Wednesday, 26 August 2015

WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 2015

WEDNESDAY, 26 AUGUST 2015

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

Indonesia—Regional Representatives Council

Pacific Parliamentary Public Accounts Committees—Delegation

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I am sure that members would wish to welcome both a parliamentary delegation from the Regional Representatives Council of Indonesia and delegates from the Pacific Parliamentary Public Accounts Committees, who are present in the gallery. [Applause]

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Resilience

1. NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s fiscal strategy supporting resilience in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It was important to support the economy during the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes, and during that period the Government ran up considerable debt, but following these events we have worked hard to turn the Government’s finances round. The latest forecasts are that Government debt will plateau at about 26 percent of GDP before falling to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. This compares with current net debt levels of around 20 percent in Australia, 38 percent in Canada, and 80 percent in the UK and the US. The Government aims to get on top of debt so that we are in a position to respond to any significant economic shocks in the future.

Nuk Korako: How does New Zealand’s macroeconomic resilience compare internationally?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Using information from the OECD, Treasury has collated a list of countries that have the following features of macroeconomic resilience: a broadly balanced Government Budget, net debt that is less than 40 percent of GDP, economic growth that is greater than 1.5 percent, and scope to further cut interest rates. New Zealand meets all of these criteria, and, in fact, there are only four other OECD countries that meet those criteria: Australia, Norway, Iceland, and South Korea. So this illustrates that New Zealand is in a good position to deal with any turbulence in the global economy.

Nuk Korako: How does the Government’s fiscal strategy affect inflation, interest rates, and the exchange rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Responsible fiscal management can reduce inflationary pressure. It gives the Reserve Bank more scope to cut interest rates, which supports businesses to invest and helps families with their mortgages. Lower interest rates can also influence a lower exchange rate, and that has certainly happened in the last 6 months or so in New Zealand. Low inflation, lower interest rates, and a lower exchange rate right now are helping to support moderate, sustained growth of around 2 to 2.5 percent.

Nuk Korako: How does sustained, moderate economic growth translate into more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealand families? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There were a number of complaints to my office about the level of interjection and noise yesterday. Yesterday it was coming from all sides of the House. To date there has been a strong level of interjection from my left, which must not continue. I invite the member to ask that third supplementary question again.

Nuk Korako: How does sustained, moderate economic growth translate into more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Although there has been a great deal of interest in fluctuations in international financial markets, New Zealand remains on track for moderate economic growth. There have been 69,000 more jobs created in the last year—200,000 since early 2011. The average wage is now $57,000, up $10,000 since 2008 and up 3.2 percent over the last year. That is against a background of inflation of 0.3 percent. The Business Growth Agenda also offers a wide range of initiatives designed to support businesses to invest further and hire more people.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that every forecast of the economy released in the last few months means that he will fail to even reach the downside scenario of the Budget in terms of growth, unemployment, and debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, not necessarily. What is pretty important is that the right adjustments are occurring in the economy, so growth is a bit softer. But lower interest rates and a significantly lower exchange rate are likely to support moderate and sustained growth, and we will get an update in December on Treasury’s view of it, and an update on the Reserve Bank’s view several times before then.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If things are going so fine, why does he have to get up every day in this House and try to tell us how well things are happening and going—and if it was happening it would be obvious without him every day trying to defend the situation?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—the first part of that question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is because I am so concerned for the welfare of Opposition party members, who look panicked, crisis-driven, and deeply anxious about this economy. I am pleased to see the member is looking a bit more relaxed this week than last week as a result of the Government’s assurances.

Housing New Zealand—Dividend and Condition of Properties

2. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister responsible for Housing New Zealand Corporation?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Andrew Little: Did the State house he grew up in have mould and leaks, and is it OK for kids today to live in mouldy, leaky, cold State houses because of lack of maintenance?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, not from memory. Obviously, the house would have been much more modern back then, given it was so many decades ago. But also I will say that my mother took absolute pride in making sure that she kept the house clean, tidy, and ventilated. But what I can say is that this Government is proud of the fact that it is spending $300 million a year improving the mess we inherited from Labour. Its own house was never in order. It is not in order at the moment. No wonder we inherited—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Andrew Little: Given that it would take only $35 million to get every State house up to standard and he is taking nearly $100 million a year in dividends from Housing New Zealand, why does he not let Housing New Zealand keep its dividends until it gets all of its houses fixed?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government may well take a dividend from Housing New Zealand—as it should, in fact, because it spends $300 million a year maintaining and upgrading. The Minister for Social Housing was on the radio very recently talking about just how many homes have had improvements over the last very short period of time.

Andrew Little: Given that the average State house needs just $600 of repairs and he is pocketing $1,500 in profit per State house each year, will he promise here and now to suspend dividends and fix all the houses immediately?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have is that the average spend on repairs of a home is $10,000, actually. In some cases it is $20,000. The Government spends $300 million a year, but, indeed, all that demonstrates is that the Leader of the Opposition is not very good with numbers—but maybe Jacinda Ardern is better with numbers these days.

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

Andrew Little: How many more kids in State houses in New Zealand have to wind up in hospital seriously ill before he takes their issues seriously and makes sure that they have the same right that he had to a safe, warm, dry State house?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It would be easier to take the member seriously if what Labour did when in Government was actually maintain the houses. But, in fact, not only did it not do that, it let them run down. Here are the facts: through Warm Up New Zealand we have insulated 280,000 old, cold, damp homes that were never insulated under a Labour Government, of which 48,000 were State houses. We spent $30 million providing heating at about 10,000 properties, and we have installed thermal curtains in 17,000 hot homes since February 2013. It is a joke for the Labour Party members to come here and talk about this. They ran the housing stock down. They should hang their heads in shame—that is what they should do.

Andrew Little: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that Labour took, over its time in Government, $281 million in dividends and spent $758 million in capital contributions compared with this Government’s $636 million in dividends and $132 million—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been well and truly described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is objection.

Andrew Little: Where is the moral compass of his Government, and how can he possibly justify continuing to profit off State houses while kids like Iriah Marama and Emma-Lita Bourne are getting sick and dying?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Where is the moral compass of an Opposition that just failed to upgrade and maintain houses? They were a mess under the Labour Government. They were a disgrace, and this Government has actually had to fix them up. It is the same old story all the time with Labour: hopeless in Government; roaring like lions in Opposition.

Andrew Little: How can a man who grew up in a State house be OK with making a profit off our poorest families while they live in conditions that are killing their kids and making them seriously ill?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government does not make a profit out of Housing New Zealand. It spends $700 million on income-related rents. It spends $300 million maintaining them. I am advised by the Minister responsible for HNZC that the previous Labour Government suspended the maintenance on those properties to build more properties. Labour let those houses run down, it let those tenants get sick, and now in Opposition it wants to pass the buck to someone else. It is a disgrace, Mr Little. It is a disgrace.

Health System—Commentary

3. SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s health system?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Many reports have crossed my desk recently on the improved performance of our health system under National, whether it is the 50,000 extra elective surgery operations we are doing every year or the 400,000 extra kids who now have free access to GP visits. I have received another upbeat report published in the Southland Times yesterday, which says: “overall the health system [is] working well … ‘We do have a good health system’ ”. Those are the words of Mrs A King of Rongotai, and I want to thank her for her positive endorsement of the Government’s performance in health.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am just waiting for a bit of quiet. I have called the Hon Annette King.

Hon Annette King: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of that answer, would the Minister like to complete the quote that I made, which said that the health system is “creaking around the edges” and does demand some action?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually, that is not what I believe the member said, but I thank her for her positive endorsement. It is great to have her on board with “team health New Zealand”—thank you very much.

Simon O’Connor: What other reports has he seen supporting Mrs King’s view that we “have a good health system”?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yesterday I released the latest quarterly report on the health targets. They showed that the primary care target to help smokers to quit was met for the first time, with a national result of 95 percent. In addition, all district health boards met the improved access to elective surgery target and delivered 10,614 more elective surgical discharges than planned. The Government is committed to delivering year-on-year increases in elective surgery. These results are a fantastic achievement that is improving patients’ experience of the health system.

Hon Annette King: Did he also know that at the public meeting, where there was standing room only, I also said that the health budget is missing $1.7 billion since this Government was elected 7 years ago and that there are many people in Southland-Otago dying of bowel cancer because he will not roll out a bowel cancer screening programme to the southern part of New Zealand—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to an end.

Hon Annette King: —where the highest death rate and incidence are? Did he also hear—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to an end.

Hon Annette King: Oh, I have got plenty more.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member has had her opportunity.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Of course, we all know that it is completely untrue that there is $1.7 billion missing from the health budget. We actually put in $400 million more last year. I think it is time Mrs King became more positive inside the House, because she has actually been quite positive when she goes around and speaks to people around the country about our record.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether, in due course, you could give some further consideration to a situation where the Government used a Government question in order to attack an Opposition member of Parliament, which, of course—

Hon Members: Aw!

Chris Hipkins: —hang on, hear the point of order; I think you should hear the point of order—there are Speakers’ rulings against. There are two ways that the Opposition can approach that. One is that we can raise points of order with you about it. The other is that we can join in and have members asking supplementary questions on that, but I think that involves a little bit of give and take from you as Speaker as well in allowing the Opposition, effectively, a chance to respond in the form of a question without being cut off.

Hon Simon Bridges: It was hardly right to say that the question was attacking when, indeed, it was praising the Hon Annette King for her positive comments about the New Zealand health system.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance from the member. This is question time. The principal purpose is to hold the Government to account, but inevitably there will be political debate around questions and answers. That has happened for as long as I have been in this House and it will have happened for as long as Mr Hipkins has been in the House. In that particular exchange I did note there was one supplementary question from the Government. There were two very good supplementary questions from the Hon Annette King, who certainly had her chance to respond to the answers that were given.

Prime Minister—Housing Standards and Health and Safety

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

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s decision to not introduce a comprehensive warrant of fitness for rental properties in New Zealand?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister work with us in the Green Party to implement a comprehensive warrant of fitness for rental housing, given the research that shows that 1,600 New Zealanders die from housing-related illnesses every winter?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Metiria Turei: What more information does the Prime Minister need to help him move his decision and to introduce a comprehensive rental warrant of fitness, if not the 1,600 extra deaths each winter from housing-related illnesses, if not the deaths of Emma-Lita Bourne or Soesa Tovo—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.

Metiria Turei: —or the thousands of other illnesses and hospitalisations that Kiwi children suffer?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: From the Greens, none.

Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister meet with the families of Emma-Lita Bourne, Soesa Tovo, and Iriah Marama and explain to them that their deaths and illnesses are acceptable to him and his Government?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am more than happy for the Government to continue to correspond with the families about the steps that the Government has taken, including the $300 million a year that we are spending, including what we have done in terms of insulation of State houses, putting in heating devices, and the variety of other things we do. I am actually quite proud of this Government’s record of tidying up the mess that we inherited from Labour.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister saying to New Zealanders that he thinks that it is perfectly fair that some New Zealanders will live in warm, dry homes while thousands of others will live in cold, damp, and mouldy homes that make them unsafe, or even lead to their deaths, and he will do that—he thinks that it is fair—because he does not want to work with the Greens?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Not wanting to work with the Greens has got nothing to do with the issue; that is a longstanding position. In relation to the homes, we have insulated 280,000 homes under our watch—48,000 State houses. We have spent $30 million providing heating and housing. We have installed thermal curtains in 17,000 homes since February 2013. We are spending $300 million a year maintaining houses. I would strongly suggest that we are probably doing more to improve the stock of housing than has ever occurred under any Government in New Zealand’s history, and I am quite proud of that fact.

Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister forgotten that the considerable success of the home insulation scheme arose out of an agreement between the National Government and the Green Party to insulate those 300,000 homes; and how many more New Zealanders does he believe it will take to get ill, be hospitalised, and die before he will introduce a comprehensive warrant of fitness for rentals, which—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. She had now asked, effectively, two questions, and is still going on. I will allow the Prime Minister to answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to providing improved standards for housing—for want of a better term, a warrant of fitness—the Government is moving in that area, as the member is aware. There are a number of important steps that we can take, and the Government has prioritised important areas like insulation. We are also conscious of the fact that if there was to be a standardised warrant of fitness across every house, there would almost certainly be very increased costs for those who have to rent those properties. And then I am sure the member would be back in the House telling us that we were responsible for rents going up.

Clayton Mitchell: Was it his intention under National’s Health and Safety Reform Bill to make paid school sports coaches and teachers legally culpable if children are injured or worse?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We reject that proposition. I can assure the member that any time that he wants to play bar-the-door with Winston Peters, he is free to do it, but do not catch him or he will sulk.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Rt Hon Winston Peters has a right to raise a point of order, and I wish to hear it in silence.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is another unwarranted attack that is going to lead to disorder. I know he has got an envy complex, but that will not solve it.

Mr SPEAKER: It is—[Interruption] Order! I will hear from the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was simply referring to the comments I have seen by the Rt Hon Winston Peters himself that he was as quick as lightning back in those days of his rugby career—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This will not help the order of the House. The Rt Hon Winston Peters actually raised a reasonable point that it is not necessary to continue to attack the New Zealand First Party in the answers that are given by the Prime Minister.

Economy—Risks

5. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with First NZ Capital that there is a 25 to 30 percent chance of New Zealand going into a recession in the next 12 months?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No, consistent advice from officials and elsewhere suggests the economy can be expected to grow at an annual rate of between 2 and 2.5 percent in the year ahead. That is not to discount that there are downside risks in the international economy, and there has been some significant turbulence affecting global markets recently, which if, for instance, it continued or worsened, would have some impact on our growth prospects. But, of course, the member could be cheered up by the fact that, for instance, today’s export figures show that exports in July this year are around 14 percent higher in New Zealand dollar values than they were in July 12 months ago. So there is some indication the economy is responding.

Grant Robertson: Is it correct that per capita GDP growth was negative in the March quarter?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm whether that is the case, but it is possible because we have a record high inflow of migrants, particularly from Australia—for the first time in a generation, a net inflow from Australia—and it is possible that because of the very large number of people turning up in New Zealand and turning up to the labour market, per capita GDP growth may be temporarily negative.

Grant Robertson: Does he think that per capita GDP growth will improve in the June quarter; if not, what would he call two quarters of negative per capita GDP growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, Mr Speaker—

Rt Hon John Key: A Labour Party poll result.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is more than two quarters negative. In fact, I think it is 42 quarters negative. In respect of the member’s question, I do not actually follow per capita GDP quarterly. It makes no real sense to follow quarterly numbers of that type, because productivity and GDP growth is a medium to longer term phenomenon and, of course, more people turning up is, to some extent, a vote of confidence in New Zealand’s future growth prospects, because when the member’s party was in charge they were leaving in their tens of thousands.

Grant Robertson: Does he not think that the fact that he has had to move in just a couple of months from arguing that the New Zealand economy had no problems at all to arguing whether or not we are heading into a recession might be a cause for him to finally be straight up with New Zealanders about the state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that shows that the Opposition underestimates New Zealanders. New Zealanders are not waiting around for some politician to give them a verdict on the economy. They are making their own decisions in their businesses and their households and their organisations. They take account of all the information they see around them, and we back them. We think they are making good decisions, because they are adaptable and resilient people.

Grant Robertson: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand this morning that the Government’s strategy for diversification of the economy amounts to waiting for a sector to fail, and does he not think he owes New Zealanders a bit more urgency when it comes to diversification than a broken-down ambulance at the bottom of the cliff?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course I stand by the statement, which is not, of course, what the member actually said. The Government has been pursuing a strategy of significant and growing investment in science and innovation. That has been important for industries that want to diversify. But I simply pointed out the obvious. If prices in one sector drop, New Zealanders do not wait around for the Opposition spokesman to tell them what to do. They shift their investment and employment to sectors that are growing, such as information and communications technology, which is growing at 10 percent a year; wine exports, which are three times what they were 10 years ago; and tourism, which is burgeoning. Of course those sectors are going to attract investment and jobs.

Seafood Industry—Government Initiatives to Support

6. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Primary Industries: How is the Government supporting growth in the seafood industry?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The seafood industry is vital to many regional economies and directly provides around 8,000 jobs across New Zealand. The Government will continue to support the seafood industry through research and development, enabling greater market access and upholding our world-leading sustainable fisheries management system. Seafood export values have risen by around 6 percent to $1.5 billion in the year ended June 2015, and are projected to increase to almost $1.8 billion by 2019.

Ian McKelvie: What are some ways in which the Government is partnering with the seafood industry to achieve greater sustainability and value out of our fish stocks?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The Government has partnered with industry and the Precision Seafood Harvesting programme through the Primary Growth Partnership. This $48 million programme has developed a new net design that can help target the right species and the fish at the right size, with more precise catches and more sustainable use of our overall fishing stocks. Aotearoa Fisheries has recently celebrated beginning the building of six new state-of-the-art vessels, which will specifically allow the installation of this fantastic technology.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Text of Agreement and Ratification

7. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Will the New Zealand Parliament be able to modify the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement if the Government signs the TPPA; and is it Parliament or Cabinet that ratifies the TPPA?

Hon TODD McCLAY (Acting Minister of Trade): I welcome the question from the member. The Cabinet Manual and the Standing Orders set out the procedure for Parliament’s examination of international treaties, and, as with all international treaties, Parliament is not able to amend parts of a treaty. However, Parliament has significant involvement prior to ratification of an agreement. Although it is the executive that ratifies treaties, Parliament has an important role to play in the treaty examination process. The executive will only ratify a free-trade agreement after Parliament’s completion of treaty examinations.

Dr Russel Norman: So would a correct summary of the Minister’s answer be that the New Zealand Parliament is not able to modify the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement once the Government has signed it, and that it is Cabinet, not Parliament, that ratifies the treaty?

Hon TODD McCLAY: As with my first answer, the rules around this, in so far as the Cabinet Manual and the Standing Orders are concerned, are clear. But it is correct to say that no one single country can amend an agreement unilaterally and therefore not one of the 12 countries can amend the agreement, should agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership be reached. This is the same with agreements that we sign up to under the World Trade Organization and the UN. It is also important, I think, to note that for New Zealand the reason this is something that is in place is so that any hard-fought gains that we receive through that negotiation cannot be changed following agreement.

Dr Russel Norman: Does it strike him as a particularly democratic process when the elected members of the House of Representatives have no ability to influence the negotiation because it is done in secret, elected MPs cannot modify the agreement once it has been signed in secret by the Government, and nor does Parliament have any decisive say over whether New Zealand ratifies the agreement?

Hon TODD McCLAY: It strikes me that this is the same procedure that has been followed for a number of agreements that have gone through this Parliament—indeed, it is the same procedure that took place in the China free-trade agreement, the Hong Kong agreement, and, most recently, the Korean agreement. But I would say, as has been publicly stated, that if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is agreed, we are likely to see a different procedure in the way that it is followed through in this Parliament than was the case with China. It will be close to the Korean agreement, where the agreement was available prior to signing. Certainly, the parliamentary process must be finished before ratification will take place.

Dr Russel Norman: Has he seen the statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s lead negotiator on the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which said that all explanatory material from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, such as briefings to Ministers, would be kept secret for 4 years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement comes into force; and will not keeping that material secret make it very difficult for ordinary New Zealanders to get their heads around the detail of the treaty, which is the size of a book and is written in—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Hon Todd McClay—either of those two supplementary questions.

Hon TODD McCLAY: The procedure that will be followed here is that the agreement will be available for the honourable member, others in this Parliament, and the public to see prior to signature. We will need to follow the same procedure that has been in place in this Parliament for all other agreements through the treaty examination procedures before ratification takes place. Our Minister of Trade is negotiating the very best deal possible for New Zealand. The Government has said that it will sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement only if it is in the best interests of New Zealand. I think the public will have plenty of time to go over the very detailed text of this agreement before that member gets to cast further doubt upon it.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about the explanatory material—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, I listened very carefully to the question. It was not specific enough; in fact, there were at least two questions in the question. I cannot help the member if he does not ask a concise question to get the answer that might be more satisfactory to him.

Fletcher Tabuteau: Has the Minister of Trade provided a briefing to the Minister of health and safety on the secretive, closed, and undemocratic investor-State dispute settlement clauses within the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement regarding the new, secret tribunal provisions inside legislation currently being debated in the House?

Hon TODD McCLAY: Well, there is no such Minister, and there is actually no such secret, undemocratic agreement floating out there anywhere around these issues. But I think that the Minister of Trade has been clear. In as far as the investor-State dispute settlement provisions are concerned, it is important that we negotiate a position where the New Zealand Government has the ability to pass regulation and law, and, at the same time, where we are able to protect New Zealand investors when they invest in other countries as part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement where those countries may not have the same approach to democracy that we do here.

Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance

8. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Have any cases, other than the one he mentioned in Oral Question No 7 yesterday, been identified of Mt Eden Corrections Facility guards giving sparring prisoners “coaching on their technique”?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): No.

Kelvin Davis: Why did he not personally request to see the footage of the incident mentioned yesterday, considering the seriousness of the allegations?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Because it is not my job. I am not an investigator.

Kelvin Davis: Does he trust Serco’s word, considering that it advised him on 23 July that there were no other issues with Mt Eden prison, and since then we have seen evidence of extortion, prisoner abuse, understaffing, a meth ring, and guards giving prisoners sparring tips?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: There are clearly issues at Serco’s Mt Eden facility, and that is why I instituted a two-stage review to look into these matters.

Kelvin Davis: Can the Minister assure the public here and now that there are no more nasty surprises hiding in Serco’s Mt Eden files; if not, is it not time to cut his losses and tear up the Serco contract?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I said yesterday, and as I have said time and time again in this House, it is premature to make decisions as to the future of Mt Eden Corrections Facility. There is a review under way, and I suggest that that member, like me, waits for the findings of that review.

Mahesh Bindra: How many similar incidents is he aware of in the Serco-run Auckland South Corrections Facility?

Mr SPEAKER: If the member did not hear the question, I can have it repeated.

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Look, I do not know what the incidents are that that member is asking about, but I have been assured that Wiri Prison in South Auckland is being run effectively.

Kelvin Davis: On a scale of 1 to 10, how does he rate his performance in responding to Serco’s management of Mt Eden prison, and why?

Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I am doing an effective job in managing the Department of Corrections, thank you very much.

Employment, Youth—Government Initiatives

9. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Social Development: What reports has she received on Government initiatives to support young people into employment?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I have received a report on how the South Dunedin Social Sector Trial is helping young people off benefits and into employment and training through the youth-focused drop-in centre, Youth Link. This team has helped 210 young people aged between 18 and 24 off a benefit between March and July this year, with 170 going into work and 40 into study. This is excellent news for the Social Sector Trials, taking place in 16 communities around New Zealand, which see Government and communities working together to get better results for young people.

Dr David Clark: Waste of money.

Jacqui Dean: What other initiatives are helping support young people into work? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again, there is just so much chatter between both sides that I could not hear the supplementary question. Could I have it again, please?

Jacqui Dean: What other initiatives are helping support young people into work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government—unlike, it sounds, the Opposition, which thinks it is all a waste of time—is absolutely committed to supporting young people to realise their potential. The June quarter numbers show the lowest number of youth—that is, 18 to 24-year-olds—on a main benefit in the last 5 years. In fact, since 2010 this number has dropped by 23 percent. As part of this work, we have introduced legislation to extend the Youth Service to more young people to provide intensive support to those at risk of long-term benefit receipt. Budget 2015 is funding 800 placements a year in the Limited Service Volunteer scheme, and we are also extending the 3K to Christchurch scheme to support more people moving to where there is employment.

Limited Service Volunteer Scheme—Funding

10. DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes, if taken in context.

Darroch Ball: Does she stand by her statement she made in reference to the Defence Force’s youth Limited Service Volunteer scheme funding that “We have reduced that because, of course, the numbers of young people as we have come through the global financial crisis have reduced.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.

Darroch Ball: Why is the Minister quoting falling youth unemployment, which currently sits at 64,000, as a reason to reduce funding to the Limited Service Volunteer scheme, when in 2010 her ministry is quoted as using the exact same youth unemployment figure of 64,000 as a reason to actually increase the funding to the scheme?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because the number of young people on a benefit has fallen as the economy has recovered from the global financial crisis. I have just quoted to the member in the answer to the previous question, which I will repeat again, that the numbers have dropped by 23 percent of those young people who were receiving a main benefit in 2010. The important thing with the Limited Service Volunteer scheme is that we get the right young people going through that scheme and work with employers to make sure that they are able to go into work or work preparation at the conclusion of that scheme.

Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table a document that was prepared by the Parliamentary Library, which shows the 2010 quarter one unemployment at 64,000 and quarter one 2015—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Such figures are published on a regular basis by Statistics New Zealand.

Darroch Ball: What other reports, including any Treasury reports, that were not included in her Official Information Act response to me have made her go against her own ministry’s advice recommending funding for 1,200 places and instead cut funding to 800 places—or were there no reports and she just wants to cut costs?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have just said, we have seen a reduction in the number of young people on a main benefit—

Darroch Ball: What reports?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, those are published on a quarterly basis. The member can see them on the website any old day; he does not need to actually have an Official Information Act request. I suggest that he does a bit of homework and go in and look on the Ministry of Social Development website.

Darroch Ball: How can she justify reducing the funding when in 2014, of the over 1,300 Limited Service Volunteers trainees, 80 percent graduated from the course and 60 percent moved into employment and training, compared with her ultimate Youth Guarantee scheme, where just 60 percent—and, in 2013, just 52 percent—graduated with National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, of which a portion never moved into any employment at all?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said, the important thing with those young people going through the Limited Service Volunteers scheme is to ensure that at the end of that they are able to go into employment or into employment preparation. We have been working very hard with employers to make sure that that is a good transition from that scheme. That means that we have to be very careful about the young people whom we actually put on to that scheme, because if they fail in that it can set them back quite considerably in the process.

Transport, Auckland—Northern Motorway Improvement Project

11. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he received on progress on the Government’s Accelerated Auckland roading programme?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): Last week the New Zealand Transport Agency started consultation on planned improvements to Auckland’s Northern Motorway on the North Shore, which is the northernmost link of Auckland’s western ring route. Once completed, the improvements will provide a direct, continuous motorway connection between Albany in the north and Manukau in the south, and an alternative motorway route through Auckland. The project will also improve access in and out and around Albany, and provide support for the significant growth of housing and employment expected in the Albany area as well as other future housing areas in north-west Auckland. It is great to be delivering for our biggest city.

Alfred Ngaro: How will the Northern Motorway improvement project support increased use of public transport as well as cycling and walking?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The project is currently looking at an extension of the successful Northern Busway, reflecting the Government’s commitment to improve public transport, as I say, in our biggest city. The proposal would see the current dedicated busway, which currently ends at Constellation bus station, extended all the way through Albany bus station, improving journey time reliability and time savings for passengers on express services. I am also really pleased to see that the project plans include more than 5 kilometres of new walking and cycling paths, making it easier for many to commute by bike or on foot.

Children, State Care—Historic Claims Team

12. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: How many people who have made claims with the Historic Claims Team are still waiting for a response from the Ministry of Social Development, and of those, what is the longest period a claimant has waited?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): The policy is that every person who makes a claim to the historical claims unit receives a response from a member of the historical claims team in the form of a phone call, face-to-face meeting, a letter of acknowledgment, or a combination of these. When claimants are legally represented, communications are directed by their legal representative. I am advised by the Ministry of Social Development that it is not aware of anyone who has not received a response. However, if the member has any names, I am very happy to look into it.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question was on notice and asked for the longest period that a claimant has waited. The Minister did not respond to that.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a very fair point that has been raised. It is a very specific question. How many people have made the claims is the first part, and that has not been addressed. Is the Minister able to give us that answer?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The question was: how many people who have made claims are still waiting for a response, and what is the longest period that they have waited? My answer is—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise. I accept that the question has been addressed by the Minister.

Jacinda Ardern: How can she claim that she is not aware of any claimants who are still waiting to hear a response, when in answers to written questions she herself stated that there were more than 200 claimants who had not received a response from the ministry?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would have to have a look at the exact details of the question that was asked in order to make sure, because this was a question on written notice. I have checked with the ministry today, and it is not aware of any claimant who has not had that first response from the ministry.

Jacinda Ardern: Why has anyone with legal representation explicitly not been allowed to have their case fast tracked by the historical claims team?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, it is not a matter of not being allowed. What we have done is we have developed the fast-track approach and divided it into two tranches. The first tranche is almost complete, and we have had 82 percent of those claimants—fortunately, because it is a very long process—take up the response. The second tranche, which is just due to go out now, is those who have legal representation. Of course, the difference is that you cannot deal directly with those claimants; you have to go through their legal representative and follow due process. So that is why they were in a separate tranche, and that process is happening now.

Jacinda Ardern: Why is the gentleman who was sexually abused by a staff member at Epuni Boys’ Home—like many others—and placed in the Porirua psychiatric hospital at just 13 for an entire year, and who attempted suicide at 15 and his punishment was to be sent to a boys’ training centre, not being fast tracked when he lodged his case more than 10 years ago and is still waiting?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a number of claimants who lodged their claims prior to the historical claims unique process starting. [Interruption] I am not sure whether they want an answer.

Jacinda Ardern: In light of these historical claims—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The two front—[Interruption] Order!

