prescribed within the regulations.

We know that not only is it a selfless act to even consider donating an organ but also there is a period of time in which that person needs to recover. Considering that we have an issue in this country with the availability of organs for donation, then that is why we would consider this bill. We congratulate Chris Bishop on getting it pulled out of the ballot, and on putting it into the ballot in the first place, and—

Chris Bishop: It was luck.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Luck. Well, take the win, Chris. It might be one of the few that you have.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member is referring to me at the moment.

CARMEL SEPULONI: OK, apologies. Mr Assistant Speaker will have many wins, but Chris Bishop may not. So—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. The member will resume her seat. I mean, much as the member is trying to appeal to me, she must not bring me into the debate while I am in the Chair.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Apologies, Mr Assistant Speaker.

So there is that period of time when the person who donates the organ needs to recover, and we want to remove that stress. We want to make sure that they do not have that stress, and that when they are considering whether or not they will do this it is not one of the things that will put them off doing it, and that it is not one of the considerations they have to spend too much time stressing over. Of course, the issue around childcare is huge as well. “How will I earn money?”, “How will I feed my family?”, and “Who will look after my children?” are the considerations that those who are thinking of donating an organ whilst they are still alive will have.

We did look into some of the issues that we have with donations in New Zealand at the moment. There have been no live adult donors for liver transplants in the last 3 calendar years for adults, but there were five live adult donors for children in the last year. In 2014 there were 72 living donors for kidney transplantations, up from 58 in 2013. Although that is an increase, it is not a steep enough increase to meet the need that we are facing here as a country. So we will support the bill because if this is going to mean that we can meet the need of New Zealanders out there who are requiring organ transplants, then why would we not support this bill’s referral to a select committee to at least have that conversation. When it goes to a select committee we can have that conversation about what the anomalies are, about the changes that need to be made to the bill, and about any concerns that any of the political parties have. We can look at the submissions that come through and consider the concerns that are raised by the general public, as well, and so we look forward to that select committee process.

But, again, I just want to say that we commend the member for putting the bill in, and I just want to say that we look forward to having the discussion, considering the legislation, listening to the submissions, and hearing from the families whom this may benefit. I am sure that we will hear from families who were not in a position where they had donors who could provide organs for family members—who, unfortunately, may not be here right now. So thank you very much.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am conscious that one gets 5 minutes in these speeches, and, as we approach the end of this evening, I do not necessarily want to break it up into two parts in the way that one might sort of have to break into a body to bring out donations. But I think that as we—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I regret that I have to interrupt the member.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 10 p.m.