Wednesday, 17 August 2016

WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2016

WEDNESDAY, 17 AUGUST 2016

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Prime Minister—Statements on Proportion of People Who Claim Refugee Status or Asylum

1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so, how?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, with one clarification: when I said yesterday that the numbers of people who come to New Zealand and claim refugee status or asylum are significantly fewer under this Government than when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was a Minister, I should have said that the proportion who claim was less.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I did not hear the last sentence from the Prime Minister. Could he repeat that? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! If we could have a little less interjection, then it is easier for all members to hear the answer. Would the Prime Minister mind repeating the latter part of his answer.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The last sentence was: I should have said that the proportion who claim was less.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a process for Ministers to correct answers they gave—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. This is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.

Chris Hipkins: —if they subsequently realise that they are incorrect. Waiting until question time has already started is not the appropriate way to do it. They are supposed to do that at the first available opportunity.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: This was not a correction to an answer; it was a clarification of an answer—quite a different matter. It is quite a different matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I think there is some relevance to both the points that have been raised by Chris Hipkins and the Hon Gerry Brownlee. If it is a correction to an answer, then the expectation is—in fact, the Speakers’ rulings are very clear—that the member or Minister, upon becoming aware that he has inaccurately answered a question, must come to the House as quickly as possible. If it is a matter of minor correction—in other words, it could be interpreted as a clarification—I think, in this case, it is acceptable for it to be done in the way that it has been done.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement yesterday in relation to approved visas for applicants seeking refugee or protection status that “what I do know, on the advice of the Minister of Immigration, is that the numbers are considerably less under this Government than when the member was a Minister.”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in my answer to the primary question, I stand by the view that that is correct when it is taken with the word “proportion”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he reconcile that statement with his Minister of Immigration saying that he was “advised that information before 2009 is not captured in a reportable format and would require substantial manual collation and research.”, which he was not prepared to authorise? How does he stand by his statement against what the Minister has told me?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You will have to take up the written question with the Minister’s office. I cannot answer that, and I have not actually even seen that parliamentary question, but in the information provided to my office—I can give the member an example, if he wants. If you go back and have a look, for instance, at the 2005-06 period, the number of people who temporarily came to New Zealand was 498,009, on the advice I had. The number of people who claimed for asylum was 317. The proportion was 0.063653468. In the 2015-16 equivalent, the number was 925,365, the number of people who made claims was 339, and the proportion was 0.036634193.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House that the Minister of Immigration advised him that the number that had come was considerably less, when in fact the Minister of Immigration, in an answer to a written parliamentary question, said—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Different question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, it was not a different question. You are not going to switch the grounds now—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just read the question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Minister of Immigration said that no such information had been collected pre-2009, how could the Prime Minister tell the House that yesterday he had already been advised otherwise by the Minister of Immigration?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister of Immigration advised me that the proportion is less—and the proportion is less.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: When he said he was advised by his Minister of Immigration yesterday, was that statement true or false, or did the Minister of Immigration misinform me and the House in a written answer to a written question?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot make any comment on the written question, because I have not seen it, but that was the advice that the Minister gave me and it is correct.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is it not a fact, Prime Minister, that yesterday not once but twice he misled the House intentionally, and he seeks now to sneak away from his statement yesterday?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. If anyone was misleading the House yesterday it was the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was taking the opportunity to make a quote about the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) programme, where he used the words I had used about the UNHCR programme deliberately misleadingly, actually, in his supplementary questions.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister digging a hole for himself by making that statement, when in yesterday’s answer he specifically said that it was not UN refugees we were talking about, but other categories, which was the subject of my question, upon which he then told the House something demonstrably false twice?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to go and look at his own Hansard and my quote that he used in his supplementary questions to me. As I said, I should have used the word “proportion”. Other than that, the answer was quite correct, and I stand by it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: In the answer yesterday when he pointed to the fact that it was not UN refugees he was talking about, how could he have gone on from that—and Hansard is very clear—and made a statement about numbers that he did not at that time have? That information about not having the numbers was confirmed in a written answer from the Minister of Immigration. Which one of these two Ministers—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Questions need to be—[Interruption] The right honourable Prime Minister—the first part. I did not hear the last.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Neither of the Ministers. The member, if he wants a very detailed answer on something completely different from his supplementary questions, should ask the Minister of Immigration, but the Minister of Immigration advised me—because the member was asking a question—about proportions, and I gave the member the answer.

Job Creation and Unemployment—Statistics, Methodologies, Interpretation, and Trends

2. MAUREEN PUGH (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I am advised today that today was the first release by Statistics New Zealand of labour market statistics data using an updated survey method that is technology-neutral and improves international comparability. The decision to change the survey method was made by the Government Statistician, who is statutorily independent. The decision was not made by the Government. Today’s release shows unemployment fell by 0.1 percent to 5.1 percent, with particularly large reductions in Auckland—down 1.2 percentage points, to where unemployment in Auckland is now measured at 4.7 percent. Unemployment among women has dropped 0.8 percent to 5.4 percent. The survey also points to strong job growth during the quarter.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to call Maureen Pugh, but I do not want a continuation of the conversation between Mr Joyce and Mr Little.

Maureen Pugh: What is the outlook for jobs and wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The outlook will be fairly positive if the current momentum is maintained. Statistics New Zealand calculates that 105,000 extra jobs were created in the last year, and 251,000 over the last 3 years. It advises that recorded jobs growth is supported by other labour market indicators. It reports that annual average wages have increased 24.9 percent to more than $58,000 since the end of 2008, more than double 12 percent inflation over the same period. There are more jobs, and people are being better paid.

Grant Robertson: Was ANZ correct when it said today: “Due to methodological changes, many of today’s figures need to be taken with a grain of salt (particularly the surge in employment). Statistics NZ have cautioned against quarterly comparisons. In fact, in many ways they look meaningless.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: ANZ has every right to have an opinion about the numbers, as does the Government. However, it refrains from attacking the impartiality of the Government Statistician.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Again, this is a point of order, the Hon Dr Nick Smith.

Grant Robertson: My question asked the Minister of Finance whether ANZ was correct in that statement. I did not get an answer to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion—[Interruption] Order! On this occasion, I think the question has been addressed. The Minister immediately said that that was ANZ’s opinion.

Maureen Pugh: What else do labour market statistics tell us about the job market?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government Statistician has introduced a new measure of underutilisation, which has not been measured before. It measures the number of people who could work more if given the opportunity. The published underutilisation rate is 12.8 percent. This compares with the OECD average of around 14.1 percent, and, somewhat surprisingly, compares with Australia’s underutilisation rate of 21.8 percent, which is not much short of double the New Zealand rate.

Maureen Pugh: What other reports has he seen about the household labour force survey (HLFS)?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a range of reports about the economic importance of the data, including some people who have questioned, for instance, quarterly comparisons, because the HLFS data does move around from quarter to quarter. Others, however, have made comments around the impartiality of the Government Statistician, including that the Government “actively manipulates official data”, which is absolutely wrong—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is no need for that answer to continue any longer. I consider it is an answer that will be in breach of Speaker’s ruling 197/5.

Grant Robertson: Why is the Government taking credit for a quarterly increase in employment that is 70 percent higher than ever recorded before, which ANZ has said should be taken with a grain of salt and that Statistics New Zealand cautioned against making—exactly the quarterly comparison that Steven Joyce did in his media release today?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is not taking credit; it is simply stating the numbers as published—it is simply stating the numbers as published—because we accept that the Government Statistician is statutorily independent. If the numbers go up, it is because the numbers have gone up, not because the Government Statistician is manipulating the numbers, as that member has claimed. And he should know, since he represents more public servants than anyone else in the Parliament. It is a disgrace.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister consider it a disgrace that the Minister of Finance stood in this House and said that Statistics New Zealand’s statement that inequality in New Zealand had grown under his watch was statistically invalid; is that a disgrace as well?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly did not accuse the Government Statistician of being manipulated by the Government, and certainly would not do that. We have our own arguments with how numbers are put together, but, in the end, that is why they are independent. With respect to those conclusions, I passed on the advice I was given, which, I understand, was legitimate statistical analysis that the conclusions they had drawn were not statistically valid. Since then, I have had further advice that, on balance, they probably were.

Housing Affordability and Availability—Government Measures to Address

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): My question—

Hon Steven Joyce: Apologise.

ANDREW LITTLE: When Mr Joyce is ready, my question is to the Prime Minister. Does—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have asked Mr Joyce to cease once. I do not want to have to do it again.

3. ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding housing that “we take responsibility, we need to do a better job of it”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement, which went on to say “But just think of the things we have done over the last 2 years alone”. To say we have done nothing is absolutely not true. We have done a lot. So let me remind the House about the Government’s comprehensive housing plan. It includes a new $1 billion dollar Housing Infrastructure Fund, over 210 special housing areas for 70,000 new homes, an expanded HomeStart scheme to first-home buyers, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, Resource Management Act reform, a raft of extra tax measures, the new Auckland Unitary Plan, more tools for the Reserve Bank, the independent urban development authority’s finding some areas of high housing need, and getting the Auckland Unitary Plan under way. By any measure, this is a comprehensive plan.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job when only one in five Auckland houses are now affordable for families on the average income, according to the Government’s own figures?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course there will be a range of incomes and a range of properties. One thing I do know is that wage growth under this Government has been in the better part of 25 percent in the 8 years that we have been in Government. Interest rates have plummeted to where they were under the previous Labour Government. If we look at the number of properties sold for under $650,000 in Auckland for the previous year, it was 37 percent of properties—at 11,842. And—out of interest—if one was to take a cursory look at TradeMe, as I did just before, around Auckland houses, apartments, townhouses, and units listed for sale at $600,000 and below, it lists 1,433 listings.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job when, under his flagship special housing area policy, 84 percent of those areas have not had a single house built on them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Everyone appreciates that special housing areas (SHAs) are a fast-track process and a fast-track zoning process, so of course it takes some time for those properties ultimately to have the horizontal infrastructure, and the like. But, for the record, the advice that my office has received is that as of 30 June 2016, when it comes to Auckland’s SHAs, 1,300 homes have been completed, 2,200 building consents have been issued, 2,458 new sections have been created, and 7,170 new sections have been granted resource consent. Of the 154 SHAs in Auckland, 26 have been built on, with the capacity of 29,800; 15 have earthworks under way, with the capacity of 5,300; and 88 are in some stage of the planning process. Only 25 SHAs have no consents—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —of which 16 were declared SHAs in February to May of this year.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job, when developers appear to be using the special housing areas for land banking, rather than building affordable housing and helping first-home buyers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As you can see from the data I just read out to the House—and I will not repeat it, in the interests of time—there is no evidence, I think, to support that there is land banking.

Andrew Little: Does he take responsibility and need to do a better job, when homeownership is at its lowest level in 65 years and young families all over the country are giving up on the Kiwi Dream of owning their own home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If one looks at the household labour force survey out today, at 5.1 percent, at the jobs that have been created in the 8 years under this Government, at the level of interest rates in New Zealand now, and at the wage growth that has taken place—again under this Government, at 25 percent, and in real terms about 13 percent—I do not think it is true to say that people have given up. But certainly the Government has a number of responses, and one of those to help those first-home buyers is the KiwiSaver HomeStart programme, and I think that has been very successful.

Andrew Little: What is his response to Hunter Wright and Sandi Langridge, a Nelson couple, who say “We consider ourselves pretty average New Zealanders. We don’t earn great money, but we still want the Kiwi Dream.”, and who say that under his Government the dream has become “unreachable”?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Obviously I do not know the couple whom the member talks of, and I do not know their income and their circumstances. What I do know is that with interest rates at the levels that they are, with the job growth we are seeing, and, actually, with the prospects for New Zealand, I think there are a lot of young couples who would argue pretty strongly that they are out there, buying houses. There is one particular story, I think in the New Zealand Herald, about that, just today.

Andrew Little: After 8 years’ failure and half-baked policies, is it not time to swallow his pride and adopt Labour’s genuine comprehensive housing plan, because every day that he mucks around families are missing out on getting their first home?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The only thing comprehensive was the way he abused Nick Leggett last week and the way Grant Robertson abused Liz MacPherson.

Special Housing Areas—Efficacy

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Ka tū a ia i runga i te mana o āna kaupapa here Kāwanatanga katoa, nē?

[Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?]

Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. I have the privilege of leading a Government that is ambitious for New Zealand’s future, and our policies reflect that ambition.

Metiria Turei: Does he stand by his special housing areas (SHAs) policy in Auckland, now it has proven to be an abject failure?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The failure really was the metropolitan urban limit in Auckland that choked off land supply, which I am sure was one of the real lefty ideas that the Greens were promoting.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with Nick Smith that special housing areas are about “helping Kiwi families to realise the dream of owning their own home.”; if so, how many Kiwi families are realising that dream in the 97 Auckland SHAs with no home building going on in them?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question, yes, and if the member wants me to, I am more than happy to read out the statistics.

Metiria Turei: And the 97?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK, so the member does want me to. All right. As of 30 June 2016 in Auckland, the advice my office has is that 1,300 homes have been completed, 2,200 building consents have been issued, 2,458 sections have been created, and 7,170 sections have been granted resource consent. Of the 154 special housing areas in Auckland, 26 have been built on, 15 have earthworks, and 88 are in some stage of planning process. Only 25 have no consent or plan change lodged, but 16 of those were declared between February and May of this year. I think most people would acknowledge that a special housing area is a way of fast-tracking the development of these properties, but they still need to have Resource Management Act consent, they still have to have horizontal infrastructure, they still need to—

Grant Robertson: You’ve been there for 8 years.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, we did not have them 8 years ago, Phil. What we had was the metropolitan urban limit, which we inherited from your lefty mates.

Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister defending the special housing areas policy, where 97 of those areas have no homebuilding on them to date, because it was always his intention that this policy was designed to support the property speculators and the land-bankers?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is quite incorrect, and in fact the data I have given to the House is correct. But what I do not support is the hard-working young couple who go out and buy a house, who borrow money against the equity that they have put down, only to see that house price halve. That member has launched a war on the poor. She is saying to the poorest New Zealanders who are borrowing money against their property that she wants to see them owing the bank more than their house is worth. I think there is a reason why the Greens’ numbers are tumbling, and that is because people can see that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am just waiting for a little more silence from my left.

Metiria Turei: When the Prime Minister said in April last year that the special housing area land-bankers would be getting a terse letter from Nick Smith, does he think they were suitably chastised?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Given that only a very small proportion either do not have planning under way, earthworks under way, or building on them, I would say that special housing areas have been highly effective, actually, as a way of releasing land. There will be one or two that do not go ahead—it was never guaranteed that they would, but what was guaranteed was that they would allow process to happen more rapidly, and that is exactly what is happening. What the member is trying to tell New Zealanders is that at the moment that the Minister of Housing designates an area a special housing area—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It simply is not for the Prime Minister to tell the public what I am saying in answer to my question. He has answered my question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No—[Interruption] Order! I think the point is that the question was relatively short and the answer addressed the question almost immediately. There is no need to continue with a lengthy answer.

Metiria Turei: So now that the housing areas have failed—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the question, please.

Metiria Turei: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. So—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Less interjection. I am inviting now the question to be asked.

Metiria Turei: So now that the special housing areas policy in Auckland has failed, is sending terse letters to land-bankers and property speculators going to be the new centrepiece of his comprehensive housing plan?

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, I think we can see that special housing areas are a success, because houses are being built and development is taking place. But I will give the member a clue of what a terse letter would look like: “Dear Mr and Mrs Bloggs of Auckland. I know you borrowed $450,000 from the ANZ against your $100,000 worth of equity—or $150,000—in your $600,000 property. But now Metiria Turei has managed to turn that into a $300,000 property, and therefore could you sell your property with no equity left.” That is what a 50 percent reduction in house prices would look like. It is a war—

Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —on the poor.

David Seymour: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would invite you to reflect on Standing Order 380(1), which asks that questions do not needlessly include facts and do not include inferences or arguments beyond what is necessary to make the question intelligible. That is a Standing Order that this member has been violating all through question time.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is strictly correct. I am relatively liberal when I interpret that when allowing questions, but when a question starts, as the last one did, with “Now that that the particular policy has failed”, I give a very wide licence in the answer that may then be given by the Prime Minister or a Minister.

Climate Change Policy—Paris Agreement and Other Government Measures to Address

5. SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What announcements has she made about the Government’s commitment to the Paris Climate Change Agreement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Today I am delighted that I have announced that the Government intends to ratify the Paris Agreement by the end of this year, which is significantly earlier than originally planned. Beginning ratification confirms our commitment towards our ambitious target of reducing emissions to 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. It also supports the strong international momentum that there is to ratify the agreement this year. Because New Zealand is such a small emitter in global terms, we must be part of a robust international agreement to get results on climate change. Ratification this year means we are playing our part in achieving that.

Scott Simpson: What is the Government already doing to take action on climate change?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: New Zealand already has a climate change record to be proud of. We were one of the first countries to have a comprehensive emissions trading scheme, which we strengthened this year, and more than 80 percent of our electricity is already renewable. We are also world leaders when it comes to agricultural research. We helped establish—and we invested $65 million in—the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, but to meet our new target we will have to make further changes.

David Seymour: Will the ratification of this agreement erode the sovereignty of this Parliament more or less than opponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership claimed that agreement eroded it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: None of the above.

Scott Simpson: What are the next steps required to come up with a plan to meet the Paris target?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Ratification of the Paris Agreement, although very important, is merely words that go down on paper. What now matter, of course, are the actions that we take, so we now are very clearly focused on developing that long-term plan to start reducing emissions while still growing the economy and supporting job creation. This will involve working across Government departments, with the business community, with consumers, and, in some areas, I hope there will be cross-party work as well. As part of that, today I also announced the establishment of a technical advisory group to look at how best we adapt to the impacts of climate change, and my colleagues the Hon Nathan Guy and Jo Goodhew have also announced two new groups to look at how we encourage the planting of more forests and how we reduce emissions from livestock.

Child Poverty—International Publicity and Definition of

6. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development: What recent publicity does she think led to the Guardian writing an article titled “New Zealand’s most shameful secret: we have normalised child poverty”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I have no responsibility for articles published in the Guardian, a left-wing English newspaper that supports Jeremy Corbyn. To say that a third of New Zealand children can only dream of education and employment is sensationalist rubbish, and I do not think that the measure used in the article is an accurate reflection of poverty in New Zealand at all. Using their definition, the single biggest thing this Government could do to reduce poverty would be to lower the median wage, which I suspect is what would happen if Labour-Greens got into power. This Government is absolutely committed to helping families on the lowest incomes, and that is why Budget 2015 included a $790 million package of measures aimed at reducing hardship amongst children living in some of New Zealand’s poorest families. This Government has increased childcare support for low-income families to help their parents be in work, education, or training. We have increased benefit rates for families with children by $25—the first time in more than 40 years. We have increased Working for Families for low-income working families, and we have introduced free doctors visits and prescriptions for children under 13. We have extended paid parental leave, we have extended parental tax credits, and we fund 125,000 breakfasts for schoolchildren every week—none of which, I note, were mentioned in the article in the Guardian.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she accept that its definition of poverty, which she just called “sensationalised”, is the definition used by Unicef, by the OECD, and by the Conservative UK Government from which this article was published and written?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have had this discussion in the House on many, many occasions. Measurements of poverty are complex and varied. You can measure them on income, you can measure them on hardship, and a variety of groups use either, depending on which political point they are trying to make at the time.

Jacinda Ardern: Will her new Ministry for Vulnerable Children be required to develop a plan to address child poverty in New Zealand?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member jumps the gun—there is no such ministry.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she plan to introduce a Ministry for Vulnerable Children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government will make that decision in its own time.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. We are currently debating at the select committee legislation that will be operationalised by the Ministry for Vulnerable Children. To not be able to ask a question about something the Minister has announced will be operating from April seems farcical.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The questions were never out of order. The questions were asked; the Minister then chose to answer them as she saw fit.

Jacinda Ardern: Has the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) or the State Services Commission (SSC) actively recruited a new chief executive officer for her yet-to-be-named children’s ministry who has experience working with significant issues like deprivation and poverty or, at the very least, experience working with children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have to say, in answer to the member, I do not see any mention of any of that in the article in the Guardian. However, the SSC has responsibility for employment issues, and I have no responsibility for the process.

Jacinda Ardern: If the claim that we have 305,000 children living in poverty in New Zealand is sensationalised, what is the accurate figure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said earlier, we have had this discussion on many occasions. It depends. There are a number of ways of measuring. Whether you use income or whether you use hardship factors, all of those involve judgmental decisions, and it is complex. I refer to the member to the very excellent report that is published annually by MSD, which Bryan Perry produces. It is all there, comprehensively, for the member’s edification.

Regional Economic Development—Manawatū-Whanganui Economic Action Plan and Other Initiatives

7. IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to the Minister for Economic Development: What recent announcements has the Government made about economic development in the Manawatū-Whanganui region?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Last week, alongside the Minister for Primary Industries, Nathan Guy, and Māori development Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, I launched a detailed action plan developed with regional leaders to boost the Manawatū-Whanganui regional economy. Part of the Government’s regional growth programme, the plan will build on the region’s existing strengths in primary production and food innovation, while taking advantage of opportunities in fields such as tourism, aged care, and business process outsourcing. This plan was developed locally, actually, by the local people, as a partnership between local government, business, iwi, and central government. It contains a set of concrete actions in these areas, underpinned by strategies to encourage businesses to grow, improved transport, digital connectivity, and skills training. The Opposition is welcome to bag it.

Ian McKelvie: How will the action plan contribute to the growth of the Manawatū and Whanganui?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One of the major initiatives identified in the action plan is the productivity of the primary sector. The region, of course, has the largest number of sheep and beef cattle of any region in New Zealand and excellent soils. So there is great potential to lift productivity and on-farm profitability. The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading a programme to share knowledge and information amongst farmers to lift productivity and fund a range of other initiatives. Thirty-nine million dollars will also be invested in building New Zealand’s largest agrifood research centre in the FoodHQ precinct on the Massey University campus. A joint venture between the university and AgResearch, research conducted at the centre will span the agricultural sector from farm to consumer, with a focus on dairy and red meat research.

Ian McKelvie: What other investment is the Government making in the region as part of the economic action plan?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: On Friday I announced the Government will invest half a million dollars in partnership with the Whanganui District Council to develop a comprehensive plan to revitalise the Whanganui Port precinct. This is a blueprint for a new marine services centre, an expansion of the boat building industry and visitor services and a recreational area. I was also pleased to announce, with the Minister of Transport, Simon Bridges, the next stage in the ring road for Palmerston North. Palmerston North, of course, is a major freight and logistics hub for the lower North Island, and it is crucial it is able to move around efficiently and safely. Finally, I visited Ōhākune in recognition of the Prime Minister’s announcement on the same day of an extension to the Mountains to Sea cycle trail from Tūroa to Ōhākune. It is an excellent addition to the New Zealand cycle trail, and, again, was warmly welcomed by the people of Ōhākune, whom, I have assumed, the Opposition has no interest in seeking the support of.

Schools, Funding—Review

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all of her answers to oral question No. 12 yesterday?

Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes; in the context that my proposal is not to flatten out the current funding rates across different year levels. The proposal is aimed at establishing a per-child funding rate that reflects the teaching and learning challenge at the different levels of the curricula. The publicly available Cabinet paper that I quoted from in my response yesterday acknowledges, in paragraph 33, that an effect of this proposal may be to even out the current variance of funding levels. As previously stated, these are all proposals, and I look forward to receiving the advisory group’s report.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, in my primary question, I asked the Minister about her proposal to flatten out funding rates. That question was authenticated by your office using the Cabinet paper that the Minister has just referred to. I used four supplementary questions yesterday and another primary question today to get the Minister to answer what was, in effect, the primary question yesterday, was, actually, authenticated by your office. So I ask you to give some consideration to what remedies the Opposition has when a Minister stands up and denies something that is authenticated in a primary question, and then forces the Opposition to waste multiple questions in order to extract that information from her.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly have another look at the Hansard. I had a very careful look at it yesterday. In this case the primary question today was immediately answered by the Minister. I will have a look at it and may come back to the House—I will certainly come back to the member. But if a member is suspicious that there has been a case of misleading the House deliberately, then there is a quite appropriate path for the member to follow, if he thinks this incident warrants it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sure that at the same time you will analyse the questions that were asked by the member so that the answers given are relative to the question answered.

Mr SPEAKER: I can assure the member that I will analyse the questions as much as I analyse the answers.

Chris Hipkins: So why did she state yesterday “the proposal is not to flatten out the levels of funding.”, given the Cabinet paper she just referred to stated “the likely effect of the shift to a standard per-child funding amount, aligned to the expected attainment at each level of the curricula, will be to flatten and even out the current variance in funding between year levels.”?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member seems to be suffering from a misunderstanding between a proposal and the effect of a proposal. I am happy to table the full Cabinet paper, which makes it clear that the proposal is for three components of a student-based rate, where the first component is linked to the learning level of the curriculum. The second component is linked to the level of risk against the child not being successful, and the third proposal is a component for isolated, small schools. Each of those proposals will have different effects, and depending on what is finally arrived at, we will know the actual effect. But the proposal is not to flatten; it is to provide a student-based approach.