Jacinda Ardern: In light of these historical claims, can she guarantee that children in care are better off, and not worse off, as a result of Child, Youth and Family intervention?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think it is important to remember that the historical claims process is dealing with the claims of people who were in State care from the 1940s to 1992. I do not think that there is a member in this House who would not apologise to anyone who was in State care and was abused during that time, and we all want to see that claims process completed and those people get the recognition for the trauma they have suffered. What we have now in process—as Minister for Social Development, I have put into process an expert panel to redesign the Child, Youth and Family system because I cannot give that guarantee that the children who are in State care today are better off.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table the written answer that said there were 247—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Written answers are published. They are available to all members.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Yes, well, what a week it has been for the primary sector. Just today Statistics New Zealand is out there saying fruit exports are up 51 percent over the last 12 months, meat exports are up 24 percent, and also beef, leading the charge, is up 40 percent. Is that not fantastic? Is it not fantastic that the New Zealand primary sector is helping underpin economic growth in this country?

Of course, last week and the week before that we had Labour out there saying it is a crisis in the primary sector, we should be moving to plan B, and that we are not doing enough to help the dairy industry. We had the Green Party over there confused. It was really confused. James Shaw was saying that we should be out there doing more to help dairy farmers, then, of course, we had Catherine Delahunty saying we should be having a moratorium on dairy farming and we should stop the expansion of dairy farming, and then we had Steffan Browning up the back there talking about how we are not doing enough to support organic dairy farming. So I suggest they get together in a bit of huddle up there in Bowen House and gather around Mr Browning’s vegetable patch and get their lines correct.

But let us focus on one thing. It is right to raise in the House this afternoon that it is a pretty tough time for the dairy industry, but we have been through this before. The average price from 2002 to 2006 was $4.14. Of course, then, when Labour was on the Treasury benches on this side, we did not hear anything from Labour members—not a whisper from them—but, of course, now it is a crisis. Well, of course it is not a crisis, because our dairy farmers have been there before.

We on this side of the House realise it is tough for our dairy farmers, but this is a worldwide issue. There is more milk in the world, more milk being produced and exported from the US, Russian sanctions are meaning the European Union products are looking for a new home into some of our modern traditional markets, and, of course, the China slow-down and a little bit of stockpiling of product. But the positive was that last week the global dairy trade increased by 14 to 15 percent.

Our farmers are out there doing the hard work at the moment in the mud collecting their calves, producing a fantastic product—

Hon Steven Joyce: They don’t know what work is.

Hon NATHAN GUY: The Opposition members are still working out what the definition of work is—you are right, Mr Joyce. They will need to go and cut and paste a few other reports from around the world on that one. We realise what work is all about. Our dairy farmers realise what work is all about, and we back them.

What is also important is that our horticulture industry is growing fantastically. Let us think about kiwifruit. The industry has grown on the back of Psa, which nearly crippled it. Now its exports are about $1 billion. Think about the wine industry—$1.42 billion of exports. That is absolutely fantastic. Also, we should not forget forestry as well. It is pretty tough for the industry with the China situation at the moment, but there are some bright lights on the horizon for it to export into the US. And, of course, we should not forget about the boom in housing in Auckland and also in Canterbury as well. So we are doing a huge amount to support and promote our primary sector.

This article was handed to me by Anne Tolley today. Look at this. In her local paper it says: “Gisborne economy looks up”. The second line says: “Beef prices drive improved income forecast”. Beef prices in Gisborne on the East Coast are underpinning that economy. That is not acknowledged by those on the other side of the House. It is all about a crisis—it is all about a crisis—and a confused message from the Green Party, which just cannot work it out.

Then we think about what those on the other side of the House want to do to the primary sector. They want to bring in an irrigation tax. They do not support the Primary Growth Partnership. We hear that every day from Damien O’Connor. What they also want to do is bring biological emissions into the emissions trading scheme, which means animal emissions going into the emissions trading scheme quicker than they would anywhere else around the world. They do not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Labour cannot work out at the moment whether it does or whether it does not. Of course, we on this side of the House know that that would mean a huge amount to the primary sector and regional economies of New Zealand.

On this side of the House we back the primary sector. Just in the last couple of weeks we opened the Central Plains Water irrigation scheme. That is a fantastic initiative with about $1 billion of stimulus into Canterbury. That side of the House does not support water-storage projects. We will do what we can to support regional economies and support our primary sector.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): Just when the nation and the agriculture sector were looking for an expression of confidence from this Government it puts up that member, Nathan Guy, to give the speech. The agriculture sector is terrified—terrified—about what is happening because it knows that this Government abandoned it long ago. The Government could not care about the border security and biosecurity at the border, it could not care about looking after the farmers through the most difficult period, and it has got a Minister who, like most of these Ministers, has been asleep at the wheel for far too long. The reality is this: this country is facing some major economic headwinds, and the one thing that the people of New Zealand are looking for is a Government that demonstrates through its leadership that it understands what is happening, that it is realistic about what is happening, and that it has a plan of action to respond to it. So far, on all three counts, New Zealand has heard nothing—nothing—from that Government.

Well, no, that is not quite true, there is one thing: sell everything—sell everything. The message has gone out from John Key and Bill English: “We don’t know what we’re doing. We don’t have a plan. We’ve got to pony up some more cash very quickly. Let’s just put everything on the block.” So it started with the State houses, and what an absolutely shambolic mess we are now in. The most vulnerable in our community have for generations looked to the State to provide them with a safe, warm, dry house. We have had successive Governments investing in our State houses to look after our most vulnerable, and what does this mob do? What does this mob do? Its only plan is to run the houses down and sell them off.

There are hundreds of houses sitting empty, boarded up, perfectly habitable, but the Government will not put anybody in them, and then it claims that it does not have the right houses in the right places. Then it says it is going to flog them all off. Well, the problem with that little plan is it cannot find a buyer, and so it has been trawling the world. Who is going to pick up these houses? Who is going to pick up these houses? And now it has found Serco—“Oh, Serco will do.” It picks up every other mess the Government has created, why not give it this one? And that is what it has done. That is what it has done.

It cannot find a buyer for those houses, but now it is trying to put other things on the block as well. So what did the Minister of Finance do? He started talking down one of the most successful State businesses Landcorp. It has got a strong balance sheet, is diversifying, and is doing tremendous things in the agriculture sector, and what does the Minister of Finance do? He starts talking to the markets saying that maybe it is not all good, and maybe they have to look at it. Maybe the Government is going to manage it like it did Solid Energy and run it into the ground, because, if there is one thing about its track record that it has proved very successful at, it is running good businesses into the ground. Those members are not the great financial and economic wizards that they have long claimed to be. They are a disgrace when it comes to economic management. It is hands off, sit back, let everybody else do the work, and when it turns to custard blame the Government of 8 years ago. That is their only plan—that is their only plan.

The tragedy about it is this. With so many issues, so many serious issues facing our country, what we realise now is that we have a Government with no moral compass, a Government that just does not care about the most vulnerable. It does not care about the most vulnerable who look to the Government to provide them with a warm, safe, dry house. And now it turns out it does not even care about those people, former wards of the State—young kids—who were abused, beaten, and treated horrifically as wards of the State, and who are now making legitimate claims. There is a Minister who says one thing in written answers to Parliament and another in oral questions. How can you trust a Minister like that?

What is very clear is that we have a Government that does not care about the most vulnerable—the small number of people in our community who come to the Government trying to get justice and trying to get fairness. The Government just does not care. Well, it is time that we had a change. We do not need a Government that repeatedly displays the sheer arrogance and the contempt that this Government repeatedly has. It does not care about people—it does not care about people. It is out of touch and arrogant and has no plan on how to help people, whether they are the most vulnerable or whether they are those looking to the Government for a bit of leadership. It has stopped giving leadership. The support parties are no better, I might add. They sit over there smugly looking at us. They do not provide anything better either.

They had the chance. They had the chance to make sure that we had world-class health and safety laws. They blew it, and have undermined confidence in it. It is time for a change. The change is coming. It is going to be better, and we will have a Government that looks after people, that looks after all New Zealanders, and that makes this a great place to live again.

Hon JO GOODHEW (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Well, what do we think? Do we think that speech by Andrew Little has shored up his leadership ambitions for the future? What do we think about Jacinda Ardern’s supporters at the moment? They will be grinning from ear to ear, I am sure, after that effort.

I want to concentrate on the reasons that would give this side of the House cause to panic. What would the reasons be for this side of the House to start panicking? Well, let me think: interest rates of nearly 11 percent over a period of time, or a current account deficit of nearly 8 percent? Would we start to worry if we increased State spending by 50 percent and the results that we were getting were going down—if the statistics were poorer, not better? Would we start panicking? I think that we probably would. If during global good times before a global financial crisis this country was already in a recession—a technical recession—would we panic? Of course we would. We would have every cause to. But that is the legacy of the time that the Labour Government was in office—for 9 years.

Let me talk a wee bit more about Labour’s legacy. The Prime Minister has been talking about it today. The Prime Minister has talked about the cold, damp, and mouldy housing stock that was left for this Government to fix up, and it has been a large task. Are we there yet? No, we are not, and we know that we are not. We know absolutely that there is more work to be done. We have done it during a period of a global financial crisis, when revenue has been down, but this Government has been showing true stewardship of taxpayers’ money.

On that side of the House, we have panic merchant Mr Winston Peters, who lends his voice to the panic that is rising on the other benches as well. So if ever our business people were thinking about getting worried, they most certainly would be worried if they listened to the Opposition. If they believe in this Government and the work that we are quietly getting on with—supporting businesses and supporting the economy—and if they understand how New Zealand fares in the global situation, they will see, when we look at growth, that our growth is looking to be about 2.6 percent, which is so much better than richer but similar nations to ourselves.

We also know that our unemployment rate of 5.8 percent is so much better than in many other countries, and it is predicted to go down into the 4 percents. We know that we have tools at our disposal should things go really badly in China and should the rest of the world be impacted by that. Should that impact on Australia, it does not have many tools in its tool box at the moment given the state of its economy. We do have tools. We can adjust interest rates, and, because of the current economic state, the Government can put stimulus into the economy. We are in a good position, but we are not going to be complacent about that. Over the months ahead, this Government will be rolling out an even more ambitious Business Growth Agenda to add to what we have already achieved, and the rest of New Zealand will see that we are looking for more ways to diversify our economy.

There have been some great stories already. More than 3 million people are coming to New Zealand for tourism’s sake. There are fantastic results in the wine sector, as the Minister has said already. We have $1.42 billion worth of export sales, up from, I think, only $800 million in 2008. So there are some great stories out there. This Government is not in charge of a one-trick pony. This Government is absolutely supporting many businesses to succeed, and that includes tourism. Large swathes of the primary industry sector are going exceptionally well, but we are putting more emphasis on training in order to make sure that those sectors have the skills that they need. We need 25,000 more people in the primary industries. This Government is not resting on its laurels. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen, members of this House, we are not panicking. We are getting on with business.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Like many residents of Wellington, I was delighted last Friday when the High Court ruled that the appeal by the New Zealand Transport Agency against the flyover around the Basin Reserve was to be rejected, and I want to say to the New Zealand Transport Agency right now that this is the time to drop this crazy idea. I have been concerned, along with many people, that since the court ruling the New Zealand Transport Agency has been eerily silent on whether, in fact, it will appeal further. This is the time to stop the nonsense. It was a crazy scheme when first envisaged. It was rejected properly by the board of inquiry and now by the High Court, and not even the New Zealand Transport Agency can hold itself above the law in this regard.

What this incident demonstrates is that we do have an agency here that, in my view, is now out of control. Only a few weeks ago we heard revelations about the number of speeding offences by New Zealand Transport Agency - owned vehicles over a 9-month period. In fact, had that level of offences been committed by any other New Zealander they would most certainly have had their licences cancelled and in some cases would have been imprisoned. But no: the New Zealand Transport Agency says that it has simply changed its procedures. In my own electorate, the New Zealand Transport Agency seems hell-bent on pursuing two roading projects that have been rejected by the Wellington City Council, rejected by all of the territorial local authorities bar one, and rejected substantially by the Greater Wellington Regional Council. And yet somehow the New Zealand Transport Agency, comprised of unelected bureaucrats, seems to think that it can defy all of those opinions, and apparently, in the former case, the High Court as well, and proceed as it intended all along.

It may be coincidental, but I note that the chief executive of the organisation has resigned effective from the end of the year. I want to say to the Minister of Transport that I think this creates an opportunity to restructure the New Zealand Transport Agency to make sure it becomes far less of an arrogant, we-know-best organisation, and more of an organisation that works closely with the local authorities and the people that it represents and serves, and that implements solutions that meet the community’s needs, not the aspirations of the engineers within the New Zealand Transport Agency. I think that the opportunity will be there, with a new chief executive, for a change of direction, and in the interests of a number of communities around New Zealand I urge the Minister to take that course.

What the flyover decision showed in Wellington was that the presumption that this phenomenon built around the edge of the Basin Reserve could resolve all our problems was completely ill-founded. In fact, the city council’s proposition some time ago of looking at a light rail link with a tunnel through the Mount Victoria area linking through to the airport makes far more sense, and I believe that the rejection of the flyover now opens the door to reconsidering that proposition, along with the spine approach that the regional and city councils have previously put in place for transport in Wellington. But they need the New Zealand Transport Agency to be an effective partner in that process, not the independent, we-know-all arbiter that decides from its lofty status what the best solution could be. When you have an agency that loses so consistently in the court of public opinion, and now in the courts of law and with local authorities, and yet still seems to think that its view is right and needs to be proceeded with, then you have an agency in crisis.

So although it is not appropriate to comment on the detail of the court decision, it is appropriate to say that that court decision now provides an opportunity for the Minister to restructure the organisation to make it more responsive to community needs and for the Government’s transport priorities to now be able to be implemented in a way that more reflects the best interests of the communities that they seek to serve, not the best interests of those who play with desktop solutions within the New Zealand Transport Agency day in and day out. This has been a complete disaster. We need to learn from it and move on.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): It is my pleasure to be speaking today. I have been watching developments over in the UK Labour Party with interest. Having failed with the union darling Ed Miliband at the last election, and having veered to the left, it now looks likely to choose as its new leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is an unreconstructed lefty who believes in massive taxes on entrepreneurs, in nationalising industry, and that no problem can be solved except by spending more money. So it will be very interesting to see the chaos that unfolds over in the UK when that happens.

Actually, the same sort of thing is happening at the moment in the US Democratic Party, where we have got an elderly gentleman from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who is a representative of the far left of the Democratic Party and who is looking like he may cause some trouble for Hillary Clinton. I see the recipe for disaster that lies ahead, because a majority of voters in those places recognise that the world is connected, that the world is a competitive place, and that countries cannot expect to prosper, to generate the sorts of incomes that people want, and to create jobs if they refuse to face reality or if they build walls and expect to tax and spend.

So when we come to the New Zealand situation, we see that the New Zealand Labour Party has been ahead of the international trend. Originally, it started off with Phil Goff, who shared his centre-right credentials as leader, roared from the left, and came a cropper in 2011. Then we had Mr Shearer, another good centre-right sort of person originally, who shifted massively to the left as leader and came a cropper. He was replaced by Mr Cunliffe, who also came a cropper from the left. And now the unions have installed their selected candidate in the form of Andrew Little. The funny thing, though, and the difference in what we hear in the rhetoric coming from the Labour Party in New Zealand, is that it has not really promised anything, actually, in terms of what it would do or what it would not do in terms of where it is coming from. Whether it is going to be a reformer or whether it is going to be veering to the left or to the right we are not actually clear. All that Labour members actually do is pick a few complaints. But people can see their intent, and they know that their intent is likely to be one that veers off in a different direction.

It is not surprising that we are already seeing speculation rising about new options in that party, and we look down the front bench and we sort of see who has been making an impact and who has not. One of the preparations, presumably, for being the Leader of the Opposition is to be effective in holding the Government to account. You will run down the front bench and you will struggle to find anybody in that category, but we look forward to the opportunity to continue to engage.

What New Zealanders know is that this Government has been working to a sensible plan in a challenging world, and it is a plan that is working. It does not make us immune to the ups and downs and the hurly-burly of the global markets. We do have to deal with what we have got in international terms, but it does put this country in a stronger position than so many around us, and it puts us in a strong position to respond to whatever comes our way. The fact that we are still growing at around 2 percent and have good growth in this economy, the fact that we are still creating jobs, the fact that we are on track to surplus—we may well be in surplus; we will find out in the next few months—give us fiscal headroom if we need it. We also have room on interest rates. We are not down at 0 percent interest rates. We have not been printing money. This economy has got through a very difficult period. We have been disciplined in our spending—very disciplined about new money in every Budget for the last six Budgets. We are back on track, and we now have the capability to respond if and when and as the situation arises.

In my area, I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that next week will be Money Week. The Commission for Financial Capability is going to be holding a nationwide awareness-raising week aimed at changing behaviour around personal finance. That is a very important issue for all of us in New Zealand. There is no part of New Zealand that could not benefit from thinking and talking about its money skills and looking to improve them, and from having a national conversation about getting our money fighting fit, which is the tag line or theme for the year. We will kick off with an event at Britomart in Auckland this Monday, where I will be, and we will be talking about whether it is trimming debt, building savings, or just getting money matters in order and on the table and discussing them that is very important for New Zealand. It is part of a wider effort by this Government to encourage New Zealanders to think about improving their money skills and to strengthen financial markets generally.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That speech by Paul Goldsmith said it all. When we have international economic difficulties, that speech was a mixture of a blast from the past and looking across the water to other countries and other political elections, and then it resonated back here to a theme that ended on the theme of Money Week. Well, I say to that member, if he looks, for instance—and the agricultural Minister led off the general debate—at the Primary Growth Partnership, which has been around, I believe, since about 2009, it ain’t Money Week; it has been “Money for Years” for National Party mates. That has been evidenced by the Auditor-General who said the following in respect of the Primary Growth Partnership: “It has no significant economic benefit.” I will repeat it for Mr Goldsmith: “It has no significant economic benefit.” And many of those projects are halfway through.

This is a Government that confuses lethargy with strategy. It is lethargic. This is a Government whose political plan is to not react—whose Prime Minister gets up so relaxed that he is horizontal and says: “Don’t worry; it’s all under control.” He said the same thing about Solid Energy. No reaction. Disaster. I remember when this crew said the same thing in the 1990s and tried the same thing in respect of Solid Energy, to flog it off, and in respect of Landcorp, to flog it off. When we inherited them in 2008 they were almost a basket case. We proved them up and we told those State-owned enterprises to get on with the job. Solid Energy was an export award-winning company. Landcorp was doing well. National gets in, and it is at it again. No reaction. Lethargy with strategy is the confusing symbol of this Government. Do not react. Even when you are warned, do not react.

We have a dairy problem. The Minister for Primary Industries held up a headline saying all is great in agriculture. Well, here is a cracker from senior agricultural journalist Tony Waugh. The headline says: “… Where to now for dairy industry?”. “… Where to now for dairy industry?”: that is what he said. The dairy industry is in difficulty—economically and internationally in difficulty—and the Government’s view is: “Let’s just taihoa.” Well, I wonder: if certain farms go to the wall, which New Zealand farmers will be in a position to pick those farms up? Whilst they are in debt up to their eyeballs, whilst they are struggling with a low milk powder price, I would wager—and I will take a bet with anybody, maybe Mr Muller, ex-Fonterra himself, learned gentleman—that the boys over the water, in New York, in Tokyo, and other places, will be licking their lips to come over here and grab those farms. And the National Party—its strategy? No reaction, just let it happen—just let it happen. And the Prime Minister, of course, I think in 2010, worried and lamented publicly that he did not want to see New Zealanders become tenants in their own land.

So what this National Party’s strategy is, is lethargy plus no reaction. And then we have, of course, a thing that has come out recently in a Treasury paper called asset recycling—no, sorry, capital recycling. I had better get the jargon right. The Government is after $1 billion to $2 billion of capital recycling. In English, to the uninitiated, that means it is trawling around to sell anything it can. It came a gutser with Solid Energy—the Government wanted to sell it. Now that it is a fire sale, the Government is going to sell it all right. It is burning very, very quickly and the taxpayer is up the wazoo to the tune of $389 million—$389 million and hundreds of jobs gone. Then we have Landcorp. Landcorp is doing pretty well, it is doing its thing, making a pretty good contribution. Oh no! Suddenly we have talk that it could be in trouble. Either this is some sort of Academy Award - winning ruse to make it look like that for once, in terms of the State-owned enterprises, the Government may well be being proactive—whereas Tony Ryall, I do not know, he was maybe attending piano lessons or something, got confused for many years, got distracted, and just let Solid Energy fall into a hole. Suddenly either this is an Academy Award - winning performance, with the Government actually looking closely at a State-owned enterprise, or, I would wager, probably a credible agenda from this mob to try to flog it off. That is where the real agenda is—to try to flog off parts of that.

I started by saying this: I think I have identified the strategy. One, there is none—but what a lethargic, lazy, indolent, and negligent lot we have over that side whose only strategy is no reaction and “She’ll be right.”

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Well, if ever there was an Academy Award - winning performance, that might have been it from Clayton Cosgrove. In fact, later on today we are going to be talking a little bit about the game—not the beautiful game, as soccer is referred to, not the game of kings or the sport of kings, which is racing, but the game of all New Zealand. In fact, we are going to be talking about rugby.

I want to talk about a different game. I want to talk about the game of politics, because certainly over the last few weeks, as we have debated the Health and Safety Reform Bill, we have seen game playing in this House by all parties. I want to say this: Mr Little spoke today about the moral compass. I am wondering what moral compass he is referring to. Is he talking about the moral compass where Labour Party members use bullying strategies to try to bully the support partners of this Government to do their dirty work? Because those people have done nothing. Mr Little says that the Māori Party is all over the place with its thinking on this Health and Safety Reform Bill. I want to tell you that the only people who are all over the place are the members of the Labour caucus who come running all over the place up to our office to do their bidding when they cannot do it themselves.

The arrogance of some people to think that they can then blast us with a computer programme sending 5,000 emails overnight in the hope that that may do something—the same lines over and over again 5,000 times to ensure that we may support their stance and vote down the bill. Vote down the bill to do what? To do nothing, because in this country under the Labour Government people died. They died under the Government when Labour was in and they died under the Government when National was in, and what did they do about it? At the time they did nothing.

So this health and safety reform legislation that we now have coming through the House is better than nothing, which they want to go back to. They want to go back to health and safety legislation under which these people suffered and died. How do they want to get change? They come to our office and they ask us to use our influence to ensure that we can get changes through, and when we do get those changes through, how is that greeted? That is greeted with further wavering of moral compasses and disrespect from the Leader of the Opposition.

I sat next to Mr Little on Saturday before his appalling interview on The Nation, and he did not take the opportunity to speak with me about his concerns and did not take the opportunity to express his concerns about the Health and Safety Reform Bill. He ignored it completely, but later criticised us for our wavering stance. Well, we have been very clear. We have been very clear.

Yes, we think there are things that could be strengthened. My husband, the shearer—shearing should have been in there. So what did we do? We used our influence to produce the high-risk industries so that we could see what was going to be high risk. We used our influence to ensure that a Supplementary Order Paper supporting families to be able to take their prosecution seriously at the end of that time was supported through. We used our influence to—

Peeni Henare: To ignore Māori.

MARAMA FOX: —ensure that the Government heard us. To ignore Māori? That is ridiculous. Because I will tell this member that when the forestry deaths were being politicised in this House, who was the party that got the review to happen? The Māori Party ensured that there was a forestry review. Who do I ask? I ask our family members whether forestry regulations have been strengthened. They tell me and the ones who work in the forest tell me that they are safer now than they have ever been, and why? Because we care and because we work with them to get a better outcome than just voting the legislation down and making sure that nothing would be any better if that happened.

JAN LOGIE (Green): We have been hearing a lot about the economy in the House this afternoon. We have been hearing what a great job the Government has done in providing us with a robust economy to be able to deal with whatever comes at us in the future. That is what we have been hearing. This afternoon I want to question who has been benefiting from that economy, because the household income survey that came out last week showed that a third of households in this country, 33 percent, saw no rise in income in the past year, that 45,000 more children are now living in poverty—in just 1 year—and that around half the children in material hardship in this country are in working families. It is clear that the economic success of this Government is an economic success that is being shared with only a few. It is not being shared with everyone in this country.

I want today to specifically congratulate Simon Collins from the New Zealand Herald on his story on the cost to families of going back to work. This Government has put so much of its credibility on the line when it said that getting families into work is the answer to poverty. This article in the paper tells us very clearly that getting into work is not an answer to poverty in itself, and that some families, when they get into work—when parents go back to work—are worse off than not being in work.

In this article Simon Collins points out that New Zealand’s childcare subsidies are the most tightly targeted towards low-income families of all 30 developed nations, and that for a Kiwi couple with two children aged 2 or 3 where one parent earns the average wage and the other parent earns around two-thirds of the average wage, for every dollar earned by that second parent, they lose 97.9c in the dollar. So for every hour they are working they make just over 2c. That is extraordinary, and that is the result of this Government’s policy setting. It is not fair when we have such a problem with working poverty in this country.

We need desperately to give these families a fair go so that they are able to look after themselves and look after their children, and that needs a change in policy settings. New Zealand has the worst outcome on those measures of the 34 OECD countries listed. Also, the outcomes are worse for sole parents when compared to the OECD averages. The Government has been busy making it worse, not better.

The Working for Families tax credits used to be indexed to the cost of living, but since this Government changed it in 2011 families have to wait until inflation reaches 5 percent before there is an increase in their Working for Families payment. This change in policy by this Government, which was not floated as something significant, is estimated to have saved the Government $1.1 billion since 2011. That is $1.1 billion that could have helped families put food on the table and secure a roof over the heads of their kids. It is all going towards this nebulous goal of attaining a surplus for this Government. The priorities are wrong. We need to ensure that our families are the priority.

The 2015 Budget package will actually make this even worse because the Government is increasing the Working for Families abatement rate by 1.25 percent and has dropped the threshold at which it kicks in. So a family that is earning the minimum wage working 60 hours a week, on $46,000 a year, is about $2,225 a year worse off in real terms by the Government’s child hardship package, which is supposedly meant to address child hardship and support families. The Government is actually going to make life tougher for a group of vulnerable families that are working and trying to do the best for their kids. The Government’s rhetoric about investment and well-being is hollow when it is making life so much harder for so many people in this country.

ALFRED NGARO (National): Over the past week the robust debate in the House has been about the health and safety reforms. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing around what the most hazardous occupation is. Well, it is official. As of today, the most hazardous occupation is neither worm farming nor the harvesting of lavender flowers; it is actually being Leader of the Opposition, which is the Labour Party. It is official because the New Zealand Herald DigiPoll survey of Labour supporters states it clearly: the Prime Minister is up ahead, at 63.7 percent.

But here is where the challenge lies—with Mr Little, at 13.3 percent. This is where the challenge lies. He has finally risen above single figures. He is now in double digits. He feels like he is a little bit safe. But what is happening? Hot on his heels is Miss Jacinda Ardern, at 3.9 percent. That is right. We know now for sure. The evidence is in. Phil Twyford—he is the numbers man. He is the one who rolled the numbers on David Shearer. He knows it. He is not looking across here, but he will tell you that this is the truth. He is the numbers man who is working out there. We know that that is happening. There is trouble. They are worried. They know that this is going on.

But we have had some inside knowledge. We know that Mr Little is now trying to raise himself to a point of relevance. What has he done? He has been working on a song. Actually, it is not a new song; it is a song sung by Joe Cocker called “With a Little Help from My Friends”. He is using these words. He is practising them himself. It starts like this. Here is how the verse goes:

What would you do if I sang out of tune?

Would you stand up and walk out on me.

Well, we know that that has happened. You need only look across at the “three Ds”—David Shearer, David Parker, and David Cunliffe. That Budget speech was the worst speech in this House by a Labour leader. We know; their heads were down. They were ashamed. They wish that they could have stood up and walked out of the room. The second line says:

Lend me your ears and I’ll sing you a song,

And I’ll try not to sing out of key.

We interpret this as saying that Mr Little is trying to be like Mr Key. That is right; he wants to be popular. He wants to be aspirational, but he is “Angry Andrew”. He cannot do the aspirational. He does angry better than aspirational. But it gets better. So he goes to the chorus. Here is the chorus:

But I get by with a little help from my friends.

It is 6.5 percent. That is right—the two and a half members who voted for him in the caucus. He is relying on them—the 2.5 percent who would support him. But it gets better:

I get high with a little help from my friends.

He is looking at the Greens at this stage, seeing whether he can get some support. He looks across but Metiria is not giving him the eye of interest, so that is gone. But then, here are the Ginsu knives. He says: “I’m going to try with a little help from my friends.” He looks across at New Zealand First. Is help coming from them? Mr Winston Peters keeps saying: “But wait, help is on its way.” He looked across. We were there during the by-election up in Northland. The Winnebago bus was going around the town. It was running.

But let us chew the facts. The only reason that New Zealand First won is that Labour folded. That is right. Poor Willow-Jean Prime, she folded over. She allowed her 4,500 majority to go to New Zealand First. At the end of the day, here is the telling tale: the day after the by-election, Andrew Little looked across and said to Winston “Is there help from you?”, but all that he saw on the beaches of Ahipara was footprints in the sand. That is right—footprints in the sand. There was no Winston there—that is right. There was no help—there was no help. It is a lost cause. He is looking across.

