Thursday, 2 August 2018

THURSDAY, 2 AUGUST 2018

THURSDAY, 2 AUGUST 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Next week, the legislation to be considered by the House will include the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill, the first readings of three cognate regulatory systems amendment bills, and the remaining stages of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

On the morning of Thursday, 9 August, there will be an extended sitting. Wednesday, 8 August will be a members’ day.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Is the extended sitting on 9 August an extension of 8 August, and if so, why does it suddenly no longer become a members’ day?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Because that’s the way the rules of the House work. It worked several times under the previous Government, where Treaty settlement bills were considered the day after a members’ day. It has happened that way ever since the extended sittings were introduced.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Economy—Employment, GDP Growth, and Skills Shortage

1. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have confidence in the Government’s management of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he agree with economic commentator Bernard Hickey, who today said, “This week’s news is the worst economically for the Government since its election and should force it to recalibrate its response.”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t agree with the characterisation by Mr Hickey, but he does make an interesting point in that article, which is that years and years of under-investment in infrastructure are causing constraints in the New Zealand economy and are reducing productivity. That happened over the last nine years. We have an ambitious programme of investment in infrastructure that will start to turn that around.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he take it as a signal of confidence in the Government’s economic management that job growth has fallen by 60 percent since the Government took office, and in the past three months, 43 people extra have moved into unemployment every day?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I take as a measure of confidence is that yesterday’s data released by Statistics New Zealand showed that 94,000 more people were employed in the June 2018 quarter than the 2017 June quarter.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he take it as a signal of confidence in the Government’s economic management that this week, not only has unemployment gone up but multiple construction firms have gone into receivership, and businesses’ confidence in their own prospects has hit a 10-year low, falling to levels not seen since the global financial crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The issue of the construction industry and the vertical construction industry and the issues facing that industry are not new. Mainzeal, Hawkins, Fletcher’s are all things that happened under the last Government’s watch. I’m actually not going to blame the last Government for that. This is an industry that does need some support. It does need some work. But for the member to conflate all of what is going wrong in the vertical construction industry with the last nine months of this Government is not right.

Hon Amy Adams: Is he aware that just 1 percent slower GDP growth would cost the Government approximately $800 million in lost revenue every year, and Government spending would also inevitably increase as fiscal stabilisers kicked in?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s a number of factors that would influence whether or not that equation worked, but what I would remind the member is that the consensus forecasts, as put through by FocusEconomics recently, all say that growth will be around 3 percent over the forecast period, and that’s backed up by Treasury, the OECD, the IMF, and the Reserve Bank.

Hon Amy Adams: Well, in light of that answer, can he tell the House whether he is intending to stick to his own fiscal responsibility rules if, in fact, GDP growth does not live up to those Treasury forecasts?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We’ve been very clear that our Budget responsibility rules are there for the term of this Government. We have been equally clear that if there was a significant economic shock, we would adjust those accordingly. I am interested now by the confused stance of the National Party. Apparently, they want us to spend more. They don’t want the Budget responsibility rules, but we’re also spending too much. They actually no longer have a fiscal stance that the public can judge.

Virginia Andersen: What is the Government doing to address the skills shortage?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are taking a number of steps to address the skills shortage. The first of those—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s called a reshuffle.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —is by making sure that we’ve got our first year—well, no, Gerry. There’s a skills shortage on your side of the House. It’s very, very clear for all of us to see. We are addressing the skills shortage by having our first year free programme, which is getting many, many more people into the trades and apprenticeships, and also by making sure that we’re focused around issues in the construction sector, particularly.

KiwiBuild—Shared Risk

2. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Does he stand by all his statements regarding the Crown’s potential risk in relation to the insolvency of KiwiBuild developers?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Associate Minister of Housing and Urban Development) on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: Yes, in the context they were made.

Hon Judith Collins: When he announced five weeks ago that 1,200 new State KiwiBuild and market houses were being built on the Housing New Zealand Northcote development, did he have confidence that the builders, Ebert Construction, would be in business five weeks later to continue working on the project?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, yes, I did.

Hon Judith Collins: Does he still stand by his statement last week in the House in relation to KiwiBuild: “In the case of developer insolvency, the Crown … carries no risk whatsoever.”?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, yes. In the Buying off the Plans initiative, the Crown underwrite is only triggered on completion. Therefore, there is no risk to the Crown in the event of a developer’s insolvency. In some cases, there may be progress payments, in which case liability is limited to the progress payments made. The KiwiBuild unit advises me, however, that these contracts are rare, and they have not entered into any so far.

Hon Judith Collins: When he told his Cabinet colleagues that there would be “appropriate due diligence”, what was the result of the due diligence for Ebert Construction, that went into receivership this week?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development—

Hon Judith Collins: It was brilliant.

Hon JENNY SALESA: I’m sorry?

SPEAKER: Sorry, I think the Minister can start the answer again, and can I ask, if it was Ms Collins—can she finish her questions before she sits down.

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development, there was appropriate work that was done. In terms of the advice I’ve got from KiwiBuild, things are done in terms of risk management on a development by development basis. Because of the inherent differences, any individual development and the prices it might seek from the Crown to underwrite is taken on a case by case basis. I can give you the advice that I’ve been given, which is how the risk is managed by the KiwiBuild unit: first, an initial assessment is made; second, shortlisting, a second review of the proposal, and a workshop with the developers. The KiwiBuild unit then evaluates the amended proposals. The opportunity to clarify any issues is done, an evaluation panel, then the evaluation report, the chair prepares a final evaluation report, and then the contract is negotiated. In addition, CBRE, Colliers, and Jasmax are contracted to provide independent expert advice to the KiwiBuild unit for each development.

Hon Judith Collins: If, as he said on 26 March this year, the Crown is sharing the risk with developers, then what responsibility will the Crown be taking to ensure that subcontractors and workers are paid on KiwiBuild sites when the developer goes broke, and whether or not they can even get their tools off the site?

Hon JENNY SALESA: On behalf of the Minister, we have asked for advice from the ministry on how it is that subcontractors can get some of their tools back. One of the things that we have asked our ministries to do is for the ministry to reach out to the receivers and to assist our subcontractors to get their tools back. We are waiting for further advice on this. We would like our subcontractors to be paid, and the contracts are apt that were signed. All of those subcontractors that had their contracts signed before 1 July 2017 will get some payment in terms of the labour they provided.