Chris Hipkins: Does she think, in a consultation exercise, that the public who wish to express a view on that are going to be interested in the effects of a proposal rather than, necessarily, the proposal in a completely abstract form, as the Minister has just suggested?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Of course the public is going to be interested in all of that, and that is why these papers have been up on the public website for over 3 months. We have not only shared what the direction of travel is, what the purpose of it is, and what the actual proposal is; we have also explicated what some of the likely effects might be so that there will be informed comment. That is precisely the intent.

Chris Hipkins: Did her Cabinet paper further state “there is evidence the distribution of funding could better reflect the per-child investment required to achieve the … level of attainment and progress and each level of the curricula.”; if so, how does she propose calculating the per-child investment required at each level?

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Econometrically.

Hon Member: Ha!

Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, that is exactly how. We want to work out what the complexities are. In the current system, for instance, we have higher funding rates at the beginning of the system than at the end. We have the lowest for years 4, 5, and 6—where we are seeing some of the biggest achievement challenges occurring. Surely, the member and the House are interested in us assuring that we are investing to grow achievement for every young New Zealander.

Pukeahu National War Memorial Park—Progress and Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre

9. PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What announcements has she made about the Government’s gift on the occasion of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s 90th birthday?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Today at Wellington’s Pukeahu National War Memorial Park, along with the Governor-General, the Prime Minister, and Minister Brownlee, I opened the new Queen Elizabeth II Pukeahu Education Centre, named in honour of Her Majesty as a 90th birthday present from New Zealand. The category 1 building, which is fully restored to the highest heritage values, is now fit for modern purpose and activities for students in its classroom space, as well as online research in the specialist research rooms.

Paul Foster-Bell: What function will the new education centre serve?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There have been more than 13,000 students who have gone through the education programme in the last year, and this new building will vastly increase that number, as a place to learn of our experiences of military conflict, peacekeeping, and commemoration. Today junior students from the neighbouring Mt Cook School are designing their own coats of arms. Auckland’s Baradene College of the Sacred Heart students, along with French students, are exhibiting their countries’ shared World War I experiences of military discipline and the treatment of conscientious objectors. Senior Wellington College students are now able to research the stories of further pupils involved in conflicts.

Paul Foster-Bell: What other progress has been made on the development of Pukeahu National War Memorial Park?

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The Pukeahu National War Memorial Park has been embraced as our premier place for commemoration, remembrance, and nationhood, thanks to the great work of my predecessor, the Hon Chris Finlayson. The Government has invited several countries to place memorials within the park. Currently, the United Kingdom, France, the US, and Turkey have designed their memorials, and Belgium and Canada will be next, to ensure that their nations’ sacrifices are commemorated at Pukeahu. This Government wants to ensure that Pukeahu provides the best possible visitor experience, providing a meaningful place of reflection for all visitors, all year round.

Wage Rates—Impact of Immigration on

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement in relation to the labour market that “if wages aren’t rising then there isn’t a shortage”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context of which a fairly particular question was asked about the construction industry. I pointed out that employment increased by over 6 percent, to 125,000 in the last year, and average weekly earnings in construction increased by nearly 6 percent, compared with inflation of just 0.4 percent. I think the question had put to me the assertion that there had been no wage inflation in the construction sector. That was incorrect; there has actually been a 6 percent increase in average weekly earnings in the construction sector.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Could the reason there was nil real wage growth in the last quarter be that the Government has issued so many work visas that the labour market is flooded, just as the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) warned when it wrote that filling labour shortages through migration can result in wage suppression?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that if the member looks at the advice, he will find that a number of agencies made statements about what they thought could be the case. The piece of work that was actually done in 2013 by MBIE showed that that effect was not occurring. I understand that piece of work is currently being updated so that we can refresh our view of what is actually happening in the market, rather than relying on assertions by officials.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why did the immigration Minister claim that there is a shortage of workers in Te Ānau and Queenstown, when average earnings are falling in those regions, which he says indicates that there are plenty of workers already available; could it be that issuing 209,000 work visas has supressed wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are many questions rolled into that one. But, I must say, in Queenstown, if the member goes there, he will find that it is growing very fast. There is a question of whether enough people can turn up for the jobs there, but it is also pretty evident that a significant majority of the workforce there are non - New Zealanders, and New Zealanders do not appear to be travelling to Queenstown to take up those jobs in great numbers.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table a data set from the New Zealand household economic survey that indicates that earnings in the Otago and Southland regions have fallen by—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That information is available on the website of Statistics New Zealand.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does the fact that average wages for sales workers fell by 6.7 percent in 2015 indicate that there is no shortage of sales workers; if so, why did the Government issue 2,700 work visas for sales workers when there are 23,000 people in New Zealand looking for sales work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not rely on the member trying to use his own numbers to create some kind of cause and effect. The fact is, a number of the visa categories are labour-market tested, and, I think, as the Minister has pointed out, in recent years the immigration officials have dropped something like 50 occupations off the list and put only about three or four on the list. The member should also remember that all of this is happening against the background of one of the faster-growing developed economies, where there is a high rate of job creation, where incomes are rising, and where there are good prospects for people looking for work.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Is the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment wrong, is Treasury wrong, is the Reserve Bank wrong, is the BNZ wrong, is the Auckland Chamber of Commerce wrong, and is he right when he says that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am inviting the member to ask one supplementary question. I will give him a chance to rephrase it, but in that time I think he had asked five, and he was still going strongly.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Is everyone else wrong and is he right when he says immigration is more permissive because New Zealanders are “pretty damned hopeless”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not say that, but I could give the member this advice: Winston Peters is much better at this stuff.

State Housing—Sale of Housing Stock and Ability for Tenants to Purchase

11. DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that “the Government is very proud of the fact that it has sold hundreds of houses to State house tenants. We have seen people in their 50s and 60s enjoy, for the first time in their lives, the benefit of homeownership”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. The tenant homeownership programme offers State house tenants the opportunity to buy the house they live in. As at 30 June 2016, over 250 State houses had been sold to tenants. Of the 134 State houses sold in the last 3 financial years, 50 percent went to people aged over 40. In fact, according to the data I have been presented, one 88-year-old New Zealander has bought their State house in the last 3 years.

Denis O’Rourke: Were any of the 1,124 social houses in Tauranga being sold to Accessible Properties offered first to the tenants; if so, how many were sold to people in their 50s and 60s?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the tenants would have had the opportunity to take up the offer. I must say, though, that it is difficult for them to achieve ownership in the higher-value markets. We are finding that this scheme is working better in the lower-value, provincial markets, so it is unlikely in Tauranga that even if a tenant had attempted this, they would have been able to achieve it.

Climate Change Policy—Carbon Credits, Sale, Credibility, and Paris Agreement

12. JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will she cancel carbon credits held by the Government to compensate for using what she calls “dubious” carbon credits in order to meet New Zealand’s climate commitments; if so, when?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): It is not my intention to cancel any units at this point, but there is no doubt lessons can be learnt from the Kyoto Protocol. That is why I was so pleased to announce today that the Government intends to ratify the Paris Agreement this year. Developing high-quality international carbon markets will be an important part of reaching those targets.

James Shaw: Does she accept that over a quarter of the reduction in climate emissions that her Government claims took place between 2008 and 2012 did not actually happen?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I accept that 26 percent of the units that were used by the Government were of dubious quality.

James Shaw: Does she accept that the only reason that New Zealand has a stockpile of carbon credits now is that her Government previously traded in cheap credits that did not result in any reduction in pollution and were linked to criminal activity in the Ukraine and Russia?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not agree with all of that, but I do accept that we have an excess of units. What we are waiting to look at is what we need for 2020—what that cost will be—and then further decisions will happen via the Paris negotiations after ratification as to some of those rules on carry-over. The Government will be making those decisions in due course.

James Shaw: Why should the other signatories to the Paris Agreement believe that this National Government is going to take the Paris Agreement seriously when it has falsely claimed to reduce pollution in the past and now refuses to set the record straight?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because that is not true. What we did, we did under the rules that were there for the Kyoto agreement. Other countries, like Germany, Spain, and Italy, also used those emergency response units to meet their Kyoto targets. We have a new set of rules, which are going to be set under this Paris Agreement. We cancelled the use of international units in 2015, and actually cancelled the use of those dodgy units earlier than that—in 2012, from memory. We make an absolute commitment that we will be part of making sure that any international trading is using carbon units that are of a high integrity.

James Shaw: Given that the past 10 months in a row have all set temperature records and that July was the hottest month on record ever, would not today’s announcement of the ratification of the Paris Agreement be the perfect time for her Government to restore New Zealand’s integrity and credibility by paying back those fraudulent credits?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have said, going forward from here we are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is an international market, as there could be, and that the integrity of those is such. I think that New Zealand does have a strong reputation as far as its commitment to climate change is concerned, and that it will continue doing the great work that it is doing.

Points of Order

Leave for Third Reading Without Debate—Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to save the taxpayer about 400 grand by having the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill read a third time without debate and with the vote taken forthwith.

Mr SPEAKER: I hesitate to put the leave. I will put the leave on the basis that it was sorted out in Parliament yesterday. Leave has been sought for that particular process for that legislation. Is there any objection? There is objection.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am delighted to stand up today and announce that New Zealand will be ratifying the Paris Agreement, and doing it earlier than we said we would. As we know, it is a global climate change, and the difference we make there, as far as emissions are concerned, will make the difference, and the biggest difference, for this planet. The fact that we have the biggest international treaty signed by the most countries on the same day, and that New Zealand is part of that, I think, puts us in great stead for the future and in great stead for actually being part of what this amazing country stands for: its beauty, its integrity, and, equally, moving forward in the part that we will play. This shows our commitment to the momentum internationally, and the fact that we want to actually be part of that.

I must say that before I went to New York to sign the Paris Agreement in April, certainly all the advice I got was to take 18 months or to take 2 years to look at ratification—that there was not a big hurry in that, that it was good to be able to set those targets for 2030, and that you can wait and see what the international rules are before you ratify. However, with the momentum that is picking up globally, thanks to the Paris Agreement, being part of the 55/55—that is, 55 countries that need to sign, making up at least 55 percent of emitters. Seeing people like President Obama and President Xi actually standing up and saying that they will be ratifying this year—and certainly every indication that we are getting is that that is still happening—and seeing other countries, like Australia and Canada, and then getting a very strong message from our international community that we will not get to sit around the table and help make the rules on what those accounting procedures mean unless we have ratified, has led us to this day and at this moment saying that we will ratify early.

Of course, what all this means, though, is we need to bend the curve. We need to bend the curve and lower our emissions in New Zealand. Have no doubt about it—that is not an easy thing to do. We have a completely different emissions make-up from any other country in the world. We are looking at nearly 50 percent of our emissions being from agriculture, when already more than 80 percent of our electricity use is renewable. You will see other countries making big, bold statements and saying that they are having a higher degree of difference, if you like, in their emissions profile, and they might just be doing that, because they have got some pretty easy decisions that they can make; we have got some tough ones.

I suppose my call out to this Parliament today is that I think that there is some work that we can do cross-party. I think that if you speak to businesses, if you speak to consumers, and if you speak to people about what they most want, it is some certainty from us on some of the foundations. We can argue about what that means. I am sure that different parliaments and different Governments at different times would either go harder and faster or slower and more cautiously, but I think that people need a degree of certainty from Parliament as to what the base conditions are, and I think that this Parliament is well set to do that over the next year to 18 months. So—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: A leadership bid, but it’s failing.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I welcome the member’s contribution, and I hope that he is a believer in climate change. Mr Peters, are you a believer? You have been around long enough to see it changing, and I am sure, Mr Peters, that you care enough about this country and what we are leaving for future generations that you will want to play a part in this. I am sure that I am hearing from the member across the House that he would like to be part of a discussion on what it actually means to leave our country in a better state for future generations, and ensure that they can actually experience the beauty and the opportunities that we have as New Zealanders. Our identity is wrapped up in our land, and we have a role to actually look after that the best that we possibly can.

So I think this is a good day for New Zealand and a good day for Parliament. I would like to see some of that bipartisan—and congratulations and even a question in the House would have been nice, but I understand that Labour members are struggling a little and have got other things on their minds at the moment. But while they actually think about what house prices might mean for future generations, they might ask themselves whether, if we do not make a difference in our emissions profile, there will actually be parts of New Zealand that banks will not lend to and insurers will not insure because of the effects of climate change. It is a good day for New Zealand and a good day for us internationally.

ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I want to credit Paula Bennett for something. There is a proposition she made in her speech that I agree with, which is that New Zealand is a beautiful country. We have great natural assets and great natural beauty, and that is a reason why a lot of people love living here and it is why a lot of people come here. We are a great country. We are part of the developed world and we are not poor, and we can celebrate that and we should. This should be a great country for everyone who lives here. Whether they have been born here or whether they come here to chase their hopes and dreams, this should be a great country for everyone.

But the truth is, of course, that for many, for a growing number of people who are here, no matter how hard they work, no matter how hard they try, and no matter how long they save, they cannot get ahead. They cannot live a decent life and they cannot realise their hopes and dreams. That is the lot of far too many New Zealanders today, and it is not good enough for the Prime Minister to stand here and say, 8 years into the Government: “We have prospects.” “We have prospects.” Really? That is as good as it gets? “We might have prospects.”—those members have been saying that for 8 years.

This Government has lost touch. Those members do not know what is going on. That is why their priority is to track down lost luggage. That is what they care about. As New Zealanders struggle to own their own home and as New Zealanders struggle to get a pay increase and get ahead in life, members opposite are worried about lost luggage. The housing crisis is out of control. We had a nationwide average increase in the house price last year of 26 percent. That is ridiculous, when the Consumers Price Index—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s not true.

ANDREW LITTLE: —is running at below 2 percent. Nick Smith, of course, objects—because he objects to everything—because he does not know what he is doing, because he is the world’s worst Minister of housing. Once upon a time I would have said “the worst in the Commonwealth”, but I have to say he has now surpassed that. When it comes to the Olympics of Government, he is the world’s worst housing Minister.

We now have the average Auckland house price at a fraction below a million dollars. Houses under $600,000 in Auckland have gone from being 78 percent of the market when that Government took office to now just 21 percent of the market, and the Government’s answer to that is, of course, special housing areas. This was the panacea—this was going to fix everything. Affordable houses would be available within years, and they do not—[Interruption] You see, they do not care. They do not care. So with the special housing areas, it was: “Well, we’ve blown the lid off that.” Three years into special housing areas, 154 of them have been created, only a third have got to consenting stages, and only 24 have actually got completed houses on them—154 special housing areas and only 24 with completed housing, because the truth is it has become a recipe for the land bankers. It has become a recipe for the land bankers. There are only 340 affordable homes amongst all the houses built in the 154 special housing areas in the last 3 years.

Those members crow about “Oh, there’s 1,300 houses built”—or 1,268 built, to be precise—but only 340 of them are affordable. The truth is we know what happens when there is a lack of houses built: more people rely on renting and rents go up. We now have overcrowded housing and we have poor-quality rentals. That is why we now have to regulate the rentals, and the Government’s feeble attempt to do that is a complete waste of time.

That is why it was so encouraging today to hear more submissions on my Healthy Homes Guarantee Bill (No 2). It was so encouraging to see the Mayor of Porirua, Nick Leggett, supporting the legislation and making some constructive suggestions. Nick Leggett had very positive suggestions from Porirua, but what was even more heart-warming—[Interruption] You see, the problem with this Government is it is so out of touch, it does not think New Zealanders care about other New Zealanders. And what was very heart-warming was to see the submitters from Paraparaumu College making their submission. Esmay Goodman, Sophie Joines, Braidey Woodham, Elysia Hartley, and Luc van Kradenburg made their submission because they care about New Zealanders in a way that the members opposite never ever will.

METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Renting should give families the same security and the same quality of life as owning their own home does. Renting should not be a second-class option. Renting should not be a driver of respiratory illness in our children. Renting should be a secure, stable, and affordable option for New Zealanders in this country. Renters want that, tenants and families want that, and landlords want that, too. The vast majority of landlords in this country care well for their properties. They care about their tenants. They want their tenants to live well in these homes and to live healthily in these homes, and they go to great lengths to make sure that these homes are warm and dry and secure for their tenants. So we in the Green Party want to make the law work better for landlords and for tenants. We want the law to incentivise good landlords and good tenants, and make sure that those few bad apples who rent out homes—those few bad landlords—are held accountable for the homes, the cold, damp homes, that they let to their tenants.

My Residential Tenancies (Safe and Secure Rentals) Amendment Bill will take small but none the less important steps to improve renters’ lives in New Zealand by encouraging longer term and more secure tenancies in this country. My bill will benefit over 450,000 households in New Zealand. We have had a considerable increase in the number of renting families because housing is now so unaffordable to purchase that families have no choice but to rent, and to rent long term. So for 450,000 households in this country the law needs to work better for them, and the Green Party will deliver that.

My bill makes six changes to the law. The first allows a tenant the first right of refusal when their lease expires, so that they can put down long-term roots in the community they love and have raised their children in, work in, and play in. This means that tenants will have the choice of being able to stay in their home when the lease expires. It does not interfere at all with landlords’ rights to evict, should they choose to, but when a lease comes to its natural close, that tenant in that home, the home they have built, has the first right to say they want to stay.

My bill will require landlords to write into the tenancy agreement the calculation that that landlord intends to use to increase the rent over time. This is just a means by which there is transparency between the landlord and the tenant about the rent increases. It will be up to the landlord and the tenant to decide what that calculation is. There is no prescription for it. But it means that the tenant will know by about how much the rent will go up, and can therefore budget for that when they are planning their financial future. My bill will restrict rent increases to no more than once every 12 months. At the moment it is once every 6 months. That is too frequent for tenants, especially when they do not know how much it is going to go up by. By having the rent calculation in the agreement and restricting those increases to once every 12 months there is greater transparency and it is much better for the families to be able to plan their financial future. They will know when the rent is going up, and they will know by how much.

My bill will restore the 90-day notice for landlords if they want to evict a tenant. The eviction process and the reasons for eviction will all remain as in the current law. There are no changes to that in my bill. But my bill will remove the 42-day notice. So many tenants now are so vulnerable that they are being moved from home to home, as landlords are trying to decide what they want to do with their houses. But the problem is that that house is the home of the tenant. Especially for families with children, who are very vulnerable in these situations, they need more security than a 42-day notice period. So we would restore the 90-day notices across the board for all of the reasons that evictions can be made.

My bill is a small but important step for renters and for landlords, to improve the circumstances for families in this country, and I urge all parties in this House to support the bill when it comes up for first reading. Thank you.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): George Orwell said: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” What many people have not wanted to hear is that immigration in New Zealand has long got out of control. Net migrant gain is nearly three times that of the UK in real terms, and we are creating a city the size of New Plymouth every year in New Zealand through immigration. Most are settling in Auckland, where we have a chronic shortage of housing, and hospitals struggling in places where people should have the services. Motorways are clogged, and so are the educational institutions, and Kiwis are finding it harder to get work because of the competition that is coming in.

For far too long people did not want to hear that immigration was adding to this country’s problems. Any attempt to raise this issue has been dismissed as racist and xenophobic, with people hurling that abuse as though there will never be a day of reckoning where they are concerned. Well, there is going to be a day of reckoning for all who shouted that allegation. The johnny-come-latelys are starting to jump on the bandwagon as well. But this is not a part of courage, where they are concerned.

Last week a Chinese real estate agent, living in Auckland, told us what he thought of immigration and what effect it is having on Auckland. He told us about the housing crisis, and the impact that the Government’s immigration policy is having on it. His family came to New Zealand from Mainland China in 2001, looking for a new future and for the younger generation to have the chance of a good education. He said that in recent years Auckland had become too Chinese-oriented. Walk down Queen Street—[Interruption] Stop laughing, Arthur. Stop laughing, Arthur. Walk down Queen Street, and tell me what you are laughing at. He also said that on a visit to Tokyo, the Japanese said that going to Auckland was like going to China. This is what this Chinese agent said.

Alastair Scott: You wrote that one.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This man wrote the letter. We do not come to Parliament without the facts, without the documents. He has seen young couples desperate to buy their own homes, and having their offers dashed by being outbid by Chinese buyers, whom he said then had the house back on the market within 2 weeks, for another $200,000. They are investment properties, and there are a huge number of them. They do not pay tax. They privately advertise through their websites or among their own social circles, and for them the Government’s IRD number is a joke. He said that in the event of a downward trend, they will be exiting the country without a thought.

What happened? Well, Arthur Loo, a lawyer and board member of the New Zealand China Council, said he doubted whether Adam—this man’s name, at the time—was even Chinese. Mr Loo, from his multi-mansions in Remuera, said he thought it came from the “back ops” department in New Zealand First. Mr Loo supports, of course, a Chinese tong type of silent society where you say nothing. What sort of a lawyer beats his gums without getting a few facts first, particularly in “Granny Herald”? What sort of a lawyer is this? But did he dispute what our agent said? No, he did not. He did not say that one allegation was wrong. No, he thought he could go there and use the coercion of the Chinese tong type of society and shut this guy down. That is what happens when you say things that people do not want to hear.

Then, of course, another immigrant—this man, from South Africa—a former judge, got here a fraction before our agent in 1999, and said that if this was written by someone Chinese, he would eat his hat. If this was written by someone Chinese, he would eat his hat. This is from a former lawyer and judge from South Africa. Well, let me tell you, Dr Marnewick, or whatever you call yourself down on Bucklands Beach—we are going to come down with a TV crew, and you will be eating your hat, because we do not come to Parliament without the facts. Is it a paradox? Who is launching into him? Why, another Chinese man, George Lim from Remuera—because it is always Remuera, is it not? He is not from Ōtara; oh, no, no, it is Remuera. He is saying: “Why is this guy making these statements when he is biting the hand that feeds him?”. So honesty, decency, and having some courage in your society mean nothing—it is all about egregious self-interest for all these people.

And then, of course, you go to Mr Ken Choe from Mount Eden—another highly established place—and he attacks the man as not being Chinese in the first place. Let me just say this: I am proud of this agent, and we will do all we can to defend him.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues): The Government is very proud of what it is doing in relation to climate change. I want to pick up from where Paula Bennett was speaking, and can I say, not only is the Government proud, the country should be as well. Today Paula Bennett has announced the early ratification, by this country, of the Paris Agreement at the end of the year. We will be one of the first countries that are doing this.

Hon David Parker: That’s not correct.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I was in Paris—well, it is actually correct, David Parker. I do not live in the land of theory. I went to Paris—I saw the momentum that was there. We could be sitting there, sitting back, waiting to see what happens, but we are ratifying this agreement. We are going through the legal process. We are taking the “INDC”, the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, and we are getting rid of the “I”. It will be a nationally determined contribution. We are making a difference and New Zealanders should be proud of that. We are ensuring that the momentum that there has been continues—that it keeps going. It is real leadership from this Government, and from this country.

Indeed, we are a country at the bottom of the world, with the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme (ETS) in the world. We have, at the moment, the highest carbon price in the world, because we have, effectively, gone in there, we are reviewing it, we have taken away the two for one, and we are seeing the carbon price at a level where we will start to see action from foresters and from others, and we should be proud of that.

Of course, other policy settings will have to change over time, to help us reach our ambitious target, and to change the economy for good—and I mean that in two ways: to change it for good, but also to change it for the positive. As I say, the ETS is the main tool for incentivising change—there is no doubt about that—but there are many other things we will be doing, and we are doing. I am, and I know Nathan Guy and Nick Smith are, working incredibly hard. It will not be easy—Paula Bennett said this—because, of course, we have, as a developed country, a very unique profile. We are a renewable superpower.

Actually, at the moment—the last 3 months—around 90 percent of our electricity is from renewables. If we look overseas, at Australia, across the Ditch—what is it at the moment? It is at about 13 percent. So we have that unique part of our profile. We also have, of course, the agriculture sector, where we are unique, really, in the developed world—to have such high agriculture here. We are doing it more efficiently per unit than anyone else, but that, of course, is something that has to be factored in. All are going to need to be involved in New Zealand. This is not just a problem of Government: civil society, cross-party—and we have heard Paula Bennett reach out on that today—and all New Zealanders.

I have got important portfolios in this regard, and I take the responsibilities in this area seriously. That is why in energy I am proud to have seen the renewables in electricity skyrocket over this tenure of Government—from 65 percent to well over 80 percent now. But we cannot rest on our laurels, because we know—and I do not mean to make a party political point here, but we know when David Parker was running electricity it was a shambles. Actually, they went backwards in terms of the carbon emissions in that area, but today electricity is only 6 percent of the emissions in this country. It is not the real game. So we need new energy targets and I am working on that. We have been consulting on that with the wider energy sector. So we are working in industry and we are working in transport to make a real difference and to move that renewables advantage into those areas.