It gets worse. We heard the “Mood of the Boardroom”—150 executives right around the country. This is what they said. Yes, they still have confidence in the Minister of Finance. They still have confidence in Mr Key. But here is what they said: “Unless Andrew Little and Grant Robertson gain some credibility in the business world, there will be no hope. They must gain some credibility.” This is not happening. We know that this is not happening, because there is confidence in this Government.

It is a sad day. Mr Little is looking for friends, but they are not coming from New Zealand First, they are not coming from the Greens, and they are certainly not coming from the two and a half members in his caucus. We know that his days are over. Health and safety: we know that Leader of the Opposition—that position held by Labour—should be high on the agenda. We need to protect the Labour leader. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): The Nats go on and on about being serious about money, being serious moneymen—but it is a load of rubbish. They are rubbish at it. The reason their so-called plan is working for them is that they have no plan. It is now, because things are getting serious, that the people of New Zealand are finally able to see that the Nats have no plan and that they have no vision whatsoever. Under National there are more people unemployed than there were when National took power. There is more debt now than when National took power. There are now more, way more, immigrants coming into New Zealand than when National took power. Nearly all of them are unskilled, by the way—nearly all of them are unskilled—which simply masks the lack of a real plan for New Zealand. It is not a panacea; migrants are coming in, and instead of the Government focusing on a real plan and a real way of generating wealth in our regions, we get more and more people coming into the Auckland economy, creating this consumerist economy that completely misleads New Zealand about what is going on. It is so that the Government can talk about average GDP figures—averages. The 1 percent are getting richer but everyone else is getting poorer.

What about the balance of payments? It is getting worse. The Minister of Finance has not had a single surplus—not a single surplus—since he took the job. If this was a cricket match, this guy would have hit a maiden over by now. It is not a cricket match, but those are his own rules. Those are the rules he set for himself, and he has hit a maiden over. It is unbelievable. Where is the brighter future that this Minister promised in 2008? No one is seeing it. Most young Kiwis cannot even afford to buy a house, let alone get on to a Kiwi farm. Wages have stagnated. Where is the growth that this National Party promised the people of New Zealand? There is next to nothing if you look outside of the Auckland housing bubble, and if you look outside of the Christchurch rebuild, unfortunately, those numbers are now going in the wrong direction, as well.

But the scary thing from the global dairy trade downturn is the flow-on effects. We are already seeing the flow-on effects of our New Zealand farmers having to close their cheque books now, and the flow-on is that regional businesses are not getting the business that they once were. The books do not show that to this Government just yet. The books have not caught up with reality. So that National Government sits there and continues to deny the facts, but the books will reflect that reality very soon.

It is unbelievable. This Government took credit for the low Kiwi dollar this morning. It took credit for it, like somehow it made that happen. What a joke. Yes, the Government says now: “Yes, yes, but look at the low interest rates.” It knows they are low, because the economy is heading down the proverbial. Interest rates are going down because this economy is not performing.

Look at what the Government is focused on now in the health and safety legislation—secret tribunals taken straight out of the investor-State dispute settlement provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and now we have got school principals talking about how they cannot and are not willing to let kids play on playgrounds any more. They are not willing to let kids go on trips any more. This is from the guys who hit at Helen Clark over shower heads and pies in schools. If Labour was running a nanny State, then this is National’s nanny State in denial. Thank you.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the Chinese community’s contribution to New Zealand’s resilient and diversified economy. As we know, the Chinese immigrants came to New Zealand in the late 19th century, many of them as goldminers. One prominent figure at that time was Choie Sew Hoy. Choie Sew Hoy built the world’s very first gold dredge in 1888.

Another prominent person in those years was Chew Chong, and he, unlike many other Chinese goldminers, settled down as a storekeeper in New Plymouth, trading in fungus—basically exporting fungus to China and then selling Chinese imported goods in those years. Fungus became what we would call Taranaki wool, because it was so valuable. In some years the export of fungus from Taranaki was actually more than five times greater than the export of butter. So that was how important the Chinese community has been in terms of contributing to the New Zealand economy. Chew Chong also, later on, built butter factories and he actually installed perhaps the first freezing equipment in New Zealand’s butter factories.

Today we have a much larger Chinese community, of course. Our contribution to the New Zealand economy, just like the New Zealand economy itself, has been very diverse. First of all, trade is an obvious example. Our trade with China has increased dramatically, and the Chinese community’s contribution is obvious. And tourism—tourism has contributed a lot to the New Zealand economy. It is now contributing 7 percent of our GDP, which is even bigger than the dairy industry, and it has grown fast—7 percent last year. Last year we had over 3 million visitors coming to New Zealand, and China is of course one of our most important markets. China is the second-largest source of international visitors after Australia. In the year ended in July this year over 310,000 Chinese visited New Zealand, which was an increase of over 29 percent. It is actually 29.5 percent. So that is how the tourism industry has been important and how the Chinese market has been important, and also how the Chinese community here in New Zealand has been making great contributions to our tourist industry.

There is international education. International education is now worth $2.85 billion, or 1.33 percent of GDP—$2.85 billion. It has created over 30,000 jobs in New Zealand. Against this background I was dismayed at Labour’s accusation about Chinese property buyers. This highlights Labour’s misunderstanding or lack of understanding of Chinese history in New Zealand.

There are many sad stories about Chinese names in New Zealand. In the 1860s, when Chinese goldminers came to New Zealand, many of them did not speak English. They lost their names. They did not have their own names. There was one story about a Chinese goldminer called Yu—but Yu was not his real name. It was simply his name because people said: “Hey you, come over.” So Yu became his name. Another story is from the Chinese settlement in Arrowtown. I have visited that settlement a few times. There was one place there called the Ah Lum store. No one would miss the Ah Lum store, but Ah Lum is not a proper Chinese name. “Ah” is used for a nickname in China. So it is basically part of a nickname. The sad story is that these goldminers passed away without having a proper name. Today, things have changed. I am here in New Zealand with a proper Chinese name. So this is New Zealand—this is today’s New Zealand. This is a very tolerant, multicultural New Zealand. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge the Speaker’s Science Forum on housing and health, which I attended on 12 August. The focus of this health and housing forum, which Dr Jian Yang actually introduced, was to look at housing and how it contributes to the health and well-being of New Zealanders. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman, who was one of the presenters on that evening. What Professor Howden-Chapman highlighted was that in New Zealand we have 1,600 people die every year from preventable illnesses because they are living in cold, wet, damp, and inefficiently heated homes. So for the people out there, over the last couple of days we have been debating the health and safety legislation; 100 people die every year in work-related accidents. Well, actually, 1,600 people are dying every year because they live in cold, damp houses.

The interesting thing about Professor Howden-Chapman’s analysis was that, in fact, 960 children are dying every year in cold, damp houses that are inefficiently heated. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Unicef and the Child Poverty Action Group, which have just launched an initiative wanting to focus on this issue of warrants of fitness. In New Zealand, unfortunately, 305,000 children are living in poverty. Of those 305,000 children living in poverty, 213,500 children live in rental accommodation. So the relevance to New Zealand of a warrant of fitness piece of legislation is immense, I would have thought, as 61,000 of our children live in State houses and 252,500 live in rental accommodation with no warrant of fitness.

So what does that actually mean? What does that translate to? Well, in addition to the 960-odd children who are dying every year, actually, we have 40,000 children who are hospitalised with preventable illnesses. I actually think that is incredibly profound, and New Zealanders thought it was incredibly profound when in July this year a coroner, Brandt Shortland, actually determined that Emma-Lita Bourne, a young toddler living in a home—and I want to quote some of the things that were said in the coroner’s report. In winter last year this young girl died, and she was living in a home where there were buckets under a leak in the hallway ceiling. There was an unused heater in the family home because they could not afford to turn it on because electricity was too expensive, and she lived in a home where one of her older siblings had rheumatic fever. There was outrage by New Zealanders, and the media interest has been incredibly intense, because a coroner had the audacity—I do not call it “audacity”; I actually call it “leadership”—to put some blame where that blame should be attributed. This young girl, Emma-Lita Bourne, should not have died.

Now we have a scenario where Professor Philippa Howden-Chapman, an esteemed public health academic and specialist, someone who has dedicated her whole entire life to the housing sector, has told Parliament that 1,600 people—and, of those, 960 are children—are dying every year because they live in cold, damp, wet houses with inefficient heating. When I think about the whole history of housing provision in New Zealand, I do have to go back to the 1950s. In the 1950s we built 30,000 houses. The waiting list back then was 45,000—45,000 New Zealanders went on the waiting list. They wanted a State home. What did National do when it got in? Well, actually, it raised the rents. It wanted to make this programme unattractive.

What we know today is that there are 69,000 Housing New Zealand houses, technically, but only 64,000 are available. In the lifetime of the houses in New Zealand we have sold 31,000. They are in private hands, but today we have 4,541 priority A and B families wanting a home. These people are deemed at risk, with a severe and persistent housing need that must be addressed immediately. So my question to the Government is: are you going to sell 10,000 houses, like you say, by 2017—that has been your stated objective—when we have got that much need? It makes absolutely no sense. Actually, this Government needs to represent all New Zealanders, and our most vulnerable New Zealanders. What this proves is that it does not care. Thank you.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

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

Second 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 second time. This is a bill that will allow communities to use some of their most prized facilities, including the many great pubs, bars, clubs, and other licensed venues, during what is the largest festival on the 4-yearly New Zealand calendar, the Rugby World Cup. I look back with fond memories to the Rugby World Cup being hosted in New Zealand, and particularly in my city, Auckland, only 4 years ago, and I believe that we are in for a fantastic festival, made better by the enablement given by this bill. It is a victory for the presumption that New Zealanders are free to do as they please unless they are harming others and given good reason for restraint on that freedom. I raise that point, which should be redundant, because too many in this debate have come from the opposite presumption that we should be constrained unless we are able to justify ourselves acting freely.

I would like to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for the excellent work that it has done on improving this bill and, ironically enough, for having to meet at some non-standard hours to carry out that work. I would like to thank Labour’s Jacinda Ardern, who did some pretty good work on the bill, and also Peeni Henare. I would like to thank Clayton Mitchell from New Zealand First, who, as a bar owner with something like 25 years’ experience, proved invaluable in giving advice on the technicalities of the bill. I would like to thank my colleagues from the National Party, particularly Jacqui Dean. I would like to thank the Greens member Kevin Hague, but I have to say he has made that more difficult than it needed to be.

I want to take some time to visit some of the litigations, I guess, that occurred in the select committee and say why I believe the select committee arrived at the right place. It is true that when this bill was introduced I was committed to doing everything possible to look into several conditions that the Greens believed should be added to the bill before it was passed. One of those was that facilities in proximity to schools should be excluded, and we looked into that. One was that operators who have recently been penalised in their licensing should be excluded, and we will discuss that. Another was that the number of games should be restricted, and we will discuss that.

Well, what happened is that we sincerely looked into the matter of proximity to schools and, as you should when you do good regulation, we thought about this in terms of cost-benefit analysis and how much harm could be reduced by placing this restraint into this law. What we discovered, as it happens, is that most of the games fall on the weekend and a third of the tournament takes place during a 2-week school holiday. By and large, children do not go to school during the holidays and on the weekend, and it transpired that only three games take place on what you may call a school morning, where the spectre of kids going to school with people pouring out of pubs was an actual possibility.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Every morning’s a school morning for this member.

DAVID SEYMOUR: That is three out of 48 games. Mr Mallard at the back can tell us what three divided by 48 is. It is a very small percentage—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no.

DAVID SEYMOUR: I am waiting. Are you there yet?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s one over 16, yeah.

DAVID SEYMOUR: To think he used to be a teacher—0.125. In any case, the fact of the matter is that it is a very small portion of the possible games. So we decided, especially in light of the fact that those games were the USA versus Japan, for one, and New Zealand versus Namibia, for another, that the benefit of that restraint would be minimal, but we also took advice that the number of schools that are in any proximity to pubs and clubs is actually surprisingly large once you do the modelling, as was done back in 2012 for the primary Act. So we decided, having given it, I think, fairly sincere and just consideration, not to take that step.

The question of people who have previously been penalised as operators not having the bill apply to them has been put into the legislation by the select committee. If you have had your hours varied under section 280 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act in the previous 12 months, this bill will not apply to your operation. Interestingly enough, when we put that particular part up for the vote in the select committee, the Green Party opposed it. There is just no pleasing some people. None the less, that is now in the bill.

Finally, we come to the number of games. The select committee had a very constructive discussion around limiting the number of games to, perhaps, only 16, which I think is a third of 48 games. What happened there is that we actually did not have the numbers on the select committee to make that limit, and politics, among many other things, is fundamentally the ability to count. However, what I would say is that I am actually proud that we will not have, as some proposed, a limit on the number of games and a limit to All Blacks’ games only, because what this means is that it will be a decision for consumers and a decision for operators about what is a game of interest to New Zealanders, not a decision for politicians. I am proud of our multicultural heritage and the fact that there are so many different creeds, classes, and races of people who want to make their own choices about entertainment. That is where we have landed.

There were a number of other substantial changes. Before I move to those, I would say that the trust that members have been prepared to put in New Zealanders is a pretty direct measure of how in touch they are with the true nature of New Zealanders, the overwhelming majority of whom are law-abiding, responsible, and safe people when they go out to enjoy a community event like this. Probably the most substantial change to the bill as introduced is that it will be an amendment to the principal Act, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, rather than a stand-alone bill. This is a technicality for drafting purposes and efficiency; however, it does make the bill look dramatically different from the way that it first appeared.

The committee also acknowledged in its report that where there is a question of whether Resource Management Act - type restrictions on opening hours might constrain the opening of a venue, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act prevails and the opening hours are extended in spite of any such provisions by local councils under the Resource Management Act, for example.

There will be a brightline test. As an electorate MP, I am very mindful of how people get on with their neighbours. I happen to live in and represent the most densely populated electorate in the country. So there is a brightline test for the amount of noise that can be made.

The use of amplified music outside and the use of outdoor spaces will not be permitted. The emptying of bottles, which is a real bugbear for people who live near licensed facilities, will not be allowed under the hours mentioned in this bill. More important, there is a penalty that you will lose the right for this bill to apply to you—if you happen to be operating a licensed venue—if a complaint is made to a district licensing committee by the police. It has to be a substantial complaint, but the licensee will actually lose their right to operate under this bill, and that is a very strict sanction against abuse and misuse of this legislation.

Other than that, the bill has come back largely as it was first introduced to this House. I would like to thank, again, the committee, which has worked very hard, very rapidly, and often at unusual hours to get the bill into its present state. I would like to, finally, just re-emphasise that this is a victory for the presumption that New Zealanders are free to do as they please unless they are given justifications for their freedoms being restricted. This is not supposed to be a country where you are presumed unfree unless you can justify yourself to the busybodies. With that in mind, I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to congratulate the member David Seymour on bringing his member’s bill to the House and then to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We had a very short time in which to consider this bill, consider submissions to the bill, and then return the bill to the House in a more robust form than we had got it in, as we have done today. I want to also join the member in charge of the bill in acknowledging the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee; not only the members of the committee but the clerks of the committee and parliamentary counsel as well, who did a significant job of editing and rewriting the bill and facilitating the meetings that the committee called and attended. I believe we have returned a bill that is worthy of the intent in which it was introduced.

I want to talk about the process a little, and to acknowledge those submitters who responded to the call to provide the committee with written submissions. It was gratifying to see that although there was an extremely tight time frame for the hearing of submissions and the consideration by the committee, those people who were interested and those people whom we wrote to, in particular, took the time to have their views expressed to the committee. We did consider the views expressed and raised, and debated a number of points that were raised, but I will say that a number of those submissions addressed the harms of alcohol in our society.

That brings me to one of the reasons why a substantial change has been made to this bill. Although it was introduced as a stand-alone bill, we are recommending to the House that it be incorporated as an amendment to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. In doing so—incorporating it as an amendment to the principal Act—it then allows section 259 of the Act to apply, and that section and other sections of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act deal with conditions and the breaching of conditions, and the ability to enact penalties.

So to those submitters—and I thank them, and the committee thanks them—who took the time to submit to us on the harms of alcohol, in particular, I say, yes, we considered your objections. Yes, we believe that by making this member’s bill an amendment to the principal Act, those harms will be addressed. Those harms are also addressed in several other ways. As the member in charge of the bill just mentioned, one of the mechanisms around this bill is that a licensee who wishes to trade outside of their licence hours must, within 7 days of the Rugby World Cup game, supply the district licensing committee and the police with a notice. That notice needs to detail the mitigation measures that that licensee will undertake whilst they are open for a Rugby World Cup game.

It is worth noting that those conditions that the licensee notifies the police and district licensing committee of cannot be more lenient than would be the case under their normal licence. Also, they must supply to the police and district licensing committee, and have posted on their premises before and during the game, those brightline conditions that David Seymour mentioned, which are: no dumping of the empty bottles, no use of outside courtyard areas, and no broadcasting of music for the duration of the game. The provisions of this bill will allow licensed premises that are wishing to trade expressly for the televising of Rugby World Cup games to open for an hour before the game. Of course, they are open for the game and they can be open for an hour after the game, but the sale of alcohol must cease half an hour after the last whistle blows. The premises must be empty by an hour after the game has finished.

I have talked about the benefit, which is that a licensee who wishes to trade outside their normal licensing hours under this regime will need to provide a notice to the police and district licensing committee with their conditions. I am anticipating that it will be in the nature of a one-pager. It has to be submitted for each game, but, in reality, if a licensee wishes to be open for 10 games, they must notify the police of that, but they can submit the same conditions and place another date on the form. The intention is not to make this a difficult process. So those are the benefits.

Let us talk about the penalties, because having attached—if it is the will of the House—this bill to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, section 259 will apply and all the penalties contained in the principal Act will apply. The police, and also licensing inspectors, will have the ability to close down a premises if transgressions in its licensing conditions happen during a Rugby World Cup game during that period. The penalty is that if a transgression is noted by the police or licensing inspectors, then that licensee will no longer be able to avail themselves and the conditions of this amendment. Nor will they be able to be eligible to trade under this legislation if they have had a penalty against them, which would be a variation of their hours within the 12 months preceding the Rugby World Cup.

So what this bill intends to do is to fill the gap for the public of New Zealand that has been left by onerous special licence conditions. We heard of a number of special licences that imposed onerous conditions so as to make it not worthwhile for licensees to contemplate staying open for the Rugby World Cup. I am very well aware that some district licensing committees can do things like requiring patrons to buy tickets at the door, requiring patrons to dress up as if they were children, and requiring the premises to have a guest speaker, so much so that the conditions have had a dampening effect and a very bureaucratic impact on licensees, and they are just finding the whole process too difficult and choosing not to trade. So this bill intends to fill that gap. However, we did hear of an instance along the lines of, say, Auckland’s Viaduct Basin, for example, where a number of premises are out in the open. They, and any other licensed premises in New Zealand, can avail themselves, if they find they do not fit into the parameters of these provisions, and can then also proceed with the special licence.

We do have another opportunity to speak on this bill today. It has been a very truncated process. It is a process that I can say the Justice and Electoral Committee has taken very seriously. Again, I want to thank the committee and everyone else involved in making a good contribution, each and every one of them, to what is going to be the success of this bill. I think we have landed it in a pretty good place. Thank you.

PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity. Let us hope that the action on the field come the Rugby World Cup is a little bit more lively than this debate at the moment. I would have expected the lead member on the bill to at least have some sort of sports analogy—“It was a game of two halves,” or some sort of comment of that nature. But what we are looking forward to is the progression of this bill to allow exactly what Mr Seymour has mentioned: for this country to share in its most favourite of pastimes—that is, sport, and, in this particular instance, rugby.

Can I also echo the comments already made thanking the Justice and Electoral Committee, of which I am proud to be a member. It was almost like rugby training where some of us were fair-weather trainers—you know, you only go out when the sun comes out and you do not want to actually train in the rain. But we were all committed to this cause. We came together at odd hours and on non-sitting days, and I commend those in the select committee and, of course, the leadership from Jacqui Dean of the select committee.

Can I also commend the member Mr Seymour for his rather open-minded approach when coming to the select committee to present his bill. He did actually come with a Magna Doodle, if you like, and he had a bit of clean slate and he was actually quite prepared to take a fair amount of criticism. He was prepared to take a fair amount of challenge during the robust process held through the select committee, and, to his credit, he was able to just simply shake that Magna Doodle and we got to draw and draft the bill that we have in front of the House today. So I say thank you to the select committee.

The main purpose, and it has been talked about very technically by the member Jacqui Dean, is to ease, if you like, the administrative burden placed upon, in particular, those local authorities in regulating, policing, and also granting and administering liquor licences and the applications for special occasions or special events. So what this does is it will lump it all together and we will call it the Rugby World Cup. We will make it an opportunity where most places in most communities will come together, whether it is at a local pub, a local rugby club, or a local sports club, to enjoy watching rugby.

It just so happens that, as we all know, the Rugby World Cup will be held over in England. Therefore, there is a time difference here, and we want to provide the opportunity for as many people as possible to get out and enjoy that. What better way to foster community spirit and community togetherness, if you like, than by bringing them all together and allowing them to enjoy the rugby at their local rugby club or at their local pub?

There were—and it has already been mentioned—a significant number of submissions. I must admit that there was some dismay amongst the select committee members that we were not going to open up to hear oral submissions. However, we allowed for written submissions and considered written submissions. There were a number. Some of those who did submit were from the New Zealand Medical Association, Women’s Refuge, district health boards, and local authorities. For most of them—and it needs to be pointed out here—their submissions were in objection to this bill for quite simple reasons, and some of those have already been mentioned.

There is, sadly, a binge-drinking culture in our country and, in particular, amongst our young people. Recent statistics have told us that it is an increasing concern amongst women. The binge-drinking culture in this country is often fostered around sport and tertiary institutions. So there were major concerns from those key stakeholders who were responsible, ultimately, for administering the applications for these types of special occasions and for these events to be hosted, but also there were those at the other end who are there picking up the pieces after a long night. So I want to acknowledge all of those who did make submissions.

The select committee considered them all and, of course, went through a robust debate on many of the points. I think what has come from it is a bill that does actually take into serious consideration many of the submissions—things around noise and things around proximity to schools and to community spaces—while also considering, one, our joy of watching rugby and, two, encouraging the hospitality sector, or reminding it, if you like, of its host responsibilities. I also hope that what this bill will do, given the times that we are extending the hours for, is encourage many of the licensed premises to come up with innovative ways to engage those people who do choose to come along to watch the rugby, such as by having breakfast or coffee, or a breakfast club. I know it sounds like a bit of an old thing—The Breakfast Club. It is even a bit before my time.

Jono Naylor: You’re too young to remember that.

PEENI HENARE: Mr Naylor may recall The Breakfast Club. But it does allow scope for innovative ways to include the community.

When I say “the community”, I want to talk a little bit about extending the number of games being covered from 16 to all of the games. The reason for that is when we look across our communities—and this is certainly the case right across the country in all of our towns and cities—we are so diverse. We are multicultural and multi-ethnic. Although everybody in the country, I am sure, supports black and supports the All Blacks at heart, you know, there is a little bit of Irish in some, there is a little bit of Scottish in some, and certainly, indeed in Auckland, there is a strong Pacific Island community. We want to be able to encourage them to come together to be able to watch their particular team, and to not just limit them to watching the All Blacks but allow them to celebrate with their team.

I know that the member Jacqui Dean mentioned dressing up like kids in costume, but, actually, that is part of the fun of it. You will recall that in the Rugby World Cup hosted by our great country, South Auckland was painted in Tongan red. Flag sales went through the roof. We want to encourage that kind of community spirit to get people behind their teams and not just limit them to watching the All Blacks.

The bill was actually a game of two halves. We know that it was turned down the first time, and it got through the second time. There was robust debate right through the select committee process. Some of the more technical things were around such things as technology. The question was highlighted: “Well, what’s to stop one particular place just turning a very small TV on in the corner while everybody gets drunk and nobody is actually watching the rugby?”, so there were some technical points on defining what kinds of technology that may be used to screen the game. Also, there are some very tight restrictions around those who have outdoor premises, around the noise, and I have already mentioned the proximity to community spaces and to schools.

I think this bill is a good thing. I am supporting it, and I would like to thank Mr Seymour for bringing this bill to the House. Finally, I will just finish by saying, go the mighty All Blacks. Kia ora.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to begin this contribution by quoting, actually, from the Law Commission’s report from 2010. One of the very first paragraphs in that report says: “Alcohol is a legalised drug with the potential to cause serious harm. We propose a new policy framework that amounts to a paradigm shift in the regulation of alcohol compared with the current system. We anticipate there will be considerable resistance to some of the proposed measures.” And, indeed, this bill effectively amounts to a rearguard action against the approach taken in the Law Commission’s report and by this House in the 2012 Act.

The Law Commission goes on to specify a list of the harms that it was concerned about, and much of this volume is concerned with those harms. It says: “The excessive consumption of alcohol by New Zealanders contributes to a range of serious harms. These can be categorised as: an array of criminal offences …”. It goes on to list the serious criminal offences associated with excessive alcohol consumption. There is “the causative contribution that alcohol consumption makes to a long list of diseases,” and it lists those, including “alcohol poisoning and accidental injury due to intoxication,”—again, more detail. Then there is “the catalogue of harms visited upon third parties as a result of others’ excessive consumption. … [such as] victims of crime, … domestic violence …”—and the select committee heard more about that—“the harmful effects on educational outcomes, workplace productivity, friendships, social life,” and so on, and public nuisance factors.

The report from the Law Commission, which was extensively discussed by this House in 2012, in stark contrast to the discussion that is going to be available around this bill, sets out some pretty strong evidence about the harm from alcohol. One of the chains of evidence that is presented and was essentially incontrovertible was that the increased availability of alcohol increased harm in proportion to that availability. In consequence, the Law Commission recommended—and Judith Collins, the Minister at the time, and this House agreed—that we should be restricting the hours that alcohol was available for. The submissions essentially mirrored the evidence that the Law Commission found and this House has heard before. There was, essentially, overwhelming evidence against the bill, and although the speakers so far in this debate have mentioned that, they have come nowhere near to conveying the extent of that evidence and argument against the bill, and I will come to that in more detail in a moment.

Most submissions said the bill was unnecessary because the special licensing regime that Parliament had set up for the specific purpose of special events like the Rugby World Cup was already in place. Many referred to the loss of democracy associated with this bill, not only in association with the truncated process that this bill would go through—for example, the extraordinarily short period that written submissions were open for, the lack of the opportunity to present oral submissions, and the fact that this bill will go through without a Committee of the whole House stage, in which there would have been the opportunity for further scrutiny of this bill today. Not only that, but also it is the fact that this approach, where Parliament rides over the top of existing local decision-making processes, effectively, rides roughshod over those processes.

Many were also concerned about the constitutionality of this bill. They made the point that this bill in fact undermines the objectives of the principal Act. There was not the time for the Justice and Electoral Committee to properly consider that. We do not have the Attorney-General’s view on that issue, and this House will not have a Committee stage to actually consider that argument in full.

There were numerous great submissions that were made by opponents to this bill, but I just want to read out some of those organisations. These are just the organisations, not the individuals, of whom there were also many opposed. Against the bill were Alcohol Action; Alcohol Healthwatch; Anglican Action; Auckland Council; Auckland Regional Public Health Service; Cancer Society; Community Action on Alcohol from Young People; Hokianga Health Enterprise Trust; Community and Public Health, which is a public health provider for Canterbury, the West Coast, and South Canterbury; Northland District Health Board; Hawke’s Bay District Health Board; the Health Promotion Agency; the Inner City Association, from Wellington; the Manurewa Business Association; the Manurewa Local Board; New Zealand College of Public Health Medicine; New Zealand Institute of Liquor Licensing Inspectors; the New Zealand Medical Association; the New Zealand Police; Ngā Wairere o Te Ora Trust; Ngāti Rangi Trust; Te Whānau o Waipareira; New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women; Population Health in the Waikato District Health Board; Public Health Association of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church; academics; the Society of Medical Officers of Health; Victoria Neighbourhood Association; the Waimakariri District Council; the Waves Trust; Western Bay of Plenty District Council; and Women’s Refuge. Those are just some of the organisations that submitted strongly with substantive submissions against this bill.

Those supporting the bill, those organisational substantive submissions in favour of this bill, came from—let us see—oh, the Hospitality Association of New Zealand, which is essentially the liquor industry, which has confirmed in the public debate around this bill that it developed the bill in conjunction with Mr Seymour. It is hardly surprising, then, that it would support it. The other substantial submission in favour came from the Young Nationals. I say “substantial”, but that is possibly a generous interpretation. Actually, sorry, it is probably wrong of me to say “Young Nationals”, because it was, in fact, I think, the Committee of the Central North Island Young Nationals. So those were the two institutional supporters of this bill.

The bill that has emerged from the select committee is undoubtedly better, and I do want to join others in thanking the members of the committee, the clerks of the committee, the officials who supported us, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They all did a fantastic job. The two big improvements that people have mentioned are the fact that licensees with serious or repeated licence breaches will not be eligible, and the brightline test around noise. Those are both significant improvements, as well as the incorporation of the bill as an amendment to the principal Act.