Hon Judith Collins: Which of his statements is correct: the Crown will be sharing the risk with developers, as stated on 26 March, or when he told the House on Wednesday last week that the Crown will take no risk whatsoever if a developer becomes insolvent during the KiwiBuild process?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Further to my answer earlier on about insolvency, the Crown underwrite is only triggered on completion of houses, so the risk that the Crown takes is only in the event that a developer goes insolvent.

Transport Infrastructure—Fuel Taxes, Government Policy, and Land Transport Projects

3. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: Do the funding allocations in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport justify increases in fuel taxes over the next 3 years; if so, how?

Hon SHANE JONES (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: Given that Kiwis understand that we need to deliver a modern, multimodal land transport system across the country to unlock growth and prosperity—

Chris Bishop: You didn’t write this answer.

Hon SHANE JONES: Mr Bishop, you might have got away with sacking one Māori; I’d be very careful if I was you. We will enhance great prosperity.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to allow that comment to stand?

SPEAKER: Well, the answer is yes. If people choose to interject mid-answer with irrelevant interjections, then they’re likely to get it back in spades.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That’s not a reasonable position, at all. Firstly, we’ve had one Minister stand in the House to explain that the debacle over the appointment of Pauline Kīngi has not led to a sacking; it’s led, apparently, to a resignation. Now we might, on this side of the House, know how a resignation like that is achieved, but it is not appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to accuse an Opposition member of sacking a Crown official.

SPEAKER: I’m going to do two things now. First of all, I’m not going to take any responsibility for Mr Jones’ answers—I mean, I think no reasonable person would expect me to do that. The second point I’d make is that, actually, the shadow Leader of the House’s point of order had no merit. But, notwithstanding that, seven separate members on the Government side—including Mr Lees-Galloway—at least four times, interjected during the point of order, and, for that reason, there will be an additional seven supplementaries given to the National Party.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why is he continuing with his plan to tax New Zealanders by an extra $1 billion over the next three years while at the same time, according to Civil Contractors New Zealand CEO Peter Silcock, transport infrastructure construction expenditure would be reducing over the next two to three years?

Hon SHANE JONES: Over the period at which we’re going to transition this large fund, it is going to pick up the slack in terms of KiwiRail and coastal shipping, as well as enhanced road transport options. I’m not surprised that that person is concerned, but I would say that as he’s the CEO and the chief advocate of the roading lobby, it does not bother me one iota that he shares those anxieties.

Jami-Lee Ross: Which funding allocation in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport will be assisting with coastal shipping?

Hon SHANE JONES: There are two phases to the overarching transition. We have ticked off one phase, and a key part of that phase is the introduction of an additional 10c, largely driven by increases in petrol excise duty. In phase two, we are going to hold true to our narrative that KiwiRail, coastal shipping, and road transport represent a comprehensive response to logistics, supply chain, and transportation challenges in a growing economy.

Jami-Lee Ross: Given the primary question was asking about funding allocations in the Government policy statement, which specific funding allocation in the Government Policy Statement on Land Transport assists with coastal shipping?

Hon SHANE JONES: Repeating the question, the member himself raised that supplementary question, and if he felt he was straying off the primary reservation, then he’s only got himself to blame that he now knows about what our priority is for phase two of transport reform.

Jami-Lee Ross: Does he agree with Civil Contractors New Zealand when they said, “Any reduction in projects on the ground would come at a critical time when infrastructure work in Australia’s east coast is booming, and New Zealand looked set to lose talent and capabilities across the Tasman if projects were not moved forward to bridge the lull in project work.”?

Hon SHANE JONES: I think Mr Silcock, who formerly was in the orchard industry, is making an important point—that the civil construction sector wants a clear line of sight. They want some confidence so that the high-quality standards of delivery from that sector can continue, unlike the construction sector. I think he should not alarm his members or himself unnecessarily. The Transport Agency and their various planners are working on a whole host of projects. We just cannot guarantee pipedreams like a four-lane highway to Whangarei that was never ever going to be funded or see the light of day.

Jami-Lee Ross: Why does he think taxing New Zealanders more, creating a transport construction hole, and seeing Kiwis leave for Australia is a coherent transport plan from his Government?

Hon SHANE JONES: It’s very difficult to accept the view of the National Party that because of a road in Palmerston North, Kiwis from Kaitāia might be going to Australia. Apart from that obvious contradiction, there will be continued investment in roads, there will be an accent on regional roads, and there will be an opportunity, over the full transition, to address the role that coastal and KiwiRail can play in delivering higher productivity, via transport, for all of New Zealand.

Economy—Business Confidence

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does his description of the ANZ survey of business confidence as “junk” include the ANZ Own Activity Index, which has dropped to the lowest level since May 2009?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: There’s a bit more to the question, but fair enough—

SPEAKER: Sorry?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I think there is a little bit more to that question, but we’ll—

SPEAKER: No, there’s not. The member should rely on the printed copy rather than an early draft.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister for Economic Development, no.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: So is the fact that the ANZ Own Activity survey has dropped to plus 4 percent—its lowest level since May 2009, in the midst of the global financial crisis—well below the long-term average of plus 27 percent, something he should take seriously?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I take very seriously the views of the business community and work very closely with them, but I tend to share the view of the New Zealand Herald’s Liam Dann, who said, “to compare confidence in the economy now and confidence in [2008-09] is ridiculous.”

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he aware that during the term of the previous Labour-led Government, between 1999 and 2008, the ANZ Own Activity Index averaged 20 percent compared with its current level of 4 percent, which is a number that commentator Cameron Bagrie referred to as indicating the economy going into stall—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member has more than finished the question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, I didn’t actually get to the question.

SPEAKER: No. Well, the member put in two unnecessary additions to the question at the beginning and at the end.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I think we’ve traversed a number of times in this House the nature of the surveys—in particular, that in the period of the last Labour-led Government that he refers to, in 82 of 99 months there was pessimism from the business community but growth averaged 3.2 percent over that period.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When he told the House that the ANZ business survey, which he described as “junk”, is a “survey of the emotion of CEOs”, does he think the New Zealand CEOs are being too emotional when they worry about the costs being added to their businesses?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, it is indeed a survey of business sentiment. There are a lot of other indicators about the health of the economy—for instance, consumer confidence, which is doing well; employee confidence, which is doing well; people being added to the labour market, which is doing well; and overall growth and employment. CEOs will concern themselves with the prospects of their own firm, which is absolutely right, and this Government will continue to work with all in the business community to ensure that those firms grow sustainably.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he think the typical business owner and employer—who is worried about potential effects of the industrial relations changes, costs being added to her business, uncertainty around immigration and tax policies—would respond if he told her directly that her opinions were junk?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On behalf of the Minister, I do not believe their opinions are junk.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Regarding the ANZ’s commentary “with [the] businesses in a funk, it’s fair to say that the road ahead is looking less assured, and risks of a stall have increased”, has he considered the possibility that any of his Government policies may be harming the economy?