We are refreshing our Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy, because that has got a big role to play in this regard as well, to make sure that, as I say, it is not just about electricity, but it is about electric vehicles. It is about seeing coal boilers go into gas, become a more efficient—and actually into bio-energy as well. There are a number of programmes there that we can build on. And in transport we are investing more in public transport than ever before in New Zealand—more busways, more interchanges. We are investing more in rail—over $4 billion, in the life of this Government, into commuter rail. Look, obviously, there is a lot more to come, but also into freight and in cycleways, which will make a difference.

Finally, in electric vehicles, a comprehensive amount—some $200 million in a package—is going to make a difference and change the way that New Zealanders drive personally in the future. So this Government is proud of its record in climate change and what it is doing, and New Zealanders should be too.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki Te Whare. Right now a community is struggling with a very unpleasant water contamination issue that is affecting their health. It is not the only time that this has happened in this country, but it is probably the largest in our memory and the most serious. If we cannot sort out drinking water, how on earth are we going to get to swimmable rivers again? Remember that swimmable, not wadeable, is the goal, despite the weakness of the Government’s national policy statement on fresh water.

Wadeable is not an Olympic sport. Swimming and diving are Olympic sports, but wadeable is how you cross a river, or wadeable is when people wear those rubber clothes and go fishing—a very legitimate activity. Great, except if the river is contaminated, there will not be any fish for them to catch in their waders. So we need to change the goal for water and make it swimmable, not wadeable. It would be a gold medal if we could return to that, and that is going to take some leadership, which is absent at the moment.

Swimmable is not about the Ministry of Health standard; it is about a whole lot more. It means safe for kids, for native fish, for insects—for all life forms, it should be swimmable. Swimmable is not about subsidising big irrigation to suck up water to the point at which rivers are beyond their life-supporting capacity. It is not about sewage overflows, which contain a range of E. coli, ending up in our waterways. We have got a lot of work to do, which can be done with political will. Swimmable means kids bombing off the bank into a clean pool of beautiful, fresh water. It means tangata whenua getting up and doing their pepeha with pride because their river—their awa—is not contaminated. Swimmable means a river where people can be without having to check the Land, Air, Water Aotearoa website to see whether it has been contaminated this week; or without having to read the sign that says “Toxic algae—beware”; or without having to wonder whether this piece of paper nailed to this post by the river, which says it is a health risk, is true or not, and whether they should risk putting their head under the water when they have come to the river for an experience to renew their hearts. We love our rivers, and we want to be safe in our rivers.

It is worth noting some of the issues around this challenge. One is that, according to Statistics New Zealand, we now have 10 million cattle across the country—6.4 million dairy cows and 3.6 million beef cattle. That is quite a lot of large animals, considering that each one of them produces 15 times the effluent of a single human being—and that effluent is not treated. That is quite a lot of waste per animal. Even with the best will in the world—and we have got farmers planting, protecting waterways, and dealing with phosphorous and other issues—nitrates are a massive issue in terms of the swimmability and the health of our rivers, because they lead us towards contamination of all of the elements of that water column, including the risk of toxic algae. As climate change kicks in, we are going to get warmer water and more algae; mix that with nutrients and we have a problem.

So all the great work might be being done, but this Government is not leading it. It has created many collaborative process models to water down the issues so that powerful stakeholders can dominate the debate and so that business, as usual, ends up with more voice than iwi and community. The Government has subsidised big irrigation. It has allowed wadeable to win over swimmable. It has ignored iwi when they have said very clearly that this is a Te Tiriti issue and that they have a proprietorial relationship with water. It is not OK to say no one owns water, and to then let it be sold off in bottles overseas or taken commercial advantage of without anything being paid for it, which is what is happening at the moment—an issue that this Government refuses to face.

Swimmable is about standing with great water policy. The Greens have great water policy, and right now we are touring our communities and talking with people who want that pollution to stop. We are talking about solutions that will really work, not just talking to each other about the lowest bottom line. That is why I am on the water tour and fighting for swimmable, because wadeable is not an Olympic sport.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): This Government is proud of its track record and the progress that it is making on improving freshwater quality. But this afternoon the Government wants to focus on the issue of climate change, because, I think members would appreciate, it is one of the most important issues of our time.

The announcement today by Paula Bennett, the Minister for Climate Change Issues, that the Government is proceeding to ratify the Paris Agreement is a significant step forward. There can be no single country that can resolve the climate change issue, and that is why the international negotiations are such a crucial component. It is particularly noteworthy that when the Kyoto Protocol was ratified, this Parliament went to and fro debating it for more than 4 years, and in comparison, the debate has moved on and there is actually very little controversy today on the step that Paula Bennett has taken.

I would also note with some pride that both the Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by one of the original Bluegreens, Simon Upton, and Tim Groser’s pivotal role in the Paris Agreement have both been under National Ministers, showing the genuine progress this side of the House is able to make on this crucial issue. New Zealand is committing, through the Paris Agreement, to a reduction of 30 percent in our emissions by 2030. That is a bold and challenging task, and I would invite members of the House to read the Treasury papers about the size of the economic challenge that is required to achieve that, because some of the quite naive commitments that are made by other political parties do not take on board the reality of the size of that challenge.

I also want to note, in the debate about climate change, the actual numbers that show that progress is being made. If we look at emissions after the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed, in the years from 1990 to 1999, New Zealand’s emissions grew under that Shipley-Bolger Government by an average of 700,000 tonnes per year. If you look at the period between 1999 and 2008—David Parker is in the House, so he would note it—the previous Labour Government, supported by the Greens, actually saw a massive increase in emissions. During that 9-year period, emissions actually grew, on average, by 1.3 million tonnes per year. Emissions today are actually lower than what they were at the peak of 2005 in gross terms, and lower than what they were in 2007 in net terms.

So when I hear members opposite talking about climate change, I say yes, it is true that Labour and the Greens were bigger on the rhetoric. They promised a carbon-free New Zealand, but if you look at the reality of the progress that has been made on policies that are actually reducing emissions, we are making good progress.

Hon David Parker: A carbon-free New Zealand would rid us of Nick Smith.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If we take the emissions trading scheme, Mr Parker, we need to be honest that New Zealand is one of only eight countries outside of the EU that even puts a price on carbon, and the current price of carbon in New Zealand, at over $18 per tonne, actually compares with the EU price of $7—in other words, there is a stronger financial incentive in New Zealand to reduce emissions. If you look at the electricity sector, under our Government we have seen growth from 60 percent renewable to now 90 percent, which contrasts with under the previous Government, when it actually went in the opposite direction.

I look at the programme on insulating homes—500,000 homes insulated under the programme of this Government; 15,000—one, five—under the previous Government. I look at the progress that Simon Bridges is making with the initiative of electric cars, where we have seen a fivefold increase in the number of new electric cars. I look at the massive investment that Nathan Guy and Steven Joyce are leading around the agricultural emissions. You have a robust, solid, and realistic approach to climate change that today is marked by the significant announcement of the ratification of that Paris Agreement.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): What a load of absolute greenwash from Nick Smith there. I can remember, in my very first week in this Parliament, my normally extremely cheerful colleague the Hon David Parker leaving the Chamber one night after we had been here in urgency, dealing with a National Government that did not want the 90 percent target for renewables, that was going to mine national parks, and that had got rid of the thermal energy generation ban that we had put in place. All of the things—

Dr Megan Woods: And was excluding agriculture.

GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right—and was excluding agriculture from the emissions trading scheme (ETS). All of these things that David Parker had built up—

Chris Bishop: Yes. That’s right—dumb policies.

GRANT ROBERTSON: —to put New Zealand in a position to stand up proudly on the world stage on climate change were dismissed by this Government. The pathetic, pitiful targets that Chris Bishop is so proud of, when it comes to what National is planning on climate change, are an embarrassment on the world stage.

This Government is clearly in trouble in the polls. It has done the polling and it has said: “Whatever you do, Ministers, don’t come to the House and talk about housing. Don’t talk about housing. If you are the Minister for Building and Housing and you’ve got a slot in the general debate, don’t mention housing.”

Hon David Parker: No luggage.

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, no, you do not want to bring your housing baggage to the House.

So Nick Smith stands up to give us a lecture on climate change. Well, on this side of the House, we will not take those lectures from this Government until we see real action, until we see an ETS operating properly, and until we see New Zealand actually standing up proud on the world stage.

I want to devote most of my time today to talking about the importance in New Zealand of the idea of every New Zealander having a share in prosperity. As Andrew Little said at the start of his speech today, New Zealand is a great country—a beautiful country blessed with fantastic natural resources, great people, and fantastic opportunities. The reality of New Zealand today is that not every New Zealander and not every New Zealand child is getting a share in that prosperity—a fair go. The idea that most of us had in our families was that our parents had a desire for us to achieve more than they did. I grew up in a family where neither of my parents finished high school, but they wanted their children to go on and go to university, to be upwardly mobile, to be moving forward in the world, and to be building a better life than what they had.

What we are at risk of at the moment in New Zealand is that a whole cohort of New Zealanders are being shut out of that idea that they have got a share in prosperity. It is exactly that approach that has driven all of the social dislocation in Europe and what we see lying behind the Trump phenomenon in America—the idea that people do not have a place in the economy, that there is not a place for them to achieve their goals, to get that social mobility, or to build up their future for their family that comes. That is what we see from this Government. So when we look today at things like statistics on wages, if working New Zealanders are getting less of a share in the prosperity of New Zealand year on year from this Government, then we build up that gap in our society.

Bill English finally comes to the House today and says: “Actually, I admit it: Statistics New Zealand was right. Asset and income inequality in New Zealand has grown.” The top 10 percent of New Zealanders hold 60 percent of the wealth. They hold 60 percent of the wealth because we have got a Government with no idea of how to give New Zealanders a chance to get that social mobility, to buy their own homes.

We have a Government that does not care that we have the lowest wage growth in 6 years this year, or that 44 percent of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise at all. It is all very well for those at the top to get it—chief executives got their 12 percent pay rise in the last year. The average across the economy was about 2 percent. Two-thirds of New Zealanders got less than 2 percent in terms of wage rise. They are not getting their fair share of prosperity under this Government, and this Government refuses to acknowledge the reasons that lie behind that, even though there is now a chorus of people telling the Government that growth in our economy is being driven by increasing population. It is not being driven by the actions of the Government to create more productivity; it is being driven by the fact that more people have shown up. Per person, it is flat—it is not going anywhere. There is no stability in an economy that is built on immigration, speculation, and debt.

We need a Government that will support our regions, invest in our education and training sector, and build our economy up so that we grow wealth from the ground up, not rely on the failed trickle-down policies of this Government that exclude people from our economy instead of saying that every New Zealander deserves a share of prosperity.

SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): I want to join with other colleagues from this side of the House, in this general debate this afternoon, and talk a little bit about the very important decision that the Hon Paula Bennett, Minister for Climate Change Issues, has made today in relation to the early ratification of our Paris Agreement obligations.

Listening to Grant Robertson speaking, one would be forgiven for thinking that he missed hearing his leader—the abject, desperate leader of the Labour Party—trying to talk back, earlier in this debate, the political damage he did last week. Last week Andrew Little was telling Labour MPs: “Do not be seen with the right-wing Mayor of Porirua. He is a right-wing person and you cannot be seen in the same room as he is.” This week, in this debate this afternoon, suddenly—guess what? The Mayor of Porirua is suddenly a good guy. He is a fine guy; he is a guy who is to be lauded and to be applauded, according to Andrew Little. And Andrew Little can, as desperately and wantonly as he likes, try to talk back the damage that he did last week—try to talk it back, try to walk it back, try to make it as if it did not happen—but it did. That week, last week, was a disaster for the Labour Party, a disaster for the Leader of the Opposition, and it only destined him to be in that role for a very long period of time to come.

This afternoon, we have had a terrific announcement for New Zealanders, for this Parliament, and, indeed, for the globe, because the Minister for Climate Change Issues has—very early, much earlier than was anticipated—been able to announce that New Zealand will ratify the Paris Agreement that was made in December of last year. That was when 180 countries from around the world, which collectively make up 99 percent of global emissions, agreed to make emissions reductions possible. There were many sceptics who thought that that Paris Agreement could not achieve what it had set out to do or achieve what it did, in fact, achieve. This is why this early ratification by New Zealand is important—notwithstanding the fact that we are a small contributor to global emissions internationally, but we have an important leadership role to play.

New Zealand is part of a much bigger global plan to address climate change issues that are facing the world, and Paula Bennett, in my view, is doing a terrific job of communicating that, not only on the international stage but also to New Zealanders here, some of whom are still coming to terms with the importance of climate change issues. I think that she can articulate and present and communicate those messages to middle New Zealand in a way that is worthy of this Parliament and this Government.

We have set, as a Government, some very ambitious targets for New Zealand, and it will not be easy for us to meet those targets—they are going to be difficult to achieve. We have set our target at 30 percent below our 2005 emission level by the year 2030. That is the sort of thing that is relatively easy to say, but when we take a minute or two to think about the ramifications of how that might implicate our businesses, our agricultural sector, and every sector of New Zealand society, then we begin to understand that every sector of New Zealand society has an important, pivotal role to play in reducing our emissions.

It was only a few years ago that most New Zealanders did not recycle, that most New Zealanders did not sort their rubbish in terms of their landfill. They did not sort their glass from their newspaper, from their tin cans, from their paper, or from their landfill waste. Nowadays, it is very common and it is part of, probably, just about every household in the country. So in a small but important way, over a few years, New Zealanders have actually already started to make those transitional changes that are required to assist with reducing our climate change impacts.

So it is a good day for New Zealand, it is a good day for this Parliament, and I am enormously proud to be part of a Government that is going to ratify New Zealand’s Paris climate change agreement much, much earlier than we had anticipated. I congratulate the Minister on bringing it to the House today.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): That speech from Mark Mitchell, like all other speeches—

Hon David Parker: Scott Simpson.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Sorry—Scott Simpson. They all look the same from this side of the House. That speech from Scott Simpson was one of a series of speeches from members of the National Government who are desperate to shift the debate away from the topics that New Zealanders are discussing right now. The topics that are front of mind for New Zealanders are: do I have a warm, dry home to live in; are my children going to be able to get a warm, dry home to live in; are my grandchildren going to be able to get a warm, dry home to live in; and do I have a job, and does that job pay sufficient wages so that I can make ends meet? Those are the things that are front of mind for New Zealanders, and those are the questions that people are asking of this Government at the moment. This Government is desperate to avoid those issues because it knows that it is failing New Zealanders utterly on those matters.

Right now we do have stagnant wage growth. Wages in the last quarter only barely matched inflation. There was nil real wage growth over the last quarter, the lowest level of wage growth in the last 6 years, at the same time as this Government has presided over a 45 percent increase in housing prices. Houses are growing in price at such an enormous rate that they are becoming increasingly out of reach for ordinary New Zealanders. The Government likes to say that in its time wages have increased by 25 percent—well, they will when chief executives get year-on-year pay increases of 12 percent. But the truth is, for most New Zealanders wages are utterly stagnant.

We are getting an increasing gap between those at the top—those who are benefiting from the meagre amounts of economic growth that have occurred under this Government—and those who are working for wages and just trying to do everything they can to get ahead. House prices are completely out of reach of ordinary New Zealanders, and for John Key to get up and say that anything that would affect house prices is an attack on the poor just goes to show how utterly out of touch he really is, because in New Zealand, under John Key, the poorest people cannot even think about owning their own home. The people he meets in the Koru lounge might own lots of property, but, actually, if he got out and genuinely spoke to the people who have become the poorest under his watch, he would know that owning their own home has become completely out of reach for them.

That is because the only growth in New Zealand at the moment is because of population growth. GDP per capita is also stagnant, and wages are utterly stagnant, and one of the things driving that is this Government’s failure to manage the immigration system properly. It issued 209,000 work visas last year, for roles such as retail manager, cafe manager, chef, fast-food cook—100 people got work visas so that they could come and be fast-food cooks in New Zealand—at a time when there are over 200,000 people unemployed in New Zealand looking for work in those areas and looking for wages that will actually attract them to those jobs. Instead of saying to employers “You know what? We’ve got absolutely stagnant wage growth at the moment, we need employers to increase wages to attract people into the areas that have supposed labour shortages.”, this Government says: “No, we are going to open the gates to work visas for low-skill, low-wage jobs, to flood the labour market and keep wages down.”

That is what is happening under this Government—a Government that is utterly addicted to migration because it is the only thing that is keeping its GDP figures looking good. The Prime Minister likes to crow about GDP growth under his watch, but the truth is, it is all driven by population growth. We need an immigration system that actually works for New Zealand and delivers good outcomes for migrants, and this Government is so addicted to letting people into the country to stimulate GDP growth that it absolutely refuses to do what it needs to do to sort that out.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to participate in the general debate. This Government knows what it is doing for the best for the public of New Zealand. The National Government is actively taking part in preparing for the impact of climate change, and is effectively planning to save itself from the uncertainty that could make our people, as well as our economy, vulnerable to its effect. I would like to congratulate the Hon Paula Bennett, Minister for Climate Change Issues, on committing to ratifying the Paris Agreement by the end of this year. This is an ambitious target, and I hope that we will deliver by the end of this year. The Paris Agreement, which was finalised in December last year, aims at setting an emission reduction target for all the nations. Through this we will be able to know how much we are focused on other commitments towards keeping our environment healthy through independent assessments and periodical reviews.

Here, I would like to touch on a very sensitive issue, and before that I would like to clarify a point. The previous speaker mentioned that there has been no growth in the minimum wage, but since we have come into power a 25-percent increase in the minimum wage has already happened, and it is continuously going up. Being a good person does not depend on religion, status in life, colour of skin, political view, or culture. It all depends on how you treat others. I believe that to forget your own sadness, you create a little happiness for others. If you are good to others, then you are doing the best for yourself.

The speech by the Rt Hon Winston Peters was appalling. Over the last 6 years, every time he has participated in a general debate I have seen he has always targeted migrants. Migrants are the ones who are really contributing to this country. He mentioned a story—I do not know where he got it from—about a Chinese agent who came in 2001 and is still struggling. But I can assure you that I came in 2001, I have established myself in this country, and I am contributing to this economy. I have got so many examples of those who came during that period between 1999 and 2003, when the maximum migration took place. They are all well established and contributing to this economy.

But the Rt Hon Winston Peters, whenever he stands in this House, always targets migrants, which is not a good sign for that party. Yet, on the contrary, I see him and his colleagues coming to the Indian functions, coming to the Chinese functions, and asking for their support. Why is that? Why do you want to have their support, if you do not want to support them? I really feel pity for Mahesh Bindra, who is part of the NZ First team and a good friend of mine. Looking at the anti-migrant policies of that party, he must be feeling alone in that party. I remember meeting—

Alfred Ngaro: He’s isolated.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: He must be isolated.

I remember meeting Ron Mark for the first time in 2004 or 2005. He introduced himself as Harnam Singh, an Indian name that he was proud of, and that he was given by his colleagues in the Middle East when he was working over there. But today he is part of that party that is anti-migrant. I am sorry, Ron Mark, what you are doing is not good for the migrants. You should stand up for your friends who gave you the name Harnam Singh. I think this is the right time that we should understand the party that is anti-migrant. People should not be supporting that party. The National Party is the only party that has given real opportunities to the migrants—the most zealous focus we have in this Parliament, and I hope this will continue in the years to come. Thank you.

RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Well, it is an absolute pleasure to be able to stand up on behalf of New Zealand First, and respond, firstly, to a couple of things that were said. The first thing I have to say is in response to David Seymour’s request to have the Airport Authorities (Publicising Lost Property Sales) Amendment Bill—“I’ve Made Myself Look Silly Nuk Korako Bill”. New Zealand First will not approve leave for that bill to be rushed through, and so removing the embarrassment for the Government, simply for two reasons. One, this Government—including David Seymour, who is part of the Government—if it truly wanted to save the country some money, it would have made it a statutes amendment bill and put it through on an omnibus bill. It would have been done and dusted, and it would not have cluttered up the ballot box. So, point one, we object to the cluttering of the ballot box with rubbish bills that the Government could easily pass itself. Two, now that the Government has decided it needs to go through the full democratic process, we applaud that, and we will support democracy being exercised, and full scrutiny of that bill, Mr Seymour. If you want to save the Government some money, if you want to save the taxpayer some money—given that, Mr Seymour, you lead a party of only one—resign. Walk out now. That would save us a hell of a lot of money, and the House would be the better for it, Mr Seymour.

The second point—climate change. We too are enjoying the change in climate in New Zealand right now. I have got to say right now that Rangiora has had magnificent turn outs. Invercargill has had magnificent turn outs. Dannevirke is looking great tomorrow. I want to welcome to the New Zealand First Party the chairman of our new electorate committee down in Clutha-Southland, Mr Mark Patterson—we know Todd Barclay knows him very, very well—along with other members of the committee, like Peter, Charmaine, and a whole bunch of others who have joined up. Thank you very much for joining and putting your faith in New Zealand First. Thank you for looking forward to changing the political climate in this country. This is the point: there is a mood for change now. People are saying, in places like Clutha, that they want change, they want real change, they want meaningful change, and they want it now.

One of the areas they want change in is this nonsense that is going on between National and Labour over law and order. I can actually think back to a number of policies that Labour implemented that National, when its members sat on this side of the benches, opposed. One, when New Zealand First proposed that the age of criminal responsibility be lowered, Labour made it clear it did not approve of that. National fluffed around and said “Well, we agree with you, Ron, and we’ll put the bill through to the select committee and a second reading.”, but, in the end, it lost its bottle and it voted with Labour to vote against the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. But it did condemn Labour. It condemned Labour year after year for its soft law and order policies. Now look who is ramming through legislation to raise the age of criminal responsibility—the new Labour-National Government.

And it is, like we said last week, Pepsi or Coke, red or blue. There is nothing new. You cannot tell the difference between the two. Some say it is like Macleans and Colgate: one has got a blue stripe, one has got a red stripe, but no one can actually tell the difference. They are the same.

Look at what is happening with police numbers right now. Since 2008 the total number of incidents police attended increased from 420,000 in 2008 to 525,000 in 2015. Of those incidents, the number of arrests has dropped from 72,000 to 69,000. What do we see in that? We see something similar to what Labour touted. National’s policy—well, it hooked up with the Māori Party and came in with this decision to lower Māori crime. How did it do that? By not arresting Māori offenders. That is something straight out of Labour’s closing the gaps policy. We will close the gaps by improving Māori statistics by not arresting Māori offenders! Well, this nonsense is about to come to an end.

And it does not matter—Labour can criticise National over its corrections policy, but it ran the goon squad. It brought in home detention, which was a disaster, and now National is making a bigger disaster of it with Serco and anklets that can be cut off with a pair of scissors. They truly are the same—Pepsi and Coke. Nobody can tell the difference. National or Labour, red or blue—there is nothing new.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill

In Committee

TIM MACINDOE (Senior Whip—National): With the agreement of the whips throughout the House, I seek leave for the Committee to consider the separate parts of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill in one debate, with the questions to be taken separately at its conclusion.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Parts 1 and 2, schedule 1, and clauses 1 to 3

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage on this bill. It is a piece of legislation that, as a Canterbury member of Parliament, I am eager to see pass through this House. It is a piece of legislation that is required by many homeowners in the Canterbury region in order to get on with their lives, to settle their insurance claims, and to be able to begin the process of rebuilding.

What this bill does is something quite fundamental. It acknowledges that, after a series of earthquakes of the magnitude such as we have seen in the Canterbury region since 2010, the land has moved. When the land has moved, the boundaries need to move with it, because there are a range of discrepancies. There are around 11,000 properties in the Canterbury region where there has been a greater than 20 centimetre—either horizontal or vertical—movement of the land. So this is no small problem that needs to be rectified for those 11,000 people for whom this is a problem. This piece of legislation seeks to tidy that up and to look at that.

I think that there were some important changes that the Local Government and Environment Committee was able to make when it heard submissions and then came to consider this piece of legislation. They were important because some interesting questions were raised. It has to be said there were not submissions in their thousands, but there were some quality submissions on this. The Christchurch City Council gave a very considered submission, the Law Society gave a very considered submission, and we did hear a number of points raised by the surveying community and professional surveyors and what their views are.

One of the things that have happened during the passage of this legislation, of course, is that the dates that are covered have had to change. After the Valentine’s Day quake of this year in Canterbury, the cut-off date for when this legislation would apply needed to be moved out. So the decision was made to extend this legislation out from a 6-year period from now until 2022, in recognition that there was further land movement on 14 February of this year from that quake in the Christchurch region. It is heartening to see the Government realising the long-term impacts that the earthquakes are having on the city of Christchurch and the region of Canterbury. I would implore the Minister for Land Information to, perhaps, speak to some of her colleagues about the ongoing mental health issues in the Canterbury region and about some of the other ongoing impacts that are going on.