But, contrary to what we have heard from Mr Henare, there is no action on excluding premises that are close to schools or preschools—excluded. There is no restriction on the number of games in any way, despite that being the preference of, apparently, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. There is no exclusion of pokies—effectively, it is a major extension of pokie licences. There is no requirement to serve substantial meals; no one-way door policy, even when one ordinarily would exist for those premises; and no reasonable way of ensuring that people are there for the purpose of watching the Rugby World Cup. Many other conditions that were proposed by most of the submitters have been excluded from the bill. In particular, I want to mention that as a result of a decision from the National Party caucus, licensed premises that wish to avail themselves of the provisions of this bill to open must now give only 7 days’ notice to the police. The police told the select committee that they required 20 days’ notice in order to gear up their resourcing to be able to handle this.

What this bill amounts to now is a major extension of the licensed hours of almost all bars and licensed premises in New Zealand almost every day for a 6-week period, with virtually no control. It is a reversal of the idea that we had when we had blanket 24-hour licensing and we said instead: “Let’s go for special licences for events like the Rugby World Cup. Let’s reverse that.” It says: “Rather than have that differentiated, targeted approach that special licences provide, let’s go back to blanket provisions and let’s not even set those blanket provisions in the most cautious way that we could.” This bill is a retrograde step in every conceivable way.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. I want to start my contribution to the House tonight by congratulating the member in charge of this bill, David Seymour. I think that David is building a well-deserved reputation in this House as a solid and conscientious MP who is perhaps—[Interruption]—putting aside some of the issues from his party from the past—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to require the chief Opposition whip to withdraw that comment.

Chris Hipkins: I withdraw.

CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you. I did not actually hear what he said and neither did David, but anyway I am sure Mr Seymour appreciates that withdrawal. I also want to put on the record the good way in which the Justice and Electoral Committee worked on this bill during the slightly—slightly more than slightly—truncated process in which the committee dealt with this bill, and the fact that it was well chaired by my colleague Jacqui Dean. I think it is fair to say—and even some members who may be voting against the bill tonight in the second and third readings will acknowledge this—that the committee worked in a collegial and consultative and deliberative way.

I particularly want to pay tribute to the hard work that Clayton Mitchell from New Zealand First did on the bill. Clayton’s experience as someone who has been a licensee and has run a number of establishments in his home town proved very useful when working through some of the more technical and practical issues. I think he made a very useful contribution. Also, Jacinda Ardern from the Labour Party, with her experience of Auckland Central, her neck of the woods, was able to provide some practical examples of how the bill might work in practice and how licensees might take advantage, or not take advantage, of some particular aspects of the bill.

The public policy problem that really confronted us on the select committee is that we want licensed premises—bars and clubs—to be able to stay open during the Rugby World Cup to show the Rugby World Cup games. It is worth just stepping through the logic as to how we got to this point. The public policy issue is that we want the bars to be open. And why is that? It is because people enjoy watching rugby, particularly Rugby World Cup games, with other people, with like-minded friends and family, and with other rugby fans.

As I said during the bill’s first reading, there is some sort of element of collective endeavour about willing the All Blacks on, or willing the Springboks on if you are a South African. You know, you get together with people who are all All Blacks fans, or if you are a Springbok fan, you get together with other Springbok fans, and it is slightly irrational but there is a sense that if you all get together and wish as much as you can that they will win, then it will happen. Whether or not that is true—it is certainly not true—there is something noble about doing that, almost, I would say.

David Seymour: There’s no proof it doesn’t work.

CHRIS BISHOP: As Mr Seymour pointed out, there is no proof it does not work—that is true—and we want that to be able to happen. A lot of people do not have Sky TV, and a lot of people, even if they do have Sky TV, may want to go down to a bar and watch it. But the problem that confronted us is that the games in the Rugby World Cup fall—some of them; particularly the ones that people want to watch—outside standard licensing hours, so that is really why the bill has come to Parliament.

Some people say: “Well, there’s a special licence process. Licensees should go through that. They should apply for a special licence.” That is all well and good, except for the fact that we heard as a committee—and certainly this has been out there in the public debate—that the process for the application for special licenses is a reasonably cumbersome one and that there were some onerous requirements being placed on people who were thinking about applying or had already applied. There were things like you had to have a guest speaker, there had to be dress-ups—there had to be a series of things that perhaps would take it into the realm of a special event. Really, is it fair enough to say you have to have a guest speaker in order to open the bar to show an All Blacks game? I would argue, and it is certainly the view of the Government, that you should not have to.

There was a suggestion made that we could limit this piece of legislation to a clarificatory piece of legislation just to make Parliament’s intent clear—that just showing a Rugby World Cup game would be a special event for the purposes of the Act. But that is not the path that we have decided to go down. Instead, what we have got is clarificatory legislation, I think, of a different ilk and legislation that is actually an amendment to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, which I will come to in a moment.

So what this bill does is make it easier to open bars and licensed premises to show Rugby World Cup games so that it is easier for New Zealanders who wish to avail themselves of that opportunity to do that. The bill preserves the situation if a bar owner or a licensee has already applied for an existing special licence. What will become section 45G of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act allows people who have availed themselves of that opportunity to continue down that route, if you like. They are allowed to continue to use that purpose of the special licence they have already provided, or, indeed, they can choose the route that we are providing for in this legislation.

The select committee has made a number of amendments to the bill that make it more workable and make it more sensible, but the other thing I want to do in my contribution is just to pick up on one of the points that Peeni Henare made. He repeated the assertion—the wrong assertion—that we have a binge drinking culture in New Zealand, particularly amongst young people. This is widely understood to be a fact, but it is actually a myth, and I want to put on the record some actual facts around alcohol consumption in New Zealand society.

Firstly, the World Health Organization in 2014 did a global status report on the use of alcohol in societies. Actually, what that report shows is that by international standards New Zealanders actually drink a moderate amount. We are 96th in the world for alcohol consumption. We drink about 13.7 pure litres of alcohol per capita. That places us 96th in the world. It is slightly less than the United Kingdom; it is slightly more than France. So, actually, we are, internationally, average drinkers.

What about binge drinking? Well, by international standards New Zealanders are very low binge-drinkers. Our prevalence rate of binge drinking is 5.6 percent. That is half that of Australia—

Poto Williams: Not according to the Health Promotion Agency.

CHRIS BISHOP: I am quoting the World Health Organization. That is half of Australia’s, it is a quarter of Canada’s, and it is one-sixth of the United Kingdom’s binge drinking prevalence rate. So is the assertion that we are a nation of binge-drinkers correct? No.

What about the assertion that our young people in particular are binge-drinkers? Well, the best data on binge drinking amongst young people comes from the Auckland University study that was published in 2012. This is a longitudinal study that has been updated in 2001, in 2007, and in 2012. It is actually quite remarkable. Here are some facts about young people and drinking. The proportion of young people who drink has dropped 25 percent in the last 5 years—that is, from 2007 to 2012. It is one-third of the rate in 2000. What about the number of people who are regular drinkers? That dropped 9 percent between 2007 and 2012. The number of people who are regular drinkers is half what it was in 2000—this is amongst young people.

What about the people who are young binge-drinkers? What about the number of people who say that they binge drank in the last month? Between 2007 and 2012 the number of young people in New Zealand who say that they binge drank in the last month has dropped by 18 percent. Again, the rate has halved since 1990. People often say that liberalisation of our liquor laws was a disaster—that the 1989 reforms were a disaster and led to a binge drinking culture. That is not true. They say that it led to young people getting drunk more and more. Again, the facts actually belie that.

The number of young people drinking is declining, the number of young people binge drinking is declining, the number of young people who drink regularly is declining, and, actually, the alcohol-related harm that comes from young people drinking is going down as well. These are the facts. They come from the World Health Organization and the best data that we have from Auckland University.

Alcohol liberalisation in New Zealand has worked, and I just close my speech and my contribution to this debate with those remarks because too often in this society young people are defamed by people who seek to ascribe characteristics and behaviour to them that are simply not borne out by the facts and simply not borne out by the reality. Young people are drinking less, they are binge drinking less, and harm from young people drinking is going down. With that I commend this bill to the House.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I have to say being beaten up by Wikipedia is quite an experience. Just in the spirit of this bill, “Coach Bishop”, although the pre-game speech was quite entertaining, all that has just gone in one ear and out the other. But I do actually have to say that I support some of what you were saying because I do believe that we are living in a period of harm minimisation, particularly when you compare where we have come from as a society—I have said it before—with where we are heading. It is all about the vectors on which we are travelling, and if you are heading towards a high propensity for drinking, then, of course, you are heading towards a binge drinking culture, and quite the opposite. But I digress.

We are going to get into Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill now, and I have to say that I have actually really enjoyed the select committee process. It is a new one for me, being on the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I would particularly like to say I very much enjoyed the chairing of that, Jacqui Dean. Thank you for your very open and very amicable way of chairing those meetings. Congratulations.

David Seymour, of course, is the person who has put this bill down with his very intoxicated personality—sorry, I mean intoxicating personality. That was a bit of a Freudian slip there. I do apologise. I can certainly see why he is putting this bill forward, and we certainly know where you will be, Mr Seymour, on game day. I just hope we can get you here working as well.

But when we actually got to sit around the table in caucus and debate this in all seriousness, I have to say, we had to run with the analogy—it felt like that at 5 minutes until full time, David Seymour put up the high ball, chased it, caught it mid-air, was tackled by the Greens mid-air, and got a penalty. That gave him the reprieve that he needed, because he came back the second day, he put the high ball up, and he is now running for the line. So there are a lot of people out there just waiting for the outcome of today’s voting. He has not been tackled yet, but he might be, and I have to say—oh, I am losing my voice. Sorry, people back home. Hmm! That is better. I have to say to those people back home that already the media has come out and said that this bill has gone through. It just goes to show that the media does not always get it right. It may well do, but it is certainly ahead of the game in today’s standings.

I want to take a little bit of a tack and just discuss the scrum that took place in our caucus discussing this bill, because we took it very, very seriously. New Zealand First is in a very strong position where we are not wanting to be out there singing from the rooftops that we are trying to liberalise the drinking laws. We want to also make mention of the good work that the police have been doing around the country, but we get back to the ambiguity of the current Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012. This just goes to show how clunky and antiquated the current legislation is, and we do actually support the Green Party on part of what it has been saying, in so far as we would like to see a review put together to actually get a clearer outline on what constitutes a special licence, because that is what this is about.

Some councils, some areas, and some police around the country—and I can say openly that in Christchurch, from my anecdotal evidence, the police, the council, and the health department have been very, very supportive to make sure that the majority of those special licences have actually been granted. In other parts of the country, what constitutes a special licence has been interpreted in another way, where some insertions that I would consider to be ridiculous have been added into the conditions for opening up for the Rugby World Cup. For example—and we have already heard it in the House; Jacqui Dean has already spoken of it—one condition was having a ticketed event, so that every game has to be ticketed to make sure that you have your staff and your customers dressing up and your rooms in theme, etc., etc. Yes, dead right—the theme of the game is to make sure that you go to the pub because it is all about the atmosphere. If you cannot afford the tickets on your credit card so you can go and watch it live, sure, you want to be with your mates in the pub where the action really is.

Conversely, New Zealand First also equally and oppositely supports the fact that all New Zealanders should have the opportunity to watch all of these games live on their TV in the comfort of their lounge, with their family, with a cup of tea and a piece of toast or, if they choose, with a beer. Unfortunately, this legislation does not quite cover that one off, and we have got some work to do to try to ensure that New Zealanders can choose to stay in the comfort of their home with their family members, or with a few friends who decide to get up at that time of the morning, and watch the game, or, conversely, can go down to the pub, put on their scarves, and start making some noise and getting behind the teams that they love. And the teams that they love, of course, include the All Blacks, but there are many other teams that the people who live in New Zealand support: Tonga, Samoa, France, England—you want to get behind all of the different teams from around the world.

So I do also commend the select committee for looking at that objectively and saying: “Let the market determine whether it is going to be beneficial for licensed premises to open.” That is a common-sense approach, because nobody, unless you have got a huge Namibian group of people in your community to come down to your pub, is going to open up for a Namibia game, necessarily, unless, of course, they are playing the All Blacks. But it is up to each individual licensed premises to work that out—what it is going to open for and what it will not. In Mount Maunganui in Tauranga we have a very strong Brazilian and South American community—well, there you have it—as well as the English and the Irish communities. You can see how that is going to manifest.

But I have to say that this piece of legislation, which is to adjust and put an amendment into the current legislation, leaves a dirty stain on the legislation that we have got. It is going to leave a blight. It is going to add the Rugby World Cup 2015 as an amendment into this legislation. I feel a little bit uncomfortable moving forward from here and, in future, opening up this section and saying: “Why are we referring to 2015?”. Of course, when it gets to 2017 and 2018, it is just going to look ridiculous, which is, again, why I am asking the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, to look into this. I have to say that Amy Adams has been fantastic too. She has been very, very accommodating and very open and very supportive of ideas and getting everybody involved. So I would ask her to look into this and actually resolve this problem so we can get on because, guess what? Next year we have got the Olympic Games, and the year after that we have got the Football World Cup again.

I would just like to give you some evidence, and this is not anecdotal because it is absolutely from me. I have been involved in putting together special licence applications for some quite large events. In fact, one of the events I put together was for 17,000 people. It is a very onerous task on the licensee to actually put a special licence application together. That application was around about 35 pages of what we would and what we would not do to ensure harm from the consumption of alcohol was minimised. Working with your local authorities and the police is absolutely vital to ensure you get that open dialogue to ensure that things are actually going to be adhered to.

On a smaller scale, when you are talking about a special licence—and we have been working with licensees in Rotorua and the frustrations that they have been having with getting their special licences through—there is an expectation that they can put in just nine pages of paperwork and then they are going to get a special licence. It is up to the licensee to prove what they are going to do to minimise harm and mitigate noise and any other potential problems that may arise from that licensed premises during that special licence event. Nine pages is not enough. Look, I have put a small application together, and it might be as many as 15 pages to make sure that you have ticked the boxes to get things right. So I would have to say that the onus is on the licensees.

I have actually helped to put together a schedule that is forming—goodness me, I will just find the part that it actually is. It is to be added to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and it is section 45E, inserted by clause 3, which is to do with the conditions. There are three conditions that we believe will actually help mitigate problems associated with and arising from those licensed premises, and they are around noise.

What we are suggesting is that closing off your outside courtyards or your smoking areas of a licensed premises within the confines of the time of day that it is going to be operating is not unfair or unreasonable. I think that is actually a good condition, which I would think that people, communities, and licensees would actually think is fair and reasonable. The second thing is that if anybody has lived in a city or a near a licensed premises they will know that the absolutely shocking noise that some outlets make when they tip their rubbish out—bottles and cans going into other bottles and cans—can absolutely startle people. I have lived in Wellington a couple of times and, goodness me, I have been woken up at odd times of the morning. So we have actually put this into the legislation to ensure that people get a good night’s sleep in their area. I think that is another point that needs to be very heavily considered. The third is, of course, quite simply to make sure that amplified music outside your premises is switched off.

Those are the three conditions. Over and above that, a noise mitigation plan needs to be submitted by the licensee. Other steps that they can take include getting customers away from their premises and getting them to their premises quickly, quietly, and with no fuss, and that can be done with signage, a coordinated taxi removal plan, or making sure that your staff and security are actually outside at the front to make sure that people’s voices are kept down nice and low. These are the sorts of things that licensees can actually come out and take part in, making sure that they do not become a nuisance within their community, because that is not what this is designed for. This is a dog’s breakfast. This is a tiny little wee band-aid on a bigger problem that we would like to see resolved. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member’s time has expired. Can I just ask the Māori Party, Labour, and National—because we have already had, I think, clear positions that there will be party votes rather than conscience votes from the Greens, New Zealand First, and ACT—to indicate that, because, clearly, the Chair at the time will have to make a decision about whether we have a personal vote. So can parties indicate their approach to it.

JONO NAYLOR (National): Just by way of clarification, it is my understanding that National will be casting a party vote on this matter. Firstly, I was heartened by the speech by Mr Henare over there, who decided that he wanted to bring a little levity into the debate. The only thing that I thought he missed, though, was to thank the ladies in the kitchen for putting on the spread. Then we would have had the complete rugby speech. I know that it is a little sexist, but the last time that I heard that speech was back in the 1980s, when, rightly or wrongly, that was an acceptable thing to say—though, of course, now we would be thanking the people in the kitchen for putting on the spread.

I want to focus, if I may, not so much on the nuts and bolts of this bill but on the why—as to why it is that we are doing this today. Why is it that we are passing this legislation? Of course, it is because of New Zealanders’ passion for sport—in particular, the game of rugby football. If anybody was ever to doubt how passionate people in New Zealand are about this sport and about the All Blacks as a team, they would need only to wander around town the morning after an All Blacks loss to understand just how important this is to the people of New Zealand. Not that it happens very often, but it has, on occasions, happened that the All Blacks have lost. I even remember on one occasion going into a church service on a Sunday morning, when you would expect people to be lively and full of enthusiasm, as they normally would be on a Sunday morning, and the mood was still somewhat dampened from the night before—on those rare occasions of an All Blacks loss. We also see just how excited people get when there is a great result and people are wandering around town. Shopkeepers will tell you that they sell more on a Monday after an All Blacks win, and all that kind of thing.

In fact, it even gets so serious when New Zealanders are watching the rugby that I can distinctly remember during the 2011 Rugby World Cup final being at some friends’ house, and half-time came around. Although our tradition was to sit down and have dessert at lunchtime—sorry, dessert at lunchtime is always good—have dessert in the middle of the game, no one was in the mood to eat at half-time during the last Rugby World Cup. Such was the, I guess, raw tension in the room that people felt anxiety about what might occur.

So New Zealanders are absolutely keen; they are absolutely passionate about seeing their All Blacks team perform. As it has come to pass over time in New Zealand’s history, the idea of just gathering around a TV set in anybody’s home to watch the game is something that not everybody can avail themselves of because, of course, with the advent of pay TV—not everybody has pay TV, and so not everybody has the opportunity to sit down in front of their 16-inch screen, as we did back when I was younger—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A long time ago.

JONO NAYLOR: It was a long time ago that we were sitting around a 16-inch screen, but I can tell you that it did happen. Not everybody has the access and the ability to be able to do that, and so it is something that we need to move forward on.

I heard in the first reading somebody from the Labour Party—I cannot remember exactly who it was—suggesting that it was the Government’s responsibility to ensure that all of the rugby games would go on free-to-air TV, and that that was the way we would fix this. I guess the difficulty with that is that although it is a nice idea, ultimately it is the taxpayer who is going to have to pay for it. Although New Zealanders are, on the whole, very passionate about rugby, I guess it would not necessarily be fair on those people who do not want to watch it to have to pay for it. I do not think that we would get that sort of legislation through in the time frame that we are able to get this legislation through now.

Of course, the alternative for people who want to watch these games—if they have got friends with Sky, that is great; they can go there perhaps and watch them—if they do not have Sky is to go to a public place to watch them. That, for some people, is a preferred way of doing it. And for some people, it will be the only way that they are able to watch Rugby World Cup games live during this current Rugby World Cup.

There are occasions, too, when people are out of town. I know that when New Zealand played Argentina in the first game for the first time in the Investec Rugby Championship, we were in Queenstown. What did we do? We went down to the local pub. We took the kids down there for breakfast or lunch, or whatever it was at that time of day, and we all sat around and watched the game. It was a great opportunity, and it was easy to do. I know of some people too for whom that is the only way that they can watch games at the moment. They are not big drinkers, but they will go, they will sit down, and they will have a lemonade or a hot chocolate or whatever it is in a licensed premises and watch the game. The difficulty is that there are not many other places that are not licensed where you can watch rugby games in a public setting.

That is what I guess moves us to the point of needing to adjust these liquor laws. I think that if there were a whole lot of freely available fanzones or otherwise where people could go and watch the games for free and not have to go to a licensed premises, that would be somewhere where people would go. But that is not something that is easy to put together at 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning, in the same way that it was when the games were hosted here. And so making those places available to people is, I think, the most pragmatic solution to ensure that New Zealanders can go and watch those games.

There are these moments that people want to enjoy. A lot of people can tell you where they were at the Rugby World Cup 2014, and, actually, I can recall, going back to 1983—it was not a rugby game—

Meka Whaitiri: It was 2011.

JONO NAYLOR: The Rugby World Cup 2011, thank you. People might remember that one as well. I can recall watching a cricket game, of all things, while on holiday with my parents in 1983. We were at Mount Cook. My dad took me into the pub at Mount Cook. I was only 17. I do not know whether it was legal at the time, but anyway, we went and watched New Zealand chase down 297 runs—Richard Hadlee, Jeremy Coney, in full flight. It was a fantastic game, and one that will stick in my brain for ever. Interestingly enough, everybody in the bar stopped to watch the game, except for the two German tourists who were sitting in the corner wondering what was going on. Actually, it got to the point that the barman was serving drinks only between overs because he wanted to watch the game. Those are the sorts of memories that people can have when we have legislation like this that allows them to go to these places to watch games.

It was a really critical thing that we needed to do in weighing up all of this excitement about the rugby—all of this excitement about people being able to go and watch games—trying to weigh that up, as other speakers have said, and trying to reconcile that with the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act and the principles behind that in terms of harm minimisation. It is something that the committee took very seriously and gave really serious consideration to. It is not something that was taken lightly at all, and it was something that, as I say, we put a lot of energy into.

I guess that on balance we have got to look at this and we have got to say that we cannot work off the presumption that just because somebody is going to a licensed premises at 4 o’clock in the morning to watch a game of rugby, they are necessarily going to be engaged in excessive alcohol intake—that they are necessarily going to have bad behaviour. We cannot just assume that everybody is going to be drinking at all because, clearly, some people will want to go simply to watch the game.

Bearing in mind that the provisions of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act do work around harm minimisation, we have looked where we can to stick to the spirit of that Act—or, as my colleague on the other side of the House David Parker would refer to, it is the vibe of the Act that we want to incorporate. We want to make sure that we are not encouraging people to act beyond what is responsible or otherwise.

So we have put in place some things to mitigate, if you like, against particularly the disturbance of neighbours in the area, so there is going to be, as Mr Mitchell said, no ability for bar owners to discard their empty bottles in the middle of the night. We have got to keep the noise down by not having amplified music or use of the outdoor courtyard areas, because we want to make sure that these series of events are, in fact, friendly to communities.

I am looking forward to discussing this further when we get to the third reading of the bill later on this evening, but I am pretty sure that this is going to be a good bill for New Zealand. It is going to ensure that we can actually enjoy our national game, and I certainly hope that it is going to result in a very good outcome as well. Thank you.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): I want to indicate that, as a party, Labour would like a personal vote, please. My contribution to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill is going to be in two halves, actually, but before I do that I would just like to congratulate David Seymour. Putting a bill before this House is a really important and big opportunity and, obviously, you have put this bill forward because you think that there is a need. So I commend you for that.

The game of two halves that I am going to play in my speech, firstly, has to be an acknowledgment that within my electorate of Manurewa, I had two groups submit on the bill. The first was the Manurewa Business Association, so to Wendy Dunn and the businesses in Manurewa, I acknowledge that you do not support this piece of legislation. I acknowledge that from your perspective this bill is not necessary, that it denies natural justice because it was put through so quickly, and that for you, alcohol-related harm—which is a big issue in our community—will not be minimised through this bill. In fact, you think it is going to add to or exacerbate the harm in our community.

I would also like to acknowledge Angela Dalton and the Manurewa Local Board, who also do not support this piece of legislation. For them, there is no evidence that it will fulfil the objectives of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, and for them it is poor lawmaking. They also highlighted, and I would like to highlight, the process to enable the over 8,000 New Zealand businesses that actually had Sky subscriptions—that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the over 8,000 businesses in New Zealand that have Sky subscriptions, which would then be in a position to be able to invite the public into their premises to watch rugby. That, from our local board perspective, was going to have too big an impact on the police, who of course do great service in our communities to minimise the harm associated with alcohol, but also the board was quite clear that from an Auckland Council perspective—and we have already heard from my colleague Kevin Hague that Auckland Council was one of the submitters that oppose this piece of legislation.

The other submission that I want to highlight is from the Public Health Association of New Zealand, which said: “Actually, let them open but don’t let them sell alcohol.” In fact, if you are a club you could have opened and not sold alcohol. So actually there were alternatives in being able to provide rugby off this Sky business platform so that the public could see the matches.

I would also like to acknowledge that in December last year a group that was put together by the then Minister of Justice Judith Collins in 2012, which was chaired by Graham Lowe—and we all know “Lowie”, who is one of our sporting legends in the league area—recommended to the Government that alcohol sponsorship of sports clubs needed to cease and that we should be looking at banning advertising of alcohol during licensed matches.

It is really relevant for us to talk about these recommendations because it was also a recommendation of the Law Commission, which undertook a 2-year process of reviewing the impact of alcohol in our lives. So this piece of legislation is actually a convergence, from my perspective. It is a convergence of alcohol and how alcohol seems to have this relationship to New Zealanders in our culture, and also rugby and how rugby has a relationship with, and impacts on, our culture.

I found a 2011 Master’s thesis titled Exploring Players’ Perceptions About Alcohol: The Impact of Alcohol on the Rugby Team Culture. It was written by Phillip Scott Kahu-Kauika. Basically, what it does is it traces why alcohol is so prevalent within the rugby community. I have got to say that when I played rugby—and I played rugby both for Waitematā, for Suburbs, for College Rifles—at the end of the game you would go into the shed and there would be a crate or a box of beer, and you would consume that box of beer while you were having a shower and then you would go into the club rooms and you would consume a few more beers. If you were the player of the day, and sometimes I was, you got a bottle of wine. So there is this intimate relationship between alcohol, rugby, and team building, which is one of the things that this Master’s student highlights—that somehow it has all become morphed into one big thing. I see this piece of legislation as highlighting that, but I think there is a great opportunity for us as a country to take stock, to acknowledge that actually for us and the public to see the Rugby World Cup we have to amend the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. Is that not interesting?

So I think there is a big opportunity for us to think about what the consequences are of this piece of legislation going through today. I actually will vote in favour of this bill, and I will do so after consulting with members of my Manurewa rugby club, who wanted to get a special licence. They had a very interesting conversation with the council, and they were told that a special licence was actually most likely going to be vetoed by the council. So, in fact, it was going to be very difficult for some rugby clubs and some people who have these Sky business licences to be able to show the rugby. So in fact I do think David Seymour is fixing a problem in some areas.

But what I want to also do with my contribution on this bill is actually highlight bigger issues about the relationship between rugby and alcohol, sport and alcohol, the harm in our community, what groups like Graham Lowe’s have done, the recommendations that they have given to the Government, and actually challenge us past the Rugby World Cup, which is running from 19 September to 1 November. We are using the resources of this Parliament for a very specific piece of legislation, but I think there is an opportunity for us to really consider a whole relationship between alcohol, sport, and what we do in the future, particularly in communities of like mind where there are obvious issues about how people are consuming alcohol, and what the police position is.

One of the things that is unanswered for me in this process is that within 7 days of a game you have to notify the district licensing committee and also the police. So you notify the police, and then what do the police do with this information? Are they getting more resources? Are they going to be able to monitor the sites that are going to show the rugby to the public? Are we going to say to the police that it will be great if they had a presence at these particular venues? That is the missing thing in this legislation, for me.

But I guess we have an opportunity through this process to say to the Minister of Police that we would expect that the police would have an ongoing role. It would not just be about notifying them that the Manurewa rugby club was going to watch—and it is only intending to cover the quarter-finals, the semi-finals, and the finals, even though the scope of this bill allows it to be open for all the games. For the club, it is actually about rugby. So for me it is actually about rugby, and that is why I am voting in support of this legislation.

But if I voted wearing my other hat, which is that actually this is about the harm that alcohol is causing in our communities, and if for me the overriding factor in this legislation was alcohol, then I would vote against it. But I guess because I am biased—I am one of those New Zealanders who is passionate. I have represented our country in rugby and I am very proud of that, and I am proud of the All Blacks, and I am proud of what they contribute and represent to us and on the international stage. I do think that rugby is special, and that is why this piece of legislation is special and why we are debating it under a very expedited process. We would not make allowances for just anything. But what I do hope is that there will be ongoing conversations about how we can actually look at what the relationship between sport, rugby, and alcohol is and how we can use this opportunity to make some positive changes in the future. Kia ora.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—Jan Logie, 5 minutes.

JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill. This is a bill that currently has already delayed discussion on organ donations and is most likely to delay tonight the introduction of another bill to provide paid parental leave in this country.

The Green Party is opposing this bill. My colleague Kevin Hague, who outlined the core reasons for our opposition earlier this afternoon in his speech, negotiated with the member whose name this bill is in, David Seymour, and the Government to allow this bill to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. We heard arguments that there was something wrong with the existing regime, and we wanted to ensure that if this bill did go ahead, and there were indications that the numbers were there for it to go ahead, we had the opportunity to try to limit the harm that we saw in the initial proposal. That is part of using our power in this parliamentary process, and we do not resile from that.

However, what has come out of the select committee does not address our concerns. I personally am proud to stand up in this House and represent the New Zealanders who contributed to the discussion around the sale and supply of alcohol legislation—the majority of this country who forcefully advocated for restrictions on the hours for the sale of alcohol and the provision for local democratic control over that process. I am very disappointed to see in this House that piece of legislation being overridden, through a process of urgency, to undermine the work of the majority of the country and the majority of the members of this Parliament in 2012.