SPEAKER: Order! Before the member answers the question, and just to get it absolutely straight with the member, he will ask the question part of that again—I’m not going to make him count it twice—without the addendum that prefaced it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, I’m just struggling to understand at all. I’m putting out a quote from somebody and asking him to respond to that quote.

SPEAKER: No you weren’t. That’s not what you did at all.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Well, all right. OK—well, I’ll keep it simple, then. Has he considered the possibility that any of his Government’s policies may be harming the economy?

SPEAKER: Yes. That’s a question.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We look very close at the all of the impacts of our policies on not only the business community but also employees, the social sector, and those in unpaid work. The conclusion that we’ve come to is that after nine years of neglect and under-investment from the other side, our policies are going to lead to an economy that is more robust, more sustainable, more productive, and more inclusive. We’re not going to be able to do it all in nine months, but we will be able to make up for a lot of the damage in this first term.

Housing—Urban Growth Agenda

5. RAYMOND HUO (Labour) to the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: How will the Government’s Urban Growth Agenda enable the construction of affordable homes for young families?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Housing and Urban Development: On behalf of the Minister, yesterday, at the Environmental Defence Society, I announced the Urban Growth Agenda, an ambitious and far-reaching programme to address the fundamentals of land supply, development capacity, and infrastructure provision so that the market can build more homes for young families. The Urban Growth Agenda joins KiwiBuild—the 6,400 more State and public houses—in making life better for renters and tackling property speculation as part of our comprehensive plan to tackle the housing crisis.

Raymond Huo: How will the planning initiatives in the Urban Growth Agenda reduce the cost of new homes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Two drivers of house prices are high land prices and the cost of building infrastructure in both greenfield and brownfield developments. The Urban Growth Agenda will reform our planning system and allow cities to make room for growth, support quality built environment, and enable integrated transport, housing, and commercial planning so that urban land prices reduce.

Raymond Huo: How will infrastructure-financing initiatives working alongside the Urban Growth Agenda reduce the cost of new homes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are also working on a broad range of infrastructure-financing mechanisms so that long-term debt financing is available to developers willing to build trunk infrastructure financed over a longer term, rather than in the upfront purchase price. This will mean it will be more affordable to build and buy new homes.

Primary Sector—Government Policies' Effect on Rural Communities

6. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: Does he stand by all his policies and actions?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Yes, and I stand by the specific actions that include working with industry to try and eradicate Mycoplasma bovis, fixing the National Animal Identification and Tracing system, releasing the rabbit calicivirus disease virus in March to control wild rabbits, introducing a mānuka honey export standard, conducting a review of the dairy industry—

SPEAKER: Order! Order!

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’ve so much more here.

SPEAKER: I understand what the member’s trying to do, and he’s done enough.

Hon Nathan Guy: Which of his policies have helped lead to a fivefold increase in farmer pessimism in the last 12 months?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware of a survey done by Federated Farmers—an organisation that, perhaps, at times, has come up with such outcomes—but I have to say that while they may maintain that just less than half were pessimistic, more than half were optimistic, and about 30 percent of those anticipated an increase in profitability on their farms. Good luck to them.

Hon Nathan Guy: What advice has he received from his $500,000-a-year Primary Sector Council about Government policies impacting negatively on the primary sector and the overall confidence in the economy?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I have to say that the Primary Sector Council has met twice and is due to meet again. They have identified a few challenges for us going ahead. One was a lack of vision—after nine years of National Government, there is no vision. The second thing is they said that the research and science area for primary sectors is pretty muddled, if not chaotic, and we need to sort that out after nine years of National Government. They’ve identified a skills shortage and a capability shortage, because there has been no focus on that for the last nine years under a National Government.

Matt King: If rural proofing is merely a guidance tool for Government agencies rather than mandatory, what incentive is there for them to apply it to their policies?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Just one example of rural proofing—that is a policy designed to advise policy makers in Wellington to consider the effects in rural areas. One such example of the stupidity under the previous National Government was that those people going for licences had to be tested at a traffic light. There are a huge number of rural communities that—thank God—don’t have a traffic light, but that Government said that before you could get a licence, you had to be tested at a traffic light. That’s what rural proofing will do: ensure sensible policies for rural communities.

Hon Nathan Guy: When he said rural proofing would go through a rural lens and ensure all Government policy makers would focus on easing the cost of compliance, why has this not allayed farmers’ fears of more red tape and anti-farming policies from this Government?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There are no anti-farming policies. There are additional costs because the farming sector realised that expectations from our customers and consumers around the world demand the best in terms of environmental management, the best in terms of animal welfare, and the best in terms of labour requirements—provisions and guarantees that the previous Government couldn’t give. We will be in a position to give those assurances across the board so that we can sell our products for better returns and better profits for the farmers.

Barbara Kuriger: Since mid-June 2018, have any Cabinet papers included rural-proofing aspects on any Government policies, and what were those policies?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The Ministry for Primary Industries is leading the process of rural proofing and providing advice across all Government agencies. Our Government has gone through a proper process of ensuring that, firstly, there’s Cabinet endorsement, and then there’s a wide level of awareness of this. The rural lens that we will put over that will be utilising both eyes, not having one eye closed like the previous Government.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Advice and Submissions

7. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree with the statement yesterday by Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University that the waka-jumping bill itself is bad enough for democracy but the process surrounding the bill has also been a blow against democracy, and it makes the “legislation process look like a turning point in the health of this Government”?