It is heartening to see that the dates have been extended out in clause 4 of this piece of legislation. The other clause that I would like to speak to in this is clause 8 of this legislation, addressing a title conflict. It goes to the heart of what happens when there is a conflict between two property owners around a title when the land has moved, and it may be, when we talk about the land moving, that someone’s garage now resides on their neighbour’s property or it may be that when someone is seeking to rebuild on a parcel of land, that parcel of land is substantially different for the purposes of where the boundary of that land is in terms of the rebuild.

So the select committee did make some recommendations to the original legislation that amended clause 8(1) to clarify that the approved interim surveys must satisfy the provisions in both clause 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b). One of the things that this piece of legislation does is it goes back and retrospectively validates some of the surveying that has been done in the nearly 6 years since the September quake of 2010. But in order for that to be validated it does have to satisfy those requirements in clauses 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(b), and it is important that we can have certainty in the Canterbury region around what it is that we are retrospectively validating, because the last thing that any of us wants to see is these boundaries coming back and being disputed and for people to enter a further period of uncertainty around their homes and around their properties.

One of the other issues that came up that would come within here was that a number of submitters made the recommendation to have a dispute resolution framework included in this legislation, with the inevitable conclusion that there would be disputes between property owners and between neighbours around how it was that the boundaries now fitted together in the changed landscape of the Canterbury region. The select committee was of the opinion that the Property Law Act of 2007 and the Land Transfer Act provided adequate mechanisms to deal with those disputes, and there was not a requirement in this piece of legislation for specific dispute resolution. I would like to just signal that that is something that we do need to keep a watching brief on, to check that that is a fit for purpose mechanism that is able to deal with the particular nature of any of the disputes that may arise within this piece of legislation.

But Labour is supporting this bill. We are supporting it at this Committee stage. We have supported it all the way through. We think that it is really important that we do get this matter rectified for many constituents in the Christchurch area and many citizens in the wider Canterbury area. Their insurance claims cannot be settled until these issues are settled. So it is absolutely critical that we do get this. Perhaps once this roadblock is removed from getting people’s insurance claims settled maybe the Government can look at removing some further roadblocks, to allow Cantabrians to get on with their lives. But Labour is happy to commend this legislation to the Committee, and we will be supporting it.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is a pleasure to take what will be just a brief call in the Committee stage of the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The reason that it will be a brief call is that, like many others in this Chamber, I am keen to see progress made on this bill. It has been a little longer in coming back to the House and being debated than some may have hoped, but now that it is here, I am keen just to get some points on the record, and then get it progressed.

I want to begin my contribution by acknowledging and thanking Minister Louise Upston for the inclusive way in which she prepared this legislation and brought it to the House. On an issue where so many people have been affected in such a personal way—i.e., the boundaries of their home property—to have the opportunity as local members of Parliament to hear directly from the Minister and the officials about the options that are being considered and the thinking behind the legislation was really appreciated. It put us in a stronger position to competently represent the situation to our constituents who have been asking about this, so I just want to note to the Minister that she has set a very good example, and I hope that it spreads throughout her colleagues—I am not holding my breath on that point though.

The reason this bill is necessary is that, as a result of particularly the 2011 Canterbury quakes, but to some extent the September 2010 quakes—nearly 6 years ago now—a large amount of land literally moved, and therefore the determination had to be made on where the boundaries were. Were the boundaries on the old place, or did the boundaries follow the land? That is not a situation that Parliament has considered before, to the best of my knowledge. I hope it is not one that it has to consider again, actually, given the circumstances that caused it. It also was not an easy position for Parliament to determine. It was really important though that clarity was given.

I have a number of constituents who have currently got their building consents on hold while this legislation is being determined. So they cannot put in their building consent applications until they know where their property boundaries are. I hope, Minister, that next week you can get the third reading of this bill progressed, and we can see those people being able to get their building consents in and then take the next step of getting their homes rebuilt, and they can move home. It is 5½ years since the February 2011 quake; that is a long time for people to have been waiting.

There is a lot of uncertainty in Canterbury. My colleague Dr Megan Woods mentioned the mental health issues that have been totally ignored by the Minister of Health, and one that I know, as constituency MPs, we feel week after week by the representations we have had. This is one of the uncertainties: what is going to happen with the property boundaries? This legislation will mean that that uncertainty will go, and perhaps the Minister could support the Canterbury members of Parliament in dealing with the others. The bill is a good initiative. It will support some people better than they have been over the last little while. I commend its progress to the Committee.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information): I want to take just a brief call in this Committee stage. I want to start by thanking the Local Government and Environment Committee for the very constructive way in which it has supported and assisted in ensuring that this piece of legislation is absolutely right for the people of Canterbury.

As the members before me have outlined, there were really two key aspects to this bill. The first was that the rebuild and recovery of Canterbury is one of four Government priorities. The first part of it was making sure that there were no unnecessary delays for people who were wanting to get on and do their rebuilds and progress with getting their lives back to where they had been. So ensuring that we removed some of the time barriers was one priority.

The other priority was ensuring that not just those in Canterbury but those across New Zealand continue to have confidence in our legal property rights system. The member before me, Ruth Dyson, made a comment about the fact that perhaps it has been progressed at a slower pace than the House would have expected. When this challenge first presented itself it became very clear early on that it was important to get it right, to take our time to ensure that we got it right for the people of Canterbury, and I do appreciate the input from the Canterbury MPs into this important piece of work. Given that this is a bill that did have changes in the select committee stage, I also want to thank the officials for working alongside the select committee members.

I do want to draw the Committee’s attention to Supplementary Order Paper 192. All it does is just relocate the purpose clause. I understand that was a drafting error. There is no content change, just a location change. So I just want to thank the select committee, in the Committee, and I appreciate the Committee’s support in progressing this bill further at pace. Thank you.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): There is nothing that riles up the constituents of Christchurch East more than issues relating to their properties, because over the last 6 or so years their properties have been front and centre of their minds—whether they have been damaged through earthquakes or damaged by waiting for a long time to have their home repairs completed. So I am really pleased to take a call on this bill, and to commend Minister Upston for the way in which she was very inclusive of the Canterbury MPs in ensuring that this bill came to the House, so that, at least, we can provide some certainty around their boundaries for property owners in the Christchurch East electorate.

It is a very important issue because, unlike many of the other areas in Canterbury—perhaps with the exception of Kaiapoi—it suffered the most lateral spread. The issue of lateral spread is where the land is stretched, and in some cases that means, as my colleague Dr Megan Woods mentioned, someone’s garage or a part of their fence may, technically, be on another person’s property. So in order to ensure that we get these matters around property boundaries resolved, it is really good that we can progress this piece of legislation through the House.

The other impact, I guess, that has been significant in the Christchurch East area is in respect of liquefaction, where great mounts of liquefaction actually came to the surface, which could result in land levels actually dropping. One of the aspects of this particular piece of legislation is not just taking into consideration the lateral spread but also the fact that height of land has actually changed as well. Other than in regard to landslip and rockfall, the notion of the vertical movement of land has also been taken into account when preparing new boundaries for property owners.

As I say, there is nothing that gets people in Christchurch East more riled up than issues about their properties and the value of those properties. So I am really grateful that we are progressing this particular piece of legislation through the House. If any of you happen to come to Christchurch East and drive along New Brighton Road, there is a very real example of how the lateral spread has actually occurred—and that is actually just looking down the river. If you drive along New Brighton Road between the All Saints Church and the mall at The Palms, you are literally driving below the level of the river, because it has dropped that much. It is a very real representation of the issue that this piece of legislation is seeking to address. So many Cantabrians will be heartened to know that there will be some certainty around their boundaries.

Clause 4 puts into practice what will be the end date for this particular piece of legislation. The Valentine’s Day quake was a very real reminder that the earth has not stopped moving in Canterbury—that was quite a significant quake. So the fact that clause 4 actually extends the date out to 2022 is very useful. Within clause 8—of course, my colleague talked about the title conflict—this clause seeks to insure and validate any of those interim surveys that were put into place during that interim period. They can now actually be validated and no longer be classed as interim.

There were a limited number of submitters. Of course, the Christchurch City Council would be a key submitter on this particular piece of legislation, if only around the calculation of rates. The Christchurch City Council has been actively engaged with local residents with regard to their properties when it comes to a whole lot of other earthquake issues: with regard to increased flooding vulnerability, and increased vulnerability to liquefaction, as well.

As my colleague commented, a process for disputes is very useful. There will inevitably be lots of discussion amongst neighbours on where property boundaries should and should not be, so that is very useful to ensure that that goes ahead.

In conclusion, I do want to say that there are still lots of very vulnerable people in Canterbury who are waiting, and who have been waiting for a significant period of time to have some certainty around their properties—whether they are waiting for repairs or rebuild or whether they are waiting to be able to move on with their lives. If there is anything we are able to do to effect some quicker turnarounds than our people have been able to experience, then I am all for that. On that note, I commend the bill to the Committee.

EUGENIE SAGE (Green): This will be a short call on the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill. The Green Party supported the bill at its introduction, continues to support it, and will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of Minister Upston, which, as the Minister explains, just changes the location of the purpose clause.

I certainly thank submitters on the bill. There were only 11, but they made quite detailed technical submissions, particularly those from the surveying profession. That is largely what the bill is about—maintaining public confidence in the cadastre, because of the 11,000 properties that moved more than 20 centimetres after the earthquakes. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Land Information in terms of her consultation with Canterbury MPs, knowing that we were all vitally interested in this issue.

In terms of the changes in practice in surveying on the ground in Canterbury, initially after the quakes surveyors adopted that quite practical application that the boundaries would move with the land. But, then, around the middle of 2014 Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) changed its approach and advised surveyors to apply the pre-earthquake boundary dimensions. Then there was some more guidance released by LINZ, in February 2015, which highlighted that boundaries should not move with the land. I think this bill is really necessary because of the confusion that was occurring both in the profession on the ground and amongst the wider public about where boundaries were going to be located when the land had moved. So the fundamental part of the bill, which is that the boundaries do move with the land, is both a sensible and practical one, and it creates a great deal more clarity.

The other issue in the bill is the fact that there is not any liability for surveyors for using the interim techniques that they used as long as there has not been negligence and the like, and that is also sensible. It means that those determinations of where the boundaries lie will not be relitigated.

We are very pleased to support the bill, and we thank officials. One of the other major issues around land, of course, is the new Land Transfer Bill, which is being considered by the Government Administration Committee under the Hon Ruth Dyson’s able chairing. One of the issues that submitters on this bill raised was that there was a need for a dispute resolution procedure. The bill has not been amended by the select committee to provide for that, and it has been pointed out that the provisions in the Land Transfer Act can deal with those sorts of issues. In fact, Parliament is looking to make those provisions in the new Land Transfer Act even clearer.

So we accept those changes not having been made to this bill by the select committee, because they properly belong in the land transfer legislation. This is a good bill and the Green Party supports it.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): It can be very difficult in circumstances such as happened in Christchurch with the earthquake sequence to identify where boundaries are. On my own property on the Port Hills I am sure that one of the boundary pegs has moved. I am sure that the others did not, so perhaps my section has got slightly bigger than it used to be. I do not really know, but neither the neighbours nor I have any great interest in spending money on redefining where the boundaries are.

However, the point is this: there are anomalies that happen, and there needs to be a way to deal with those. This bill provides a very sensible way of doing that. It does not alter the fundamental principles of surveying. It provides a degree of flexibility around the general rules, and I welcome that. I welcome the approach to provide for practical solutions that will actually work in the circumstances. That is, essentially, what this bill does, so for that reason New Zealand First has no difficulty at all in supporting it. It is very sensible.

There are a number of ways in which I and others in Christchurch have noticed some quite strange but important things happen. I remember being told by a friend of mine who during the 2011 earthquake was driving down Manchester Street that he watched the street ripple like a carpet being shaken in front of him. He could not believe what he was seeing. Since then I have looked down that same section of street a number of times, and it seems to me that there has been a new bulge occur in about the middle of the section of the street that goes through central Christchurch. I used to be able to look from Armagh Street all the way down to Moorhouse Avenue and see a straight, level piece of road, but I swear that is no longer the case. There is sort of a bulge in the middle. So that is one of the sorts of things that happened during these earthquakes.

Others have talked about lateral spread. We all know people whose sections have moved and expanded, especially around the rivers and areas like that. The aquifers have altered. People in Woolston, not far from where I live, have had new springs pop up on their sections, some of them actually under existing houses. Water appears out of nowhere and then washes down the gutters.

Another issue has, of course, been land subsidence, and we have seen some of that in what is now called the Flockton Basin. It was never called that; it was just a low-lying level of land in the Flockton Street area. I remember while I was on the city council providing for some improved drainage for that area, but we never called it the Flockton Basin. It is now called that because there is a depression there, and much more drainage is necessary as a result.

So those are just some examples of the magnitude of the things that change during an earthquake. That is why legislation like this, with a practical approach, is needed to be able to deal with those sorts of things.

I just wanted to say one other thing, and that is this: the definition of “earthquake” was dealt with by the Local Government and Environment Committee, and I understand it is now allowing 6 years for the whole earthquake sequence. When we talk about an earthquake, it is really not just a single event. We noticed the 2011 one because it was so huge, but, actually, a few minutes later there was another very big earthquake, which by itself would have been significant. Then there were a number of other shocks and, as time went on, there were some very significant events, too. My hot water system must have sprung leaks about three or four times during that sequence; ultimately, I had to get it replaced. It could not put up with it any more, and neither could I.

So I actually agree that it is very important that we have a practical definition of what an earthquake is. It is a sequence, and, for practical reasons, you need an end point for that. I think 6 years is appropriate. That will mean, I guess, that sometime in 2017 the sequence will be deemed to have come to an end, and that anything that happens after that will have to be regarded as a new event.

It is a good, practical approach. I think the whole bill is a good, practical piece of legislation, which we have no difficulty whatsoever in continuing to support.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Members, I propose to put the Minister’s amendments individually, and then to put the other amendments as one question. This might be the calm before the storm, but it appears there is a bit of unanimity in the Committee on this issue.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 192 in the name of the Hon Louise Upston to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments agreed to.

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

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

Bills

Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Amendments to principal Act

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): There is an extensive Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister, Michael Woodhouse, that, I think, in total addresses many aspects of Part 1 of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. It is a complex Supplementary Order Paper that addresses a number of different matters. I am aware that members have views on different clauses and do not universally support or oppose all aspects of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 179, so I intend to begin by working my way through the changes proposed by the Minister and address, in particular, those that we are opposed to, but also pointing out where members will be in support. I want to make it clear that it is a Supplementary Order Paper that has a number of different aspects to it, and people have views both for and against different parts of it.

The aspect that caused members on the Commerce Committee the most concern was the shift from councils being required to implement a by-law to regulate Easter Sunday shop trading, to a policy. The thinking behind this is understandable. Councils came to the select committee and told us that they would much prefer that the Government take responsibility for this issue so that we have one rule across all councils, and that by passing this responsibility on to councils the Government was actually generating a lot of cost for councils because with a by-law comes the requirement to consult and to draft the by-law and all those matters. So there is a lot of staffing resource and a lot of time that would be dedicated to, essentially, doing the Government’s work for it.

In response to that, understandably, the Government has proposed, through the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, to relax the requirements somewhat by shifting from having a by-law to having a policy. It is doing this in the name of reducing costs for councils. That is problematic on a number of fronts. First of all, it does not actually reduce costs for councils all that much. They still have to go through consultative processes and they still have to review their policy. In fact, what a number of the amendments proposed by the Minister actually do is they sort of have a policy-plus approach, so that it is somewhere between a by-law and a policy. Councils will be required to have a local shop trading policy but will have to have levels of consultation and review that are normally required under a by-law. So, actually, councils will have to do as much work and bear as much cost by shifting to a policy as they would have had to do under a by-law anyway.

However, it does reduce somewhat the public’s ability to have their say. I know that my colleague David Cunliffe, who chairs the Regulations Review Committee, will traverse aspects of this change, which, arguably, creates a Henry VIII situation where councils will, through a policy-making process and through regulation, be able to overrule the primary legislation. It is problematic, on one hand, in that it creates those difficulties in the legislation, but also in that it does not actually achieve the intention, which is to reduce the costs placed on councils. Councils were quite clear about this—that they do not actually want this responsibility at all and this is sort of a halfway house approach from the Government to attempt to address that.

I will—and I know other members are planning to—oppose those aspects of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. There are aspects of the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper that I do support, and they are those that refer to, basically, workers’ rights. Although overall I am opposed to the approach that removes one of those family and community days when people can be guaranteed a day off work, in the event that this House does decide to pass this legislation—and, certainly, the vote at the second reading suggests that the House does intend to pass this legislation—there is some mitigation offered by some of the amendments that the Minister proposes. In the name of making a bad piece of legislation slightly better, I am interested in supporting that.

Subpart 2 of Part 2 refers to shop employee rights, and there are some aspects there—clause 5H refers to the provision requiring a shop employee to work or be available to work on Sunday being unenforceable. The original legislation as drafted said that a worker cannot be required to work. Of course, earlier this year we debated the issue of availability clauses—being required to be available. Clause 5H actually adds in there the situation where a worker might ordinarily be required to be available for work but, with this amendment, they would not be able to be required to be available for work. That is an improvement. It is, as I say, fundamentally bad legislation—anti-worker legislation—but that change, which makes it clear that an employer cannot require a worker to be available for work on Easter Sunday, is an improvement.

New section 5J in clause 15 refers to an employer’s obligation to notify the shop employee of their right to refuse work on Easter Sunday. This is important. You know, a lot of workers are not aware of what their rights are, and it is extremely important that workers are made aware that they have the right to refuse work on Easter Sunday. The amendment there refers to the period of time in which the employer must make the worker aware, and what the Minister has done with this amendment is to create a window of time.

So, previously, the legislation said it must be at least 4 weeks prior to the Easter Sunday. That could have been 4 weeks to for ever, so he could have been able to give them a warning 364 days beforehand that they needed to be aware. This creates a window of time. So between 4 and 8 weeks before Easter Sunday, the employer—if this amendment passes—will be required to inform the employee that they have the right to refuse work. It is important that the employee is made aware of that right and that they are made aware of it at a time that is appropriate, when they will be making their decisions about whether or not they want to spend time with their family, as they are currently able to do under the current law, or whether they will prefer to go into work.

The truth is that there will be a lot of pressure applied to workers in this situation and workers will feel coerced into working, regardless of what their rights are. Regardless of the fact that they have the right to refuse work, the truth is that a lot of the employees that this legislation is going to apply to are on minimum wage, or close to it. They have insecure hours and they know that exercising their right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday could very well lead to their not being able to pick up the hours that they would want to ordinarily. So although the right is there and although this is an improvement in terms of how employees will be informed of their right—

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): I am pleased to take a call in the Committee stage of this bill. This is my first call on this bill and I am one of the members of the Commerce Committee, which went through an extraordinary process in the discussions and the computations around this bill. I am also one of the members from this side of the House who supported this bill to select committee, and exercised my conscience in doing so. I also note that this is the fourth time—is it the fourth or the fifth time—that a bill on this subject has come before the House, and I believed that it should have the right to go to a select committee and have the arguments heard again in 2016. I am well aware that there are differing opinions and that there are parts of the country that have got much stronger views on this than others, and therefore I felt that it was worthy of a discussion at a select committee.

Having sat through the interminable discussions at the select committee, I am left feeling horrified at the shambles that is this piece of legislation before the Committee today. I note the Minister has tabled Supplementary Order Paper 179, which is an extensive Supplementary Order Paper that completely changes the original bill, but it is a shambles of a piece of legislation and it reflects a pattern of badly drafted bills coming before the Commerce Committee. I think that is a great shame, but I feel the need to make reference to that today, because it is not a good look for this Parliament and this House for there to be such an extensive Supplementary Order Paper tabled in the Committee of the whole House because the Government cannot get it right in the first place. That is just one concern I have.

This bill is the Minister Michael Woodhouse’s third piece of flawed and failed legislation to have appeared before the House in recent times. The first one was the workplace health and safety laws. The second was his failed attempt at zero-hour contracts—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to draw the member—because it is quite a broad bill. But we are discussing Part 1 of this bill, and the Minister’s—I should stop using my own mike here. The Minister’s general record is not part of this part of the bill.

CLARE CURRAN: This bill, the Shop Trading House Amendment Bill, ultimately aims to undermine, and will have the effect of undermining, the rights of working people. That is one reason to exercise my conscience to vote against it at the Committee stage, and I will be doing so, but there are more reasons to do so, as well.

The second reason that I have got major concerns about this bill—which is outlined in Part 1 and certainly evidenced by the massive Supplementary Order Paper before the Committee today—is that the Government has missed an opportunity to show national leadership on this and actually impose a requirement for a policy change across the country, rather than leaving it up to local bodies. The original piece of legislation attempted to use the mechanism of a by-law. There was a great deal of opposition to that from individual councils around the country because they saw it—and rightly so—was going to be very contentious in each region, and it would cost a lot to impose a by-law and there was the possibility of judicial review. So, as a result of that, instead of coming back with a policy across the country, where the law is required, the Government came back with this halfway-house approach of a local policy rule, which therefore raised questions—significant and constitutional questions—about the consultation mechanisms that would be used in each region to impose what is, in effect, a policy change that the Government wants, but it wants to put the onus on to local communities to deliver it. Again, that is a reason to oppose this bill and to exercise my conscience to do so, and that is what I will be doing.

The third reason why I have concerns—and this came out in evidence before the select committee—is that this bill is unlikely to be enforced. The current mechanism used by the Government to monitor shop trading on Easter Sunday has very little enforcement as it is, and it became clear to the committee that it was a farce and that the process was a farce. Again, that was a reason to oppose it.

The fourth reason is the dilution of workers’ rights and the removal of their ability—and I know a number of my colleagues have already spoken about this—and the dilution of their right to have valuable time off with their families. So this bill—and I go back to the point—is a shambles. The extensive Supplementary Order Paper we have before us in the Committee of the whole House stage comes as the result of the committee not being able to agree on the way forward. We had an unusual step of the bill, in its original form, being sent back to the House and the Minister being forced into the embarrassing situation of having to table the amendments at the Committee of the whole House that were wanted by the Government side. It is a halfway-house approach to a piece of legislation. It was a shambles from start to finish.

There were calls from significant local bodies—the Wellington City Council, the Auckland Council, and the Christchurch City Council—for the Government to take a national approach to this. If it wants the law to change, then it should change it itself, rather than requiring local government to take the burden on themselves. That is not what we have ended up with. We have ended up with an inadequate, flawed piece of legislation, which is the modus operandi of this Minister.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I am very pleased to make a few opening remarks in what I know will be a robust debate on this legislation, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. I will pick up on the previous speaker’s comments and also some of the comments that were made in the second reading speeches subsequent to my moving that the bill be read a second time.

I want to start with the issue of the mess of the bill that Ms Curran described.

Clare Curran: Shambles.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: OK, so let us talk about shambles. Shambles is the status quo. Shambles is the fact that in my home city and her home city of Dunedin there can be no shop trading on Easter Sunday, except and unless one is a retailer in the Carnegie Centre, but only on the mezzanine floor and only to sell things like—I cannot remember; I think it is second-hand goods and children’s toys—and only if there is entertainment going on at that time. That is a mess. That is the worst excess of the mess that I have seen in the present legislation. The most popular—

Dr David Clark: There’s no problem, because it’s not being used.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The member says that it is not being used. That is quite right, and the reason is—and this shows what a mess of an Act it is right now—that there is no trading at the Carnegie Centre. It has long since stopped being a retail outlet. But there are many other retail outlets in Dunedin. I know that the member who is interjecting knows that.

Most popularly, we have the well-known anomalies of trading being allowed in Queenstown but not in Wānaka. Actually, Pembroke Mall, stage one, in Wānaka can trade; stage two and anywhere else in Wānaka cannot. Taupō can; Rotorua cannot. The mess is the status quo.