I am proud to stand here and represent those people in this country who have been harmed by the association that we have between alcohol and rugby. There is harm caused in this country by that close association between alcohol and rugby. We heard from the member Chris Bishop, who in his speech spent most of his time basically saying that there is no problem with alcohol in this country. I agree with him on one point: it mischaracterises the problem for young people. But when there are 600 to 1,000 deaths a year from alcohol misuse, and the police is reporting that alcohol is associated with 50 percent of all serious, violent crime, 20 percent of sexual offending, and 33 percent of family violence incidents in this country, and we know that the police are called out every 6 minutes as a result of domestic violence call outs, we know we have a problem.

For Parliament and that member to bring a bill to the House that will be interpreted by many as saying that you cannot enjoy a game of rugby without a drink is irresponsible. You could have brought a bill to this House that said all licensed premises can open, to ensure that people can watch those games, but there will be no sale of alcohol. That could have happened and that would have said, yes, we treat rugby as a religion in this country—that is true—but not every church service has communion. There is no need to drink to enjoy a game of rugby. The fact that that is the perception, that you need to do that, is why we have so much harm caused by drinking in this country and why so many women and children are harmed, particularly when we lose—and let us hope we do not.

I would like to bring members’ attention to the submissions that were made during the very, very truncated select committee process, from Women’s Refuge, from Debbie Hager and Neil Miller, and from Waitakere Anti Violence Essential Services, which all pointed out those links and asked this House not to pass this legislation. They see the results of our association between rugby and alcohol on a very real level in their communities. I am proud to stand with them in opposition.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. For fear that Mr Seymour is going to deliver a clothes line tackle to the whole of the country by having a blanket piece of legislation that allows this limitless supply of alcohol everywhere, I think we need to stand up and accurately express what our issues are. Just for clarification as well, a previous speaker asked that we clarify that we are going to vote as a party.

Let us have a look at the facts. The misuse of alcohol has a devastating effect on our whanau. We know, and it is proven through limitless cases and research, that the consumption of alcohol to excess has a direct impact on the level of domestic violence in this country. For that reason we considered this bill very seriously. We were happy to support it at its first reading, so that these things could be debated. Unfortunately, we had a process by which no submissions were able to be questioned. There were no oral submissions. We did not have the chance to talk about or discuss these things. We have got local body authorities, the police, and community groups that have been preparing for this for a long time. They have considered all of the issues, such as whether or not a premises is close to a suburban area, and whether or not there is going to be an impact on noise in the surrounding neighbourhood. Under the special licence agreement you can already have the opportunity to open, and all of those conditions will be on there.

But now we have got this blanket approach across the nation to watch rugby and to extend the sale of alcohol. I do not have a problem with rugby. I love rugby. I appreciate the previous speaker Louisa Wall talking about the passion for rugby in this country. In fact, in our house there is one rule. There are a number of rules, actually, that I try to implement, but there is one rule that never gets broken, and that is rugby before all else. In fact, there are people in our family who will watch Georgia and Lithuania playing live at 3 o’clock in the morning, just because. We get that. We get that this is important to the nation, and we wanted to have the opportunity for community groups to come together and not be subjected to some of the Draconian measures that were being put in place by some of the local bodies, saying you could watch only eight games. Well, eight games? Which ones shall we watch? Which countries shall we not watch? I appreciate the reason as to why this bill is coming, and we wanted to have a good, strong debate about it.

The Justice and Electoral Committee—and I have to commend the chair, Jacqui Dean, and the other members of the committee—met at all sorts of hours, in a rushed way, I have to admit, to try to get this bill through in the best state possible. However, we are concerned by some of the issues that have been raised. We are going to support the bill at its second reading, in the hope that Mr Seymour will be able to make some changes. Actually, there is no Committee stage to make changes. By some miracle, whereby Mr Seymour might rethink some of these things, we think that possibly there are some things that we would have liked to see changed. Current rushed law—the problem is that this bill has been conceived in a hurry, with little thought given to some of those consequences.

The legislation is going to test whether patrons are there to watch rugby or whether you will have, as was mentioned before, the TV in the corner and not a lot of rugby being watched. There has been concern that you possibly could be on the premises for 48 hours, without stopping, and in some instances—one or a couple—for 68 hours, which seems ridiculous. We are concerned that there is no requirement to serve meals. It does not prevent cut-price promotion. There is no restriction on sensitive locations. There is currently no limit on the number of games, and notice required has been cut to 7 days. All of those things are concerning to us. If Mr Seymour would like to respond to some of those, depending on his responses we will reserve our decision as to whether to support the bill through to the third reading.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): This is a good, practical bill that is going to allow New Zealand families to enjoy the spectacle of the Rugby World Cup being played on the opposite side of the world. I commend the work that David Seymour has done in introducing it to the House, and also Jacqui Dean, the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has done a good job of knocking this bill into practical shape.

I want to make a contribution both as a local MP and also as a member who strongly supports the pragmatism behind this bill. I do want to take issue with my colleague, the list member from Palmerston North. Jono Naylor made some comments about the Manawatū rugby team. I want to remind him that they are going to be cleaned out by the Tasman Makos tomorrow night, and although we on this side of the House agree on some things, on provincial rugby parochialism runs deep. That actually goes to the core of the fact that rugby is one of the sports that binds—[Interruption] I will tell you that the Tasman Makos are in fantastic shape and that they are a great team. I will just warn colleagues from all around the House to watch out, particularly those from Taranaki, for the fins-up team from the top of the South.

But the underlying point is that rugby runs deep in New Zealand, it is good for our country, it gets people playing sport, and it involves us celebrating our nation and what we excel at internationally. What sorts of killjoys are there in parties like the Greens, who would oppose New Zealanders simply being able to get up early in the morning to congregate at some of the sports bars across New Zealand and to be able to enjoy the spectacle of the Rugby World Cup? Actually, it speaks volumes about what a risk the Green Party is to practical legislation in this Parliament.

The part that the Green Party, on so many issues, just gets wrong is that it takes a completely disproportionate view of risk. The comments from Kevin Hague, that we cannot pass this bill because there will be hordes of drunks coming out of sports bars at 8 o’clock in the morning and that they will be a threat to our schoolchildren—come on, get a life! Our schoolchildren do not live such sheltered lives that they do not see people getting pleasure, getting excitement, and also getting depressed as a consequence of rugby sporting events.

At the last Rugby World Cup that occurred on the opposite side of the globe, I went to one of my local sports bars, and the place was packed. Why were people there? Well, actually, they enjoyed the game more and there was a sense of nationhood and camaraderie that does not exist when you sit at home in front of your telly by yourself. Why should communities not be able to get together to enjoy their country participating in an international sports event in that sort of community way?

I can remember so well the game against France, and leaving the venue, the local sports bar, at the end of that game. Everybody was in the doldrums because we had been kicked out of the event. Did I see bad behaviour on the streets? Did I see a whole lot of drunks out there actually causing harm? No, I saw a whole lot of ordinary New Zealanders just enjoying their own national sport, and why would we not want them to be able to do just that?

In respect of how much bureaucracy we should impose—here are the real, practical issues for some of the sports bars in Richmond, Stoke, and Nelson that have wanted to host these games. Each of them has lodged applications with the licensing authority, but because it is not dealing with it as a comprehensive issue, it has come to different views. Then you get into the unfairness issue as to why the Richmond sports bar should be allowed to open only for certain hours, as compared with the one in Stoke or the one in Nelson.

The sensible thing with a bill such as this is that we can ensure that we take a consistent approach across the country and allow everybody to enjoy the games, rather than having the nonsense of having hundreds of individual applications going through licensing boards, driving up the sort of bureaucracy and red tape that drives average New Zealanders mad.

The thing that I just cannot understand from the Green Party is this: why is it, when it comes to alcohol, it wants to take an extreme adverse risk approach, and say that it is not prepared to accept any risk at all. But when it comes to cannabis, the Greens want to legalise it and liberalise it, at the opposite end of the spectrum. There is just—[Interruption] I am sorry?

Denise Roche: I’m saying: you don’t take risks either, do you?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I am just simply saying to the member that the Green Party, on the one hand, says that it opposes this bill because of the risk of the odd person misusing alcohol, when, on the other hand, the evidence is so compelling about the level of harm that is caused from cannabis. Over and over again we hear an argument to liberalise cannabis laws from Green Party members, and I say: what a grossly inconsistent approach the Green Party brings to this bill. That is why I have great difficulty with the position of such extreme cautiousness around the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill.

I am pleased that the select committee has made the choice to enable all of the Rugby World Cup games to be enjoyed in this fashion. It is absolutely sensible, I say to Mr Seymour, for you to allow the bar or the licensed premises to make the choice as to what games they want to host. I do not know whether there are maybe large South African populations on the North Shore, but the bars may choose to open there. In my area I happen to have a large number of people from the UK, and the bars may choose to show those games. Why should it be that Parliament has to overrule what choice there might be? Let the individual proprietors make an assessment in their community about the level of interest, and, on the basis of that, to then decide whether they are going to host those games.

The very last point that I think we need to be real about is that for most upper-income New Zealanders who want to enjoy the Rugby World Cup, many of them will have Sky TV and will be able to enjoy the games. But, actually, for lots of people with modest incomes, Sky TV is a significant expense, and as a consequence it is only through this bill that those people are going to be able to enjoy those games live. That is why it also makes sense for the large number of New Zealanders who do not have Sky TV, who love rugby, and who want to be able to get together in their community.

The select committee has done a good job of providing logical protections to ensure that those licensed premises have to manage their facilities in a responsible way, and that they have to take sensible precautions around noise control and around ensuring that if they are dodgy premises that have a bad record around licensing, they do not get to use the provisions of this bill to gain a licence.

I simply, again, commend the member David Seymour for sponsoring this bill and for the work that he has done with other political parties. I am still amazed that a party like the Greens would make itself look so out of touch with ordinary New Zealanders that it would oppose a sensible bill such as this, which is simply about New Zealanders being able to enjoy their national sport.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call—David Shearer, 5 minutes.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): First of all, I will say that the Labour Party wants this to be a personal vote—a conscience vote. Alcohol issues have always been a conscience vote, and we do not see the reason for making this bill any different. I think that we have got to get real about this. There has been a lot of talk about alcohol and the problems with it, and, yes, there are some problems with alcohol, but mixing it with our national game and saying that it is a problem just because they go together is actually pretty disrespectful to a lot of rugby fans out there who like to have a beer in front of their TV or with some mates. In my electorate, which includes Eden Park, we have had some real issues with 50,000 people going along to the ground and coming out again. I have to say that over the past year or 2 the behaviour has, on the whole, been good, it has been respectful, and we have not had all of the problems with rugby and alcohol that seem to be being forecast by members in this House.

This is our national game. Our team won the Rugby World Cup in 2011. We want to see them do well in the world cup that is coming up, and we want to be able to see them do well. There are a lot of people, as Dr Smith said—and I agree with him—who are not able to afford Sky, or they do not have Sky, and they want to be able to go somewhere to watch the games. I could add to what Dr Smith said. I mean, they want to get out of their cold, dark, damp houses and go somewhere warm and dry, like a rugby club, to be able to watch the games with other people. This is our national game. We want to be able to celebrate and watch our All Blacks play. It happens only once every 4 years; it is not as if it is happening every single day. I would have thought that given the importance of the game, we should be able to see it on this occasion.

It is happening on the other side of the world, so it is not happening in the middle of the afternoon, which may have created fewer problems, of course. It is likely to happen at 4 o’clock in the morning. I remember as a young kid getting up in the middle of the night to watch a rugby test with my dad because it was free to view on our television. That is not possible any more, and I think that there is a discussion to be had about why it is not free to view for these very important games. It certainly is in Australia, it is in the UK, and it is in a number of other places, where nationally important games are able to be watched free on national TV, but it is not the case here. It is not, and so I agree with what David Seymour has done in bringing this bill forward. I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee, which has been looking at it. I think it has been able to modify the bill to take out some of the possible problems around noise, etc.

At the end of the day, at 4 o’clock in the morning, people are going to wander down to their local sports club, they are going to be with a bunch of mates, and they are going to be with their friends. Are they going to be getting on the booze big time? I do not think so. Most people who sit there will be watching the game intently. They are probably going to have a cup of coffee, they possibly will have breakfast as well, they may take their kids—I certainly will if I go down there—they will be watching the game, and then they will wander off home. I really think that we are getting well beyond what rugby fans do today when we start talking about the excesses of alcohol and the doom and the gloom that is coming down the track as a result of this piece of legislation.

As for the number of matches, there was, obviously, a proposal at the beginning to restrict the number of games to 12 or 16. At the end of the day, I think what is going to happen is that bars will make their own decisions about whether there is actually a market for people who are going to be watching Georgia play Canada at the bar, and if there is not going to be a fan base for that, they will not open. It seems to me that what we have in front of us is a sensible piece of legislation. It is only for a fixed period of time, it is to watch our national game, and to link the woes of alcohol too closely with rugby is a bit of an insult to a lot of rugby fans out there, the great majority of whom are sensible, responsible people who just want to watch their national game. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Meka Whaitiri—5 minutes.

MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. I am glad to take a call on this bill, and, like previous speakers from the Labour side, we hope that we can cast our vote in a personal manner. I come from a rugby-loving family. My dad represented the armed forces when he served in Korea, my three brothers all represented Hawke’s Bay in age groups, and my two sons are also following those traditions. I also did kick the ball around in my younger days when living here in Wellington.

When I look down at the title of this bill and see “Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill”, nothing in that title makes me want to love rugby more than I currently love rugby. Nothing in that title makes me want to be more patriotic to wish and—as the member Mr Bishop said—to get the All Blacks over the line. When I look at that title there is one seven-letter word that is in there that causes my major concern, and that is the word “alcohol”. That is why I cannot back this bill, and I will tell you why.

On Monday this week I was honoured to attend the Waitangi Tribunal hearing into the military veteran’s kaupapa inquiry, Wai 2500, where veterans rose and spoke not only about their motivation of why they went to war but about the impacts it had on them when they came back. We were fortunate to have two 28th Māori Battalion veterans at that hearing and two Korea veterans at that hearing, as well as other previous military servers. At that hearing we also heard from families who spoke about the trauma that was inflicted on families for many of those veterans when they returned back, and alcohol played a key part in many of those families in those early days, upon their fathers’ and their uncles’ returns. It was with great sadness that we heard the story of veterans who were once very proud men resorting to drinking to get over the horrors of the war. It was not just the physical impact or the psychological impact of alcohol, but it was the absolute devastation of Māori men’s leadership. That came through those hearings that I attended.

It is with humility that I stand here as a proud member of a Māori seat, because 76 years on we are still suffering the lack of a lot of Māori men leaders. When I look at this bill—and, yes, it is distinct from the support and love of rugby, and I love it like anybody else does in this country; and I too am passionate for the All Blacks—and when I sat in the hearing with veterans who served this country proudly and their families who spoke of the horror that the war and the impact of alcohol had on those families, I cannot, in good conscience, support this bill. So this is one of the reasons why I cannot support it, for the memory of many of those soldiers who served and gave to this country.

The other one, briefly, is Raureka. Raureka is a community in Hastings. They are currently running a petition for not wanting another alcohol outlet in their community. I know that this bill is allowing families to enjoy the Rugby World Cup. When I look at the bill, I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for the work it has done in trying to minimise harm, but I have outlined the reasons why, in good conscience, I cannot support this bill—because of the impact that alcohol has had on many of our Māori families throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti, not just as a result of the wars but today in this time. I stand here, like I said, for those families who spoke and to say that I cannot support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Alastair Scott—5 minutes.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): This is a fantastic bill. I am very pleased to be standing in support of this bill, because it gives the whole country an opportunity to celebrate our national game together. Too much talk has been about the alcohol anger and anti-alcohol speak, but it is not about the alcohol; it is about getting together. It is about getting together to celebrate, giving people the opportunity to gather in communities with their whānau, with their families, and with their kids, and enjoying the camaraderie and the celebration of the sport.

I am also pleased to read that there are no restrictions on the games. All games are in. I mean, there could have been a view—alcohol is usually the excuse—that for some reason we had to restrict the games to just the All Blacks, or, perhaps, it was going to be just the northern hemisphere games against the All Blacks, or, perhaps, it was just countries that we have free-trade agreements with, or, perhaps, it was just American continent games. But there is no restriction, and that is a great thing, because that demonstrates, again, that the game is an inclusive game, and it demonstrates that New Zealand is an inclusive society. We are here together.

I note and acknowledge Louisa Wall’s comments around her experience with the licensing vis-à-vis the rugby club. I accept that this bill allows this House to be a licensing board on behalf of all New Zealand, so there will be consistency across the country when it comes to special licences. So this is us legislating a special licence for all New Zealanders. The people who are opposed, particularly the Greens, are just not on this planet. They have become the wet blanket on this bill, which is about celebrating our national sport. Really? Are we really going to get a whole lot of people stumbling out of bars at 8 o’clock in the morning or 9 o’clock in the morning after a rugby game? That is just a nonsense, whether it is in Courtenay Place or in Perry Street in Masterton. It is just not a reality. Unfortunately, the fearmongering, the scaremongering—I can tell you that it is absolutely exaggerated and is a sad indictment on what should be a celebration of this country’s sport.

Back in the day—and I looked out to see when Colin Meads actually did play. He finished his games for the All Blacks in 1971. It was a little while ago, but I do remember getting woken up by my father to watch the game—in black and white, so I must have been about 6 or 7 years old. Now, in this Rugby World Cup festival, we can get up and go down to the pub. Why should we not be able to go down to the pub and meet and commune with our relatives and people in our communities? It is not about the alcohol. We can have an orange juice. There is no obligation to drink. There is no compulsion to drink. There is lemonade. There is orange juice. There is even water.

The other point it that not all bars will be open for all games—clearly not—and that is the great thing. This legislation gives the operator, the licensee, the option and the choice to make, and it will be commercial decision-making on how many dollars will come in the door because of the event. That is the way it should be. So most pubs will be open for the All Blacks, but Namibia versus Georgia—probably not a great following in Perry Street in Masterton.

I would just like to wind up by thanking David Seymour for bringing this bill to the House. It is a very good bill. It is going to gather communities across New Zealand together in celebration of our national sport, and I commend this bill to the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Brett Hudson—5 minutes.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. It is a very, very good bill. I commend Mr Seymour for bringing this to the House. I commend the Justice and Electoral Committee for the work it did.

Not only is rugby our national sport but the Rugby World Cup is the world’s third-largest sporting event. This bill, when it gets through a third reading, which I sincerely hope it will do today, will ensure that all New Zealanders who want to watch it will have the opportunity to do so, especially those who cannot afford or do not have Sky television. As Mr Seymour pointed out in his contribution to this second reading debate, the overwhelming majority of people who will attend, who go to bars or enjoy drinks with their sporting events, are responsible. They are responsible in their drinking. They are responsible in their general behaviour. They are law-abiding people.

On this side of the House, and with those voices we have heard in support of this, we simply do not believe that by opening licensed establishments for a few more hours over the course of the Rugby World Cup, generally law-abiding, well behaved, responsible New Zealanders are suddenly going to morph into reprobates who are drunk and pouring out into the streets, causing mayhem. It is simply not going to happen. It did not happen when the Rugby World Cup was held in this country in 2011. It did not happen when the Football World Cup was on and certain bars around the country opened in the early hours of the morning so that people not from New Zealand but whose original country teams were playing could enjoy those games.

David Seymour: You mean immigrants.

BRETT HUDSON: They were immigrants. And what we saw were images of people enjoying their country, locked in battle in a round-ball game against traditional adversaries, and loving it; just hugely passionate—the sort of thing that we would like to capture, I think, in our support of our team. This bill is going to permit that to happen. But one thing we did not see during that Football World Cup was people pouring out into the streets, unable to control themselves, causing mayhem. We did not see it then. We will not see it when this bill is successfully passed today.

What I would like to say, having sat on the select committee for a couple of hours during the course of these deliberations and considerations, is that it is quite possible, as the votes unfold, that New Zealanders are going to reflect on the Green Party and its approach to these matters, and see a party that has a fundamental world view that people need protecting from themselves. They do not. The overwhelming majority of people are more than capable of making their own sound decisions and acting appropriately. They are not going to morph into Mr Hyde simply because they are permitted to go and enjoy games in the early hours of the morning during the course of this World Cup.

I would actually like to add a bit to what my colleague Christopher Bishop said earlier in this reading, when he pointed out that the statistics are showing us that, particularly amongst young drinkers, the frequency of drinking—the nature of binge drinking and the harm from drinking in that demographic—is decreasing. That is very true. We should not argue with the facts. We are entitled to our own opinions; we are not entitled to our own facts. But here is another fact: in Wellington, along Courtenay Place, there used to be a triage centre, because of the behaviour of certain people in the wee small hours and harm, violence, and injury that was being caused. That station no longer exists, and I can tell the members of this House that it is not because of funding. The reason that centre is no longer in Courtenay Place is that it is no longer needed.

Yes, this country has had issues with drinking in the past, and for a small minority there may still exist some issues. But the evidence amongst our youth, and in fact across society, shows us that we are improving. This bill and what it is going to permit, which is people enjoying the Rugby World Cup in those normally unsociable hours—because it is on the other side of the world—is not suddenly going to create new problems. But what it is going to do is enable New Zealanders to rally around their team, to enjoy it, to wish it every success, and to enjoy the occasion and the camaraderie of other New Zealanders cheering their team on, shouting at the television screen, hoping it will make a difference. I commend the bill to the House.

The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A personal vote has been called for. Members, I will refer you to Standing Orders 143(1)(b). In 143(1)(b), “a party’s votes may be cast for the Ayes or for the Noes … and a party may cast some of its votes in one of these categories and some in another [category known as] (a split-party vote):”. So I am prepared to accept a split-party vote, and on that basis I will ask the Clerk to proceed with a split-party vote.

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

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 24 (Ardern, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Curran, Davis, Faafoi, Goff, Henare, King, Lees-Galloway, Little, Moroney, Nash, O’Connor D, Parker, Robertson, Rurawhe, Sepuloni, Shearer, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Other 2: Hipkins, Mallard.

Noes 20

New Zealand Labour 4 (Dyson, Mahuta, Salesa, Sio); Green Party 14; Other 2: Whaitiri; Williams.

Question agreed to.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The question now is that the motion be agreed to. A personal vote has been called for. As I said earlier, I am prepared to accept a split vote, and I will ask the Clerk to undertake a split vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Extended licensing hours during Rugby World Cup) Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 101

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 24 (Ardern, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Curran, Davis, Faafoi, Goff, Henare, King, Lees-Galloway, Little, Moroney, Nash, O’Connor D, Parker, Robertson, Rurawhe, Sepuloni, Shearer, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); New Zealand First 12; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Other 2: Hipkins, Mallard.

Noes 20

New Zealand Labour 4 (Dyson, Mahuta, Salesa, Sio); Green Party 14; Other 2: Whaitiri; Williams.

Bill read a second time.

Name changed to Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

Bills

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I have already spoken for 10 minutes on this bill today, so I am going to keep my remarks fairly brief, except to say I was remiss in acknowledging the very fine officials who advised the Justice and Electoral Committee, who I think did an excellent job in supporting us. We are very grateful to them.

Also, I acknowledge the many submitters, who, I have to say, were of varying quality. There were a large number of form submissions, of a form that were largely inaccurate. In fact, there were some quite helpful and intelligent submissions, such as those from Auckland Council, the Auckland District Licensing Committee, and also from the Hospitality Association and Local Government New Zealand, which pointed out useful new information that assisted the committee in drafting a very good bill to return to the House.

I would like to thank the members for some of their speeches, and I particularly pick up on what Chris Bishop said at the second reading. The facts are that if you look at the quantity of alcohol consumed by New Zealanders, the concentration of consumption, the amount of binge drinking, and the distribution of that drinking across different age groups, it is a myth that New Zealand is somehow an outlier by international standards and that young New Zealanders have the worst of drinking problems. Quite the opposite is true, and in a liberalised environment over the last 30 years, alcohol consumption and harm has actually gone down. Those are the facts and I think they should be recorded for the House—none of which, of course, are incompatible with saying that there are difficulties with alcohol in New Zealand and we should always ensure to do better.

I would like to thank Peeni Henare for a very good contribution. He said I had a Magna Doodle. I was not aware that the member spoke Latin, but I thank him for that and for the rest of his contribution.

I want to put on record one matter in regard to this bill. Several people, in what is actually an unparliamentary way, insinuated that the bill was drafted by lobbyists with my help. I can tell the House that there was no such occurrence. I drafted this bill, and did I get on the phone and ask people in my electorate? Yes, I did. If there is one thing that I have noticed throughout this debate, it is that it is very humbling to have to walk up the driveway in the middle of winter, knock on the door, and say: “Hi, I am here to ask you to vote for me.” You learn a lot about what happens in your community, and you become a lot more worldly about the effect of the policies that we make in this House.

That is not to say that there are no very good list MPs, because I have just complimented one of them, but it may also tell us something a little bit about the approach of the Green Party members, who, of course, do not have any. Did I ask, for example, the Hospitality Association for its advice? Of course you would ask for the view of an organisation that represented the people who run the facilities, but this was a drafting very much initiated by me.

I would like to thank one of my staff members who brought it to our attention that the British actually had what we regarded as a piece of model legislation passed for the FIFA World Cup just last year. So I want to put on record the genesis of this bill, and if the people who made those allegations want to repeat those unparliamentary allegations, then I challenge them to do so.

While we are talking about politics, I think that one of the things that Chris Bishop touched on was actually the intergenerational aspect of this. Can you not imagine being a new member of Parliament, thrust into the limelight after having been made the leader of your party, and the guy whom you beat to be the leader—we have been using a lot of sporting analogies today—forces you to do a triple somersault? Three positions on the same issue in just 2 weeks—if that is not dissension and difficulty within a party, then I do not know what is. I repeat what other members have said, which is that the public will be the judge. I suspect they will conclude that the younger James Shaw had it right, and the internal dissension in the Greens is going to have to be dealt with one way or another. I just wish James luck on that, not only on this bill but for the integrity of the Greens’ being able to take one position on a bill for 2 weeks in a row.

Finally, this bill is fundamentally about community. Members have said: “Why can’t you just open without alcohol?”. Well, the fact of the matter is that most of us actually do responsibly enjoy alcohol, and most of the licensed premises have their special licence on the basis that they cannot open if their primary activity is to serve alcohol—they must be allowed to serve alcohol when they open. So they are one and the same. That does not necessarily mean that what they are going to do is serve excessive alcohol. In fact, I predict that what will happen is that the overwhelming majority of people will come out early in the morning for breakfast and a coffee, maybe a lemonade or a shandy, and maybe a pint of beer.

The question for the opponents of this bill is “Why should law-abiding, responsible New Zealanders not be able to do that?”, rather than the question the opponents would like us to answer, which is “How will you justify yourselves to us?”. This is fundamentally about individual freedom and personal responsibility, and what the opponents have done is taken a very cynical bet. They are a little bit like an Opposition party I once heard when it was learning of bad news for the country. It said: “Good grief, it’s even worse than we hoped.”

The members in opposition to this bill have taken the cynical position that if there is an unfortunate occurrence that coincides with the Rugby World Cup and this bill, and if there is an unfortunate occurrence that may or may not have been caused by this bill, they will be in a position to say: “I told you so.” It is cynical and dirty politics to do that. What I hope is that we are going to have a warm, communitarian festival event where we are able to use our community facilities, our pubs, and our clubs to come together as free and responsible New Zealanders. Thank you. I commend this bill to the House.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): This is a bill that is not so much about the drinking of alcohol. This is a bill that is very much about watching rugby down at the pub with your mates or in any licensed or club premises. My ideal circumstance is probably watching one of the All Blacks games in my home town of Ōāmaru, probably in Fat Sally’s, I would imagine, and it will be an event organised by the rugby club, of which I am the patron, so it will be—

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.

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

JACQUI DEAN: When I started my contribution before the dinner hour my opening comments were that this bill is not so much about the harms created by alcohol—and I will go into that in a bit—but rather the ability for licensees to televise Rugby World Cup games outside their normal licensing hours.

The reason I talk about the opportunity to watch rugby on live television outside of licensing hours is that throughout the consideration of this bill in the Justice and Electoral Committee, it was brought to us that we needed to be very precise about just what it was we were proposing to legislate for. Perhaps I should say what we are not legislating for: the ability for licensed premises to take advantage of the provisions in this member’s bill, which will become part of the principal Act, simply to extend their licensing hours for a bout of all-night drinking. This bill is not about that.

There are provisions in the bill to ensure that, for example, if a Rugby World Cup game commences more than 2 hours outside of the licensee’s normal trading hours, then that premises has to close and it may reopen, under the terms of this bill, an hour before the scheduled game. This is not about extended drinking opportunities. Rather, this is a bill that is about the opportunity for New Zealanders who are passionate about the All Blacks, and that is all of us, I think, having the opportunity to get together and celebrate whichever team they are supporting, whether it is Samoa, Namibia, South Africa, or the mighty All Blacks. It gives New Zealanders and everybody else the opportunity to watch in a social setting a game of rugby on a licensed premises.

If we look at the bill, there is, helpfully, at the back, in schedule 4, I believe, a list of all the games. One will see that the games run from 1.30 in the morning right through until 9 o’clock. So the latest game that is scheduled is 9 o’clock in the morning. I think it would be stretching it a bit to think that that is a recipe for all-night drinking, particularly under the provisions of this bill. However, I do acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed to the select committee through submissions and also in this House that there is harm associated with liquor licensing. That really underpins the reasoning why, although this was a member’s bill that was a stand-alone bill, it is now proposed to become an amendment to the principal Act, which is the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act, with an expiry date, by the way.