SPEAKER: I will allow the member to answer the question even though the member corrected Dr Edwards’ grammar.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): No.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Has he seen the Cabinet Office advice specifically on his electoral integrity bill that Mr Edwards refers to that contradicts the Green Party’s public statements that the party has to vote for the bill?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could the Minister summarise the advice that the Cabinet Office gave with respect to the electoral integrity bill?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes—at odds with Dr Edwards’ description of it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Minister make public the advice from the Cabinet Office with respect to the electoral integrity bill prior to the bill being further debated in the House?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is hiding this crucial advice from the Cabinet Office consistent with this Government’s commitment to be the most open and transparent Government ever?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it, informal advice sought by the Green Party from the Cabinet Office that was couched in very kind of tendentious terms is a matter for the Green Party to release, not me.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will he ensure Parliament has access to the advice by officials on the electoral integrity bill’s compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act prior to further debate in the House, given that it was, very unusually, not made available to the select committee or the public?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I don’t agree with every proposition in that question, except to say that the Attorney-General has supplied his certificate to the House that the bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will the Government consider adopting the many amendments that were suggested by the Clerk of the House, the Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and other officials—that Government committee members refused to discuss at select committee—during the committee stage of the House?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: As I understand it, that committee could not reach agreement on anything, and the bill has been discharged from the select committee and is to be debated in the House unchanged.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is it fair for him to be pressing the Greens to vote for this bill when the origin of this problem was in the chaotic formation of this Government when New Zealand First would not meet directly with the Greens; and why doesn’t the Government do as Helen Clark did in 2005 on the same bill at the same stage of the process, and with the same controversy—simply shelve the bill?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The bill is a Government bill. It has been agreed by Cabinet and the full Government as a Government bill. That member might want to reflect on his actions in 2003 when, after Maurice Williamson publicly stated that he thought it was time for the National Party to stand for something, that member moved a motion in his caucus to have Mr Williamson expelled from that caucus.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just wish to put on the record a personal explanation—

SPEAKER: Order! The member wants to seek leave to make a personal explanation relating to the comment that Mr Little just made. Is that right?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s correct.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that? There is none.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The statement made by Mr Little is totally incorrect and false.

Raymond Huo: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With due respect, what Dr Smith described about the proceedings of the Justice Committee was incorrect.

SPEAKER: No, no—the member has been here for some time now. He will know that while questions are meant to be accurate and there’s a degree of authentication required for primary questions—and if I have severe doubts or anxiety, I can require it for supplementary questions—we don’t have such a high standard for supplementary questions from either side of the House that all assertions made in them are accurate.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of your comment about authentication of primary questions, I wanted to raise an issue with you about this very primary question No. 7, in that it is described in the question as the waka-jumping bill. That is not in quotation marks, therefore—

SPEAKER: And I apologise. That is my responsibility for letting it through in that form. It should have been within a quotation, but I’m sorry that I did focus on the grammatical errors later in the question.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I promise it will be a constructive one. Just a question: is it in order for a member to use a personal statement to suggest that a member has misled the House?

SPEAKER: I don’t think that there was a suggestion that someone deliberately misled the House, in the statement made by Dr Smith. If he was suggesting a breach of privilege that way, that would be out of order, but I did not take it that way. Maybe I was being generous.

Tertiary Education—Vocational Institutions' Financial Support

8. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to address serious financial viability issues affecting New Zealand’s institutes of technology and polytechnics sector?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): On becoming Minister of Education, I put in place an immediate programme of work to deal with the serious structural issues facing vocational education and training in New Zealand generally, but particularly facing the institutes of technology and polytechnics sector. While that work is under way, there are some immediate issues that we need to deal with, and last week I announced that I have dissolved the Unitec Council and appointed a commissioner at Unitec. I am doing this after receiving the final submission from Unitec’s council, which supported the move. Unitec needs urgent and significant financial support, and I believe the commissioner is needed to ensure that both the Tertiary Education Commission and I have the oversight that we need.

Jan Tinetti: Who has been appointed as commissioner?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The new commissioner is Murray Strong, who is also the Government-appointed Crown manager at Tai Poutini Polytechnic on the South Island’s West Coast. He’ll be supported by an independent financial adviser already in place, and I will soon be appointing an advisory group to support him. Murray Strong is extremely experienced in working with tertiary education organisations that are experiencing some difficulty. I hope that his appointment will give real confidence to students and staff about Unitec’s future. This Government is absolutely committed to ensuring that Unitec’s role as a major provider of vocational education and training in the Auckland region is secured.

Jan Tinetti: Why are many of our polytechnics and institutes of technology struggling?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The majority of the sector is projected to be—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Fees-free—no one turned up.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: —in deficit within two to three years under the current settings, due to the unsustainable financial position the sector was in when we became the Government, Gerry. The complete—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will withdraw and apologise.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat

Building and Construction Industry—Government Policy and Skills Shortage

9. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: Does she agree with the comments of Property Council Chief Executive Connal Townsend that there is a “perfect storm” in the building and construction sector that includes issues with cost escalations, allocation of risk, lack of skills, and problems with the Building Act 2004?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): There are a number of longstanding issues affecting the building and construction sector, including the allocation of risk, lack of skilled people, building costs, and the Building Act. My colleagues and I have a work programme to address these issues.

Andrew Bayly: What new policy initiatives has she announced to prevent the loss of skilled tradesmen leaving New Zealand for Australia, where there is a boom in construction and infrastructure projects?

Hon JENNY SALESA: What this Government has done—and I chair this—is we have convened nine Ministers to look at and to address construction skills in general. We are at the moment seeking advice from industry. We know that these issues are longstanding, and we know that the Government does not have the answers on its own. We are willing to make sure that we are training enough people. I have not yet announced a new scheme to stop people from going to Australia, but we are looking at training enough of our own people to build our own houses.

Virginia Andersen: What is the Government doing to lift skills in the construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The ministerial group that we’ve established, the construction group—we have a draft construction skills action plan. We’re out now asking industry, because the nine Ministers together have come up with five ideas—three of them are brand new; two of them are expansions of ideas—and it is all to make sure that we are training up our own people. The reality is that in the building and construction sector, the majority of the workers in the sector—256,000—are New Zealanders. So in the long term, the long-term solution has to be that we train up our own people to build our houses, including KiwiBuild.

Andrew Bayly: What new policy initiatives has she announced to facilitate the introduction of appropriate new products into the building and construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I have not yet announced a new policy in this area. However, this is part of the area of priority for work for me as the Minister for Building and Construction. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) is currently—right now—out consulting with the sector, because we are looking at a products review. The policies that MBIE will present to me as Minister will come in the next few months. So I will be presenting a paper to Cabinet in the next few months, and after then we will make some policy decisions.