I am not portraying this bill as the gold standard of improvements. There is no question that it is not. But there is no doubt that the Act that regulates shop trading hours at Easter will be significantly improved because of this bill, and this is the point the Opposition hates. Those members hate giving choice. They hate giving choice to their own colleagues to have the bill brought back to the House in the best form. If Ms Curran believes it is an embarrassment, it is an embarrassment to the Opposition members of the Commerce Committee who were not prepared to say: “This is a personal vote, a conscience vote, as it always is. Let’s make the bill in the best shape that it can be, to give the best information to enable colleagues to choose.” They could not even do that. If they thought the bill was so bad, they should have portrayed it as such, put up the amendments that they themselves were told were going to improve the bill, and enable the House to choose—there is that word again. They do not think we are smart enough to work that out. They do not think union members are smart enough to recognise that this bill creates greater protections for workers, not fewer protections. And, this is most important of all, they do not want to give the public the choice to shop on Easter Sunday—the choice to go to their local communities and say: “We think this should happen.” I know that the people of Rotorua and on the Coromandel and in Wānaka want it, and they should have it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am slightly reluctant to interrupt the Minister in his first call, but I do want to remind him that we are talking now to Part 1 of the bill as it has emerged from the select committee. What we are trying to decide is whether the detail we are discussing in the bill and in the Minister’s amendments fulfils the wishes of the House at the second reading. Because I am going to be relatively tight on other members, it would be good to start with this Minister.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Certainly, Mr Chairman. I want to continue to address, in order, the comments that were made by the previous speaker around the question of choice. I think this is at the heart of the bill, including Part 1. Part 1 provides for the process that a local council would follow if its citizens, its ratepayers, want to make that choice. It is a technical change that I am proposing in my Supplementary Order Paper 179 on Part 1 of the bill, to make sure that rather than being done by a by-law, it can be done by a policy. But it comes back to choice. It comes back to the choice that the ratepayers of those communities can make. It may well be that they do not want to make that choice in my home city. That is absolutely fine. I will probably be at the Warbirds over Wānaka International Air Show anyway. I might want to exercise that choice.

There is another matter about the question of process, and that is the fact that this is a personal vote and the National caucus has agreed unanimously that it will exercise its discretion to vote in favour of these amendments. It takes away the questions of worker protection, of whether or not there should be trading on what is, for a great number of New Zealanders still, a very holy day—that is Easter Sunday—and staying away from Good Friday, which theologically is even more important, and saying, as one caucus, that this is about letting the public choose. Yes, individual members may have their own consciences about what that is, and they will exercise those consciences about whether to go to church on Easter Sunday or whether to go shopping on Easter Sunday. But to a person in this caucus, they have said that that should be a choice that can be made by ratepayers, through their local councils. It is as simple as that.

The councils and Local Government New Zealand did say “Actually, we don’t think this is the right way to go.”, and so did the retailers. Here is why: because they wanted the Government and this Parliament to go even further and just simply lift any prohibitions on trading over this period. That would have left us back where we are now, which is at a personal vote, which would not engender the unanimous support of the National Party caucus, and therefore any changes would fail.

So let the great not be the enemy of the good. This is a good bill. It progresses and tidies up what has been a muddle for years. It is not perfect, but it is as good as this Parliament at this time will get. I am prepared to put it up and vote for it, use my conscience to support it, so that the people of New Zealand in those communities can make that choice.

MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to take a call in the Committee stage, on Part 1 of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. The Green Party absolutely opposes the reduction in the number of restricted shop trading hours and days. We already have only 3½ days of the year when shops cannot open, and to sacrifice another one on the altar of consumerism is something we do not support. It is an important time for families to be able to plan ahead, and it is an important time of the year to get together and organise around that.

We also have very grave concerns about the requirement that the decision is going to be foisted on to local councils. This will impose a financial burden that they cannot easily sustain. I understand, although I was not on the committee that heard the submissions, that all the councils that submitted raised that point—that it would be a burden that they do not want. They are already struggling.

We also have grave concerns about the impact on workers’ rights. There seems to be a sort of illusion that a worker can just say: “I don’t want to work that day.” and that will be the end of the story. I have no doubt that there will be some wonderful employers out there and that this bill will have no consequential impact and employees will be free to take the day off, but that is not the reality of many employer-employee relationships. When you have extremely low-paid workers, which is what a huge number of people working in the shop industry are—on minimum wages, or very low wages—they are extremely anxious about job security. They are extremely anxious that any indication that they do not oblige with an employer’s request will have repercussions. They are not in a position, if they are refused, to appeal that decision.

There is very little understanding and awareness out there of workers’ rights, among many workers in New Zealand. For example, just recently, I have been involved with some members in the disability community who were being asked to do things that were completely unreasonable, and they had no idea that, actually, the employer was making incredibly unreasonable requests on their time, and being incredibly bullying. If you already have low self-esteem for whatever reason, if you are already marginalised, and you have ended up working in an industry that is a low-paid industry, the ability to stand up to your employer and say: “This is my right. I have the right to take this day off because this day is important for me.” just is not there. People do not even want to go there. They are nervous—anxious—and they do not understand their rights.

Is the Government going to take on a huge education programme to educate employees of their rights, especially around this bill? I do not see that here. Just sending a notice out so many days, or weeks, beforehand about the right to refuse is not enough and does not recognise the inherent power imbalance in that relationship. That is why we, the Green Party, are so very opposed to this bill, and to these amendments. We feel that this legislation stems from a number of examples of flawed thinking. It is flawed thinking: we have to have, every single day of the year, all the shops open everywhere, the length and breadth of the country—is that where it will end up? Will shops all be open on Christmas Day, and Anzac Day, and Good Friday?

At the moment, the focus is on Easter Sunday, but where will it end up? There are only 3.5 days of the year when shops cannot open, and these days are precious. We should keep them that way. This bill sabotages a very important part of the culture of New Zealand.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): In the past 10 years there have been four other similar bills that have come before this House. Each time those bills have come before this House, there has been a conscience vote by all parties, and each time those bills have lost. I am surprised to hear that on this particular occasion—I am hearing Minister Woodhouse say that he is forcing all of his members, the Government members, to vote in accordance with where the Government wants this bill to go.

I want to say that in the last 8 years, with this Government in power, there has been a deliberate and systematic effort by this Government to make legislative change that undermines workers’ rights, that undermines the ability of workers to organise well, and that undermines the ability of workers to bargain in good faith. This bill is an additional effort by this Government to undermine the rights of workers to have a day of rest. It undermines the rights of workers to be able to spend time with their families, particularly those workers who see Easter Sunday as a religious holiday, and a culturally appropriate holiday, as well.

There is a petition that is circulating in South Auckland at the moment telling Mr Key that he needs to give freedom to his members to be able to vote with their conscience on this particular bill. I say that because, having looked at the track record of the National Government members, I note that there are two Pacific members in the Government—specifically the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and Alfred Ngaro—who have, in the past, when similar bills have come forward, voted against it. I daresay that now, based on what the Minister has said, he is going to force them to vote in support of this bill. That petition, which will be tabled next week, is about calling on the Prime Minister and his Government to allow those members of Parliament in the Government who would not support the Government’s agenda if given their freedom to vote in good conscience on this to do so. I am hopeful that the two Pacific members of the Government will front up and share with this Committee and with the public whether they intend to follow their conscience in not supporting this particular bill.

Phil Twyford: What are the odds on that?

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Well, I do not know. Listening to the Minister, I think he is basically forcing them, and I hope they have the courage to come to the Committee—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member cannot refer to someone as lacking courage. I will just remind the member that 3 minutes of the 5-minute speech have gone and we have not heard anything on Part 1 yet. I will ask the member to come back to Part 1 and concentrate on the substance of Part 1.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Thank you. Part 1—in Part 1, clauses 10, 12, 13, and 14 are really the crux of this bill. That is the part where this Government is passing the buck on to local government. I think that what we have seen is, instead of this Government being bold and doing what it has wanted to do for quite some time—and that is pass legislation for all councils—what it is doing is it is passing the buck to local government and saying: “Here’s the framework. Councils, you decide whether to approve a by-law or whether to approve a policy, in terms of opening up your shops on Easter Sunday.” I understand that Local Government New Zealand says that the premise of the bill is OK, but it does not support the way this Government is passing the buck in terms of asking councils to pay for all the costs.

If you look at clause 7 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 179, it says that the “special consultative procedure has the same meaning as in section 5(1) of the Local Government Act 2002.” That is a procedure that is enacted when the local government has to approve a by-law when it comes to opening up Sunday trading. That is a costly exercise. It is a costly exercise that will go contrary to what many of the people standing for local government are saying, and particularly those mayors who are saying to their residents that their policy is going to be a constant rating increase or a reduced rating increase. How can there be certainty amongst the councils if the Government passes the buck of implementing this bill?

It is not just a consultation process. It is also about having to hire legal services for the development of the policy and the development of the by-law. Furthermore, this bill seems to suggest that it is then left up to councils to enforce the legislation itself. That just means more costs.

The overall view is that—and this is the reason why Local Government New Zealand is not on board with it—this Government treats councils badly and continues to pass on the costs for them to carry. The reality is—where do local governments get their money from? It comes from ratepayers. So every ratepayer who is listening to this—yes, you might feel that you would like to go down to Sunday shopping on Easter Sunday, but the reality is that you, your neighbours, and your whole community are going to have to bear the cost of implementation of this particular piece of legislation.

I want to come to the fact that by opening up trading hours on Sunday—a day which is traditionally a day of rest, particularly for communities of faith and communities of culture. Sunday is a day of rest, but if this Government is so intent on opening up trading hours on Sunday, it means—the Minister says that the worker has a choice. The reality is that if the shop or the business is open on Sunday, and it becomes a regular trading day for them, any person who refuses to work on that particular day is going to be undermined by that employer and is going to be undermined by their peers. Others are going to wonder why they should be able to take the day off on Sunday and not be penalised.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Trading on Easter Sunday is in Part 2, and we are on Part 1. [Interruption] Sorry? I ask the member to concentrate on Part 1, and that is what we are actually on.

Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Apologies for doing this, but I have found this bill at times difficult to follow as well, in terms of what is in what part. Part 2 of this bill is clauses 20 and 21. Part 1 of this bill does add new Parts 1 and 2 to the principal Act, and so it can be quite difficult to follow. But Part 1 is the bulk of the bill—in fact, basically everything that the bill traverses is in Part 1. Part 2 of this bill is “Transitional, savings, and related provisions”—clauses 20 and 21.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Thank you for that. I am going to seek some advice. I hear what you say—the bulk of it is in Part 1—and I am just going to seek some advice. The member is correct, and so new Part 2—“Trading on Easter Sunday”—as mentioned on page 5 of the bill, is incorporated in Part 1, which the member has mentioned. I am calling Su’a William Sio—my apologies.

Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Your apology accepted, Mr Chair. I do want to draw your attention to Part 1, clause 13, inserting new section 4B, which is what I was making my references to earlier. That particular part makes reference to Easter Sunday being opened up as a trading day, when that particular day has normally been a holiday.

The other thing that I suspect many workers would be angry about is the fact that there is nothing in this bill that is providing any extra compensation for people to work on Easter Sunday. When they are required to work on Easter Sunday, this Government is asking all workers to treat Easter Sunday as an ordinary day, so that there is no extra payment and it is not recognised as the special day that we currently recognise it as. It is a spiritual day that is recognised by faith communities as a day of rest and as a day where you would want to be around your family. Traditionally, Easter Sunday, combined with Easter Monday, has been a public holiday that many workers look forward to, to take time out with their families.

What is happening here—the way I read it—is that by opening up trading hours on Sunday, this Government is intent on every fricking worker in New Zealand continuing to work, work, work, and not getting ahead. That is what it has created—a class of workers who continue to work long hours almost every day, and at the end of it they just cannot make ends meet. That is the cause. As I said, this is in addition to the constant attacks by this Government over the last 8 years undermining workers’ rights—undermining the rights of workers to be able to take time off on those Sundays that traditionally, particularly Easter Sunday, have been days where people rest and take time out with their families.

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to most certainly oppose the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. I agree with Su’a William Sio; Part 1 actually does refer to amendments in the other parts of the bill, so Part 1 ends up being quite wide.

Basically, this bill wants to liberalise Easter trading laws. This is the 10th attempt in 19 years to liberalise Easter Sunday shop trading laws, and the Greens have consistently and continuously opposed these proposals because we want to protect workers’ rights. Specifically, it is including the lower-paid workers and the workers who do not have any choice but to work. If we do not have a nationwide, consistent approach to employment laws, those workers who will not have the choice—by the nature of their jobs and by being in the position of needing that job—will not be protected. They need a nationwide, central government, consistent approach, given their vulnerable position. Their ability to take a day off and spend time with their family needs that nationwide protection.

Part 1 does give that decision back to local government, in some cases, through by-laws, making it possible for local government to say it will allow certain shops in certain areas to continue to trade on what is normally a protected day for workers—one of the few protected days for workers. I will repeat: it is not the workers who can just take days off whenever they want because they are making ends meet and because they have already got loads of money—they should have that choice to take holidays whenever they want. It is actually the workers who will be vulnerable through this by-law, and through this local government approach, and who will be penalised.

We have noted that it seems like there is some sort of attempt to put in a protection—for workers to be protected if they want to raise their hand and say “Actually, no—I had plans”. It does not matter what they were—they could be religious, whānau, community plans, events. The bill seems to try to put a protection in, but the Greens say that it would have been a more acceptable bill if compelling an employee to work Easter Sunday could instead be an offence to be prosecuted by the labour inspectorate, rather than just a personal grievance. Vulnerable workers need stronger backing to be able to feel more confident to put up their hands and say: “Yeah, I actually really need to take this day off.” The bill just does not go far enough in giving workers that confidence. Again, workers are vulnerable.

I do want to pick up on “public choice”, and I want to maintain that the greater good is actually protecting workers’ rights. The public have a whole lot of days, currently, to be able to shop till they drop, and only, I believe, 12 days that are protected for family time, for community time. This is a personal conscience vote, I understand. I oppose this bill because I firmly believe that the greater good for this country, for our development and for our productivity, is to actually have a nationwide, consistent approach to protecting workers as opposed to the so-called public choice to shop. That is actually not being taken away. There are so many other days on which we can choose to shop.

I want to stand and support my colleague Mojo Mathers, who absolutely spoke about protecting workers’ rights. Part 1 of the bill is actually broad because all of the clauses and the amendments that are being made in Part 1 of the bill cover various other sections of the rest of the bill. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Firstly, I just want to say that I was very surprised to see that the Government has shifted Easter Sunday shop trading from being what has traditionally been a conscience issue to whipping its whole caucus to vote in one particular way. It is disappointing, because we do look back over the record of this particular issue and we see that over the last 10 years it has been brought to this House four times, all times when members were given the opportunity to vote according to their own conscience. Tonight, the National Government has taken the opportunity away from its own caucus.

I did hear Marama Davidson talking about public interest and the public’s right to choose, and that really has to be reflected in this Chamber when it comes to that issue as well. So, as I said, it is disappointing that the Government members have not been given that opportunity, particularly—and it is important to note—when you look back over the track record of this issue when it has been brought to the House and the fact that, actually, within the National Government and National Party there have been varying opinions on what needs to happen with this particular issue.

I really do feel for the National Government members tonight not having that opportunity. I am sure that many of them are disappointed that they cannot vote according to their conscience and instead have been told what they need to think and how they need to vote. It is disappointing, particularly because I know that many of the people from the National Government’s own benches who would have opposed what the Government has put up would have done so based on religious grounds. So to have that religious freedom removed by your own whips, by your own leadership, is incredibly disappointing. I just needed to make that point before we move into some of the other issues that I have with this particular bill.

I think the major issue that I have, looking at Part 1, is that this simply does pass the buck on to local councils, which will create a shambles of different rules across the country. That is what we have got to be concerned about: that there will not be any consistency. People will not know in one particular area whether or not the shops are open or closed. You move to one area, you have to work there, you are living in another area, you do not have to work there on particular days—there is going to be a high level of inconsistency because of what the National Government is proposing, and, because of that inconsistency, we can expect a shambles to unravel. But I guess most of us here, and the general public, are used to a shambles unravelling because of that National Government.

We are concerned. We are the party for workers—everybody knows that—and we believe that workers deserve to have some guaranteed days off. We believe that, as Marama Davidson and others on this side of the Chamber have said in the Committee tonight, there are plenty of days in the year for people to shop. We do not need to be adding more days and taking away a few of the protected days that we had sectioned off so that people were guaranteed particular days off. It is unrealistic to say that people can refuse to work on Easter Sunday, because people who do will be penalised. There are power relationships in any workplace, so it is going to be very difficult for someone to turn down their boss when they are asked to work on these days.

It is disappointing that in this bill, and just in general, the National Government is not proposing any extra compensation for working on Easter Sunday. It expects people to give up this important family time, this important rest time, this important break from working, without recognising it as a public holiday. I think that the general public would be absolutely shocked by that, because we have always seen that as a sacred public holiday. The fact that now the Government is going to expect people to work, or hand it over to councils to make the decision on whether people should or should not work on those particular days, but not put any safeguards in place in this bill to ensure that they would be getting paid extra compensation, is incredibly disappointing. It just goes to show, again, that the National Government has no regard for workers. That is really what we are talking about when we are looking at this bill. We are concerned that this will be one more cost pushed on to councils at a time when this Government is pressuring councils to lower costs. That is a very valid point that needs to be made.

Just going back to Part 1 of the bill, I also want to point out—and this came up because of a moment with Su’a William Sio and a call that you made earlier, Mr Chair, that you did correct. I am not criticising the call that you made, but even just looking at the drawing up of this bill we are talking about the fact that what the Government is proposing will result in a shambles. Even the way that this bill has been sectioned off is incredibly hard to read, so I can see why, Mr Chair, you had difficulty before and got confused about the two different parts—we have a Part 2 “Trading on Easter Sunday” and we have a Part 2 “Transitional, savings …”—not knowing that the Part 2 “Trading on Easter Sunday” section is actually part of the principal Act. It is not a part of the bill and it is inside Part 1, so it could be debated as part of Part 1. I just want to say that someone has overlooked the fact that this could have been written up a little bit more clearly so that it could be more easily debated in the House. Those are just a few of the points that I have at this point in time. I am sure that I will have some more to discuss later on tonight. Thank you.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. New Zealand First continues to oppose Supplementary Order Paper 179, in the name of Minister Woodhouse, because, fundamentally, the complexity of this bill will still remain the same, the cost to local councils will still remain the same, and the tinkering and confusion that will come about under the sections relating to employment will still remain the same.

New Zealand First has multiple issues with Part 1 of this bill, and I want to talk about new section 5A, in clause 15. What New Zealand First wants to know is how this bill will ensure that local councils are not financially burdened by this poorly constructed bill that proposes to change from a bylaw-setting instrument to a policy-setting instrument. We propose that the cost to local councils, unfortunately, will still remain the same. Throughout the select committee process we heard from Local Government New Zealand and from local councils about the immense concern relative to the costs that this would force on the ratepayers inside of their communities. That in itself was quite contentious for them.

What we are thinking about is the impact on our local community, and I want to bring to the attention of the Minister in the chair, Michael Woodhouse—and I am quite sure he is aware of it at the moment—the fact that the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 2) is before the Local Government and Environment Committee. This proposes to councils that they should amalgamate services and dares to suggest that local councils do not know how to remain fiscally sound and fiscally responsible. Yet I ask that Minister and that National-led Government how this bill proposes to go forward when it is going to lump on local councils anywhere between $20,000 and $80,000, whether this is a by-law instrument or a local-policy instrument.

New Zealand First feels that there is a better solution for the National-led Government, and that is to give our local territorial authorities the ability to give local communities the choice as whether in their district, or in parts of their district, shops can open on Easter Sunday. That, of course, would be to actually hold a local referendum, so truly, before the cost—

Brett Hudson: She talks about cost.

RIA BOND: Mr Hudson, before the cost hits the ratepayers, let us be responsible. Hold a local referendum before it gets to that point. The last local referendum was held on fluoride in New Zealand, and that was under $14,000, yet that Government expects local councils to spend between $20,000 and $80,000. How is that responsible? That is what New Zealand First asks. The responsibility, Mr Hudson, would actually be to hold a local referendum.

The next issue that New Zealand First has is in relation to new sections 5H, 5G, 5I, 5J, 5JA, 5K, and 5L. What those sections, inserted by clause 15, cover is the employment opportunities of employees. This bill proposes that employees will, in fact, have protection. Well, I beg to differ. As a former employee and employer, this area of the bill makes no sense whatsoever in terms of being put into place within our businesses, and I wonder why the Minister and the National Government did not recognise the issues, the fishhooks, and the absolute ignorance and arrogance that these clauses will put into our local businesses around this country.

I will tell you why. What this bill proposes will, in fact, do the exact opposite—the exact opposite. The Minister has stated that employees and employers must annually renegotiate their availability to work on Easter Sunday. However, this provision inside this clause cannot actually be put into the employment contract. This bill is complex, it is confusing, and it is going to fail to go forward with the intent of this area. The penalty will be on the employee and the employer. In the second reading I brought up an issue that the Minister has not addressed, and that is the fact that if you are on the jobseeker support benefit and you are under the care, I guess, of Work and Income and a manager and you go through the process of applying for a job—because you have to be seen to be actively seeking work—this provision is the one thing that hinders your being able to accept that employment.

That is an unintended consequence for the job seeker, who has to go back to Work and Income. Job seekers must have set out that they are actively seeking employment, and this is where this bill becomes unstuck for the job seekers. They have to go back and tell their Work and Income manager that they are unable to take the job due to the fact that they could, and I use this as an example, have to go away to a family unveiling on Easter weekend, because that is when New Zealanders go and do family events just like this one. They run the risk of having their benefit taken away from them because that will be seen as not actively seeking employment. This bill fails job seekers. It fails in terms of protection for current employees, because they must take on board the fact that each year they have to review whether or not they are available to work. That employee is then expected to work with the employer, and that employer, under good faith, as employment contracts are negotiated, is meant to have no opinion and no frustration in terms of their star employee being able and eligible to work on Easter Sunday.

That puts pressure on them, and the only way that that employee cannot be mistreated in the business—as a former business owner, I know that that does happen. I know that happens, and that is why these provisions in this bill are not fit for purpose. I want to comment too on the fact that employees have to go through a personal grievance process. I do not know what background the Minister came from before he came to this House, but clearly the Minister has no idea how devastating this can be for an employee, a workplace, and a family. That is a fact.

I have discussed the fact that this is meant to be an area that is meant to protect employees. I can certainly say that this is not the case at all. New Zealand First will absolutely be opposing this bill. Thank you.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a pleasure to speak on this Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, particularly after that last contribution. The main point that I think we should focus on here, as we look to progress this, is that this bill is all about providing choice. It provides choice for workers. It provides choice for New Zealanders to choose what they are to do on their Easter Sunday. It provides choice for employers. It provides choice for territorial authorities.

I have yet never met a city, district, or regional councillor who has said that they do not think that regulations, and by-laws, and ways of operating should somehow not be reflective of what their local residents, ratepayers, and constituents want. So it is pretty amazing, actually, that in this Committee, what we hear is people opposing a bill that offers those territorial authorities—offers those councillors—the ability to put out to their residents a question of what they would like to do, and what they would have them do across their area, and then put that into practice. What is more, it offers a means to do so that is far less expensive, I would argue, than something like 77 referenda held across the country. In fact, with Minister Woodhouse’s Supplementary Order Paper 179—a fine Supplementary Order Paper it is—and having listened to expert advice during the select committee process, there was a suggestion that instead of using the by-law process we could do it as a matter of policy, but with special consultative provisions to make sure that we are hearing the right voices, that those authorities and those councillors are hearing the right voices and acting appropriately.

Fundamentally, what this bill would do, should it pass—and I certainly hope that it will, it will have my vote, along with my colleagues in the National caucus—is to fundamentally allow residents, workers, employers, and representatives in the local areas across New Zealand the right to choose whether or not, in whole or in part, shops can open across their district. Fundamentally, if Parliament is going to deal with this issue, the best way to deal with it is to place that power in the hands of those individuals and their local representatives. So I am pretty shocked, it has to be said, that so many people think that choice and freedom are bad things. Nonetheless, that view is what they appear to hold.

The other parts, of course, that are very, very key to making this work are within the changes to section 5 of the principal Act—those changes that will provide protections, particularly for the workers who, for reasons of their own, do not wish to work on Easter Sunday. The bill is very clear that those employees will have every protection that New Zealand employment law and this bill can offer them. What I find astounding is that there have been several contributions in this reading and others that suggest that those protections do not work, because employees are too scared to use them. What those people are saying is that none of the employment protections that exist on the statute book in New Zealand—some of which the previous Labour Government was responsible for—work. What they are basically saying in this House and in this debate, is that we should strike them all off the book, because they do not believe they work. Actually, what I think they really think is that it will work when it suits them, but it will not work when it is a measure that this Government is trying to make. I am quite flabbergasted to hear that those members opposite think that employment protection does not actually work.

This bill, if it is passed, will provide those protections to employees; it is very clear about that. In fact, one of the changes that I do hope is in the Supplementary Order Paper—I will admit, I have not looked at the specific area of detail—concerns one of the changes that we did suggest to officials through the process. In actual fact, the way that the bill had been written, it would have demanded that employees go straight to a personal grievance process should they want to protest against being, in their mind, made to work on Easter Sunday. So as this debate continues, I will be looking to see whether we have changed that. I would say, on the whole, I am very, very pleased to see all the other changes in the Supplementary Order Paper. I do hope that this bill will see favour with the majority in this Committee. I certainly know that I will be voting in favour of it, and my colleagues will be, also.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Mr Chair. Ngā mihi ki a koutou. Kia ora. If anyone listening listened to that last member, Brett Hudson, you would think that this bill was apple pie—that it was all about choice and freedom and the great slogans that the member could come up with. But, if anything, it showed how out of touch that member and the caucus members are, because, sure, it is about choice and about freedom—but choice and freedom for a tiny few, and drudgery, working on the weekends, and less time with your family for the majority of New Zealanders.