There was one member in the House who did not sit on the committee terribly many times, and I do need to put on record that this bill does in fact expire. It is explicit in the bill and in the commentary on the bill that this is a bill that gives effect to licensees being able to trade outside their normal licensing hours for the purposes of televising live Rugby World Cup games. We were very careful in the select committee to be explicit about that point so that there would be no mistake.

I want to turn my attention a little to the word “televise”. Of course, these days many people will follow Rugby World Cup games on Twitter, Facebook, and other means, like live streaming, but this bill, although not excluding that, is explicit in that it is intended to enable licensed premises that have a large TV screen available to most of the people in the bar to televise that rugby game for the enjoyment of the people who choose to go and watch it.

I was watching the telly in the break, as one does, and I saw one of the 7 o’clock programmes—we call them news programmes, loosely—which did a story on this bill and put up the proposition that it is perhaps not needed because we do have the ability to grant special licences. Yes, it is true we do—“we”, as in licensees—but there is the genesis of this bill, because what has been found is that district licensing committees can put very onerous conditions on special licences, which then have to be appealed, as has happened many times, and can put onerous licensing conditions upon the applicant. “What’s the problem?” one says. “There is nothing wrong with onerous mitigating measures to mitigate the harm from alcohol.” So this is where the provisions of this Rugby World Cup licensing regime come in.

When notifying police or a district licensing committee that a licensee wishes to be open for the All Black versus Australia semi-final, within 7 days that licensee has to provide the police and district licensing committee with a notice that sets out the measures they will take to reduce the harms associated with being open. Although that is not appealable, which is a little unusual in itself, there are three brightline conditions that must also go with that notification, and those are: no dumping bottles in dumpsters in the early hours, no use of outside courtyard facilities, and no broadcasting of loud music. Furthermore, because this bill has been made an amendment to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act for as long as it lasts, that enables section 259 of the Act to apply. That section deals with variations in hours and transgressions against licensing conditions. So there is protection for citizens, and there is the ability for the police and licensing inspectors to step in and act if there is a transgression.

I just wanted to be very clear about the provisions of this bill—it is stepping in where a gap is left with special licences. Whether this Government and this Parliament deals with special licensing in the future is a matter for another debate, but this bill fills that gap. This is the bill that is going to enable New Zealanders like me, who only ever support one team, to be able to go down to the pub and watch the rugby. I will able to go down to Fat Sally’s on Thames Street in Ōāmaru—and I started to say this before dinner—as a guest of the North Otago Rugby Football Union, of which I am a patron, and watch one of the games in the bar. I will probably have something to drink, I will definitely have something to eat, and I will cheer my heart out as New Zealand and our mighty All Blacks go forward to win the Rugby World Cup. Thank you.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to start my contribution by speaking briefly about the process issues that we are going through and just to record that I do think it is unsatisfactory that we come to the House tonight having not had a Committee of the whole House on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill.

I actually support this piece of legislation and I will explain my support for it in a moment. But I do think this was an issue that was foreseeable. It was raised with me a couple of months ago. I undertook to talk to various stakeholders on the issue in my own inner-city electorate, and I do think there was the opportunity to have a better process than the one we are having now. No matter what the good intent either of Mr Seymour or of the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I fear that there will be unforeseen circumstances—unforeseen things will arise as a result of this that we have not had enough time to work through. There is even some confusion among members about exactly what provisions have stayed in the bill and what provisions have not, so I regret the fact that we are doing it this way.

I would rather that we were treating this matter with a little bit more caution and with a little bit more of the normal process that we have, and I just want to put on record that I think the Government dropped the ball—and that will be one of the very few rugby metaphors that I will use in this speech; but there may be one or two others. I do think the Government has dropped the ball in terms of not getting on to this issue earlier. I also think that although Mr Seymour has taken the initiative on the bill, the Government itself was at one point going to take it up, and again I think it probably would have been better had it done that. That is not what happened, and we stand here tonight having to debate this bill in the form that we are.

In the Wellington area a number of special licences have already been granted to establishments to screen games for the Rugby World Cup, and the process that those establishments went through was a thorough one. They spoke with the district licensing authority, the police were involved, and they were granted special licences, with a series of conditions. That process should be the process that we are able to follow for events like the Rugby World Cup. However, around the country inconsistent approaches were abounding. The idea of ridiculous conditions being put on the licences became, it seemed, a tactic to be used in certain authorities by certain people who had a concern about the licence. So we got the stories of people needing to run fancy dress parties or quiz nights or have MCs, and all sorts of things like that.

The inconsistency of that process concerns me. I think it would be far better if this legislation was actually about special licences rather than a blanket exemption. For me that is what I thought I was doing as a member of this Parliament when we passed the last Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act changes—establishing that a special event like the Rugby World Cup would generate a situation where a special licence would be provided.

It has become clear for many people in this process, either deliberately in terms of trying to make it more difficult to get special licences or simply because this is how they interpreted it, that the special event is the thing that happens in the licensed premises, not the thing that is on the screen, on the television. For me as a member of this Parliament I always felt we were passing legislation where an event like the Rugby World Cup on the screen would be the special event, and had that interpretation been consistently taken around New Zealand, then we would have had applications for special licences on the basis of the event, the Rugby World Cup. So I want to put on record that my preference would have been to be able to use the special licence process, on the understanding that the special event was the event, the Rugby World Cup, and we will have to revisit this because we cannot keep doing this every time a major event in the world comes up. I would much rather we were in that situation.

But my reason for supporting this bill relates to the fact that the Rugby World Cup is a special event. Obviously, I am a huge rugby fan. I appreciate that not everybody else is, but I think we can all understand that the Rugby World Cup will be an event quite different from any others that we see. People want to come together for these events. This is about a sense of community. It is not about a sense of wanting to go on long, drawn-out drinking benders. The few people who might think that that is what they want to do are going to find they are not going to be able to. They are going to find that actually both the police and the licence holders are not going to let them do that. They know there will be huge scrutiny on them, as part of this bill, and it simply will not occur.

What this will be about is people coming together for what are iconic moments in their history—and that will not necessarily be confined just to New Zealanders. The passion with which people from other nationalities will follow their teams will match New Zealanders’, and when Samoa play and when South Africa play we will see huge turnouts of people wanting to be part of that. I believe there is more danger of people leaving pubs in a caffeine and bacon-induced haze than there is in an alcoholic haze after these events, because that is what will happen. We do need to be practical and real about this. People will mostly be there having breakfast, because that is the timing of the games when they would be wanting to be out, and that is what I know in my own heart is what will happen.

That is not to diminish the concerns that have been raised tonight about our drinking culture and about the laws that govern the way in which alcohol is used and sold in New Zealand. I think Chris Bishop did a disservice to this bill by standing up in this House and trying to diminish binge drinking and its impact in New Zealand. It is a real thing. Standing in this House and saying it is a myth and it does not exist is actually a silly—

Jono Naylor: That’s not what he said.

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, it is what he said, Mr Naylor. I have listened to Chris Bishop’s speech. You know, you could see the old tobacco lobbyist coming out, taking the statistics, and twisting them round for his argument. I think that was a silly set of arguments for Chris Bishop to make.

I want to put on the record again that we do need to look at the drinking culture that we have in New Zealand. We need to look at things like hours of sale, cost of alcohol, the abuse of alcohol, and education. This bill is not going to sort that out, and opposing this bill is not going to sort that out. So I continue to support the bill, but I do not appreciate those arguments. I do not think they are helpful. I think Mr Bishop needs to look again, and spend a little bit of time perhaps with an accident and emergency staff member on a Saturday night before he does that. I also want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the linkage between alcohol and domestic violence. They are serious issues that New Zealand needs to get its head around. Again, though, I do not believe that opposing this legislation is the way in which we will address those particular issues.

I do think it is important to relate the matter around the conditions of licences. The licences that were granted in a place like Wellington take into account the concerns of those who live in the inner city, and I want to acknowledge the Wellington Inner City Association, which has put in a very good submission on this bill about its concerns. They are the people who wake up in the morning when those bottles crash down when they are being thrown out, they are the people who will be concerned about the courtyard noise, and so I appreciate the work that the Justice and Electoral Committee did in knocking out some of those things. But I have to acknowledge that the Wellington Inner City Association would rather the bill went further, would rather that there were more restrictions around, and we do have to appreciate the mixed use of inner-city environments.

Having said that, all of the conditions that apply to licences, other than hours, will continue to apply, and I am quite sure that the police will keep a very close eye on that in the Wellington central area, as they always do. I am very pleased to see the provision around people whose licences have been suspended not being able to use the provisions of this bill. We should not reward bad behaviour; we should make sure that those pubs understand that they are not able to be part of the special occasion, because of what they have done. I also want to note the provisions that basically say that the only way that noise restrictions that are not in this bill will apply is where they are more restrictive than what is in this bill. I think it is very important that we maintain the faith that we are putting in people behaving responsibly.

So I will be supporting this legislation. I do not think this is the best way that this House could have gone about this. I do think that we need to sort out the provisions around special licences and special events. I do think there could have been some more conditions imposed, particularly around the question of venues being closer to schools and other things like that, but on balance this is a special event, as I envisaged a special event when the sale of liquor legislation changes went through. I think we need to work together as a community to reduce and eliminate harm from alcohol use. We must continue to do that regardless of what we are doing here today, but this piece of legislation, on balance, is one that I can support.

JONO NAYLOR (National): It is a great pleasure to rise to take another call on this bill so quickly after we have had the second reading. Some of the members who are here will remember that before we went to the dinner break I talked about the importance of why we should have this legislation. I talked about the importance of the games, and I talked about the importance of sport in New Zealand and people’s ability to be able to watch it. I do not want to rehash all the same stories that I told in my last speech, because I am sure that people do not want to hear about my cricket-watching escapade of 1983, so I will try to focus a little bit more on the bill. I know that Jo Hayes wants to hear the story. I will have to tell her later, but that is all right.

Given the truncated process that we have had to follow in order to meet the time lines associated with the Rugby World Cup looming so quickly, I believe that it is important, in the absence of the Committee stage and in the absence of, perhaps, a longer period for submissions, that we ensure that we cover the bases well tonight and that we go through the bill very well in its third reading. What I want to start with, though, is really outlining some of the key issues that the Justice and Electoral Committee faced as a select committee as we went through this process. There was certainly a good level of debate, and I have to say that it was probably one of the most enjoyable experiences that I have had in a select committee since being in Parliament, in terms of people, basically, working constructively to try to find a way through and to find a sensible outcome for what is probably going to be a reasonably important event—well, hopefully, an extremely important event—for New Zealand in a few weeks’ time. It was a very constructive select committee process, where we explored the various upsides and downsides of having this kind of legislation. I guess, obviously, the fact that we are all voting for this bill in so many numbers this evening indicates that we have arrived at a point where we think we have achieved the right balance and that we are going to get a good piece of legislation that is going to serve the people of New Zealand well.

I just want to stress again, though, that this bill is not about enabling people to drink. This is a bill that is about enabling people to take part in what is an important event, in a sporting sense but also in terms of being a community event. So that is what this is. Unfortunately, there are not too many premises that are not licensed that are available for people to watch this kind of thing in a public setting, and so that is why we are addressing this through a licensed premises piece of legislation, to enable people to go along and quietly enjoy the games. There will be some shouting, I am sure, particularly if we score a few tries, but the point of this legislation is not to cut across the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act; no one is intending to do that. I do not necessarily think that we are compromising the principles of the Act by allowing places that are licensed to be able to be open for a short space of time, to allow people to enjoy this event for a very specific period of time, and for a very specific series of games, and then move on.

I guess the first thing that came up, really, was dealing with what is wrong with the special licence process. Mr Robertson, in his contribution just before mine, said that obviously there was concern about some of the variations in conditions that we have been seeing across the country when people are applying for special licences, with there being a sense of variation around the countryside. I think it is really critical that we get some sense of uniformity across the country. Some people do not deem it a special event unless people are wearing costumes; others do not deem it a special event unless it is a ticketed event. The difficulty is that when I think of the special conditions, or the special licence provisions within the existing Act, I think that they do not necessarily deal with the idea of a mass thing that is happening right across the countryside and is going to affect multiple licensed outlets.

Mr Mitchell, in his speech in the second reading, talked about an event that he had organised, which had 17,000 people at it. I think that if someone were going to organise an event that had 17,000 people at that one event, at that one place, we would all say that it was pretty easy—well, it is not easy, because he told us that it took 35 pages to apply for the special licence. But it is pretty direct and it is pretty noticeable what you have to do in order to get that special licence. Actually, what we are going to get is a district licensing committee that deals with that one licence. But, potentially, what we would have is every licensed premises within a territorial local authority area applying for a special licence. Frankly, I think that that is overly bureaucratic. They all would have to pay an extra fee for it. They all would have to do a whole lot of extra paperwork. We would probably find that the local council would have to put on extra staff to deal with this influx of special licence applications. So if, by putting together a reasonably simple piece of legislation, we can ensure that there is a sense of uniformity and a sense of basic provisions as to what needs to be put in place for people to televise these games, that seems eminently sensible to me.

I guess then the question is: why would we make it an amendment bill rather than an Act in its own right? Of course, when we were weighing up the important principles that we needed to incorporate into this bill, what we wanted to ensure was that we did not make it more permissive for people than the current legislation, in the general sense. So instead of actually trying to incorporate into this piece of legislation all of those facets of licences, it seemed much easier, much simpler, and much more straightforward to sort of bolt this on to the current legislation rather than importing into the bill a whole lot of bits from the original Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. So for simple streamlining purposes, we wanted to do that. It means that the police and district licensing inspectors will, essentially, be policing the same kinds of conditions, as well as these extra ones that we have put in. They will be able to ensure that people are trading safely, are trading within the law, and are trading within the boundaries that we as a society think are appropriate. So that is the purpose, if you like, of ensuring that this moves forward. It is straightforward, and it is simple and easy to understand. People who have licences know how the Act works. They will find this amendment in it and will find out what they need to do. It is simple. They are not having to go and look for a special piece of legislation.

I think the other important thing—and other speakers have touched on this, but I do want to pick up on it—is that not everybody who currently holds a liquor licence will automatically get an extension to their hours for the purposes of the Rugby World Cup. We talked about this at great length in the select committee, and I think there was pretty much universal agreement that if somebody has breached their conditions or has had their hours curtailed in the last 12 months because they have been behaving in a way that is contrary to their licence or, more to the point, contrary to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act—i.e. serving a minor, serving somebody who was intoxicated, or otherwise—they should not get one of these special licences. We felt that it is not appropriate to reward somebody who, in the last 12 months, has shown a lack of responsibility in the way that they operate their premises, and so what we wanted to do was ensure that those people are not then able, with carte blanche, to just have an open-ended licence and move forward. So that is one thing that I think it is really important to note—that not everybody is going to get a special licence.

When it comes to the idea of trading hours, again, this caused some complexity because, of course, the games do not necessarily run back to back. One game does not start as soon as the other one finishes. There might be some time in between games, so there was a bit of a conversation about our needing to work out what was the most appropriate way to deal with games that would be spaced slightly apart. So what we said is that given it is probably going to be difficult for people to close down and open up again, we have got no issue with there being a gap of less than 2 hours. Absolutely, licence holders are going to have to close down and reopen if there is a gap of more than 2 hours between the games that they are screening. But if there is a gap of less than 2 hours, it would seem a little bit ludicrous to make them shut down, given that they are allowed to be open or serve drinks for half an hour after the game and have everyone out within an hour, and then they are allowed to open up again an hour beforehand.

Having looked through the agenda of the games, we thought about what the right sort of balance would be, and we said that, essentially, if there are more than 2 hours between games, then they will need to shut down and open again. I think that addresses some of the concerns of people who are concerned that people might arrive at a bar at 11 o’clock at night and stay there until 9 o’clock in the morning. I agree that this was not necessarily completely in tune with what we were trying to achieve. That may well happen in terms of some of the games, but what we are trying to do is minimise harm where we can.

I think that we have done some really good work over the last couple of weeks. It is a challenging idea to put together a piece of legislation this quickly. I commend the work that the select committee has done, and I commend this bill to the House.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I want to start this contribution with one of the points that Jono Naylor has just made in that speech of his, where he says that the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill does not undermine or cut across the purpose of the principal Act, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The purpose of the principal Act is harm minimisation. The Law Commission and this House were clear that one of the ways that that needed to be done was by restricting the hours that alcohol was available for sale. So it seems to me kind of cutting across that. Then what we said in the debate around the original legislation, when it went through the House in 2012, was that we would deal with events that fell outside of normal licensed hours by means of special licences. We specified that the Rugby World Cup and, indeed, international sporting fixtures more generally were precisely the kinds of things for which special licences were created. What that does, of course, is it enables licensing committees to assess an application for a special licence, according to the circumstances of the applicant, and enables the licensing committee to impose conditions that are able to meet the primary objective of the principal Act, to minimise harm associated with that extension of licensed hours.

It seems to me that when Alastair Scott said in the second reading that what this Parliament is doing is going over the heads of local government and imposing a blanket special licence to almost everyone, that is, actually, precisely what cutting across the intent of the original Act is all about. It would have been possible—if we are creating a special licence for everyone, effectively, then the onus should be on this House—to set the conditions at the level that those licensing committees would have chosen to set them at the most restrictive level, had they been assessing individual applications for special licences. This House, in this bill, is choosing not to do that. Submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee, in large numbers, told us what the conditions ought to be; this House is choosing to ignore most of what they said.

I want to come to the issue of whether or not this bill is necessary, because in a number of the contributions this afternoon and this evening I have heard members continuing to quote the same kinds of statements that we have heard from proponents of the bill—that a special licensing regime would have been the right way to do this but, sadly, it just is not working, that people are not getting licences, or that the licences that people are getting have onerous conditions. I just want to put on record the evidence that was heard by the select committee about that issue. Here is the evidence: the committee saw no evidence whatsoever that any special licence had been refused anywhere. The select committee received no submission from any licensee saying: “Well, I received the special licence, but the conditions on it were too onerous.” The committee heard from the New Zealand Police in its submission opposing the bill that special licences had been issued in all police districts except two, and in the two districts where special licences had not been issued, that was because applications had not been made, not because they had been refused. So it seems to me that the evidence, the actual evidence before this House’s select committee, actually suggests that the evidence of the problem is, in the very best instance, exaggerated.

We also heard about a licensed premises in Rotorua, I think it was, that had applied for and received special licences to open and to serve alcohol during 23 Rugby World Cup games. It has been referred to already in the second reading debate. The premises found that the conditions initially imposed by the licensing committee were more onerous than it would have preferred. It appealed against those licensing conditions and had almost all of them thrown out. So it seems to me that if indeed there is a problem in some parts of the country with, perhaps, bizarre or maybe more onerous conditions being imposed, actually that suggests that the courts themselves will, in fact, even that problem out.

When we heard in the lead-up to this bill being considered of the case that the special licensing regime was not working as this House had intended, the correct response to that problem was that we ought to have a review of implementation of the special licensing regime, and then to correct problems with it, if, indeed, they exist. That is important for a reason that Grant Robertson, in fact, has already given in this House in this reading. What next? If this is the approach that we are taking to the Rugby World Cup, the thinnest end of the wedge, will the next bill be about the Cricket World Cup or the Netball World Cup or the World Rowing Championships? What is actually happening here is that industry and people who were disgruntled with the original legislation that this House passed in 2012 are attempting to relitigate that point. So a review of the implementation of special licensing is required, and the Green Party urges the Minister of Justice to initiate such an inquiry. The Green Party agreed to allow this bill to go forward to a select committee so that the public’s views could be heard on the basis, first of all, that claims were being made that the special licensing regime was not working as intended—those have proved to be exaggerated, at best—and also on the basis of undertakings made by ACT and National. I am sad to say that those undertakings have not been honoured.

I want to move now to talk about another of the arguments that have been made by the bill’s proponents. The bill’s proponents have depicted New Zealand’s drinking culture in a way that differs extremely starkly from the picture painted by the Law Commission, by the police, by New Zealand’s medical and other health professionals, by Women’s Refuge, and by other community organisations that work with the consequences of alcohol abuse. Proponents of the bill have described New Zealand’s drinking culture as sophisticated, mature, and moderate. When they have described how this bill will work in practice, they have described people turning up to a premises, perhaps with a family atmosphere—eating breakfast, drinking coffee. As we heard from one proponent of the bill this evening, they are more likely to be suffering the ill effects of an excess of bacon and coffee when they leave. Well, I am sure we could all probably think of premises like that; I certainly can. My flat in Wellington is about a block away from Courtenay Place, and I can tell the House that arguably on most mornings of the week one has to be careful for the first few hundred metres of my walk to work to dodge the debris of the previous night’s consumption of alcohol—specifically the vomit, whether it be dry or still wet. That actually is a regular feature of inner-city Wellington.

Although we can think of plenty of premises where that is the culture, I will bet that every single member of this House can think of at least one premises where the owner will look at this bill, rub their hands, and say: “Great. I can extend the hours in which I can sell alcohol, and all I have to do is buy a TV and a Sky subscription. That’s a pretty good deal.” If proponents of the bill are serious about that culture, how about this for a two-tier system? Let us remind the police that this House wanted the special licensing regime to be available for Rugby World Cup games, and, at the same time, let us amend the principal Act. Let us amend it to allow all licensed premises to open for every single Rugby World Cup game, provided they do not sell alcohol. We would vote for that bill.

CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): Phew, that was on ordeal. I would like to start by commending Jono Naylor actually, first and foremost, for his comments and his recognition of reading a crowd so well for him to not to put us through another cricket story like we had in the second reading. And I swear to God that I would not have been surprised if you had sent him out of the House and given him 10 minutes on the bench with that sort of behaviour, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is pleasing to see that he got himself back on track and—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But the member said that Brazil played rugby.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Well, there were Brazilians and South Americans, and of course the Chileans, in the rugby—but it was great to see that he got back on track to speak about rugby.

I would also like to start by saying that it is not very often that New Zealand First shares similarities with the Green Party and its views, and, of course, today is not one of those days that we share its view. However, there are a number of sentiments that the Green Party has displayed quite eloquently today that we do actually have concerns about. And there is definitely a binge-drinking culture in this country—for anybody to say that there is not, and to bring out Wikipedia to try to beat us up with facts and figures and to suggest that we are sitting in the middle tier of the world when we talk about social drinking ailments, I think they are missing the point.

The fact of the matter is that we do have a binge-drinking culture, but it is on the decline. You have to again get back to those vectors—the direction in which we are travelling—and we are getting it under control with this binge-drinking culture. In fact, I will just bring your attention to a member’s bill that would also help address the binge-drinking culture. I am sure, once the bill, which is in my name, gets pulled out of the ballot, the House will support it because it is, of course, addressing binge-drinking culture. The reality is, if the National Party does not support it, then I am sure it will bring it up and put it in as its own policy in a few weeks’ time, as it generally does with New Zealand First policies.

The general policy statement of the Summary Offences (Drink or Drugs Affecting Behaviour) Amendment Bill says: “The binge drinking and drug culture in New Zealand, especially among the young, is causing serious anti-social and harmful behaviour in many communities throughout the country … This bill would make it an offence to be drunk or drug affected in a public place, or while trespassing on private property, to a degree that serious harm could result.”

This is about personal responsibility, and we keep hearing the gibes and the attacks on licensed premises for vomit in the street, which we have just heard from Kevin Hague, and the reality is that within the current culture 75 percent of all alcohol that is consumed is consumed off premise; it is consumed in people’s homes. It is bought from the supermarket or down at the liquor store and drunk at home. What happens after people have had a few beers is they want to go, like moths around a flame, to where social intercourse is—gathering of people and communications. I would suggest that in this House the number of members who are married and who are in loving relationships who met their loved ones either at the pub—

David Bennett: Oh, no way! Don’t tell us this story. We don’t want to hear this one.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —or at a sporting club, where you are having a few beers and you are engaging in social intercourse—

Mr Bennett, you might be one of the members mentioned in the Ashley Madison group. You might find your love in another place, but we are talking about genuine love here.

Hon Member: He hasn’t got a love.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: He has not got a love. In fact, I am sure his mum is trying to get him a house so he can move out of home. The point is that we are trying to facilitate social engagement because it is the core of our society. The ability to be able to go down and have a beer and watch the rugby with your friends, with your family, and with your mates and enjoy the camaraderie and enjoy the atmosphere of a rugby match is what this bill is actually about.

We do not agree with the way that this has come about. Excuse my language, but it is arse about face. The reality is we need to get back to the basics and actually review this bill and iron out the problems. I have been hearing a lot about the police getting the raw end of the stick on this, but they are risk averse. It is their job to minimise harm, and we are not giving them a fair suck of the sav to actually say that it is the stuff-up of this Government.

It is the stuff-up of this Government that has got us into this position where we had to throw a bill on the table at 5 minutes to midnight, scramble around, and try to mish-mash it and mosh it together. It is an absolute dog’s breakfast. New Zealand First debated this in caucus to the point where we had to decide that it is not the fault of the licensees, it is not the fault of the police, and it sure is not the fault of the rugby fans who want to enjoy a beer. So we have come along to support this bill, but it should not be here needing the support if this piece of legislation, the Supply and Sale of Alcohol Act 2012, had actually been—

Brett Hudson: Why don’t we just host the world cup?

CLAYTON MITCHELL: —remedied and sorted out, Mr Hudson, the first time. Oh, wait a minute, you were not there the first time. You are a first-time MP, and you may not be back again, the way you go, mate.

I have to say that the vast majority of people in this country enjoy a beer with no problem, enjoy the pub, enjoy the atmosphere, and we are talking about the minuscule minority that spoil it for the rest and everybody else. We are talking about one person who may have vomited. At the end of the day, you cannot judge a book by its cover, because, again, we get back to the statistics that 75 percent of all alcohol is consumed off premise. They go into town after pre-loading. They may not have even got into a licensed premises and, yes, there is a can in the street and, yes, there may be some vomit in the street.

We are not condoning that behaviour at all, but what we are saying is that it is very easy for the Greens to sit there and throw stones at the industry when in actual fact the problem is the overall binge-drinking culture, because there is no personal responsibility. I would just like to come back to the bill now and settle myself down just a fraction—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Good.

CLAYTON MITCHELL: I can see the look of joy on your face, Mr Deputy Speaker. The reality is the District Licensing Committee and the current legislation were designed to actually get engagement with the community. Those local alcohol policies that certain councils around the country have put together, after consideration and consultation with the people within their community, were designed for this very reason.

A local alcohol policy could be designed to have a licensing closing time at midnight and an opening time at 10 a.m., or they could go to the standard operational hours of 4 a.m. closing, if they decided not to get a local alcohol policy in, and an 8 a.m. opening. I think the majority of councils around the country—those that could afford the time and the resources to put one together—either made up their own plan or adopted somebody else’s plan. That is vital. What we have around the country is a number of councils that have come out in support of these special licence applications. They have come out in support of these special licence applications going through the District Licensing Committee.

However, because of the ambiguity of this legislation, the police have said that in terms of what makes and what constitutes a special licence, they do not see a rugby match on the TV as being that special, because anybody can get it. Our whole point is that we have got to make it so clear that there is no clunky ambiguity and so that the police know that New Year’s Eve is considered to be a special licence. So providing you stick within the laws of your licence, you should be able to apply for it and comfortably understand that you are going to get it. So too it may warrant the Rugby World Cup, which we are currently discussing here today. It may be the Olympics and it may be the FIFA World Cup. That is for the Government to decide, instead of leaving it up to the ambiguity of the police, councils, or others.

We do have some concerns. I have outlined those fears. It comes back to personal responsibility. We do want to just put one more point forward for the House to consider. We would like this Government to support New Zealand First’s policy to broadcast games of national significance live on free to air. We would like you to take on our policy to broadcast games of national significance live on free to air—games that the taxpayers are already paying for to support our rugby team and to support our netball teams.

If you are talking about harm minimisation, would that not be a panacea? Because people could actually stay at home, on free to view, and watch rugby in their own living room instead of packing on the jersey and popping down to the pub to watch it. There is the best of both worlds. Then, clearly, people back home can make a choice about whether they want to watch the game at the pub for the atmosphere or stay at home and watch the game for the atmosphere in their own home. [Interruption] They may be yelling and jeering and I cannot hear what you are saying, as a lot of it—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

CLAYTON MITCHELL: Yes, I could hardly hear myself think, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. I can guarantee that in time this Government will support this bill, but it will put it into its name and dress it up and try to say it was its own, but you know that New Zealand First is saying this first and foremost, because it is standing up for New Zealanders and the people who need it the most.

[Interruption] Mr Bennett, you know what you remind me of? You remind me of a funny bone, which, of course, is an oxymoron. You are little bit “oxy”, but mostly “moron”. Thank you.

ALFRED NGARO (National): That was a very interesting speech, and, true to the name of Mr Clayton Mitchell, it was a Clayton’s: it promised all the punch, it was a placebo in disguise, but at the end of the day he votes for it. New Zealand First will vote for this bill, and the only reason why we had that speech that attacked the Government on all different sides was so that he could justify the fact that—“Yes, we are voting for it; however, we do have concerns.” If you are going to vote for it, vote for it. Support it wholeheartedly. Do not get up and be half-hearted, not like when you are going to have a bit of a bet and you have one each way. That is right—one foot this way: “I will have one on the win and one on a place.” Just in case the horse does not get through right, you take one each way.