Andrew Bayly: What new policy initiatives has she announced to amend the Building Act to make it more fit for purpose?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I have not yet announced a new policy to do with the Building Act, but that is because we have a big work programme in the building and construction sector. We are looking at reviewing products right now, and the regulations. We are looking at reallocation of risk and liability. There are several other work programmes that we’re currently doing with MBIE in terms of me being Minister for Building and Construction. We will look at all of that because we are looking at a whole-of-system approach. We don’t want to be introducing new legislation that we then have to come in and amend and amend, or amend later on. We want to get it right the first time.

SPEAKER: Just before I call the next supplementary, can I ask the—I think it’s Marja Lubeck up the back. I know she was waving more fingers than might be normally considered offensive, but I would ask her not to do that again. Thank you.

Andrew Bayly: Why was no money allocated in the 2018-19 Budget for additional skills training for the construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The construction skills action plan that I expect to take to Cabinet in the next few weeks—a lot of the new things that we’re proposing will be paid for, but it will be paid for under baseline. Any new money that we would expect in terms of training new people will probably be considered in the Budget process of 2019.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister confirm that she was involved with an announcement yesterday that will directly contribute to an improvement in the level of skills in the workforce in the building and construction sector?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Absolutely. The Minister of Education, the Hon Chris Hipkins, and I announced the micro-credentialing skills system, which will allow us to ensure—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Lowering of standards.

Hon JENNY SALESA: —that we’re building these houses as fast and as efficiently as possible.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Now, I do realise that the member has some expertise in the area, but I would much prefer him to make his contributions from his feet rather than his seat.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is that an offer?

SPEAKER: If the member wants to have a question, go for it.

Land Information New Zealand—Sale of Mt White Station

10. Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Land Information: Does she agree with Forest and Bird that the Government has failed to clean up the historic anomaly around the ownership of Mount White Station, and is it in any way related to the 126 pastoral lease reviews that have completed the review process and are presently awaiting her ministerial sign-off?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: On behalf of the Minister, in response to the first part of the question, I disagree. In fact, tomorrow, a representative of the owner and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) are meeting already to start discussing how to resolve the status of Riversdale Flats. Regarding the second part of the question, there are no pastoral lease applications awaiting ministerial sign-off. I think the member may be confused—126 pastoral leases have completed tenure review and need no further sign-off; they are done. Land has been freeholded and the other land returned to the Department of Conservation estate. If the member would like the details of the 126 completed reviews, he could do no better than to look on LINZ’s website—all the information is there.

Hon David Bennett: Does the Minister agree with the following statement on the recent sale of Mt White Station to a Czech-born businessman: “It’s astonishing that the Department of Conservation and LINZ haven’t got it sorted” and that “it should be part of the national park. The Green Party would protect our high country landscapes and stop the sale of more than a hectare of land to overseas interests.”?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: To be clear, the lease was purchased by a New Zealand permanent resident. Citizens and New Zealand residents are allowed to buy property in New Zealand.

Hon David Bennett: If the Minister says that it was purchased by a citizen or New Zealand resident, why did it have to go through the office approval process?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: There is a very specific answer to this question, which I’ve seen—and, in fact, I have it before me now, conveniently, and it will be somewhat embarrassing for the member, I suspect. Because the buyer is a New Zealand permanent resident, the Overseas Investment Office could not impose conditions. It is normal for it to go to the department in that situation.

Hon David Bennett: If the Minister didn’t impose any conditions in this case, then how does he reconcile that with the comments of Forest & Bird that this is an “outrageous” and “gutting” decision?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: As I said, I respectfully disagree with them.

Hon David Bennett: Can the Minister assure the public that there will be no more sales of Crown pastoral-lease land to overseas interests until the Government has changed the laws around the overseas ownership of such land?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: This Government takes overseas purchase of New Zealand interests very seriously, in contrast to the Government that’s gone before.

Youth Unemployment—Reports

11. ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent reports has he seen that demonstrate the progress young people not in employment, education, or training are making under this coalition Government?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Yesterday, we saw the release of the latest household labour force survey, and I’m happy to share with the House that in the latest quarter, the youth “neets” rate was 10.9 percent, down from 12.4 percent in the last quarter.

Angie Warren-Clark: Does the survey also demonstrate how Māori rangatahi are currently progressing?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That’s excellent news as well, I’m proud to say. Our Government are very proud to inform the House that the rate for Māori young people who are classified as “neets” is now 15.6 percent, down from 19.6 percent just over a year ago when the National Opposition were in Government. That means—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: All gone to Australia.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —Mr Brownlee—that more of our rangatahi—that means young Māori—are either learning or earning, and that’s great news for them and their whānau.

Angie Warren-Clark: What does he consider to be the reason for these outstanding results?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I said when I became employment Minister that this Government is one that cares, and our Prime Minister has put that view many times—that we are a compassionate Government, unlike the Opposition last year. We want to see our young people do well—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They’re going to Australia. They’re on the plane.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: —so we got out there and worked with our communities, unlike Gerry Brownlee and the Opposition. We worked with our communities—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He’s going to learn not to react, at some stage, if he wants to finish his answers.

Police—Deputy Commissioner of Police, Inquiry into the Appointment Process

12. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: If she could redo the appointment process for the membership of the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, would she do anything differently; if so, what?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Just to be clear, as Minister I do not undertake the appointment process; the Department of Internal Affairs does. However, since we have just had a highly respected New Zealander resign as the chair of an inquiry due to issues raised regarding historical social media interactions, it does appear that the process developed by the National Government in 2009 and amended by them in 2013 and 2015 may need further attention.

Chris Bishop: Ha, ha!

SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

Chris Bishop: A supplementary, yes.

SPEAKER: Well, the member better get to it.

Chris Bishop: How many candidates did Department of Internal Affairs officials place before her for consideration for selection as the member of the independent inquiry, the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, and what due diligence did she and her office do on the candidates?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: If I recall correctly, there were at least five in the first tranche, and then another five in the second tranche, that were placed before me, but I would have to go and confirm that with my officers. With regard to due diligence, it was the standard procedure that has been in place since 2009.

Chris Bishop: Can she confirm, then, to the House that she hand-picked Pauline Kingi to conduct the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, in preference to at least nine other suitably qualified candidates, and what was it about Ms Kingi that made her the right choice for the job in comparison to at least nine other candidates?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The answer is no.

Chris Bishop: Does she stand her statement on Facebook on 24 July: “I know for me particularly, the process is everything. Process is here to protect us all so I make sure that when I do something I do it well and I do it properly.”, and does she think she handled the appointment of Pauline Kingi well and properly?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Who was that? Which member made that noise? [Interruption] Order! Chris Bishop will resume his seat. Which member made the noise? [Interruption] No. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise. That level of grunt is not acceptable.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Thank you.