To show how out of touch that is, I went through the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives. Standing Order 48 says this Parliament cannot meet on a Sunday: this Parliament needs to close at 11.59 p.m. on Saturday evenings, even during extraordinary urgency. For 50 days of the year this House cannot sit, yet it is all about choice and freedom for the retail workers, the people at the fish and chip shops—all the people who do not have that choice and freedom, who we do know are going to feel pressured into working. So let us not gild the lily with this “sloganistic” language; let us say what it is. This is another plank in the Government’s agenda, which is all about choice and freedom for a small number of New Zealanders—the employers. It is not about choice and freedom for the rest of them.

For many years this country has had what is called a search for flexibility in workplace relations. I remember reading a very influential book by the noted Bill Sutch that described a period in New Zealand’s history as the search for security. We have lost that search for security for workers in the name of flexibility: in terms of the ability for capital and labour to be ported around the world. We are seeing a clear Government agenda—you saw it with the 90 days legislation; you saw with the dodgy deal with Warner Bros, which reduced those workers’ rights. There is a litany of legislation that has weakened workers’ rights, and you see it in Part 1 of this bill. In this bill what we see is this relentless attack on workers’ rights in New Zealand. This is the 10th time in 19 years this Parliament has debated this very issue, to try to weaken what is only one of 3½ days when our shops in New Zealand must be closed. We have 3½ days, but this group relentlessly—like the Terminator from that film—despite 10 defeats in 19 years, ploughs on to try to take one of those 3.5 days.

Marama Davidson: Groundhog Day.

GARETH HUGHES: It is like Groundhog Day: where this Parliament is continually voting on the same legislation. And the Government is not going to give up, because it is about choice and freedom for some.

In Part 1 of this legislation the debate has kicked the responsibility to someone else—to the councils—through the by-laws powers. We sat on the Commerce Committee. I want to thank the submitters, the chair—Melissa Lee—and the other members. It was interesting being on a split, tied committee, because we could not agree to those amendments and the bill has been reported back. The concern we have about delegating responsibility to the councils through by-laws is that we are going to see inconsistencies. We are going to see more costs, not only for employees, who maybe give up family time on one of our only 3.5 days of the year when shops must be closed, but also costs for employers and those associated groups. We are going to see varying rules across the country, bringing in considerable inconsistencies. And, as we have seen with other by-laws challenged through legitimate process, no doubt we are going to see some of these decisions go through the court, adding a second layer of inconsistencies and confusions.

This is a bad bill. In the personal vote I will be voting against it. I have been one of those low-paid workers, where you do feel pressured by your employer to work overtime, to work on the weekend, and to drop everything to make sure you can turn up to work—because you do not have the choice and the freedom. You do not have the security of knowing where the next pay cheque is going to come from. We have already got these incredibly lax laws; we do not need to be weakening them further. That is why I am voting against this.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): The level of hypocrisy connected to this bill is—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is a word that we do not use in this House, and I ask the member to withdraw. [Interruption] I ask the member to withdraw.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not use the word flippantly, but—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have ruled. Just carry on with the debate—just carry on with the debate.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Can I have a point of clarification, Mr Chairman?

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, I have ruled. Just carry on with your debate. [Interruption] No, I have ruled on the matter. [Interruption] No, I have ruled on the matter. I am asking the member to continue.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The level of duplicity around this bill is unbelievable—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. I ask the member to sit, please. I did ask the member to withdraw the comment, and then he can carry on. So if the member withdraws that word that he used, then we will continue. I ask the member to withdraw that comment he made earlier. The Hon Damien O’Connor, withdraw the comment. [Interruption] No. You know what the word was—you know what the word was. I immediately was on my feet and asked you to withdraw the comment, and I am asking you to do so now, please.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I withdraw. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. We are carrying on. [Interruption] No. I have ruled on that word being out of order. It is unparliamentary, and I am asking you to continue.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a new point of order?

Hon David Cunliffe: Yes it is, Mr Chairperson. It is my recollection of previous rulings on the “h” word that a—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have ruled on this matter, and I am not entertaining it any further. The member will sit. I am inviting the Hon Damien O’Connor to continue.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: We have members from the other side of the House advocating for choice—choice for councils, choice for businesses, choice for employees, they say, and choice for customers. But there is no choice for National Party members. Leadership comes from the top, and if, indeed, that party over there is the party of choice, the first thing it would do is allow its members the choice of what they will vote for. I see a smile on the face over there of the other Mr O’Connor. Mr Doocey is over there. Mr English might be in his office. Mr Finlayson might be in his office, as well. I cannot believe—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No. [Interruption] Order! I ruled earlier on that this is a pretty narrow debate, and I will just ask the member—[Interruption]; there will be silence when I am on my feet—to concentrate on Part 1. I pulled up the colleague sitting to your right on this matter. Others have done so, and it is your opportunity to speak to Part 1, and I am inviting you to do so.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Clause 10 in Part 1, “Section 3 amended (Shops to be closed on Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day)”—those are the days that National and all its members are going to allow to be open for retail trading in the naive belief that employees will have choice as to whether they support the business person in whether they want to trade or not.

I stand in this Chamber as someone who has been brought up through the Catholic religion. I am not a good Catholic; I would never claim to be one, but I have been brought up with some values and some views. I do believe firmly that our culture, our country, is one that has been built on Christian values—I am not saying that we abide by all the Christian religions, but we are built on Christian values—and is one that respects culture, in referring to clause 10 here, and is one that respects the culture of identifying with and respecting certain days of the year.

There are 4 of them—not many. There are 4 days when we as a country come together to respect people and to allow them a break from the normal toil, when instead of working to live—or living to work, as the National Party would have—we indeed have the opportunity to take a break and be with our families. The choice that the National Party caucus—not its members, because they have been whipped; they have had no choice—is talking about is that retail on Anzac Day morning and retail on Good Friday and on Easter Sunday and on Christmas Day is essential. It is essential if the councils should choose, through a laborious process of consultation or—

Brett Hudson: Oh! Consultation is a bad thing. The member says consultation like it’s a bad thing.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Oh, the member over there is quite happy to be whipped into this and not to have a choice as to whether he votes or not. I do not believe that the speeches made by members over there are genuine, because they are not, in fact, allowed to have the choice on an issue that has traditionally been deemed a conscience vote.

Part 1 says that these 4 days will be open to retail trading, and the assumption is that that will make New Zealand a better place. Well, I absolutely disagree with that, and I will adhere to the policy that allows us to respect and recognise 4 days in the year as being part of the culture of this country.

And if we hear that visitors who come here want to be able to shop 24/7—I do not believe it. I do not believe it. People come to this country because it is different, because it is New Zealand and we have a culture that we should be proud of, and it is one that does show due respect to those 4 days and lots of other things: Māori culture, a diverse culture, a range of people who have the freedom, who have choice, generally, to do most things, but within a certain guideline, that is, I guess, cultural values—that is what it would be called in other countries. This National Government is so focused on commerce that it will set aside all Christian values, all cultural values that have formed—

MELISSA LEE (National): It is a great pleasure to participate in the Committee stage of the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. As I have mentioned in the earlier debates on the bill, the current rules governing shop trading on Easter Sunday are outdated and rather unfair on certain businesses and regions.

Just before I start talking about the bill, I just want to remind members that Easter Sunday is not actually a public holiday. Just because some members in this Committee actually pretend as if it is and say that it is unfair that we are trying to get rid of a public holiday that everyone enjoys, it is actually a mistake that they are making. It is not a public holiday, and telling the public that it is so does not make it so.

It is actually a restricted trading day, and what we are trying to do is to make it even for everyone around the country. For example, in some places in this country, Easter Sunday trading happens, but in some other places, like Rotorua, it is not possible for shops to open. As the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety himself actually said, there are certain parts—even in Dunedin, where the mezzanine floor of one of his places is able to trade, but not the rest of the shop. It is unfair.

Earlier Mr Hughes actually mentioned that it was rather unfortunate that the Commerce Committee could not agree and maybe make some amendments to the bill that came to the committee to try to improve the situation. I think one of the very good recommendations that actually came through the select committee process was the protections that we were going to empower the workers with, and one of them is the right to refuse to work on an Easter Sunday.

I know that Mr Damien O’Connor talks about the New Zealand tradition and the Christian tradition of New Zealand. I am one of those people who actually like my choices on Easter Sunday, when I go to church and spend time with my family, and sometimes it is actually with my family that I like to go shopping. But we have to remember, without actually drawing negativity from certain sectors of this Committee, that I am not actually criticising New Zealand. I am not doing that.

We have to remember that not all New Zealanders are Christian. We have growing population diversity. We have growing religious diversity. We have growing ethnic diversity, with people who celebrate different holidays. Not all New Zealanders actually celebrate Easter. For example, my big brother here sitting next to me, Mr Bakshi, does not celebrate Easter, but he does celebrate Diwali. Maybe, for members of certain ethnic communities who might like to trade their Easter Sunday work programme with Diwali and might like to actually take that as their annual holiday, they might be able to negotiate with their employers. That is some of the freedom that we are trying to give to the workers and the protection that we are trying to give to the workers through this bill.

I am just astounded that the Labour Party and the Opposition oppose the bill to support the rights of the workers to refuse to work on Easter Sunday. It is the extra protection that we are providing to the workers that those members are saying no to, and I am astounded by that. I think this is a great bill, and I look forward to hearing some of my other colleagues from the Commerce Committee contribute on this bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I am going to be exercising my conscience to vote against this bill and most, but not all, of the amendments. I want to set out, in reference to Part 1 of the bill, why that is.

I have gladly been a member of this House for the best part of 20 years, and in that time I have seen a number of attempts fail to liberalise Easter Sunday trading. Every time a bill has come to this House, it has failed to muster a majority of the consciences of members of this House. The Government, dead-set, it seems, on liberalising Easter Sunday trading, has come up with an alternative approach: firstly, it whipped its caucus, removing choice, as my colleague Mr Damien O’Connor has noted. It passed to local authorities and local government the burden of making the change that it cannot muster a majority to make in this House. Frankly, if you are going to liberalise Easter trading, do so front-on—not you, Mr Chairman, personally, but this House. Let us do it as a House. We are the policy makers. This House is sovereign. If it is the will of the members of this House to do it, then let us do it. But in the last 20 years it never has been, and the Government knows that. That is why we have got this, frankly, cock-eyed approach to passing the buck to local authorities.

Why is that a problem? I am a member of the Commerce Committee, which heard the submissions, and, as other colleagues have said, major metropolitan local authorities—Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch—and a number of provincial territorial authorities came in one after the other and said: “We don’t want this power. We do not want you to delegate this decision to us. It is best done as a parliamentary matter. Oh, and by the way, nor do we want to go through a by-law process, because that has cost, time, and legal risk.” Hearing those submissions, which were extensive and persuasive, officials went away and no doubt consulted with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety, and rather than doing what the local authorities really wanted, which was for Parliament to make a decision, they went away and said: “Ah! Well, we will take away the by-law protections, and you can do it as a policy decision.”

Well, that brings us to the submissions from the Regulations Review Committee. I want to clarify that I am exercising my right to speak to my conscience today, as an ordinary member of Parliament. I also happen to chair that committee. I am not here speaking as the chair, but I will be trying to be faithful to its representations. The committee, on legal advice, wrote to the Commerce Committee and said that it believed that this bill contained what is known in the jargon as a “Henry VIII” clause—that is, the proposed regulatory instrument to overturn an Act of Parliament by sub-delegating, through regulation, to a local authority the ability to, effectively, override the previous will of Parliament is unconstitutional. That unconstitutionality was, to be fair, contested by officials, and it went back to the Regulations Review Committee, and it stood by its initial advice. It stood by the fact that this was a “Henry VIII” clause at its heart, and was therefore flawed.

However, it was also noted that if you are going to do a “Henry VIII” clause, then one should follow the guidelines set out in the Standing Orders, which is that they are done very rarely, in exceptional circumstances, with clear legislative provisions overseeing them, and with sufficient process protections to mitigate the constitutional outrage. In this case at least there were the bylaw-making processes, which, for example, propose a regular process on the record with full council decisions and extensive consultation and the right to appeal and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet. And so, very importantly, the select committee threw out, by failing to pass with a majority, the Minister’s proposed amendments that would have changed the legislation from a by-law approach to a policy approach, precisely because they made the constitutional enigma worse.

Parliament should make this decision, if it wishes to, on the conscience of its members. It should not delegate that decision to a local government override. But if it is intent on doing so, then it should provide the process protection set out in the bylaw-making process. It was not, in my view, the finest hour of the Government when officials tried to tell the select committee—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. His time has actually expired.

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you so much for the further call, I appreciate it. I am not going to detain the Committee for very long, but I will briefly recall the argument as it stood before the dinner break and then just complete it with some clause by clause analysis that was put before the Commerce Committee from the Regulations Review Committee.

Before the dinner break, we discussed how the House has, on repeated occasions in past years, confronted the issue of Easter trading and has manifestly refused on a majority vote to liberalise. We then noted that the Government, in its wisdom, has chosen a different approach on this occasion, which is to sub-delegate to territorial authorities the opportunity by regulation, effectively, to change the law under this Act. We noted that on the advice of the counsel of the Regulations Review Committee that was, effectively, a “Henry VIII” provision, which, as you will well know, should be rare, exceptional, and used only under extraordinary safeguards. It was also noted that officials’ advice differed from that on the “Henry VIII” point, but it remained the view of the Regulations Review Committee.

It was noted that territorial authorities, one after the other, in their testimony to the committee not only said that they did not want the power that was being bestowed upon them but that they found the by-law process onerous. It was the hope of some members of the committee that, on that advice, the Government would rethink the sub-delegation of the decision and bring it to the House proper for debate. But, no, it doubled down on constitutional omission and put amendments first to the Commerce Committee, which refused to support them on a tied vote, and they have now been reintroduced to the House by the Minister through Supplementary Order Paper 179.

In a quick minute, what I would like to do is deal with the contention that was initially raised by advisers to the committee, that the policy-making process, effectively, had no different protections from the by-law process. The Committee will immediately confront the logical inconsistency of that position, because if there were no difference, then there would be no advantage in streamlining the local body process by moving to a policy approach, but in any case let me note, as the Regulations Review Committee did, some of the differences. The first, which was noted and then set aside, was that the original bill required an explicit New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet and the amendments do not. However, it was contended that that was implicit anyway and so there may be little difference in action of that change to section 5D of the Act, inserted by clause 15.

However, it is in the change to section 5E of the Act, inserted by clause 15, in the part we are considering that the material differences principally arise. Section 5E, for example, requires a meeting of full council to pass a by-law, but it will not be specifically required to adopt a policy report and release it for consultation. Section 5E required a meeting of a council committee to consider submissions; but the current amendments do not. Section 5E required a meeting of full council to resolve to adopt a by-law and set a commencement date; the amendments as proposed do not. Section 5E, also in respect of review provisions, set out extensive requirements for the meeting of council committees to consider submissions through a transparent process and for the full council to resolve, amend, revoke, repeal, or continue by-laws, which are not required; the amendments as proposed do not.

I could go further, but I think that gives the Committee and the listening public enough examples to note that the policy approach, although more streamlined, contains fewer constitutional and process protections than the bill as introduced. It may be the contention of the Government side and the Minister that that is an improvement. But what I would say as a member of the Commerce Committee who with others heard submissions is that it actually flies in the face of the spirit of the submissions of at least the major metropolitan local authorities, which said they actually did not want to be the decision maker on this matter because they considered it more appropriately a matter for the whole House. In removing the by-law protections, actually, we have aggrieved further not only that appropriate sentiment but also the constitutional issues that are embedded in at least the risk of this being a “Henry VIII” clause, and I would say that, in my personal view, it most definitely is.

Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): In some ways I am actually picking up where my colleague left off. It is about the changes, and I too sat on the Commerce Committee and heard the similar argument from local councils that they did not wish to take that responsibility over. I want to pick up some of the comments Minister Woodhouse made in his contribution before the dinner break, when he contended that these changes in Supplementary Order Paper 179, in his name, were about reducing the shambles that the legislation currently is. He also contended that the bill was about giving more choice. Those were the two phrases the Minister used, and he then tried to back them up using examples out of the bill, although he was a little light on the examples, I have to say.

I want to say right back to the Minister and put into the debate that in fact it does not achieve those purposes. The changes that he is proposing in Supplementary Order Paper 179 include, for example, the change to subpart 1 of Part 2, in clause 15, which replaces “regulation” with “Easter Sunday shop trading policies”. His proposal to change the nature of what local councils might do is, as my colleague has said, not achieving an active choice. The councils still did not want that as a change. They said: “We do not want that responsibility. Whether it comes in the form of regulation or policies it makes no difference.” So it is not actually clarifying that or making it easier for those local councils as the Minister has said.

I would be interested in his response to what those local councils said, which was not something that he addressed in the contribution that I heard. It was something that he skirted around, but if he is going to make those contentions in the Committee and in this debate, then I feel that the Minister does need to back up that assertion that this will reduce the burden somehow or make it clearer for councils and somehow appease them and the wishes that they had expressed in that select committee.

The Minister talked a lot about choice and about this bill giving choice. I want to contend that it actually reduces choice for workers. What we know will happen as a result of these changes is that more pressure will go on people, particularly those who are most vulnerable. Many people in the retail sector are on low incomes, barely meeting their bills, and it is those people who, I contend, have less choice. They will feel the pressure to turn up when they are asked. There are some clauses in here in the bill that talk about personal grievances and so on, and they assume a level of access to legal advice, and a level of confidence and competence in those people that does not necessarily reflect the reality of every vulnerable person in the workplace.

So what in fact will result from all of this is that choice will be taken away from those people. Those people have the option currently of knowing that at some points—it is more than an option; they know—they will have time with their families, and time for rest, relaxation, and recreation in those times when shops are currently not permitted to trade. That choice will be taken away from them. So in fact what is happening is that choice is being taken away from those who most need it. Thus the bill is not achieving the purpose the Minister asserts when he says it is increasing choice. It is, in fact, removing choice from those who already have the fewest choices in our society.

So that is the crux of what I am going to say. That flows through to many of the matters in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. So if we look at clause 13, that is exactly where it is enacted—where you are replacing the need for a by-law with a requirement for a shop trading policy. As I have suggested, the local councils do not really see a significant difference between the two. They still see the burden put on them for decision making, for running processes, and for making the same kinds of decisions that they would be making, effectively, with a by-law. So when the Minister wants to assert that it somehow makes it clearer or simpler, it is simply not true, in my view.

Further, in asserting that it makes things simpler, the Minister does not speak about, for example, the lot of tourists who arrive in this country and might want to exercise their consumer rights in the retail sector throughout the country. When they travel through the country they are going to find not a reduced number of exemptions to the overall policy but a more mixed response to this legislation, because it very much leaves it up to the local councils. Every place in the country may have a different take on this, where currently there are only one or two exemptions. Tourists, I would suggest, would not expect places to be open generally unless they knew of the two obvious examples, which are two main tourist centres.

Far from making this simpler, the Minister is in fact increasing things. He talked about it being a shambles, and, as I will assert, it is actually more of a shambles. Interestingly, the Minister himself said the bill was very far from a gold standard, which I thought was a very frank admission on a day when we have also been reflecting on the luggage bill. I do not want to say too much about that, but what are we doing in this House if the Minister is bringing a bill to the House that he is not behind and thinks is not the correct solution—or is far from a gold standard—where we are debating general bills? That suggests to me that the appropriate way forward for this would be for the Minister to hold this bill over—for him to work further with local councils and see whether he cannot resolve the conflict that has been brought to the House, and actually work with them to look at whether there is another way of doing this, because they are not happy with what he is putting forward in his Supplementary Order Paper.

That is what we have heard directly as a select committee—local councils do not want the responsibility for making this decision. They feel that it is a decision for central government to make so that policies can be consistent across New Zealand, so they do not have to put more resources into making decisions at a local level that could be contested and that they are not funded extra for. I can understand that, and I think that members of the Committee can understand that. We all have connections with local councils at various times and understand the burden that is put on them without funding, frequently, from central government.

In concluding, I wish to oppose many of the clauses that the Minister has in his Supplementary Order Paper. I really do not think that they achieve his stated purpose of making things simpler and getting rid of the shambles that he describes, and I do see some irony in the fact that he himself is not willing to say that this is the gold standard way of fixing them. I think this bill is not about giving choice. The changes he is making are actually reducing choice for those in our society who need it most.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I seek leave for all questions in this debate to be taken as one debate, but all questions voted on separately, and for the Committee of the whole House to conclude the debate on this at 9.15 p.m.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I just want to interpret to the Committee that I am assuming that with the debate concluding at 9.15 p.m. it will, effectively, be a closure and we will move to all votes, which will be concluded before the Committee rises tonight. Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none.

The question now is that parts 1 and 2, the schedule, and clauses 1 to 3 stand part. And I just want to iterate that we now have a new question, and, therefore, I am wiping all calls to date.

Part 1 (continued), Part 2, schedule, and clauses 1 to 3

MOJO MATHERS (Green): People have spoken a lot about choice and have said that this bill and these clauses are about choice. Let us be quite clear about who is getting the choice: this is about shoppers. The context of that—to be able to have the choice to shop 365 days a year—is, ultimately, where the logic leads. That, I would argue, is not the most important thing to be bearing in mind—the ability to shop for an additional day, when we already have the ability to go shopping for the other 360-plus days. It is important to recognise that some choices, although they might be very important for some people, are, in the context of things, trivial: the choice of what colour tie to wear, and so on. They must not override human rights and wipe workers’ rights—and that is what we have got here in this bill.

We have to think about the rights of workers and the right to have some family time. In that context, I would say that the ideology behind this bill, by undermining one of the 3½ days of the year that are not open slather for shop trading, is not only anti-worker, it is anti-family. I want to refer to a submission by FIRST Union, which represents retail staff, some of the lowest paid workers in New Zealand. It refers to a Unicef report from 2007 that states that in New Zealand our workforce has one of the lowest rates of family time in the world. That is the context in which this bill is being brought here.

We already have the lowest rate of family time in the world, and yet family and building family ties is part of building strong communities, so why, at a time when so many families are under stress and struggling to get quality time with their children and other members, are we bringing in a bill that undermines that? I find it absolutely appalling, and it speaks a lot to the values of the National Party members of this House that they are prepared to back a bill that is anti-family—that is undermining families already under significant stress, juggling multiple low-paid jobs—in order to liberate yet one more day for the sake of freedom of shopping, for those who have the money to shop.

The FIRST Union submission also went on to say that not only do we have some of the lowest rates of family time; we have some of the longest working hours in the world—families getting up at the crack of dawn, juggling their first job, coming back for a bite to eat, going out again to work in the evening, and working until late at night. I hear too many stories of that—where they struggle to even get dinner time with their kids.

So removing one of the remaining protected family days—there has been a lot of emphasis on religion. Sure, Easter Sunday has religious significance for me, but that is not why I am opposing this bill. I am opposing it because it is undermining family time. As a mother of three, family time is incredibly important to me. I find it devastating that, in the context of today’s society, people on low incomes are struggling to get the precious family time that we here in Parliament usually are very privileged to be able to have. As my colleague Gareth Hughes has already said, Parliament is protected from sitting on Sundays. For 50 weeks of the year we can often go and spend some of that time with our family, but we do not afford workers that same protection—some of our most vulnerable workers—and that is what we should be doing.

The other thing to think about is where you have the right to refuse. We have already pointed out that, actually, there is a power imbalance. But let us also think about the real situation that workers can find themselves in. Think about rural areas where they know, when they are working for a small business, that the likelihood of somebody else being able—

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): I want to thank my colleague Mojo Mathers for that speech, because the theme that she took of “What does this mean for families?” is something that every member of this Committee should think about tonight. Having been on the receiving end of a few lectures from people on the other side of the House about what is important for strengthening families in our society, it would seem that those high-minded principles about supporting family have gone out the window with the National Government in this particular piece of legislation, except they have not because members on the other side of the Chamber, like Simon O’Connor, know full well that this piece of legislation runs counter to building strong families and strong communities in our country.

It is an absolute joke if members opposite think that what is now in the provisions in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 179 for employees to have a right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday means anything at all. We get lectures about how we do not understand what happens in business. Well, Mr Hudson, put yourself in the shoes of a low-income New Zealander who has been lucky enough to get a job—probably paying only the minimum wage—in the retail industry, and the word comes around that people are needed for Easter Sunday. What do they do? Do they take that time to spend with their family—the precious hours, the few that they get; this might be their second job? Or do they take that time and say “I’d better say yes because I don’t know where the next set of hours are coming from, because I don’t know whether my job is secure enough, and because my rate of pay is so low that I have to scratch out every single hour.” That is not supporting families.