What we over here, in National, in Government, are about is making decisions and turning round and saying that actually we are putting it all on the nose, we are going ahead, and we are going to support the bill. Yes, we have had some concerns. We have heard, we have listened, but we believe that this is the right thing to do. Here is the tell of the tale. The fact is that most New Zealanders have turned round and said: “Actually, this is the right thing to do.”—this is the right thing to do. This is what this bill is about: it is about extending trading hours, simply and quite clearly. It is about the sale and supply of alcohol, and extended licensing hours during the Rugby World Cup. It is about extending those hours.

I want to acknowledge Mr David Seymour, who is here. He has put this bill up. Also, too, there has been great support. We know there has been support, because even the Greens turned round. They did the old flip-flop. First they were against it, then they had to go for it. They went for it because even their own supporters turned round and said: “Don’t be haters—don’t be haters. Don’t be joy killers. Instead, what you should be doing is supporting this bill.” So what did they have to do? The very next day, when the leave was put forward, they had to retract their opposition. Instead, they had to vote for the bill, and so they did. The Greens went into the Justice and Electoral Committee. Yes, Mr Hague was there. He heard the submissions, but again he has come out fighting. Why? Because it was not quite where they wanted it to be. He has talked about the rhetoric, and talked about the concerns. I think that is going to do some damage to their brand, because at the end of the day this is about extending trading hours. It is about giving an opportunity that is part of the celebration of who we are as Kiwis. It is part of the All Blacks. That is what it is actually all about.

We know that the Rugby World Cup is the third-largest sporting event in the world. In 2011 we made concessions. In 2011 we hosted the Rugby World Cup, and what a great occasion it was. I know that before the dinner break Mr Peeni Henare was talking about some of that celebration. In fact, I would like to acknowledge that if it were not for the Tongan community that came out, which gridlocked Auckland International Airport—there was a sea of red. The colour may not have been right, but the passion was. That is what was there. There was a great passion that was there. What those people did was they celebrated the welcoming of their team coming in. They had brass bands. They turned round and said: “This is great. This is for our community.”

You see, this is what the medium of rugby will allow us to do. Even small communities, like our Tongan community, like the Fijian community, and even like the Samoan community, were out there. Their teams were able to be celebrated. New Zealand is a diverse culture of people, and inside of that, rugby has become one vehicle, a vehicle—a very powerful vehicle—for them to be able to acknowledge and celebrate and also for their young men and women to be able to excel in sports and also to travel the world. We think it is a great thing to do.

I also want to put on record the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup. Mr Mallard will know about this. In 1995 Nelson Mandela—Mr Mallard will remember that, the letter that was sent. Here is the reason why. The nation of South Africa wanted not only to celebrate and host that world cup, but also to say, through Nelson Mandela’s words: “Let’s invite the world to come to us.” They put the invitation out to all the different parliaments.

Hon Trevor Mallard: And they had Suzie deliver the food.

ALFRED NGARO: That is right. Something about the food, Mr Mallard. The invitation went out to all the different parliaments of the world to come and use the medium of rugby as a way of uniting nations together.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no. The invitation came from London.

ALFRED NGARO: London, South Africa—we know what the story is, OK. Do not destroy the story there, Mr Mallard. Do not destroy the story. He is the legend—Nelson Mandela. It came from Damien O’Connor, who told us the story, OK? He told us the story. Damien O’Connor shared it with us. Nelson Mandela welcomed all these different parliamentary teams, and it was the medium and the sport of rugby that allowed the nations to be united in one place at one time. What a great story. What a great place to be able to do it. Here again, rugby is the medium to allow us to be able to exercise that great ability as well.

So here are some of the bits of the bill that I think are also very important. We heard in the Justice and Electoral Committee about special licensing. There are a lot of acronyms here—DLCs, LAPs. Here is an opportunity in the hands of those communities. We are not removing the ability for those district licensing committees, with their local alcohol plans, to be able to put those plans together, so they can work with them. We also realised that some of them actually had not put those plans together, so here was a chance for them to be able to put in place local alcohol plans that would address some of the issues of concern. Yes, it is about the binge drinking. Yes, it is about the hours. It is even about noise control, as well. We think those things are important.

Submitters expressed their belief that special licences negated the need for the bill. However, concerns were raised that some district licensing committees were requiring licensees to provide complementary entertainment. In other words, they made it slightly difficult for licensed premises to be able to receive their licences. We think this bill will be important for addressing those issues as well.

There was also a concern around eligible games. At first, in the journey of that select committee to hear submissions, we thought: “Well, let’s restrict that eligibility.” In fact, it came directly from the Green Party: “We would vote for it if we could restrict those games to around about 16—around about 16 games.” Why? Because then you could do four pool games, and then maybe 12 other games. That would allow you to have 16 games that were in there—the semi-finals, quarter-finals, and also the final. We went back and we discussed this. That would be discriminatory. It actually would not allow for some of the smaller nations, like Tonga, like Fiji, and like Samoa, that have got different pool games. Why do we not make this eligible for all 48 games? We believe that that is important. It will enable licensees to open up for all matches during the Rugby World Cup. We think that is important as well.

The other area, and Mr Hague made the point, is that licensees will just buy a little TV—maybe a 20-inch flat-screen TV—and put it in the corner, and they will be able to do that. We know that it is really clear that it clarifies in this bill that the games must be a live, audiovisual feed, not delayed or replayed, and the displaying of those licence conditions is also made important in this bill.

I think one of the things that are important that has been raised by Mr Mitchell was around binge drinking. We know that controlling binge-drinkers just by putting more restrictions and regulations in place is not part of it. Instead, it is by role modelling and having good behaviour. So trading hours become really important to this issue. In short, the select committee has made the trading hours more workable. The bill as introduced specifies that the licensee would have their licensing hours extended for 1 hour before and 1 hour after a game that has been broadcast outside normal licensing hours.

I want to touch on the issue of noise management. We know that there are some concerns, because of the odd hours, about where some of these licensed facilities may be, and around noise control. Again, we wanted to make sure that we did not burden our communities. The noise-management provisions have given the extension of licensing hours, so the committee has recommended that there is no discarding of empty bottles during the extended hours or use of outdoor courtyard areas either.

There are just a final few comments that I would like to make in my speech on this bill. I think one of the areas was around the one-way door policy. We know that there are a number of people who will frequent a number of other liquor-licensed premises. We wanted to make sure that many licensed premises are subject to the one-way door policy as a condition of their licence or as implemented by their local alcohol policy as well. Although there are generally good reasons for one-way door policies where they apply to premises, they do not fit well with the intent of this bill.

We have had this bill come through. Yes, it has been a truncated process, but the intent has been right. I want to acknowledge Mr Seymour. He has come through. I know there was some comment about his bill being like a Magna Doodle that he had to shift and change in some ways. I think that is part of the process of ensuring that we could get enough support in here to make sure that this bill—which, at the end of the day is around celebrating, I suppose, the culture of rugby and also its part in New Zealand’s culture—provides the opportunity for New Zealanders who cannot go to the Rugby World Cup to still celebrate that by the extension of trading hours under this Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill. I support this bill and commend this bill to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly, I want to acknowledge David Seymour and congratulate him on this bill—your first member’s bill, Mr Seymour. Secondly, I want to acknowledge the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and I want to acknowledge the work that was done by people behind the scenes to do the best that they could to bring this bill to the House. I know there was a lot of discussion at the meeting—it was a great collaborative process—however, the bill that has come to the House is slightly different from the one that was recommended, and I think that is a shame because it did address many concerns that those of us around the House have had and have discussed here this evening.

I also want to talk about matters of licensing and matters of this nature—the ability to have a conscience vote. I want to thank our whips team for allowing a process to occur where members were able to cast a personal vote, because I do not support this bill and I wanted the opportunity to express my reasons for doing so and for justifying why I am not supporting this bill. I could not, in all good conscience, being a former victim advocate for the family violence sector, stand up here and support a piece of legislation that allows access to alcohol in the way that this bill does. I want to advise that my contribution will be around the relationship between alcohol, alcohol harm, and family and domestic violence, and the perfect storm that is formed when we put something like a national sports extravaganza, as the Rugby World Cup will be, into the mix.

I want to just supply some statistics in the debate, and to advise people that I know that these statistics are not unknown to many of us, but there are over 101,000 family violence investigations by the police each year. Having run a women’s refuge in the past and having had access to each and every one of what were known then as the POL 400—the police investigations—I know that in half of those investigations by the police, when you get the police summaries, they have what members who were previously police will know is a notation of 1K, which indicates the presence of alcohol in a family violence situation. So we are talking about at least 50,000 incidents of family violence that are directly connected to the misuse of alcohol.

Women’s Refuge—from the statistics of the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges—takes nearly 80,000 calls a year from women, mostly, who are impacted by family violence. We add to this the impact on the children in our families. Child, Youth and Family receives nearly 150,000 reports of concern each year, and about one-third of those require further action. I want to talk about our children in this debate. The chief social worker, Paul Nixon, talks about the unholy trinity that impacts the safety of our kids. The unholy trinity is mental health, family violence, and alcohol and substance abuse. Add to that that we know that anyone who is involved in a significant family violence situation at home is obviously also impacted by sexual violence as well.

Let us add all of this together—the fact that we have this huge prevalence of family violence—to the fact that we put alcohol in the mix. I was also really concerned to hear the member from the other side of the House say that binge drinking is not harmful in this country. I wanted to say, actually—in fact, I did shout it across the House at the time—that the statistics from the Health Promotion Agency in New Zealand are very clear that one in five drinkers in the past year has had hazardous drinking patterns and that 26 percent of men who were drinkers in the past year are more likely to have had hazardous drinking patterns than women. Among past-year drinkers, hazardous drinking was most common amongst men and women aged 18 to 24 years, and men aged between 18 and 34 years had a particularly high rate of hazardous drinking, at over 40 percent. So there is no doubt in my mind that we do have an issue with alcohol. We have an issue with alcohol, which then becomes an issue in the home with family violence, with 50,000, at least, of family violence investigations in New Zealand involving alcohol. Alcohol is a contributing factor.

Then we have to add to that the fact that when New Zealand plays well, all is well in the home, but when New Zealand does not play well, all is not well in the home. Jono Naylor mentioned that after a loss that the New Zealand rugby team had had at one of the previous Rugby World Cups, there was sense of depression in the country; and I agree, there was. However, I was working at the time for a single-parents organisation called Birthright, and I recall engaging with women in particular who had in the family home, as direct result of their partner’s team not winning that particular rugby game, an increase in family violence. So I cannot stand here and support this bill, knowing that allowing premises to open for longer and permitting them to sell alcohol for much longer periods of time in the morning, is not conducive to family harmony.

The other thing I cannot reconcile with is the fact that members in this House have been talking about children going to licensed premises in the morning, and it being OK for them to be part of the normalisation of alcohol in our families. It is not OK. It is not OK to think that it is fine to take your kids into situations like that. Why have we not actually thought about those clubs and those sports venues that would be able to open and show these games to all and sundry and not sell alcohol? Why are we not supporting that to happen? What we are supporting here is businesses to profit from the misery of families, and I cannot put that point strongly enough. I am, along with my colleague Meka Whaitiri, one of the only voices here to speak against this bill—and I totally tautoko the stance of the Green Party on this.

The last thing I want to say is that this matter should be about conscience, and we should not be saying to members of the House that their values do not count in this debate. It has really distressed me to hear that because our values do count, and I will continue to support the women, the children, and the men who are impacted by family violence in this country. I will not support this bill and I am really disappointed that this process has been so truncated that many of these concerns could not be raised in the appropriate way. Kia ora, and thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call from the Green Party.

JAN LOGIE (Green): In a very similar vein to my Labour colleague Poto Williams, I rise to take a call in the third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill. As I have said already, the Green Party is opposing this bill, and I am proud of that. I know that not everyone agrees with our position on this and that many people are presenting us as wowsers for our position, but I am proud to stand and represent those who believe in local decision-making and those who want to unhinge the harmful relationship between alcohol and rugby, particularly in relation to domestic violence in this country.

As a country we do have a problematic drinking culture and there are strong links between alcohol and violence in this country. The police have reported that 33 percent of all family violence incidents involve alcohol and 50 percent of all serious violent crime involves alcohol. We know—the evidence tells us—that late-night and early-morning consumption of alcohol is linked with increased levels of intoxication and alcohol-related harm. That is the evidence. There is strong evidence that levels of risk and harm associated with family violence are increased when alcohol is involved and that extended opening hours increase alcohol-related harm. There is clear evidence that links the impacts of rugby and drinking and connects it to family violence—ask any women’s refuge after we have lost a match. They know, and the women and children who are living through it know.

According to the Family Violence Death Review Committee, just last year, 31 percent of family violence deaths in New Zealand between 2009 and 2012 occurred “in the context of a social gathering of people, who had generally been drinking alcohol for an extended period of time—during the day and into the evening.” So, here we are, overriding an existing Act, the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012, where there are adequate provisions included to obtain special licences for special events such as the Rugby World Cup. Special events are associated with increased risk of alcohol-related harm and, as such, they require additional oversight and management. That was the agreement that this House came to in 2012 when it passed the Act that is currently being overridden in a very truncated process by this House. It was a 5-year process, going through the Law Commission’s work and having extensive debate within this House, that is now being overridden on a whim, I would suggest. I have heard my colleague Kevin Hague say: “And so what will be next?”. Is it the Cricket World Cup? Will it be the Hockey World Cup? How many other times will we have this come to us?

Marama Fox: Darts.

JAN LOGIE: Darts, we are having suggested here. I heard a National Party member saying “Well, I hope so.”, because that is actually the intent of this bill, to override the legislation that took us 5 years of debate and so much public consultation to get to, to help us reduce the harm that is caused by alcohol.

When the Police presented to the Justice and Electoral Committee they informed the select committee that they did not support this bill because they believed that the measures in place at the moment enabled them to assess the risk in the community and ensure that appropriate provisions were put in place to ensure safe, healthy drinking. Well, now this Parliament and those politicians voting for this are saying they know better. They know better than the local communities, they know better than the Law Commission, they know better than all the people who submitted on the 2012 legislation, and they know better than the Police, after a few days of debate and discussion, because they heard from the hospitality industry.

The Green Party is proud to be opposing this and to stand up for that disconnecting of the sense that you need a drink to enjoy a game of rugby and that our national identity and patriotism is dependent on having a drink. It is not. We can be proud. There are some people saying: “You know, look, I’ll have a drink. I’ll be healthy—there’s no harm there.” Well, I would then ask you to think of those few people for whom there will be harm, those women and children, and think about what you could do to support them, and it is to vote against this bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: 5 minute call, Māori Party—Marama Fox.

MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): You know, Jan Logie has articulated a very compelling argument. Poto Williams also has expressed the views that we hold. We gave Mr Seymour the ability to respond to some of our concerns. We worked with the Justice and Electoral Committee to try to address those concerns as we went through. In fact, one of the times when I was otherwise engaged in the House and missed the meeting by 5 minutes, I went back to the select committee to find that everything had been turned round after we had already made those decisions and had those debates. I think that that, actually, points to the heart of the issue for me.

Despite all of the talk that we have had about communities coming together and being able to watch the game, which I do support, by passing this bill through tonight what we may do is actually loosen alcohol licensing rules. We have had all the good scenarios, but, actually, we do this to protect against the worst-case scenarios. Despite the fact that we want communities to come together, we are actually loosening alcohol rules to extend the sale of alcohol. Why? So that we can watch games of rugby. I love rugby—absolutely love it. I would go watch a game of rugby in my home town any time, night or day, but this does not make sense.

Let us have a look at some of the issues that we raised before. The misuse of alcohol has devastating effects on our whānau. One in five Māori will have an alcohol disorder at some stage in their life. One in 10 will become dependent on alcohol. Those most likely to have alcohol abuse and dependence issues are those living in the poorest households and communities. We also know that domestic violence incidents arise when alcohol consumption increases. Our whānau suffer when we have lax alcohol laws. There are enormous harms associated with alcohol consumption. We cannot support this bill. We cannot support it going through in the way that it has done. We wanted to try to work with the select committee to put some processes around doing this because, yes, communities coming together is a good thing, but why with the sale of alcohol? Why would we need to have, potentially, some licensed premises open for almost 48 hours? That, potentially, could happen.

We tried to say “Limit the number of games that on-licence premises and clubs can be open for.”, but, no, that was turned round. We tried to say “Give the emergency services and the Police time to put things in place.” because the impact that this is going to have on them, by making the special licence 14 days’ notification—well, that has not gone as well; it is back down to 7. We cannot apply these blanket, open-slather rules that we have done and not expect harm. We are here and we are opposing this because we absolutely believe that what will happen is an increased risk to our most vulnerable people, to our children, and to our families.

Through the 2012 reforms the Māori Party put up a number of Supplementary Order Papers. Following the reform of those laws there was a significant decrease in the incidence of harm. In the 10 weeks following there was a 24 percent fall in alcohol-related offences between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m. In central Wellington alone there was a 31 percent fall in alcohol-related offences, and in central Auckland there was an 11 percent drop. That was in only the 10 weeks following those reforms in 2012.

I want to say to you that there is real harm associated with excess alcohol consumption, and what we are proposing here tonight is to loosen the laws around alcohol rules, and I believe firmly that there is already provision if you want a special licence, and we are just ignoring that process. Thank you.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Today we have heard a number of arguments that are serious arguments made by people who are against the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. We recognise those arguments, and I do not think anybody in this House would want to look at those arguments and dissuade the public from the importance of discussing them, and also from acknowledging the role that people have had in this House in wanting to make sure that we actually deal with some of those issues. I think they are serious things that everybody in this House takes seriously and would not want to see happen.

Then the other side of this argument is that we are dealing with a bill here tonight that is basically one about freedom of choice. Rugby is New Zealand’s national game. The Rugby World Cup is the 1-in-4 year scenario that comes round when New Zealanders celebrate their national game on the world stage. This is the time when people come together, whether they are rugby fans or not. They come together in their communities and they support their country on the world stage. To deny our people the ability to celebrate our heritage, our culture, and our future and history in a public place is to deny our people the very essence of being New Zealanders. Why would we want to do that to our people, at their very time of enjoyment and pride in their country? It is not about whether we win or lose. It is about wearing the black jersey out there and representing New Zealand at the highest levels. New Zealanders are proud of their sports teams, and they are prouder of no other team than the New Zealand All Blacks team. Why not be part of that pride? Why not let New Zealanders celebrate the success that has been our national game for years and years, and will be, going into the future? This is what this bill is about. It is not an attempt to hijack the liquor laws that have been passed in this Parliament in recent years. It is in no way an attempt to limit or discourage what those laws attempted to achieve in regard to public and, especially, family and women’s security in the home and other places.

This is a bill that is about giving New Zealanders some enjoyment, some pride, and some belief in their country. Why do we want to sit in this House and deny our people the very thing that they want to see happen? Nobody forces anybody to go to a bar at 6 o’clock in the morning. Nobody forces any New Zealander to have a drink at that bar. That is a choice that that person may or may not make. That person may well be at home drinking all night and going through to the morning. They may well make those choices in their life, but this is not something—and members across the room laugh. Well, that will not be a laughing matter. That is a reality, where a lot of those domestic violence cases happen—because it will be after a long night of drinking, and then the game in the morning, when many of those things happen. It is not that people get up at 4 o’clock in the morning, suddenly desire to go to the pub, and then come home and have those kinds of situations arise.

This is an attack, by those people who are voting against this bill, on the fundamental values of what it means to be a New Zealander. Shame on the Green Party. Why would the Green Party want to vote against a bill that enables New Zealanders to enjoy the culture and heritage of their country? Why would the Green Party want to attack people in their own place, doing their own thing? We see members of the Green Party who are laughing. Members who were not born in this country do not understand the culture and heritage of this country. They do not get what it actually means to be a New Zealander, to go to the pub and to sit and watch a game wearing a black jersey, to actually understand what this game means to our people and our country. I want to congratulate David Seymour on bringing this bill forward to the House. There are local rules around that enable bars to go through this process and to be able to have licences; nobody is not acknowledging that. Those rules exist, and they have been used by many bars in many places. But there are some cases where they have not been used, and in many of those types of instances we will get to a situation where we will be in the world cup, we will be playing games, and New Zealanders will not be able to enjoy watching their own team.

It is not just about the New Zealanders supporting the All Blacks. There are many New Zealanders in this country who have other teams that they support. There will be a lot of South Africans in New Zealand who will support the South African team. There will be a lot of Tongans. There will be a lot of Samoans. There will be a lot of Fijian families and communities who will want to see their teams play out in the competition. It is unfair to try to limit these rules to one or two games, or to games that only the New Zealand All Blacks play in, and not to let all New Zealanders watch all games that are part of a competition that we excel in. That is the point of what we are here tonight to discuss. This is not an attack on the laws around liquor licensing. This is not an attempt to dispel any of the arguments that have been made, which are strong and substantial, about the rights of many of our people in our community. But it is about the ability of New Zealanders to go out there and enjoy their national game, to enjoy the camaraderie and the ability to get together as Kiwis, and to support our country in our national game in an environment that we can all be proud of—to support our team, whatever the result may be. When you look at the Rugby World Cup, that is the third-largest sporting event in the world, and New Zealand is defending its title this year. We have a great record in recent games. We have a team that is performing well, and we have one of the greatest-ever All Blacks who will be playing in his final competition. Imagine Richie McCaw going in to that last game, going out there and winning the world cup for New Zealand, and New Zealanders not being able to be at the bar to watch it. What would you tell your grandchildren? You could not watch Richie McCaw play because—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Two points: first of all, the member has taken about 7 minutes and made only quite passing reference to the bill; secondly, the member is not to bring my family into this debate.

DAVID BENNETT: I would never bring your family into it, Mr Assistant Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! That is exactly what the member did. He should think before he speaks.

DAVID BENNETT: This bill is about the sale and supply of alcohol during the Rugby World Cup. One of the key things around that world cup will be some of the players playing in that, and some of our All Black players who will be playing their last games. Richie McCaw and Dan Carter, potentially, will be in that team on that day, in that game, and New Zealanders want to be able to watch that and see that history of our country going forward.

Pita Paraone: What about Mealamu?

DAVID BENNETT: Pardon?

Pita Paraone: What about Nonu? What about Mealamu?

DAVID BENNETT: He will be there as well, yes. There are others, as well. That is what we mean. There are a number of New Zealanders who will be supporting the All Blacks in this game.

We have got to look at these games. They are going to be in a different time zone—that is, different from the one, traditionally, in we have watched many of our other games, which have been southern hemisphere games. These games are going to be played in the northern hemisphere. They will be at times that are not in tune with the laws that have been passed in the past, which have presumed a New Zealand environment with a New Zealand time zone. So this Parliament should be able to exercise some flexibility around this piece of legislation so that we can enable New Zealanders to watch these games at these important times, because it is part of the culture and heritage of our country going forward. The Justice and Electoral Committee has considered the submissions made in regard to this bill and has made some recommendations. We have come to a situation now, in the bill, where all games will be covered. That is important, I think, for all New Zealanders, so that those who may not be supporting the All Blacks are also able to watch the games that they take an interest in.

I would like to congratulate David Seymour on bringing this bill before the House. I think he has done a great job in doing so. This is a great bill in the sense of a member’s bill, in the sense that it enables New Zealanders to actually exercise that pride and belief in their country and in their national game. They can do that when they can exercise those rights, and they can do that in a way that is of benefit to themselves and their enjoyment, but also that is part of being a New Zealander. It is something we should not deny in this House through the use of other legislation and other arguments, which are not the intent of this bill. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Might I say from the outset that I will be supporting this bill. Despite all my concerns around the overuse of alcohol and the effects it may have on people, I still believe that people do have the right to go and watch the All Blacks at a bar or wherever it may be. I support that.

I would like just to touch on a few things that the previous speaker, David Bennett, raised, such as the pride of pulling on the black jersey with the silver fern and running out on to the field. I have no doubt whatsoever that he was talking about the Parliamentary Rugby Team’s Golden Oldies team. I would just like to make special note of the awesome effort that his colleague Alfred Ngaro made out there on the field on Sunday. The whole time he was out there on the field, he put everything into it, and showed superb skills and levels of fitness. I would like to congratulate Alfred Ngaro and acknowledge his contribution on the field the other day.

I think it is important that people are able to watch the games live and at a pub. There is a saying in our household that there is no point watching a replay of the game because yelling at a replay never affects the outcome of the game, so it is important that people get the opportunity to watch it live and to enjoy it live.

I also acknowledge a point that Grant Robertson made earlier, which was that people will probably have a hangover more from coffee and bacon and eggs rather than alcohol because many of the games are going to be played in the morning, between 6 o’clock and 8 o’clock, when most people actually will not have been out at night drinking and then wanting to watch the game. Instead, they will probably get up early and go down to the local pub—probably go down as a family, have breakfast, have coffee, have bacon, and watch the game and enjoy it in quite a sensible family situation. Notwithstanding, there will be people who do want to go there for a drink. I know a District Court judge up in the north who said that if alcohol was suddenly banished from New Zealand, 90 percent of his work would disappear along with it. So I do acknowledge the comments and the concerns that the Green Party does have about this. I do not really think that the problems will be as bad as it makes out.

Most New Zealanders will want to go and watch the All Blacks games, and there are seven of them. You know, for Fiji versus Namibia and games like that, I doubt that there will a lot of people who will really get themselves excited and drunk over the outcomes. People may have a slight interest in the games, but most people will actually just stay at home to watch those games rather than going out. Maybe the South Africans when they are playing—there is a large South African community on the North Shore. Perhaps those people will go down to their local pub. But I really do not think that the majority of people will be there just trying to get sloshed.

I think that most people will be quite sensible about it and will enjoy the occasion for what it is, as David Bennett said. He said that it is an occasion that comes around every 4 years; it is a celebration of part of what it is to be a New Zealander. Our country has developed—the All Blacks have been part of our culture right from the 1880s, when they first started out. It was 1905 when the Originals team left and toured Great Britain. The 3 nil loss to Wales was one of the saddest days of my life, I have to say, and I am struggling to get over it still, along with the 1949 whitewash against the Springboks and the 1971 loss to the Lions. They still really, really cut and—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Just maybe—

KELVIN DAVIS: Bring it into the bill, Mr Assistant Speaker?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Yes.

KELVIN DAVIS: When we are talking rugby, you know, I tend to get a bit carried away there. However, moving to the eligibility for premises being allowed to open—the bill would apply to on-licences and club licensed premises that intend to, and do, televise the Rugby World Cup matches. The Justice and Electoral Committee deliberated over limiting the number of games that could be screened but decided against such a restriction, so all the games will be shown. I think it was going to be limited to 16 games initially; now all the games are going to be shown live. I just think that is sensible, for the reasons I outlined earlier, which is that there will be some, shall we say, minor nations that are going to be playing, and I really do not expect thousands and thousands of New Zealanders to be pouring out of the pubs in the morning and getting all excited and overcome with emotion watching those games.

Licensed premises that have had their hours varied in the previous 12 months, under section 280 of the principal Act, are ineligible for the provisions of the bill; that is, the premises have been sanctioned for breaching their licence and they will not be allowed to open. As proposed in the original bill, licensees would have to notify their district licensing committee and the Police 7 days before each game that they wish to open for, outside their normal licensing hours, and they will not have any appeal rights.

There is one concern that I did see on the news tonight, which was that due to the timing of some games in the last weekend, whether premises may be allowed to be open for some 60-odd hours—there is that potential; I am not sure where Paddy Gower was going with that one—or whether premises may have to close for a certain amount of time in between games. According to the report on the news tonight, some premises could be allowed to be open for some 60 hours. That would be a concern. I do not think that premises should be able to be open for that amount of time, and I hope that is not an anomaly that has been allowed to creep into this bill.

Licensees would be required to close for the sale of alcohol 30 minutes after the end of each game. However, if the games are close together that may not actually be the case, so I do have questions around that. The bill says the licensee may remain open if the game starts within the licensing hours. If the game starts within 2 hours after a premises’ normal licensing hours end, then the premises may have its licensing hours extended through to 1 hour after the end of each game, which is basically allowing people just to finish up their drinks and move on.

There were concerns around noise management. Premises would not be allowed to have music blaring. If the police came in to check what was going on and people were there dancing and raging, and the television was on in the corner, that would not be allowed to happen. The premises would be closed. Also, with the disposal of bottles—I do not know whether people have had to clean up after a party when there are a number of beer bottles to be emptied and they all get dumped into a bin at the same time. It makes a hang of a racket. If the premises are near enough even to apartments in the city, then it makes quite a racket, even if you are a few floors up.

The one way - door policy will apply as normal, but it will not apply 1 hour before, during, and 1 hour after each notified game. Licensees who do not comply with the terms of the bill—section 259 of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act sets the infringement fine for the offence at $250, or $5,000 if it goes through to the court. Licensees who have been granted special licences can choose whether they want to operate under that licence or under the provisions of the bill. Licensees may still apply for special licences if they do not wish to operate under the provisions of the bill. The refunding of special licences made redundant by the provisions of the bill would be determined by the relevant local authority.