Chris Bishop: Did she consult with any ministerial colleagues when deciding to appoint Pauline Kingi as head of the Government Inquiry into the Appointment Process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police, as paragraph 43 of the Cabinet paper establishing the inquiry envisaged she would, and, if so, what Ministers did she consult with?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Yes, and the Cabinet.

Bills

Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 3 December 2018.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 3 December 2018.

Motion agreed to.

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Discharge and Referral to Justice Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That the order of the day for the second reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be discharged and referred back to the Justice Committee to enable the many amendments proposed by officials and submitters to be considered.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Motion not agreed to.

Second Reading

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

It’s a great pleasure to take this opening call in the second reading of this piece of legislation, because it does a very fundamental thing in our democracy. It affirms the very basic principle of MMP, which is that proportionality of party representation in Parliament is everything, and it reaffirms the point that the electorate, and only the electorate, determines the make-up of Parliament. There’s a corollary to that: it, further, affirms that no individual MP on a whim can change the proportionality of representation of parties in Parliament. That is what it does.

Now, there’s been a lot of scaremongering and commentary, particularly from members opposite, or actually, really, from only one member opposite, and that’s Dr Nick Smith. But, actually, what he has singularly failed to do—and I might say he is in quite good company, because I have been stunned at those with letters after their names, occupying senior academic positions at our universities. Every single one of them has totally failed to refer to the number of conditions attached to a decision by a party to remove a member from their ranks, or, at least, to give a notice to the Speaker to give a notice to the member. So Dr Nick Smith, and pretty much all members of the National Party and others who have commented on it, have failed to take into account the provision in the bill that in order for a leader to take any step at all, the leader of the party—the leader of the particular caucus—must have the support of two-thirds of that caucus. That is a major safeguard.

We wouldn’t be in the position where, for example, you had an MP in your ranks who said “It’s time the party”—the National Party, in that case—“did something to show what it stood for.” and was met with members in his own party moving motions in their caucus to expel him. That was the experience of Maurice Williamson. Those were members opposite, prepared to expel one of their own members for having the temerity to go public—in 2003—and say, “It’s about time we had a party that knew what it stood for.” Well, I might add, 15 years on, we’re still waiting. Maurice Williamson is gone, but 15 years on, we’re still waiting.

The reality is this: this bill is important. It’s an important signal, an important provision in our electoral law make-up, to make sure when voters vote under our MMP system—and we have a system that goes out to secure the confidence of the voting public—that their decision matters, that their vote counts, and that their collective vote which determines the make-up of this Parliament cannot be changed by an MP who, part-way through a Parliament, decides on a whim they’re going to do something different and distorts the proportionality of Parliament. It has happened before in this Parliament, and it has happened under comparable legislation to this.

All members in this House will know of the case involving Donna Awatere Huata, who abandoned membership of her own party, and that party—the ACT party—took action. It went to court to determine whether or not the proportionality of Parliament had been upset. The Supreme Court, the highest court in our land, determined that proportionality had been upset, and, on that basis, she was out and she was replaced. That was right because when it comes to the voice of the electorate, when it comes to voting systems, the collective voice of the electorate must stand for something. It should not be undermined by members in this House who decide on a whim, or for whatever other reason, that they’re going to go on a frolic of their own and upset the proportionality of Parliament that the electorate has determined.

If they want to do it, because any member is free to do it—and that has happened also in this House. Dame Tariana Turia, a former Labour Party member, decided that she could not live with decisions of the Labour Government at the time, and she left. She left the party, and she tested her mandate with her electorate. She wasn’t the first, but she was one of the most recent. She did it, and that is the proper thing to do. She came back under the banner of a new party, with an electoral mandate.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: This would disallow that. This would prevent a by-election.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: If Michael Woodhouse thinks that that would somehow be prohibited in this legislation, no wonder Nick Smith’s in the trouble that he’s in. If that’s the collective understanding of the National Party caucus, they’re going to be on that side of the House for a long time, because it shows to us they cannot read legislation. It shows to us that they don’t understand the basics of understanding legislation, because that would not be prevented under this bill. This bill is about reaffirming that very basic principle and that very basic point.

But, you see, here’s the other thing—here’s the real constraint on dodgy political decision-making, and that is that politics will still continue. You see, on this side of the House, we’re quite happy to tolerate and understand and even sometimes embrace difference. A couple of parliaments ago, one of our members, Damien O’Connor—standing up fiercely for the rights of his electorate—voted against his own party, the Labour Party, at the time, in favour of a Government bill to deal with windfall timber from a major storm on the West Coast. He did the political thing: he spoke with his party, spoke with his colleagues. His colleagues understood. Of course he had to look after the core interests of his constituency, and it happened. Politics will still happen. Politics—political judgments—will still be made.

I compare that, for example, with what we saw in this House just earlier this year, when this House was dealing with a member’s bill on medicinal cannabis and a couple of members opposite said, “No, we’re going to vote for it, because we’re the young liberals of the National Party, and we’re going to defy our then leader, and we’re going to vote for it.” Everybody was excited: “Look at this. A new, invigorated National Party is doing something it’s never done before in having MPs that are prepared to abandon the whip.” Then, when it came to the vote, what happened? They all voted the same. Those “Young Liberal Turks”,—who put their name out there and said “We’re not going to be bound by the old morays of the National Party any more.”, voted with the rest of their dull, grey colleagues, might I add. They did that.

We take no moral lesson from members opposite when they talk about the great right to abandon your party whip and all the freedom of speech stuff, because they don’t do it. They’ve never done it, and they’re never going to do it. Poor old Maurice Williamson was the last one who dared to stick his head above the parapet, and they tried to expel him. Well, on this side of the House, the reason we don’t worry about this is because we understand the right of members to disagree and to have a debate and to enjoy the privileges of this party. But one thing that this side of the House totally gets is that being in this House is not about being part of an elite. It’s not about taking the privilege to the point where we deny the will of the electorate.

What members opposite actually want to do when they oppose this legislation is have the right to defy the will of the New Zealand electorate. That is the contempt in which they hold voters in this country. Well, voters in this country have been very clear to me and to other members on this side of the House that they want the right of every voter, when the electorate votes collectively, to have their vote respected. It is respected when this House accepts that the proportionality of party representation in this House is solely the preserve of the electorate. It is not the right of members in this House to arbitrarily and sometimes capriciously decide they know better, they are bigger and more important, they are part of an elite, and they can defy the will of the electorate.