This bill and these clauses do not provide choice. They do not provide choice for employees, and we know full well that the practice of an employment relationship is not even. The reason we have laws like the Employment Relations Act in New Zealand—and that Act itself recognises the uneven nature of that relationship—is that we need to protect employees, and this bill does not do that. It pushes people away from that. We need, in my view, to take a stand on this piece of legislation.

I am not a person, as many of my colleagues will know, who shies away from going into shops. I am somebody who enjoys it. I am actually one of those rare males who enjoys getting into a shop—and I will take the Chair down to David Jones at the next opportunity I get and sort him out with a few items from the menswear section there. But there is no need whatsoever—

Dr Megan Woods: Is there a David Jones in Wainuiōmata?

GRANT ROBERTSON: No, “David Jones Wainuiōmata” is the next store that is opening! It is only on Lambton Quay at this stage. But there is no need for us to break into the very days that we currently protect and say should not be broken into in terms of this kind of law.

I think National members might want to reflect on having a piece of legislation where the very people who are charged with implementing it do not want it. That is what they have managed to set up here. It is a piece of legislation where they have dumped it all on territorial authorities, which have come back and said: “No, don’t do it that way. It’s too complicated. It’s not going to work.” They have managed to put themselves in a position where the very process by which they want to implement this is being held up as one that will not work. Lawrence Yule, when he came to the Commerce Committee, said: “Please don’t do it by by-laws. They are complicated. They are subject to appeals. They are subject to judicial challenges.” This is the head of the Local Government New Zealand council saying to the National Government “You’ve got it wrong.”, and it is, as my colleague Clare Curran says, because those members have tried it every other way and Parliament has rejected it. But they come back again and again, and this time they are making it the responsibility of local government to try to carry this off. It is not good enough.

If the Government wants to do this, it needs to pass a law that applies at a national level. I would oppose that as well, myself, and I acknowledge strongly that there are people in the community who say: “Why not give us a go to do that?”, but—[Bell rung]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Grant Robertson.

GRANT ROBERTSON: I will not take the whole of this call, but I acknowledge that there are people in the community who say: “Why not give us the option? Why not give us the choice?”. This is the time for Parliament to show leadership. This is the time for Parliament to stand up and say there are times when Parliament can say no, we want to support families. We want to give workers some protections about time off to spend with their families, and we want to uphold the rights of all New Zealanders to not feel that every single given moment has to be taken up with work.

We have a chance, again, to send a message out that this House respects the rights of New Zealanders and their families. We respect the fact that there are 363½ other days that people can spend shopping, and we do not need to pass this bill.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): We were very surprised—well, those of us who have not been on the Commerce Committee or as engaged as my colleague here, Iain Lees-Galloway, our labour spokesperson—that the Government had decided to bring this bill to the House but not allow its members to have a conscience vote on it. So I think that is where I will start.

Looking back, reflecting on this issue, we see that the bill has been brought to the House four times in the last 10 years, and each time we have had the opportunity to take a conscience vote. When National has been at the helm, it has also allowed parties to have a conscience vote, but tonight is a different situation, and the National Government has instead whipped its whole caucus to vote the same way. So we are really disappointed with that and, in fact, we really feel for some of the National MPs, because we know that in the past they have taken different stances from each other. We see that Bill English has actually voted against this particular issue three times; Gerry Brownlee has voted against it two times; Nick Smith, two times; Chester Borrows, four times—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I am going to ask the member to—well, first of all, I will correct her grammar. It is “twice”. But the next point that I will make is that although one can make passing reference, I think, to the style of voting, we are actually talking about the detail of the bill. The comments she has made would be absolutely appropriate at second reading and at third reading.

CARMEL SEPULONI: OK, Mr Chair, that is fine. So those members have not been given the option of a conscience vote, and the reason I raise that is, actually, the views in the House reflect the general public’s views on this particular bill. We know that some of the National MPs actually, like the rest of the House, have their own views on why they should not support this bill, and some of them do not support it for religious reasons. So it is really disappointing that the leadership of the National Government has removed the right for its members to have that freedom of choice, that freedom of religion, to vote based on their conscience.

I do want to say that we have been lobbied quite strongly by members from our Pacific community on this particular issue. Many people in this Committee will know that the Pacific community has probably one of the highest rates of Christianity, if not the highest rate of Christianity, in the country. I am not saying that the fact that Easter Sunday is a religious holiday is the be-all and end-all and that everyone must abide by that, but what I would say is that particular section of the community has expressed concern about this bill and about the fact that the National Government has forced all of its MPs, including its two Pacific MPs, to vote in favour of this bill. The large majority of the Pacific community whom we have spoken to—many of whom are Christians—actually fundamentally oppose this bill.

I do need to make that point on behalf of the Pacific community. [Interruption] Excuse me?

Simon O’Connor: When was the last time that member ever listened to anything to do with religion?

CARMEL SEPULONI: So the National member is questioning my level of religion—my Christianity. I think that that member needs to reflect on himself and not question my religious beliefs and my level of Christianity. In fact, that actually reflects his actual level of Christianity—that he is questioning mine.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How judgmental.

CARMEL SEPULONI: So judgmental. Anyway, going back to things that matter, like our Pacific communities’ view on this bill, can I just say there has been quite a strong campaign against it, there is a high level of disappointment with the National Government on it, and I think that going into the next election, things like this will be remembered.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): This is the second warning on the same issue. What we are debating now are the details of Parts 1 and 2, the three clauses, and the Supplementary Order Paper. There is actually quite a big range, and I am sure there are parts in this bill and the clauses in it that her communities object to. She should refer to them.

CARMEL SEPULONI: Getting on to the bill, I just want to say that one of the big concerns that we have with this bill is that the bill actually passes the buck to local councils with regard to making the decision about whether or not people are going to be allowed to shop on these particular days. Our concern with that is it will create inconsistencies across the country, and that could result in a shambles with regard to the way in which this is rolled out.

We are concerned, as my colleague Mojo Mathers has said, because people do deserve to have time off and people deserve to have guaranteed days off. Despite the fact that the National Government has said that people do have choice, well, actually, if they are in situations where there is power play at stake or where, in some way or another, they are feeling insecure about their work—and I want to refer to people who may be on a 90-day trial period—they would be less likely to say: “Actually, no. I don’t want to work on this holiday; I want to have that day off.” They would be concerned about whether or not that would result in them losing their job.

So it is easy for the National Government to say it is about choice. Some people have less choice. Those who are vulnerable are the ones who do have the least choice. So that is one of the reasons that we cannot support this bill. We think it is absolutely unrealistic to say that people can refuse to work on Easter Sunday, because people will feel like they will be penalised.

We are really concerned that through this bill National is not proposing any extra compensation for working on Easter Sunday. It expects people to give up that important family time—a day that traditionally they have been able to have off because there has been no shopping on that day. Now National is saying that people are going to have to work on that day. They could say no to their employer, which we know is going to be very difficult, but also, on top of that, if they do work, they will not be compensated for having worked on that day. We do not support that.

We also do not support the fact that more cost is going to be pushed on to councils at a time when we feel the Government is pressuring councils to lower costs. So, again, I just want to reiterate that we are not supporting this bill, for a number of reasons. I took a while to warm up to this, but I think I got there. I would just like to state again, speaking on behalf of our Pacific community, which does not support this bill, and as a Pacific member of Parliament—a Christian Pacific member of Parliament—I also do not support this bill.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I just want to stop and reflect on what Easter Sunday means to me. I am not a Christian member, and we had a bit of to-ing and fro-ing just before. But for me it was waking up with a sense of excitement, and it was not just the chocolate eggs you knew you were going to get. It had a sense of family, of being a different day where you were at home with your family and you knew that all your friends, when you were a kid, growing up, were at home with their families. They were probably doing the same things you were doing—sitting around in the lounge in your pyjamas, maybe eating hot cross buns, and then you would go and do a great Easter egg hunt. As a father, one of the best moments I have had with my children is inviting around the other kids from school so they can go round looking for eggs in the back garden. These are the things we will be losing if we see a section of our population who, let us be frank, will be working in the retail sector or in other areas. They are the ones who are going to be missing out on these family experiences, and with only 3½ days when shop trading hours are protected in this country, it is a big loss. It is a big loss of only 3½ days.

I want to point out the irony that right now the Swedish Parliament is negotiating and legislating to move Sweden’s working hours to 6 hours a day. We have fallen down the wrong track as a country in the last couple of decades. What has happened is that as we have progressively slipped down the world’s economic rankings we have had to work harder and work faster. But, instead, what we are not doing is working smarter. We are slipping down those rankings, yet Kiwis work some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages, and we still pay some of the highest costs of living in the developed world. When you look at the economic literature coming out of the OECD, we have a 20 percent productivity gap with the OECD average. If you look at our other economic settings, such as the ease to set up a business in New Zealand, we should be 20 percent above. It is called the productivity gap, and the problem is that we have not worked smarter as a country. This is another classic example of where there is a misguided notion that if we just work more hours, for longer during the day, we are somehow going to be wealthier as a country. In fact, it is the reverse. The longer and the less smart we work, the poorer we get as a nation.

So what the Government has decided to do, in classic National style—there have been 10 attempts over the last 19 years to achieve this—is move in this direction. Obviously, there has been considerable pressure from certain lobby groups to get this legislative outcome we see tonight. But the Government has kicked it into touch and kicked it to the councils—yet another example where this Government reduces the powers of councils, the democracies of our councils. It sees more of the powers going into these undemocratic council-controlled organisations, yet it is quite willing to lump them with further responsibilities. Under this legislation, what is going to happen is that councils, dozens and dozens of them, are going to have to consider and go through their own expensive processes to work out whether they should implement this as a by-law. What we have seen repeatedly in the past in this country is that these by-laws have been judicially reviewed and subject to legal challenges. I have no doubt we will see this again.

What we see, on the one hand, is a metaphor for the not-smart economic practices and philosophies this country has gone down that have seen us slip down the rankings, that have seen Kiwis languish in terrible poverty, and that have seen a poorer New Zealand. But we also see a classic political example, where the Government is quite happy to kick responsibility and risk to local councils, at the same time as it is bagging them.

I am proud that all of the Green Party caucus will be voting against this legislation. We are pro-worker. We are pro those family experiences. We should be making Easter Sunday a public holiday, not weakening the shop trading hours protections that we currently have. But, also, we need to work smarter as a country. We cannot keep on racing on this treadmill but falling behind. It is a dumb way to run an economy. We need to think smarter.

We should be looking at some of the examples from the Nordic countries. It is not just fewer working hours so that there is more productivity packed into those hours; it is also looking at some of their paid parental protections. It is about looking at the way we run these low-value, commodity-based exports that drive down our national average. There is a limit to how many cows we can cram on paddocks and how many tourists we can cram into Fiordland. There is no limit to intellectual property, software, technology, patents, and services. This is the smarter option, and this is what the Green Party is advocating. Weakening workers’ rights with this legislation is not the answer.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): I let the member run, but I do want to warn members that we are not going to have a general labour relations economic debate. We are having a specific debate on the clauses of this bill. Now that this warning has been issued, I will terminate the speeches of members who do not get it.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I would like to start this contribution around clause 10. I wish to do that to respond primarily to the comments made by Melissa Lee earlier on, during this Committee stage. Clause 10 amends section 3 of the principal legislation. Section 3 is about what days shops may not open, and they are Anzac Day morning, Good Friday, Easter Sunday, and Christmas Day. The reason I refer to clause 10, which amends section 3 of the principal Act, is that Melissa Lee said that New Zealand is increasingly made up of people of a diverse range of religions, not just Christian. Indeed, I would add that a lot of people are of no practising faith whatsoever. Personally, I am thoroughly out of practice with the religion that I was brought up in.

Carmel Sepuloni: I’m not.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Carmel Sepuloni is not, actually, and that is a good point. Carmel Sepuloni, a good friend of mine, I know is not out of practice as a woman of faith. If Simon O’Connor wants to back up that incredibly sanctimonious interjection he made earlier on, he should get to his feet and make a contribution.

Melissa Lee made a good point. We are an increasingly diverse society, so that is an interesting context through which to look at this bill. I refer to clause 10, because out of the days that we have set aside as the days that shops should not open—Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Christmas Day, and Anzac Day morning—three of those are Christian festivals. I asked Melissa Lee: if the reason to vote in favour of this legislation and to vote in favour of this particular clause is that New Zealand is increasingly diverse, then why not allow shop trading on Good Friday and Christmas Day? They are Christian festivals as much as Easter Sunday is. So by that logic, surely, we should be actually expanding this legislation beyond Easter Sunday and allowing shop trading on those other days as well.

That would be a step too far for most New Zealanders, I think. That is not because they are Christian festivals but because we have decided, as a nation, to set aside some days that are for families and for communities—some days that working people can be assured that they do not have to go to work. That is why I am opposing this legislation; not from any religious perspective but because I believe that, as a country, we should set aside some days where working people know for certain that they are not going to be required to work, and they can spend that time with their family, and they can spend that time with their community—and actually having shared days when everybody has the day off work is really important for building communities. A lot of organisations—yes, Christian organisations, but other community organisations—rely on those days to bring their community together.

I know this view is different from others, such as Simon O’Connor’s, but to me it has little to do with religion. It is about families, and about communities, and about setting aside some days. If this Committee was prepared to have a debate about setting aside different days, I would be interested in engaging with that debate. But that is not a debate that we ever have. We only ever have a debate about reducing the number of days that are set aside for families and communities. The National Government has not proposed anything to expand the number of days that are available to families and communities—no. This bill proposes to reduce the number of days that are available to family and community.

It is important that workers have that ability to say “This is a day that I am not going to work.” I know that Government members and members opposite would say that this legislation allows workers to refuse to work on those days, but we have heard from other members about the power imbalance between the employer and the employee—about the fact that most people working in shops are on low wages, their hours are insecure, and they basically need to keep in the manager’s good books to make sure that they keep getting the hours that they need to make ends meet. So even though, to the letter of the law, they are allowed to turn down those hours on Easter Sunday, the truth is that they will feel compelled to work on those days that are currently set aside for them to spend time with their families.

I want to refer, particularly, to new section 5JA, inserted by clause 15 in Supplementary Order Paper 179, which falls under Subpart 2—“Shop employee rights”. New section 5JA I am opposing because it assumes that there is no power imbalance between the employer and the employee. It appears to have been written in by the Minister as a counterbalance to the fact that the employer must make the employee aware of the fact that they have the right not to work on Easter Sunday. It seems as though the Minister has said: “Well, no, that’s not right that the employee has that right; we have to confer some rights on to the employer as well.”

So what 5JA does is it makes it a requirement that employees inform their employer in writing no more than 14 days after their employer has made them aware of the fact that they are able to refuse work on Easter Sunday. They have to tell them in writing that they intend to refuse work on Easter Sunday. It has to be delivered in person to the employer, or sent by email, or, if a manner of giving notice is specified, in that specified manner of giving notices.

That is incredibly prescriptive, and should an employee fail to do that, and is then, in some way, coerced into working on an Easter Sunday, that gives the employer an out. That is incredibly inappropriate. It absolutely ignores something that is written into our employment legislation—that there is an inherent imbalance between the employer and the employee. So even though National members say that this legislation assures workers of their rights, and assures workers of their right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday, they have still managed to find a way to write in an opportunity to trip up workers and to make them vulnerable to unscrupulous or coercive employers. But that is the National Party way. It is the kind of thing that we expect from it.

This is why it is so important that we do set aside days where workers know they are not required to go to work. I do not care whether they are Christian festivals, whether they are Hindu festivals, whether they are Muslim festivals or any other kind of religious festival. I would prefer them to be Matariki, Waitangi Day, and other days that are more relevant to New Zealand, but I do not care how we come to choose what those days are. I just believe that we need to set aside some dates to recognise that family is important and that community is important. As Grant Robertson said, we hear many, many lectures from members opposite about the importance of strong families and how you build strong families. Well, you build strong families and strong communities by spending time together. Surely, as a nation, we can see the benefit of actually giving people some legislated rights to spend time with their families and their communities.

CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): Every time in this Parliament, in this House, that there is a personal vote, a conscience vote, it is really incumbent on every member in this Chamber—every member of Parliament—to really examine their consciences, because, otherwise, why do we have conscience votes? We are trifling with that as being a mechanism to make law. In my view, that is not happening with regard to this bill that is passing through the House. On the other side of the Chamber, the individual consciences of MPs are not being engaged in this bill.

What my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has just described tonight, as have other members—Mojo Mathers being one of them—is not so much about an issue to do with religion. It is about an issue to do with culture and what Kiwi culture is, how we express that, how we value it and treasure it, and make sure that it is valued and that each of us as parliamentarians value it. What is happening with this piece of legislation is that it is being devalued and trivialised, and I think that is a serious matter. I would hope that any of the National MPs listening to the debate tonight will reflect upon that and think that next time there is a conscience vote, they really should insist on being able to exercise their consciences.

I want to address my remarks to all of the clauses in this bill relating to local policy—the replacement of a by-law, replacing it with a local policy mechanism—and to highlight why that is so flawed and how it has created a catch-22 situation for local government. It is fundamentally one of the reasons, I think, why I am opposing this bill, because I think it is bad law—really bad law. I think that there were other ways, if the Government did want to bring this law forward, that it could have done it. It could have done it in a way that applied to the whole country rather than requiring local government to use a mechanism that, ultimately, is not going to result in true consultation for local communities and, if it does, is going to cost them the amount of money that they opposed en masse in the first place.

I want to refer to some advice that was given to the select committee by the ministry during the tortured process of this bill through the Commerce Committee, on which I sit. The committee was asked whether a judicial review applied equally to both a local policy and a by-law mechanism process. The committee’s advice was that from a constitutional perspective, the use of local policies to allow shop trading would be the same as using by-laws, provided the empowering provision was the same, the consultation process was the same, and the ability to review remained. I want to just refer to two submissions. One from the Wellington City Council said that the Wellington City Council believes that a consistent, nationwide approach would be preferable to the proposed approach—and this was the by-law—as it would ensure greater consistency and clarity for the public. It said that the “nationwide approach removes the need to know where the invisible boundaries lie between territorial authorities. This would be an issue not only for residents of a particular area but also for the many people travelling over holiday weekends.”, etc. They say there are “other instances where differences in approach between territorial authorities have been criticised for the inconsistency created and uncertainty caused. A nationwide approach would avoid this.”

I also want to refer to the Christchurch City Council, which gave an extensive submission that said that it considered that the issue of Easter Sunday trading was a matter that should be decided at a national level. A clear decision is needed that would apply through the whole country. The council submits that the bill would not reduce red tape; it would reinforce the loopy rule problems that were proposed by Paula Bennett—so that is a contradiction—and that it was going to cost a lot of money. [Bell rung] Thank you. That was a very long bell ring, Mr Chair.

The arguments used by these city councils, including the Auckland Council and other city councils, were that the imposition of a by-law and using a by-law mechanism was going to, ultimately, result in huge amounts of money being spent. In fact, they gave a submission to the committee on how much that was going to be, and the amounts ranged between $40,000 and $80,000 per territorial authority as a standard. Some of them said it was going to be more. Then the committee came back, and there was advice that came back to the committee that said “We won’t use the by-law mechanism; we’ll use the local policy mechanism.”, which was going to somehow reduce the amount of cost to the local authorities—the 67 local authorities across the country.

But I want to go back to that advice that was given about the constitutional issues, and that was that in order to remove any constitutional issues to using a local policy mechanism versus a by-law, then they would have to do the same amount of consultation and there would still be the same ability for a judicial review to occur. So, ultimately, local authorities are left in the same position that if they are going to apply that mechanism of a local policy, then they are open to the same risks that they opposed en masse in the first place. Ultimately, what this bill does is use another mechanism that appears to be less onerous on local authorities but, ultimately, unless they use it in the same way then they are acting unconstitutionally.

That is the catch-22 situation of this bill. That is why it is fundamentally flawed. It is a bad piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that is being imposed on the House because of a policy decision that has been made by the National Government requiring all its members to vote on a conscience issue using a flawed mechanism that local authorities do not want and, ultimately, being anti - Kiwi culture and taking away something sacred—for some, it is for religious reasons; for some it is for cultural reasons—and that is the ability to spend more time with your families. So, if they were going to do it sensibly, they would have imposed it as a national requirement across the country where local authorities did not have to make the decisions themselves using a flawed mechanism.

Ultimately, this is a very, very poor piece of legislation. It is shambolic. The Minister is having to introduce a major Supplementary Order Paper on the floor of the Committee of the whole House to enable it to go ahead. Most city councils do not want it in the form that it was and that it is, and ultimately, it is anti-Kiwi and anti - Kiwi culture.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I invite Mr Hudson to take the call, I just want to clarify the leave that was taken previously by the Committee. I think it was probably not put quite as clearly as it should have been, but just to make it clear I will seek leave again so that clauses 1 to 3, whether they stand part, is put as one question. I think this was the intention that everyone agreed to informally but might not quite have been put to the Committee. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

BRETT HUDSON (National): It is wonderful to be able to speak again on this, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, because the great theme of the night is about choice, and I will take the time again to talk about how this bill actually provides that choice.

One of the first ways it is illustrated, actually, is that many members have made comments tonight about the National caucus being whipped to vote in a certain way. I think—and I contend—that those members opposite do not actually understand choice and how choice can be exhibited, because, you see, as a member of the caucus I can assure them of what happened. Members in a caucus meeting discussed this matter and individually we agreed that we would permit our whips to express our votes by proxies. Individually, we have chosen that we will support this bill and that we will have our whips express those votes for us. This is except for those of us lucky to be in the Chamber, of course; when the vote is taken we will mark our names off in the customary way.

But, more than that, the bill is all about choice. It provides choice to families: those families who want to shop on Easter Sunday where it is permissible can do so; those who do not wish to will not have to. Those employees who do not want to work on Easter Sunday will not and cannot be forced to. Local communities that want shopping available in part or all of their communities will be able to. Similarly, local communities that do not want retail open or trading on Easter Sunday will be able to maintain what is probably the status quo for them and not permit that to happen.

Authorities have choice (1) in whether to seek a change to the default position, and (2), in the process of how they consult with their communities. This bill is all about choice. One thing that I find very troubling about elements the members have raised is that the amendments to section 5 of the principal Act are very clear that employees’ rights to refuse to work on this day, for reasons of their own, which they do not have to express or justify, are protected. They are protected with the full force of employee protections under New Zealand statute. Yet tonight we have heard, as we have in previous readings, members opposite claim that those protections will have no force, no effect, and that employees will be too scared to use them. What they have actually been saying, in effect, is that employee protection in New Zealand does not work full stop. Clearly, their view is that we have an amount of legislation on our books that simply does not work and can never work because employees will always be too scared to use it.

What I contend is that what they are really saying is they do believe in those protections when it suits them to, but they do not believe that those protections will work when it is a measure put forward by this Government. I think that is quite sad. But, overall, it is coloured even further in that by taking that position, in effect what they are seeking to do is limit choice, whereas this Government—this party, the party of choice and the party of free will—is saying: “Let’s give our communities the opportunity to make their own decisions.” Ultimately, if I look at all of the dealings that I have had with councillors, whether they are city, district, or regional councillors, they all believe that local communities should have a voice, should have a say in how their communities operate—what is available and what is not.

It is quite interesting, actually, because members have pointed out that a number of the authorities, or representatives of the authorities, said that they would not necessarily want things done this way. Some expressed a view that Parliament should just do a blanket set of regulations for all of New Zealand, which is odd, really, because that is the antithesis of giving local communities a choice—you simply get central government to give one edict, which, I am sure, is not going to please everyone everywhere.

But the other part I would note, particularly to those representatives from those authorities, is that if one wants to have the authority to make decisions, particularly across a broad range of areas, one has to accept that you have to deal with the tough decisions and not just the easy ones. I would note that not one of those authorities that were saying that they did not want this addressed in this manner—not one of them—were offering to relinquish the general competence authority granted to them in the early 2000s. My message to them is: if you want to make decisions, if you want the authority to make calls in your community, you have a responsibility to deal not only with the easy problems but also the tough ones.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Before I call Adrian Rurawhe, I have yet another leave to seek. The leave that I am now seeking—which, again, it is my understanding, was the intention of the House when it was circulated—is that Part 2 and the schedule standing part be taken as one question. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. I think we have got there.

ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): Speaking to the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, I want to talk about the exemption clause, and I also want to talk about the clauses within this bill that give authority and responsibility to local authorities. But I want to do it in the context of a discussion that I remember, probably almost 30 years ago, when Sunday trading hours were being changed and we had a hui in Rātana Pā. The Hon Whetu Tirikātene-Sullivan came to that hui. I remember quite distinctly that discussion and the impact that it would have on our families.