Before I conclude, I think it is timely that we actually just wish the All Blacks the best. I know they are being named here in Parliament in a couple of days’ time. As Jan Logie said, the spirit of the nation actually drops a bit if the All Blacks lose, so the best thing to do is to wish them the best and hope that they do not lose so that we can continue to carry on in the next 4 years in a positive frame of mind. Certainly, the years 1991, 1995, 1999, 2003, and 2007 were some of the saddest of my life because we could not claim ourselves to be the world champions in rugby. So I wish the All Blacks all the best. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I call Sarah Dowie—5 minutes.

SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise to speak on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill. I do not know if this is the pinnacle of my career or not, but if you boil it down it is surprising that we are debating the concept of 30 men on a paddock wrestling over an oval ball. Depending on how you look at that, that could be a really good thing or it could be not so good. Anyway, despite the arguments of the other side in respect of the issues of domestic violence and alcoholism—I acknowledge those—we cannot get away from the fact that rugby is our national game, especially in the place where I hail from, Southland, where rugby is used as a vehicle for socialising in a constructive way. I think it is only fair that this legislation is going to enable people to come together to watch our national team and celebrate in their prowess on the rugby field.

I understand that there are 20 teams in the world cup. I did not know that before. I had to google it. As you can tell, I am not exactly a rugby follower, but I have in the past got tied up in the important games. In fact, I do remember the last world cup. I was pregnant at the time and got really sick, and that is why I remember it, but I did take the time to watch the All Blacks and I did get very excited. It was wonderful to see them do so well. As a New Zealander I support them. I think it is only fair that people are allowed to come together, and New Zealand pubs are one place where people do that. I do not think, necessarily, that people are going to come together and get out of control. There are measures in this bill that look to minimise alcohol harm. The member opposite has outlined some of those methods—talking about closing conditions, the call for the last round, and the police, who retain the right to close down premises if there is a prima facie breach of those licensed terms and conditions.

Regardless, it is good that people can come together and enjoy the comradery and watch their team. It is a bit of fun, at the end of the day, but provided people keep it as a bit of fun, and acknowledging that there can be some issues, I think I would rather people be in a controlled premises and be supervised when they are drinking rather than doing things like pre-loading or drinking all day and all night, staying at home ready to watch the game perhaps there. We are talking about people who will get up in the morning and go and view games at odd hours because they are passionate about the rugby. They want to be involved in that comradery with their friends and absorb the atmosphere that the games will bring. Of course, the Rugby World Cup is going to be held over in England and at Twickenham. They do not have the same hours as us, so, of course, we need to cut the red tape and allow responsible hosts and responsible premises to open their doors and allow people to come through them and watch the matches.

I want to talk a little bit more about some of the mitigation methods in the bill. I have talked about the police retaining the right to shut down premises. That maintains, if there is a breach on the face of it, the onus going on the host. Hosts have to be responsible when they are opening their doors. They have to keep an eye on their patrons to make sure they are being responsible, and they have to watch how much alcohol they serve. It needs to be done in a responsible manner and, in the same breath, these people need to make a personal choice and take personal responsibility as to their actions.

At the end of the day, rugby is our national sport. Whether you love it or hate it, it is part of our culture. It is part of Southland especially. As I talked about it, it is a vehicle for socialising. At the end of the day, I just hope that everyone has a bit of fun and does not take it too far. So I support this bill.

MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour to rise to speak and take the final call on this third reading of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill. This bill will extend trading hours during the Rugby World Cup 2015. It is a bill that will cut red tape and that will enable and support many Kiwis who might not have Sky at home to go out and cheer on the All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup 2015. That is important because the All Blacks are best rugby team in the world. My region, Canterbury, is the best rugby region in the world. It is disappointing that we do not have an international rugby stadium at the moment, missing out on All Black games, but I am sure that as part of the recovery and as part of the anchor projects we will get there.

Also, in my electorate of Waimakariri we have many communities of British and South African supporters. It is quite right that under this legislation trading hours will be expanded for not only All Black games but for any game that there is a crowd for. It is great that those local communities will be off to cheer on their local sides.

I was probably destined to speak on this bill. It covers two key areas that I focus on. One is rugby—primarily the Rugby World Cup—and the second area is having a responsible beer in a licensed premises. I started playing rugby—a big part of my life—when I was 5. I was a 5-year veteran of the Christchurch under-9 team. Many will recognise the name “Doocey”. My father was Tom Doocey, an international rugby referee in the 1970s and 1980s. He was the first southern hemisphere referee to go and referee the Five Nations Championship. Not only that, he went on to coordinate the 1995 Rugby World Cup in South Africa. Who would forget that Rugby World Cup? It was a Rugby World Cup that unified a divided nation after apartheid. Who could forget “Suzie”, the tea lady who went out and poisoned the All Blacks and caused them to lose in that final?

This bill cuts red tape. It acknowledges the importance of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand communities. I remember vividly the inaugural Rugby World Cup in 1987. I was 15 years old. I remember us going out and beating France 29-9 in the final, and I remember the names from that world cup.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am now going to invite the member to address the bill. He has mentioned it twice but I think would be really good if he could speak to it.

MATT DOOCEY: Yes. Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a bill that we know will congregate New Zealand supporters; it will allow New Zealand supporters to go into a local pub that will open up and trade outside its registered hours. That is important because, as we know, this competition will be played in the northern hemisphere.

I know myself that I had the benefit of this kind of legislation when I lived in London during the 2011 Rugby World Cup. I joined hundreds of New Zealanders over in Finchley Road. We all convened at the Walkabout bar that morning. We were all up in the middle of the night having our lattes, our English breakfast teas, and our English breakfasts. We cheered on the All Blacks. It is important that this legislation allows people who are unable to access Sky television to go to their local pub and join other Kiwis to support their national team.

It does not matter whether you were at home in 2011 watching that game, whether you were in a bar in London up all night because of the time zone, or whether you were at a game, because we stood up as a nation and we shed a tear as McCaw raised his arms in victory. What a fantastic bill this is, because we know that the All Blacks need support over in the UK. Look what happened in 2007 in Cardiff at Millennium Stadium, where we got kicked out in the quarter-finals.

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

Carmel Sepuloni: Personal vote. Personal vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, you have to wait until I declare. The Ayes have it.

Carmel Sepuloni: Personal vote. Personal vote called for.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): No. I have come to the conclusion after being in the House for the second reading that the result was clear. Only one party was exercising a conscience vote, and the generous interpretation of the method for counting the party vote that my colleague in the Chair at that time had will be repeated now. The Clerk will conduct a party vote.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 99

New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 23 (Ardern, Clark, Cosgrove, Cunliffe, Curran, Davis, Faafoi, Goff, Henare, King, Little, Moroney, Nash, O’Connor D, Parker, Robertson, Rurawhe, Sepuloni, Shearer, Tirikatene, Twyford, Wall, Woods); New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Other 3: Hipkins, Lees-Galloway, Mallard.

Noes 21

New Zealand Labour 2 (Dyson, Sio); Green Party 13; Māori Party 2; Other 4: Mahuta, Salesa, Whaitiri, Williams.

Bill read a third time.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 99, Noes 20.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very grateful to all those—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Does the member have a point of order?

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yes. There will be a brief celebration of the passage of the bill at my house, 11.07.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): The member is now being disorderly.

Bills

Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 12 August.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): When the House was last considering this bill Simon O’Connor had the floor and has 4 minutes and 50 seconds remaining to speak.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I have to say that the first 10 seconds of my speech, I think, was one of the highlights of my career. I thought it was going to be quite an oration; it turned into a peroration, but I am pleased to be able to take the remaining 4 minutes and 50 seconds to support this bill.

I am very pleased to have in the House Chris Bishop, who is the member supporting this bill. I think it is important to acknowledge the work and the leadership that he is showing here today around what is officially titled the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill, here in its first reading. I have often said in the House when it is members’ day that it is a rare privilege for many members of Parliament to actually have a bill put in the ballot and then have it drawn out. For a first-term MP, to have this opportunity is an important one, and I think, importantly, this is a bill of import in itself. That is not to take away from other bills, but we are talking about something rather important here.

For myself, very early on in my political career, or interest, I was working with Dr Jackie Blue and supporting her in Mt Roskill, and one of the early visitors to her office was Andrew Tookey, who is a well-known advocate around organ donation. He made quite an eloquent series of assertions and gave his thoughts to Jackie, and I was quite taken by that. It has been an area that I have been interested in myself over the years, partly because of that but also because of different friends whom I have known and worked with who have gone through, particularly, liver transplants. It has been quite life-transformative. Therefore, it would be remiss of me not to mention Oliver Ibbetson, who is a New Zealander but is currently in Taiwan. He himself has had a liver transplant and I am sure would be very keen on this bill.

It is coming to the Health Committee; I think that is actually an appropriate place for it to come. I know some questions have been raised about why this is not, say, within the Social Services Committee, because the bill itself is quite particular—it is, ultimately, asking that financial assistance be appropriately given. I will not go into all the details—there are many other speakers after me—but the long and the short is that if at the moment you are a live organ donor, you do not get the full recompense that you might in other circumstances. I think the beauty of this bill that Mr Bishop has put forward is that it provides some symmetry between the altruistic act of organ donation and other forms of care, and therefore I think it is appropriate that the Health Committee takes it on board. I imagine, in that, we will be hearing from the likes of the Ministry of Social Development, which facilitates these payments, to understand what is going to happen and the repercussions, but I think that this bill will be discussed in the wider health context.

I think that for listeners or viewers it is important to get a very quick distinction between live organ donorship and that which is not live organ donorship. This is where, effectively, rational adults are able to make a choice and a decision and are prepared, for various reasons, to donate an organ.

As someone who has studied quite a bit of ethics other the years, I say that there are a few ethical issues in this space. Non - live organ donation raises a whole lot of issues. They are not any that necessarily block it, but I think it is important to acknowledge in the House that there are more divergent views in that space. But I certainly, as the chair of the committee, would welcome not only strong, positive feedback on this bill and any suggestions of change to come to the committee but also some of those wider discussions that could be had, because I would like to think that this bill is the beginning of a conversation.

I think it rightly provides a mechanism, as the title suggests, for proper and full recompense—sorry, I should correct myself there. It is not full; I do not think one can ever fully compensate someone around an act like this, but it provides a more appropriate financial package and assistance to someone who has made this choice. But, again, I think we cannot have that financial conversation without at least touching on some of the wider issues of organ donation in this country. One of the issues that we have had is that New Zealand has a rather low organ donation rate. It approaches what the likes of Andrew, Oliver, and others have spoken about in the past, and I think it will be quite important for the Health Committee to hear that again. This conversation is not to get too long or too wide, but I think that understanding some of the wider issues may help us moving forward.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I thank the member. His time has expired.

Debate interrupted.

Voting

Correction—Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Amendment Bill

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to inform the House that I incorrectly announced the result of the last vote. The numbers were, in fact, 99 in favour and 21 opposed.

Bills

Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is a shame about the results of the last vote. I thought maybe you were going to announce that we had taken it out after all.

I rise with pleasure to support Chris Bishop’s member’s bill. I think this is a good use of the House’s time. It achieves something positive, which the Green Party certainly supports. I sit on the Health Committee and, of course, I look forward—along with Simon O’Connor, I am sure—to hearing the submissions on the bill and its provisions that will be made by members of the public, medical professionals, and those with expertise around ethics.

I would take issue with something that Simon O’Connor just said. He said that New Zealand has a low rate of donation of organs. When organs are donated from recently deceased people, the issue is raised from time to time that that rate could be higher. In fact, the evidence that the select committee has heard when it has previously considered the issue of organ donation rates has been that actually the rate of donation from recently deceased persons is as high as we could reasonably expect; the problem is that the need for organ donation is so much higher than the available supply of organs from that source. That is why the live organ donation that this bill is concerned with is so important.

One of the reasons that that is going to become even more of an issue in the future is that New Zealand has such a high rate of diabetes. We already have Kirsten Coppell from the University of Otago, who in 2012, I think it was, conducted research that indicated that one in four New Zealanders over the age of 15 either has diabetes already or has pre-diabetes. That is a massive problem because the rate of complication in all sorts of areas of the human body is very high from diabetes, and one of those areas is indeed the kidneys. So the need for kidney tissue in the future is only going to increase.

So if we are to respond to that need of a growing number of New Zealanders at all, we need to increase the rate at which live donors participate in this programme. Elizabeth Prasad’s work is very clear that probably the main reason that people are disinclined to join that programme is the financial penalty that we, effectively, place on them currently. So Chris Bishop’s bill addresses the issue that we know to be the greatest obstacle to an extremely important and necessary service as part of our health services.

The Attorney-General has made a report finding a problem with the bill, as members will be aware. The bill treats inappropriately those New Zealanders who both receive benefits and also have paid employment. It discriminates against those persons, but Chris Bishop has, to his great credit, acknowledged that problem in his response to the Attorney-General’s report and has indicated that he would be very pleased for the select committee to address that issue when we consider the bill. Certainly, that will be my intention.

I think that is probably all I need to say at this stage. I look forward to hearing those submissions from the public and from the health professions at the select committee shortly. Thank you.

Debate interrupted.

Points of Order

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill—Votes

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that when a split vote is cast it is incumbent on the member casting the split vote to provide to the House a list of names of those who voted. I understand that has not happened yet from the Labour Party. Can the House please have that list from the Labour Party?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): It is an obligation on the part of the Labour Party. It is a slightly complicated area because, as members are aware, the party has not taken a position. But I am working on the basis that the junior Labour whip exercised a set of proxies, and it is an obligation on her to provide a list of those members for whom she was exercising a proxy and the direction of their votes. It should have been given to the Clerk at the time of the vote, and I am sure that Mr Lees-Galloway will work with the whip in order to remedy the omission. Thank you.

Bills

Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to take a call tonight in support of my colleague Chris Bishop’s Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. I think this is a special opportunity to acknowledge those who have already given organ donations, both the living and those who have, unfortunately, passed away through circumstances beyond their control.

There are two types of organ donations. There are the live donors, and the ones who have had brain injuries, which often result from head injuries or strokes. A lot of those injuries, actually, have happened as a result of car accidents. My information tells me that between 88 and 150 of about 30,000 deaths in New Zealand are actually in circumstances that allow for organ donation. It is also a credit to society, given that there are now so many more cars and that the population is so much bigger, that the number of car accidents in the last 15 to 20 years has dropped. It is making those deaths fewer, which is a good thing. That is actually making fewer organs available for donation from that source, and long may that continue.

It is also noted that there is large public support for this. In a recent Colmar Brunton poll 67 percent of people agreed to there being compensation similar to something that is based on ACC.

So organ donation rates in New Zealand are improving but they are not improving fast enough, and, as the member Kevin Hague alluded to before, the need for organ donation is growing, particularly around diseases like diabetes. Although I acknowledge that nobody in New Zealand would want to be doing this for money, certainly the money will help, because there are a lot of people who would love to do this for family members and simply cannot afford to take the time off work or take the time away from other needs of their families to be able to do this.

I know the effort that it takes for some people, because I have got a friend at the moment who is going through quite a programme. It is involving her own health, her own weight, and everything about her, so that she can actually be in a fit state to give her kidney to her husband, who is dearly in need of a kidney transplant at some point in time. So I know that people make that effort out of great love, and I know there are other people who would continue to make that effort out of great love for the person whom they want to donate for. It is just unfortunate that some people cannot put themselves in that position.

In Budget 2014 there was $4 million allocated over 4 years to set up the National Renal Transplantation Service. It covers donor liaison coordinators and a continuation of the New Zealand kidney exchange programme, which is great. That follows up from money that was in the Budget in 2012, which was to raise awareness and encourage more people to donate. Despite being set up to help with kidney donations and awareness—and people know about it—actually, there are not so many people coming forward, and I believe that this bill will help to change some of those circumstances.

Also, although people do not do this for money, the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development, under what is proposed in this bill, will need to be satisfied that the applicant has given their free and informed consent to become a live donor. That is very, very important.

I look forward to this bill coming to the Health Committee. The select committee members work very well together and, despite there being the small glitch that the member Kevin Hague alluded to before, I believe that this bill is going to come out in a good space, and that it will encourage more people to come forward and save the lives of a few people.

I guess tonight we have had quite an afternoon and quite an evening in the House talking about rugby. One of our greatest rugby stars, Jonah Lomu, has been one of those people who has gone through that process quite openly and quite publicly. I think that is something that we are all very, very grateful for, and I would imagine that there are a lot of people in this House who have also been touched by family members and people going through this. Although it is increasing—

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

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): First, I would like to congratulate Chris Bishop on having his bill drawn from the ballot. It is purely luck, but it is a good feeling when one’s bill is drawn. On behalf of New Zealand First, I am pleased to rise in support of the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. Organ donation is a selfless issue, and it is to be commended.

I had a look at the Kidney Health New Zealand statistics and found out that in New Zealand approximately 200,000 people have been diagnosed with chronic kidney disease. Of these, about 2,600 are currently on dialysis, and, of that 2,600, there is a waiting list of about 700 for a kidney transplant. Unfortunately, New Zealand has got one of the worst live donation rates in the world. Last year there were fewer than 150 kidney transplants performed in New Zealand.

The number of live kidney donations has always been relatively low. It has been at about the same low level for the last 5 years, and this bill is basically introducing a much-needed change that, hopefully, will raise that number significantly. New Zealanders currently have to decide whether or not they are going to save the life of a fellow Kiwi—often a family member—or continue to support their family financially. The current rate available to donors for any lost income is capped at $355 per week. That is not enough to cover a mortgage. It is not even enough to really cover the living costs of a family. So it is understandable that people find it very difficult to decide whether or not they are going to lose their income for the 8 weeks of recovery time following a kidney donation.

What makes the lack of compensation offered by the system all the more surprising is that the cost of caring for a person on dialysis is tremendous. The latest figures put the cost of looking after someone on dialysis at $60,000 a year, and this is an overall cost of about $150 million every year for those who are currently on dialysis. That is about three times the expense of transplantation, on a per-patient per-year basis. Any increased cost to the taxpayer through this bill’s offer of compensation is going to be saved more than tenfold in reductions in health costs.

New Zealand First believes that we do not have to go down the path of organ donation becoming an option by which people believe they can actually make a profit—they sell their organs for money. We believe that donating should always be in the domain of altruistic motivation, not financial motivation. So we support the bill’s compensation rate—80 percent of previously earned income.

We do have some questions. Kevin Hague alluded to one of them, and we are looking forward to working on it in the select committee. We would like to acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse for the bill, because we know that this member’s bill has been altered. It has been around since 2010 and it was originally sponsored by that Minister. The bill does have cross-party support. It is financially responsible, so we wonder why it has languished in the ballot for so long. Obviously, we could have done, as a Parliament, more about this issue earlier. Having raised that point, I would say that New Zealand First is very pleased to support the bill. We look forward to working on it and we are looking forward to some great outcomes. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): It is my great privilege to speak on the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. I want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Chris Bishop for his great good fortune in having the bill drawn out of the ballot, when I had failed after a couple of years and when successive colleagues were also not so lucky.

I just want to go through a little bit of the genesis of the bill. The bill came about for two reasons. One was that my very good friend whom I have had a relationship with since I was 5 years old has had two kidney transplants. He has a family who are familiar with the condition of renal problems. The first transplant was of a cadaver donation following a motor vehicle accident and, some 5 years later, his very generous brother donated one kidney for the second transplant, and he has enjoyed very, very good health since then. So I spent much of my adult life watching my good friend go through quite a few health challenges—home hemodialysis—and literally hundreds of hours hooked up to a machine in order to keep him as well as he could be.

But that actually was not the genesis of the bill. It was a conversation I had with the parent of another good friend, who himself had had a kidney transplant. That parent said to me that if I wanted a member’s bill, this was the one to go for because there is a significant financial barrier to altruistic donation by live organ donors. That commenced a journey of investigation and inquiry and relationships with the Kidney Foundation and other stakeholder and advocacy groups, which certainly confirmed that there was a barrier. We know all about our relatively low rate of organ donations in this country, and I do not think that this bill, in and of itself, is going to make a significant dent in that, but I think it does remove one barrier.

I want to acknowledge the comments of the previous speaker, Barbara Stewart, about the very important notion that this measure should not be an incentive to encourage otherwise ambivalent donors to get over the line and make that decision. That decision must have been made, and our medical fraternity should be diligent in ensuring that that is the case, so that this is not an incentive but a means of acknowledging that there are significant financial costs to altruistic live organ donation, and that these costs can be met using the formula used for the provision of weekly compensation through ACC.

I have every confidence that the Health Committee, under Mr Simon O’Connor, and the sponsor of the bill, Mr Bishop, will do an excellent job of ensuring that any wrinkles can be ironed out. I look forward to its return from the committee and I commend it to the House.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I rise to take a relatively short call on this bill. It is one that we support, and for good reason. I commend and acknowledge Chris Bishop for shepherding this bill through the House.

I want to just clarify a point that Mrs Kuriger made regarding deceased organ donation, around the number of car accidents that we have in this country. In fact, what has occurred over time is that the safety of our vehicles has got to the point that we are unable to harvest—for want of a better word—organs, because our safety has protected people so well that when they have a car accident that is really, really bad, the organs from those people are unable to be used. So rather than there being fewer accidents, it is actually around the condition in which the organs from a deceased person are able to be retained. That is an interesting point that I know very well because I too, like the previous speaker, the Hon Michael Woodhouse, had a very dear friend, Kathleen Mary Jacob, who was on the waiting list for a kidney but, unfortunately, did not find a donor in that time. I think there are many stories that will transpire across the House during the passage of this bill about just that point.

I do want to say that there is a very good reason for supporting the increase in financial support, to similar to the level of ACC, for the very point that it is very difficult for us to find live donors and we should be supporting them well. In the case of my own dear friend, it would have made a significant difference. She had someone lined up, but they were unable to take off a significant amount of time from work.

I am not going to deal with this any further now. It is a great bill, we support it, and I look forward to its passage through the House. Thank you.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It gives me a lot of pleasure to rise in support of this Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill at its first reading. I too congratulate Chris Bishop on having this bill drawn from the ballot, and from here it will go to the Health Committee.

I am pleased but not surprised to see that this bill is enjoying support throughout the House. It is a non-political issue. It is an issue of humanity and providing support to people who are in a position, and willing, to take part in a live donor procedure for someone they may know or someone they may not know, for no personal gain to themselves. I know that the Health Committee, and it is very fortunate that the sponsor of the bill, Chris Bishop, also—no, that is the justice bill; I take that back. The Health Committee is also a collegial committee—there are several collegial committees in this Parliament—and we will give the bill due consideration.

I imagine that the promoter is quite keen to get on with the voting, but there are just one or two other things I do want to note around this live organ donation matter. It is that somebody with a chronic illness who has their life affected by their chronic illness—it can affect not just themselves but also their families, whether or not they can work any more. So the prospect of being able to have some assistance by way of a donation has the potential to significantly improve the quality of life of those people and, indeed, their long-term survival rates. That matter alone, I suspect, is why this bill is enjoying such good support through the House.

It is, interestingly, a member’s bill that has financial considerations and, in a way, it is unusual to have that in a member’s bill. So, again, that will be one of the considerations that the Health Committee will take to the consideration of this Bill. I commend the bill to the House.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Financial Assistance for Live Organ Donors Bill. As Kevin Hague has noted, the Green Party will be supporting this bill. It is a sensible bill. It makes for a fairer health system, and it is overdue. I thank Michael Woodhouse for explaining the genesis of the bill, but it is a pity that in the 6 years since he developed it the Government has not taken it over and introduced legislation in the meantime.

The current situation is quite ridiculous. When people do something incredibly altruistic and donate an organ to a friend, a family member, or someone whom they do not know and then they spend 6 to 8 weeks recovering from that surgery, unable to work, they are eligible for or entitled to receive only the lesser of the weekly rate of the sickness benefit or the equivalent of the weekly after-tax income. When the sickness benefit is $149 to $350 a week, that is hardly any compensation for the loss of their earnings. This is penalising people who make that altruistic decision. So the bill is very welcome in removing that obstacle to people contributing an organ to enable somebody else to have both a much better quality of life and, potentially, also a much extended life. The bill, by moving it to being the greater of the sickness benefit or 80 percent of their pre-operation earnings as calculated under ACC, is entirely reasonable.

It may definitely help to increase the number of organ donors. As Kidney Health New Zealand has noted, there is an increasing gap between the number of people on waiting lists for an organ transplant and the number of transplants that can actually be performed. We have got 700 people on the waiting list for a kidney transplant, but fewer than 150 transplants were performed last year. The bill, in removing that financial penalty of loss of income, is removing an obstacle to donations.

The bill is also being supported by the Green Party because when it costs $60,000 annually to maintain someone on dialysis, there are likely to be significant savings over the longer term. But the best thing is the quality of life and the extension of life that such generous and altruistic donations provide. This bill is very welcome. Thank you.

CHRIS BISHOP (National): Can I start my speech in reply by thanking members around the House for their kind remarks, both tonight and also 2 weeks ago when we started the first reading of this bill. It is good to see that the bill will have unanimous support, certainly at its first reading, to go to the Health Committee for further consideration. A particular thankyou goes to Barbara Kuriger for her kind remarks. I also, at the start of my speech, want to acknowledge my friend and colleague Michael Woodhouse. It is good to see you in the House, Minister, and I thank you for your comments and for explaining the genesis of this bill.

The Minister’s comments about why he was motivated to introduce the bill—or tried to introduce the bill back in 2010—are very similar to my reasons for taking the bill on from Mr Woodhouse. I do not have perhaps quite the personal connection that Michael has, but certainly I have been moved by the appeals and the calls that have been made to me from people in the Hutt Valley about the hardship that they have undergone after donating organs. I am thinking right now of a kidney case in particular. Those experiences have motivated me to pick up the bill from Cam Calder, who had it temporarily after he took it over from Michael. I have taken over your bill. I seem to be taking your staff at the moment, as well—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: You can take my portfolios.

CHRIS BISHOP: Health and safety—you can have health and safety.

I want to, in reply, just deal with a couple of the issues that were raised by members. Firstly, there is the issue of where the bill should go, and whether or not it is appropriately placed in the Health Committee or in the Social Services Committee. Let me just say quickly that I think it is a sort of finely balanced debate. The argument about sending it to the Social Services Committee is that ultimately the money is paid out through the Ministry of Social Development, and so it should go there, but I take the view that ultimately we are actually dealing with a health issue here, fundamentally. The other point that I would make is that a lot of people and some members—and members may have seen this in the media—do have issues with the way in which the Ministry of Social Development deals with this. I think it is worthy of a wider discussion about where the money comes from and how it is distributed, and I think the Health Committee is the right place to do that.

Secondly—just dealing with the issue about the Attorney-General’s report under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—members will be aware that the Attorney-General is required by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to provide a report to the House for the first reading of a bill if it is unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, in his opinion. In the case of this bill, the Attorney-General has provided such a report. The reasoning for that, having read the report, is really a technical issue—I would say a drafting issue—about the treatment of beneficiaries who also work and their treatment vis-à-vis other beneficiaries who do not work, and vis-à-vis the treatment of ordinary working people. The argument made by the Attorney-General is that there is discrimination against beneficiaries who receive welfare support but who also work, and that there is differential treatment on the grounds of their work status, which is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Human Rights Act, which has been imported into section 19, I think it is, of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.

That is a fair enough point of view, and it is actually one of the strengths of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act system that an issue like that can be advertised to the House’s attention so that it can be considered during the select committee process, so that we can have a conversation and ventilate those issues, both in the first reading but also in the select committee, and try to—if we can, as much as possible—iron out some of those issues and make the bill as rights-consistent as possible. As Kevin Hague rightly said, I am looking forward to the Health Committee considering and deliberating that issue, and I am hopeful that we can work out a way through, so that it is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when the bill comes back to Parliament.

Thirdly, on the issue of organ donation rates that was raised by Kevin Hague, he said that as far as he is concerned we have, essentially, increased our organ donation rates from deceased donors about as much as we can. Again, that is something that I think that the Health Committee will have a look at. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case, but what he is right about is saying that we do need to increase the donation rates from living donors. Our organ donation rates are about half that of Australia’s and about a quarter that of Spain’s. As I said in the bill’s first reading, this bill is not a panacea for some of those issues. It is not a silver bullet—

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

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Health Committee.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): A fairly predictable point of order—Jami-Lee Ross.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: The House has made very good progress today, and in light of the fact that there are only a couple of minutes left and it would be rather unfair on Mr O’Rourke, can I seek leave for the House to rise before the end of the evening?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): There appears to be no objection to that—[Interruption] There is objection. OK.

Points of Order

Sale and Supply of Alcohol (Rugby World Cup 2015 Extended Trading Hours) Bill—Votes

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Well, the member had better not be trifling with the Chair in order to take the time out, because if he is, he will be treated as being disorderly and punished for it.

JAMI-LEE ROSS: I have a new point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier in the evening I raised the question about split voting and also the question about the timeliness within which the names of which members who split voted should be provided to the Chair.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member will resume his seat. That matter has been dealt with adequately. I call on members’ order—

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not even get an opportunity to advise you what my point of order—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): And the point that I made to you—please resume your seat—was the matter was dealt with immediately that the junior whip could get down to the House and deal with it. I ruled at the time that the junior whip had not acted in accordance with the Standing Orders. There is not a point of order that is available now. I have called on members’ order of the day No. 3. If the member interrupts me again, then the member is in very serious trouble.

Standing Orders—Definitions

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to ask you for a ruling around the term—in the Standing Orders—“immediately”, because it is very clear to me that the term “immediately” means that a member must, as soon as the vote—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I ruled on that matter at the time.

The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.