This bill affirms a fundamental principle of MMP. Now, I know we’ll hear all sorts of speeches, because we know that Dr Smith loves talking about 1930s Germany, and he accused various Government officials of being something pretty close to it, which was pretty despicable on his part—he’s a pretty despicable MP at times. But one thing is absolutely clear, and that is what this bill stands for and what this Government stands for, and that is the right of the electorate to be respected and the obligation of this House to respect the judgment of the electorate every three years, when they decide the make-up of this House and do not give licence to individual MPs to completely subvert it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just remind members that all members in this House are honourable members.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Freedom of speech, tolerance of dissent, and respect for democracy are core Kiwi values that are worth fighting for. National opposed this bill at first reading and at select committee, and we will do so at every stage of the parliamentary process. The right of voters, and voters alone, to dismiss MPs was established 330 years ago with the Bill of Rights 1688. The powers in this bill for a party leader to dismiss an MP have no place in a liberal democracy like New Zealand.

This bill is, ironically, named the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Its purpose, process, and the behaviour of Government MPs have been completely lacking in integrity. The Government says the purpose is to prevent distorting the proportionality of Parliament from party-hoppers. This is bunkum. The number of MPs switching parties has been negligible in the last six parliaments. There has only been one in the last decade, and that was Brendan Horan, who was desperate to stay in New Zealand First. There have been far greater distortions in proportionality from by-elections, from MPs resigning under the six-month rule, and from the threshold rule.

The real purpose of this bill is to prop up this fragile Government by silencing any internal criticism. The Government’s own statement on this bill says—and I quote—“[It] will have a chilling effect on the expression of dissenting views by MPs.” That sends a shiver up the spine of every Kiwi who loves and believes in democracy. This bill is about Parliament giving Mr Peters a legislative hammer to nail MPs—like Brendan Horan—who he falls out with.

It is important that I detail the lack of integrity of the select committee process. We had 55 submissions—not one supported this bill unamended. We had 21 constitutional and electoral law experts from our four great universities, the Human Rights Commission, the Law Society, former Speakers, and even the Clerk of the House opposing this bill.

There are four concerning aspects of the process. Government MPs refused to discuss or consider any amendments, despite dozens of reasonable proposals from both officials and submitters. Secondly, Government MPs—shamefully—blocked the Justice Committee from even providing a report to this House on the bill. The Government refused to release the advice on this bill’s compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, despite that always being made public in the past, and it’s an important issue when we have 21 legal experts saying it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We also wanted it recorded that the committee unanimously resolved for officials to appear to answer questions on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue, but they refused to attend—something I have not seen in 28 years. These unprecedented lengths the Government has gone to to hide critical advice completely contradicts this Government’s position that it is the most open and transparent Government ever.

The Green Party position over this bill sets a new low in parliamentary integrity. Co-leader Marama Davidson says this bill is undemocratic, she says it is a threat to democracy, and she says it goes against Green Party principles and policies, but they are voting for it. She justified it by saying this—and I quote—“It is in our supply and confidence agreement, and we had to.” That is untrue and contradicts the advice from the Cabinet Office that has now been leaked by horrified Green insiders.

Late last year, Mr Shaw stated that the advantage of the supply and confidence agreement was this—and I quote him—“Green MPs will not vote for anything they do not agree with.” That is exactly what is happening here. This betrayal of core values could not be more serious. A founding Green co-leader said of the same legislation, in 2001, that it was the most Draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic—

Hon James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Dr Smith has now brought the memory of Rod Donald into this debate and into question time a number of times. I think this is the fourth time that I’m aware of—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you get to the point? Is there a point of order here?

Hon James Shaw: Yes, there is. I’m offended and I’d like him to withdraw and apologise. It is called waving a dead man’s hand—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Everyone will sit down.

Hon James Shaw: —and he has no right to speak—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down!

Hon James Shaw: —for Rod Donald.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down! When the Speaker is on their feet, members resume their seats. That is not a point of order. Unfortunately, you cannot take offence on behalf of another member. That member is absent; you cannot take offence on behalf of another member. That is not a point of order, and I call the Hon Nick Smith to continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me quote from the Hansard—

Hon James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you going to—

Hon James Shaw: I am not offended on behalf of anybody else; I am offended.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry, but the point of your offence is on behalf of another person. You are taking offence at reference to another person. You cannot do that. It is not a point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A quote for Mr Shaw’s benefit from the parliamentary Hansard: “the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting [piece of] legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament.” Yet it is now to become the law with the votes of people like Mr Shaw. We also heard evidence from officials at select committee that this bill breaches the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Only six months ago, I heard the member in this House quoting the importance of those treaties and human rights, yet today is the vote on a bill that tramples on those very rights.

The lack of integrity from New Zealand First on this bill is no better. When a National MP left for New Zealand First, Mr Peters totally backed him, saying it was his right and he was not elected to swear an oath of blind allegiance to any political party. Mr Peters’ principles are as shallow as a bird bath. If an MP leaves a party for New Zealand First, that is their constitutional right, but if an MP leaves New Zealand First for another party, he calls it a constitutional outrage.

One of the most substantive submissions we heard was from David Carter, who provided the report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union on 162 parliaments around the world. That report states that laws of this sort create—and I quote—“political party dictatorship[s]”. It goes on and says that the free mandate of MPs is an indispensable part of our democracy. None of the countries that we would want to be associated with have those laws. In most parts of the world, this law that we are passing would be against their constitution and wrong. I ask the House to reflect on the war memorials on this wall, for those who fought in World War II, who then had a part in writing the constitution of Germany to protect the values of freedom, which this law would offend and would be against.

Here is the most important issue with this bill—and it motivates Mr Peters’ insistence on it, but has caused such angst for constitutional experts, like Professor McLean from Auckland University. The most important rule in our constitution is that Government must maintain a confidence in this House; that is why confidence votes are so important. They have been lost 13 times in this Parliament due to MPs losing confidence and voting the Government down. This bill weakens that check by enabling the Government to sack those MPs and replace them with compliant ones. If it was a court, we would call it jury-rigging.

Finally, this bill is about not the rights of MPs, but the rights of the public. They lose the exclusive right to fire MPs. MPs will be more subservient to their party leaders and less responsive to their constituents. MPs will be more party robot and less individual thinker.