Of course, the majority of our people at Rātana Pā and in the Rātana Church were against bringing in Sunday trading, for a whole lot of reasons. One of the things that came out of that discussion was sort of like a default position, which was that at least we have got Easter Sunday on which there will be no trading.

One of the points that I want to make around that is that over time our perspective around Sunday trading has altered—there is no doubt about that. We have heard members of this House talk about how this is a religious festival, but it is one, also, that families celebrate as a day that whānau can spend together. I agree with my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway that we do not have enough of those, and I agree with the discussion we have also heard that this is another impact upon families. I think it is really important that this House stands up for family values and the impact that things like this legislation are going to have on families.

In terms of transferring the authority to a local authority to make those decisions, members might be sitting here thinking: “Well, that’s off my conscience now. It’s on someone else’s conscience now.” I do not believe that that is correct. I believe that one cannot transfer one’s conscience to be carried out by another body. We in this House are elected to carry that out. We have heard also how local bodies might be carrying out this decision making. I could be wrong, but I do not see anywhere in this legislation where it compels those local authorities to take note of the historical decisions that have been made, and the reasons why they were made, and apply them to the decisions that they will make around creating new by-laws, which creates, as we have also heard, a number of challenges.

We have also heard about the protection of employee rights. We have so often seen the diminishment of workers’ rights, and this is another one. I do not believe for one moment that a young 17-year-old in their first job is going to be able to stand up to an employer and say “No, I don’t want to work that day.”—

Carmel Sepuloni: If they’re on a 90-day trial period.

ADRIAN RURAWHE: —and to come out at the end of it still having the same number of hours in that job—and still have their job. As my colleague Carmel Sepuloni has pointed out, if they are on a 90-day trial, they might not make it to 91 days. That is a real problem. But, again, transferring that authority to another—

Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call on this piece of legislation and to signal that I will be exercising my personal vote to vote against this legislation. I want to spell out the reasons why I am voting against this legislation, and I want to specifically talk to the provisions in new sections 5H, 5I, 5J, and 5JI. I think this is the crux of the legislation, and it shows how out of touch the members opposite are that they naively believe that these words on a bit of paper offer the kinds of protections that are required to ensure that the retail workers are going to be treated fairly.

Listening to Mr Hudson’s speech showed to me just how out of touch that member is. I wonder how many minimum wage retail workers he actually speaks to and asks about their ability—

Hon Ruth Dyson: In the Koru Club.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: That is right; in the Koru Club. I do not know how many he speaks to in the Koru Club. I wonder how many minimum wage retail workers that member has had a conversation with, and has asked about their ability to work their own roster, to nominate the hours, the casual hours, that they want to work. I wonder how many that member has had a conversation with. I wonder whether he has talked to any people on a 90-day trial and asked them, at day 45, whether they can go to their boss and say “No, I don’t think I want to take those hours you’re offering me. I’d like to do something else with my time, so on this occasion I won’t be taking up that offer you’re putting to me.” This shows the naive and out-of-touch nature of the Government that we have sitting opposite us.

If we go through these provisions, new section 5H says that the Employment Relations Act, which requires a shop employee to be available to accept any work that the employer makes available on Easter Sunday, is unenforceable against the shop employee. I would like to hear one of the Government members take a call and tell us exactly how they think that is going to work in practice—how they think that a minimum wage retail worker is going to have the ability to say no.

Then we go to new section 5I, “Shop employee’s right to refuse to work on Easter Sunday”. “A shop employee—(a) may refuse to work on Easter Sunday; and (b) is not required to provide the employer with a reason for refusing to work on Easter Sunday.” Again, I would like to hear one of the members opposite give us an explanation of exactly how they think that conversation is going to pan out—that an 18-year-old minimum wage retail worker is approached by their boss, who says “I want you to work on Easter Sunday.”, and that employee can just say no, and “I am within my legislative rights not to tell you why I won’t work.” That is just absolutely out of touch. And to think that this is the ability just to take a personal grievance that is there—this is just ridiculous.

The fact that we have protected certain days and said that we will give a blanket day off to everybody so they can spend it together is something that we have whittled down in New Zealand to 3½ days. But those days are there for a reason. People have talked about religious observance; other people have talked about the ability to have family time. There are many sporting and cultural tournaments and festivals that are held over periods of time when it is accepted there will be common days off. This is what we are choosing to give up with this legislation.

But the other piece of this legislation, and another reason that I will be voting against it, is that it is just bad legislation. This is the Government deciding it wants to do something, but not having the intestinal fortitude to do it itself, instead palming it off—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I think the member knows that phrase is out of order. The member will withdraw.

Dr MEGAN WOODS: I withdraw. This is a Government that is simply palming off to territorial and local authorities the onus—the cost—of doing this. One of the clauses that I especially like in this legislation is new section 5E, where this Parliament is telling territorial local authorities that they must not “delegate to a committee or other subordinate decision-making body, community board, or member, or officer of the local authority the power to make a final decision …”. This is rich from a Parliament that is passing legislation that is passing that onus on.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The heart of this bill is new section 4B in clause 13, which says that shops in certain areas may remain open on Easter Sunday. But that clause in this bill has been hijacked tonight, and we have just heard a lot of pious, sanctimonious, duplicitous, and deceptive arguments from the Opposition. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! There was one word in there that is not parliamentary. The member, I think, knows which it is, and even if he does not, he will withdraw and then continue.

DAVID BENNETT: I withdraw, Mr Chair.

There are three arguments that the Opposition has put up today. One is freedom of choice. Opposition members are saying that they should have freedom of choice. Well, I remember the Labour Party never had freedom of choice in terms of the marriage equality bill. It does not give freedom of choice to members of its party—

Carmel Sepuloni: Yes, we did.

DAVID BENNETT: No, it did not—it did not. It did not. It does not give freedom of choice to its members on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

Dr Megan Woods: Lies! Lies!

Hon Ruth Dyson: I voted against it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! There will now be two members on my left who will withdraw and apologise.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.

Dr Megan Woods: I withdraw and apologise.

DAVID BENNETT: So we know that there is no freedom of choice in the Labour Party, because with the TPP it would not allow choice.

We have also heard about Christianity. Well, it is great to see the Labour Party talking about Christianity and listening to its Pacific communities. I did not see that when the marriage equality debate came through, and the debate on euthanasia. The Labour Party was not there listening to communities then. And it is all right for the Labour Party to take advantage of the opportunities that Easter Sunday provides, and say that that is important, but it will not support the religious basis for that day, and that is something that the Labour Party needs to come to grips with.

The third thing that Labour members have talked about is around families. This is not the Labour Party trying to protect families; this is the Labour Party protecting its union mates who have told it not to support this legislation. This legislation has been hijacked tonight by debates from the left that are simply two-faced, and represent an Opposition that cannot stand behind itself.

RIA BOND (NZ First): I was not actually going to take another call on this bill, but I felt that I had to. I am very compelled to take a call after listening to that verbal statement there. I would like to talk to the name of this bill, which is the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill. Clause 1, “Title” states: “This Act is the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Act 2015.” I would like to recommend that the name changes to: “The Rights of Families in New Zealand to Spend Easter Sunday Together Amendment Act 2016”.

There have been eight times that similar bills have come to this House to change the Easter trading laws. At the Commerce Committee we heard from various organisations that added to the fact that this bill will erode family time. Submitters, like the organisation Caritas, came in and gave a very compelling submission about the fact that this bill takes away the rights of families to spend time together. It takes away the fact that families, annually, will book, given that they can afford to, time to go away on holiday. This bill will strip away the rights of those families to take that time together.

It is already hard enough in today’s world to make time for family. I know that from being a fulltime worker previously, and I know that from owning my own business previously. It is really tough for families to find (1) the money, and (2) the time. The concern from a few organisations about the fact that this would erode family time was quite evident through the submission stages.

Another organisation that opposed this bill said: “We reject any liberalisation of Easter trading laws because workers deserve this special annual break to spend time with their families. … a focus on economic improvement should never come at the cost of weakening the quality and special time that families can spend together. Anzac Day, Easter, and Christmas remain as one of the few times when the whole country stops and takes a break.” Another submitter said that a much better solution is to normalise Easter Sunday as a true public holiday like Christmas, so that workers who do undertake this work are paid at least time and a half for hours worked and are given a day off in lieu.

On reflection, growing up in New Zealand through the last 20 to 30-plus years I saw how our communities and how our city centres changed from trading 5 days a week to, all of a sudden, pushing out trading to 7 days a week. Families since then have really struggled—really struggled—to find good quality time together so they can sit around the table and the mother and the father are not running off to work. In today’s society some parents are working more than two jobs just to make ends meet. This bill will further erode family time.

I did rise, unexpectedly, to take a short call, motivated by Mr Bennett. I am sure that members on this side of the House absolutely understand the value of family time, and we are quite concerned that the other side of the House has got no idea. Thank you.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In respect of the intervention from Dr Megan Woods some time ago, of all the organisations and people whom the Labour Party demonstrates such disdain for, for their lack of influence or ability to make a choice, the one that Dr Woods now brings in is trade unions. In criticising staff who absolutely have no ability to say no to an employer when they propose that their retail store remains open on Easter Sunday, the employee, under Dr Woods’ thesis, is so disempowered, so unable to say those simple words “No, and I don’t need to give a reason for that.”—for those who have membership of a union she has just said that does not matter, either. That is of no benefit. There are a great number of these vulnerable workers on minimum wages in retail stores, whom the Labour Party professes to be the champion of, and yet it does not have any faith in the unions to represent them adequately.

I have much more faith in trade unions to be able to support their workers. I actually think an employee is going to have every confidence in being able to say: “No. For my own reasons—if you open on Easter Sunday, that’s fine, but I do not want to work.” Here is the interesting thing that none of the members of the Labour Party caucus have told you: the employee protections in this bill have actually been improved. Actually, thanks to the Commerce Committee—and I really want to applaud its chair, Melissa Lee, for her tireless efforts to get the Opposition members of the Commerce Committee to see sense and produce an amended bill, which, in a conscience vote, the Committee will be in the best position to vote the merits of. But no, they could not even bring themselves to do that—they did not have confidence in their own colleagues—even though it is a personal vote. Can one see a pattern emerging here?

I come back to the extra employee protections. Currently, under the Shop Trading Hours Repeal Act if a shop is prevented from opening but an employee is required to work anyway—perhaps stocking the shelves, doing a stocktake, cleaning, and so on—they cannot say no. But under the amendments proposed by the committee and that I have introduced under Supplementary Order Paper 179, every employee in a retail outlet is able to say no, even if the shop does not open, and give no reasons. That, according to the Labour Party, is poor protection. I suggest otherwise.

I want to touch on a matter that was raised by Ria Bond before the dinner break in respect of my experience in employing staff on Easter Sunday. Well, I can tell that member that as the chief executive of a surgical hospital, a place that cannot close in the evenings, cannot close in the weekends, and often did not close over the Easter break—although sometimes we did—I have every insight into the disruption that unusual, unpleasant weekends and public holidays have on working lives. I understand the concerns that employees might have about this. They are the same concerns that ratepayers may have. They are the same concerns that the shop owners themselves may have. But I do not believe it is beyond the wit of them and, indeed, it enables an employee to make a choice to say yes, because, actually, some of them—part-time staff, students who have a part-time job—may want to earn that extra income, but the Labour Party would prevent them from doing so. I think that is a shame. I think this speaks volumes about the issues of freedom and choice in this country, and that is something I hold very dear.

I will finish on this one point, and that was one made by Mr Su’a William Sio before the break: Easter Sunday is not a public holiday. It is pretty simple. If one wanted to make an intelligent intervention on this bill, I would have thought a member would know that. Easter Sunday has never been a public holiday. And in respect of his comments about how the costs are being imposed on local government, as if it had no choice—there is that word again—guess what? If the local council does not want to incur those costs—

Brett Hudson: They don’t have to.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —they do not have to. What this does is it gives the opportunity for the ratepayers—the people who would, ultimately, pay the costs of a consultation on a change in policy—to say to their local councils: “Actually, we do want this.” And they will be saying that in Wānaka, they will be saying it on the Coromandel, they have already said it in Rotorua—they will be making statues of Todd McClay in Rotorua. They do not have to incur a single dollar of cost if they do not want to. That will be between them and their ratepayers.

POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): There is very little that David Bennett would motivate me to do, but in this case I am motivated to encourage that member to correct the Hansard about the comment he made about the Labour Party members who may or may not have voted against the marriage equality bill. Mr Bennett, I can give you the list. If you would care to stand up and correct the Hansard, given your speech—[Interruption]—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. The member will sit. That is not a point of order; that is interrupting the speaker.

POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr Chairman. We all know that David Bennett is prone to some fantastical ideas and, in this regard, he is still on the money.

I come from a place called Christchurch. There is something in that name that will signal where I am going to head with this particular contribution, because I spend many of my Sundays attending services around my electorate of Christchurch East. Many, many, many people in my electorate choose to spend their Sunday mornings—and a large part of their Sundays—in observance of their faith, and I often attend services all across my electorate. There are many people in my particular electorate who choose to use Sunday as a day of rest, a day of fellowship, a day of sharing and gathering with other members of their faith to have some time together. And they may in the afternoon even choose to go shopping, but their first observance is to their faith on a Sunday.

Not only am I a member who represents a constituency that has a high population of faith-based communities but I am also a member of the Pacific Island community. It is to my distress that I see members from the other side of the Chamber who are of my Pacific community who are not able to enact—

Hon Nicky Wagner: That’s an assumption.

POTO WILLIAMS: —what they believe they should do. It may be an assumption, according to Minister Wagner. It may be an assumption, but I know because I have had conversations with those two Pacific members about the depth of their commitment to their faith. So it is very sad when we get to the point where Government policy overrides the intrinsic values and beliefs of an individual member.

This should be a conscience vote, and I know that if it was a true conscience vote those two Pacific members on the other side of the Chamber there would be voting against this legislation. They are members of a community that has faith at the heart of everything they do, and after faith comes family. So you cannot tell me that this Government is not whipping its members to vote completely for the bill. It causes me distress to know that my Pacific brothers in the National Party cannot vote the way their true conscience would want them to do.

The other thing that this Government has decided to do is to abdicate its responsibility around this very, very important issue on to our territorial local authorities. It is up to them to deal with this and to develop local policy and bylaws on this particular issue. So we have pushed the responsibility on to our local authorities. They are the ones that are going to have to engage in the public consultation. They are the ones that are going to have to do the hard work on this particular matter, and there may be territorial local authorities whose communities choose, like quite likely my community in Christchurch East or a Pacific community: “Actually, you know what? We’re going to go with what we truly believe, which is we want to ensure that Easter Sunday remains as it should.” Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you, Mr Chair, for giving me this opportunity to speak in this debate. I respect those people who have religious belief, and the previous speaker, Poto Williams, just now mentioned that she is going to vote according to her religious beliefs, as I did during the marriage equality bill. Many of my colleagues did the same thing. But the thing is, during that period there were many people from the Opposition who did not vote according to their religious beliefs, so it is irrelevant for those members to bring into this debate today what is going to happen for people with religious belief. We have to see how things are progressing. The times are changing. We need to understand, as my colleague Melissa Lee mentioned, that we are a very diverse country now.

Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s not about religion at all!

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: No, I am saying “diversity”; I am not talking about religion. Listen to it.

I appreciate one thing that the Minister is introducing in Supplementary Order Paper 179. He has mentioned that there is a choice, which is very clear; whether or not the worker wants to come to work, it is up to the worker. Fourteen days’ notice has to be given by the employer to ensure that the worker has got choice on whether or not he wants to come to work on that day.

I would like to quote one example. My office is in Papatoetoe, which is part of the Indian community, and there are many retailers in that area who close their shops on Mondays. There is nobody forcing them to close the shops on Monday, but they do that because they feel that they have to have a break, they want to spend time with their families, and they have other things they want to do. On the contrary, other shops are open. The competition is there, but the choice is there for them as to whether or not they want to open their shops.

Similarly, with this bill they are given the choice, and the local body has got a choice of whether they want to ask the people or not, like in Rotorua, where the demand is—because Taupō is open on Easter Sunday whereas Rotorua is not. People are at a disadvantage. The businesses feel the pinch, and that choice is being given in this bill. I hope that with this bill, when it goes through, a lot of businesses will appreciate what this Government has done. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): In a previous contribution I worked through, with the Committee, the select committee process and some issues that arose with the amendments that were not accepted by the Commerce Committee, which have been reintroduced as a Supplementary Order Paper. What I have not done, to date, is to deal with the issue at first principles, and I wish to spend a few minutes on that now.

May I open by rebutting the ridiculous claim from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and the members opposite that somehow a clause in this bill that workers can refuse to work on Easter Sunday with 14 days’ notice is actually going to hold any sway in the real world. If an employer says to a worker “Hey, I want you at work on the weekend, because it’s one of our busy weekends.”, and the worker says they are going to exercise their right under new section 5I not to turn up, the fact is that it will, in the real world, affect the relationship between the boss and the worker. The power imbalance in that situation is so obvious that the Committee really does not need to debate it. If the Government members think that that is a sufficient fig leaf for this disappointing piece of legislation that undermines family life, that undermines the plurality of religious observance, then there is very little that one can actually do to enlighten them.

But all is not lost for National, because the truth is that a number of its senior members and principled members have repeatedly voted against similar legislation. As I mentioned in my previous contribution, there have been four attempts in recent memory to pass through this House laws that would liberalise trading on Easter Sunday: one from Steve Chadwick in 2006, one from Jacqui Dean in 2006, one from Todd McClay in 2009, and another one from Jacqui Dean in 2012. Several National members voted against all or most of those. Chester Borrows: No, No, No, No. Bill English: No, No, No, Yes. Gerry Brownlee: No, No, Yes, No. Nick Smith: No, No, Yes, Yes. Michael Woodhouse: Yes, No—instructive. Alfred Ngaro: No. Tim Macindoe: No, No. Sam Lotu-Iiga: No, No. So here is the real reason why the Government is not bringing a similar piece of legislation to the Committee today: because it would be, on documented voting record, too difficult for a number of principled members of the National caucus to vote for it, hence the workaround.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I have previously ruled—and I know that my colleague has—that this is a debate on the full extent of the bill. I would ask the member to come back. Leave has been granted for a debate on the whole bill as one question, and I will ask the member to come back. Talking about past voting records is fine in passing, but the member is spending a lot of time on that, and I ask him to come back to the content of the bill.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, I am very happy to do that. Before I do, though, I would ask, perhaps, the members opposite—Alfred Ngaro and Sam Lotu-Iiga—whether they would like to take a call or—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No, no. I have just asked the member, in a manner that I think is in keeping with the spirit of what we are doing here, with the debate taken as one question, just to concentrate on the content of that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you, I will readily accept your guidance. The difficulty with the legislation and the clauses that we have now is that, because this legislative process has been such an utter shambles, members are going to have to vote clause by clause and those votes are going to be extremely complex.

Let me come back to first principles: I am going to exercise my conscience to vote against this bill because I stand for the protection of one of these few remaining pieces of legislated family time. I stand for, whatever faith it is, the opportunity for religious observance. There are very few protected opportunities in our calendar. We are increasingly becoming diverse and multicultural, and that is a good thing. But we should not give up the legislated protections that we have. That is why I am going to be exercising my conscience to vote against this bill.

However, because the Government’s constitutional workaround has employed this rather bizarre and circuitous route of using local government as a proxy, and because of the constitutional issues—the “Henry VIII” clause—that arise because of that, and because of the Minister’s amendments in Supplementary Order Paper 179 that seek to make it even quicker and dirtier by doing away with the by-law process and making it a policy stroke of the pen, members who oppose the bill are going to have to have a very close look at this on a clause by clause basis. We are going to have to vote, for example, in favour of the original bill’s new section 5E, which set out a lot of the by-law process protections, and against the Minister’s amendments to that clause. As much as we detest the bill as a whole, those of us who oppose it are going to vote in favour, I would imagine, of clauses that provide for the protection—

MARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): I rise again to take a short call to oppose the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, which liberalises the shop trading hours for retail shops, for example. I just wanted to quickly acknowledge my colleague Denise Roche, who did ask the Speaker, perhaps like other members, to consider that we exercise a conscience vote on this legislation. I agree with other members of the Committee that we should exercise a true conscience vote when we are standing on our principles in this Chamber, which is a very privileged place to stand, and we get to personally exercise our vote.

I did want to raise again the burn from my colleague Gareth Hughes around Standing Order 48, which says that the members of the House never have to sit in this House on a Sunday. It quite specifically says that “The House must not sit on a Sunday.” So we consider ourselves important enough to ensure that this House, where we are all privileged, does not sit on a Sunday. So I thank my colleague Gareth Hughes for raising that really important point. Once again, we are disconnected; we get to take away the freedom of choice from other people who work—who are in paid employment like us. But we are not ruling out Easter Sunday as a protected day for workers.

I also wanted to refer to this whole freedom of choice thing. This Government does not value freedom of choice. It is tightening up the laws to put people in retail trading employment, to put those workers, into the corner with less power, which equates to less choice. It is really hard on my ears every time the members of this Government stand up and rave on about freedom of choice. Also, the freedom of choice argument that is being used always assumes starting from a balanced, a level, playing field—and that is completely not true.

So I did want to pick up on the important part of this legislation around the employment relationship and how it seeks to protect employees from having to work on the Easter Sunday. Yes, strong laws are important to protect employee rights. Yes, unions are effective and important. Yes, strong laws to protect workers’ rights are effective and important. But they do not always guarantee the protection because of the power relationship. I have had many instances of this grievance personally when I was employed and was in the community listening to the grievances of young female workers, working in retail jobs, particularly, who had no power at all—despite the laws and despite unions—against sexual harassment.

So we have got strong, clear guidance around sexual harassment to protect employees, but because of the imbalance in that power relationship, one particular young woman came to me in my role as a human rights worker for the Human Rights Commission for 10 years with a focus on working with children and young people. One young woman came to me and talked about when she knew she was being sexually harassed by her boss—the person with more power, who was in charge, who knew the legislation, who knew the workplace guidance, who understood that that was illegal and all the rest of it, but who still did it anyway because he could get away with it. What was she going to do? What was she going to do, a 17- or 18-year-old young woman, alone in a room who was being sexually harassed by someone with more power than her, despite all the laws in the world. This is why these decisions have to be made on a nationwide basis. We have to ensure that there are strong protections for workers to truly have their rights cared for. So I did want to expand on that one a little bit more. Also, there was widespread opposition—

CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Just a point: this debate concludes at quarter past 9 and, for whoever is speaking at the time, I will be stopping it at that point.

PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): This bill, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill, is a sensible measure. The status quo that we have now is simply illogical and absurd. For instance, if I wanted to go out on Easter Sunday and purchase a box of popcorn at the cinema, I could do that because, of course, a cinema is not a shop; it is providing a service to the public. Whereas if I wanted to go down to the local Countdown or Pak ’N Save and do that at a more reasonable price, that would be unavailable to me. Irrespective of the religion of an individual, whether you are a Christian who wants to commemorate the holy day on a Sunday, whether you are a Muslim who celebrates Jumu’ah or mosque day on a Friday, or whether you are a Jew who goes to temple on the Sabbath on a Saturday, one should be free in a country like New Zealand to observe their faith and to respect their culture.

At the same time, I would not expect legislation to be imposed on everybody else who wants to go about their reasonable business, including opening their own private or small business staffed only by themselves; to be suppressed in doing so. For the purposes of this bill we are talking about not a public holiday—and we are talking about, as the Minister pointed out, simply hours in which shops can trade. So for that reason this is a very, very good bill, and I will be walking out the Ayes lobby in support of it.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koutou katoa. I just want to take a very quick call to say that I find it ludicrous to be here after the many times—so many times. In the 7½ years I have been in Parliament this sort of bill keeps coming up. Is there nothing sacred to the House except money? What about people’s time? It is ludicrous to suggest that a working person can say to their employer, if they do not happen to be a friendly one, that they do not have to work on Easter Sunday. It is impossible to assert yourself, despite what is written into the law here, if you do not have an employer that is willing to keep you on if you do not play ball. What if you are seen as a bad worker, an uncooperative worker—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but the time for this debate has concluded.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to clause 13, and to the heading of subpart 1 of new Part 2 and new sections 5A, 5B, and 5JA in clause 15 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 62

Noes 59

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to new sections 5C, 5D, 5F, 5G, 5H, 5J, and 5L in clause 15, and to new section 8(2C) in clause 19 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 105

Noes 16

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 179 in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse to Part 1 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 107

Noes 14

Amendments agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 61

Noes 60

A personal vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 and the schedule be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Noes 59

Part 2 and the schedule agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That clauses 1 to 3 be agreed to.

Ayes 62

Noes 59

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the Canterbury Property Boundaries and Related Matters Bill with amendment, the Shop Trading Hours Amendment Bill with amendment, and no progress on the Child Protection (Child Sex Offender Register Bill), the Evidence Amendment Bill, and the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders Legislation Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.