It was with great pride that I read The Economist magazine that rated New Zealand, of 170 countries, one of the most democratic countries in the world and Transparency International ranking this fair country of New Zealand as the least corrupt country in the world. This bill risks eroding those stellar rankings.

The Government has time to pull back. I ask them to reflect on Helen Clark who, in the same position—same legislation, same stage—in 2005, abandoned an identical bill. I call on Green Party members throughout the country to encourage their MPs to at least vote for our amendments that set a sunset clause and greater judicial checks.

National will work with anyone and everyone. We will do everything to protect this country’s core values around democracy and freedom of speech.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The question that those listening on will have in their minds now is: why are the National Party so afraid of the voters? What is it about the democratic process that they are so afraid of? What is it about the principle of MMP that says it’s the voters who should decide the make-up of Parliament—what is it about that principle that they are so afraid of? Why do they believe that members of Parliament once they get to Parliament, having been elected under a party banner, should be free to abandon that party banner and distort the make-up of Parliament in a way the voters never intended without going back to those voters for a mandate?

It is absolutely acceptable for a member of Parliament to stand up in this House and say, “I do not support the position of my party, and I’ve got to go back to the electorate and seek a new mandate because I don’t support the party that I got elected under.” It’s happened before, and members of Parliament who have done that have been rewarded by their constituents for doing just that. Tariana Turia did that. I disagreed with her doing that, I was disappointed when she did that, but she did it and she was re-elected. She had the integrity to go back to the people of her constituency and say that she didn’t feel she could be a member of this party any more—the Labour Party—and therefore she sought a fresh mandate from her constituents. When Winston Peters was expelled from the National Party, he had the integrity to go back to his voters and say, “I am no longer a member of my party, of the party under whose banner I was elected, and I will therefore seek a fresh mandate.”—and he got it. He was not afraid of the voters.

So what is it about the National Party of today? What is it that they are so afraid of that if they think they are no longer willing to support the position of their party, they should not have to go back to their constituents and seek a fresh mandate? Why is that a problem? What is so affronting about that?

Rarely has a bill in this House been the subject of so much misinformation as this one has been, and much of that misinformation—much of that misinformation—has been propagated by the increasingly bizarre questions from the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Over the past couple of weeks, he has compared New Zealand to Zimbabwe in his contributions. He has reached back to the depths of the 19th century and invoked the name of Winston Churchill, who he told us had changed parties twice over appeasement, which the history books will say is not true. In fact, the only time Winston Churchill changed parties was once, in 1904.

So let’s go back 120 years and consider what Nick Smith is holding up as the beacon of democratic representation. What is he holding up? Well, let’s go back 120 years: women could not vote in that Parliament, half of the working-class men could not vote in that Parliament, Oxford University had its own MPs in that Parliament, and half of the Parliament—half of the Parliament—was reserved for rich men who gained their seats through a hereditary entitlement. That is what Nick Smith is now holding up as the beacon of democracy for New Zealanders. I think we’ve come a long way since then. One hundred percent of the MPs in this House are elected by the people of New Zealand, and that is exactly as it should be.

If the members of this House no longer feel that they can remain true to the policies and the platform that they were elected under, then they should go back to the people of their constituencies and they should seek a fresh mandate. If they are standing on a point of principle and the people of New Zealand believe that it’s a legitimate point of principle, then they may well be rewarded for that, but this idea that MPs part-way through a parliamentary term can go and set up a whole new party and then, for the remainder of that term, represent an entirely different platform—that’s what the National Party are arguing for: an entirely different platform to that which they were elected under. That is what the National Party are saying that people should do, and I thoroughly disagree with that proposition. I think that members of Parliament, having been elected by the people of New Zealand on a party platform under a party banner, should stay true to that.

Nobody is suggesting that the conscience vote in this House should be removed. We’ve seen conscience votes exercised in this very term of Parliament. In fact, the only party in Parliament that prevented its MPs from exercising their conscience was the National Party, because several members indicated publicly that they were going to exercise their conscience one way, and then the National Party stopped them doing that. On this side of the House, we’re happy for MPs to exercise their conscience on conscience votes. They will go back to their constituents in the next election, and then people will be able to decide one way or the other. Medicinal cannabis was exactly that case: members on our side voted for and against that, but those members on the other side of the House who wanted to vote for the bill were prevented by their party from doing so.

So nobody on this side of the House is proposing that the conscience vote be done away with. Nobody on this side of the House is saying that where members disagree with their parties and the parties are OK with them voting their conscience, they should be prevented from doing so—and, as my colleague Andrew Little pointed out, there’s history with that. Damien O’Connor disagreed with the Labour Party on issues to do with the West Coast and has voted differently to the party. He’s still here; the party didn’t seek to expel him from the Parliament. So there’s all this scaremongering on the other side about the potential effects of this that, simply, is almost entirely false.

The issue here at heart is that the voters of New Zealand should get the Parliament that they vote for. That is what MMP is all about. Why should MPs be able to leave their parties, set up new parties, and remain in Parliament potentially for three years? Under the National Party’s reasoning, someone could be elected under a party banner, the day after the election they could start a whole ‘nother party and promote policies completely contradictory to the platform they were elected under, and that is OK. That is not OK, and New Zealanders have been very, very clear that they don’t support that approach, because those MPs who have done that—the history of MMP will show—don’t generally tend to fare very well when they stand for re-election at the next election. What this bill does is it says they shouldn’t get that far. They should have to seek a fresh mandate when they do it, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

This bill is perfectly acceptable. It says that it is the voters that should determine the make-up of Parliament, and I do not understand why the National Party think that is such an affronting idea.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): You only get the sorts of frantic speeches that we’ve had from the Government today and the frantic interjections that we’ve had from the Government’s support party today when the members of those parties know that they are seriously on the back foot and out of step with what the general public is prepared to accept.

I think the claims by Mr Hipkins and claims by the Hon Andrew Little that, somehow, it’s the voter who should always be determining who comes into this place is just a little bit of chicanery, really, I suppose you would say. It is snake oil salesmanship, because the reality is that this bill makes it abundantly clear—and Mr Little himself, in his comments, stated it—that it asserts the primacy of the party leader. It is the party leader who determines what actually happens to dissident MPs. You’d have to ask yourself, in a Westminster democracy, a safe democracy like we have, where you can have simple changes of Government without too much angst or otherwise, and a system that does respect voter choice, would you have a bill before the House that will see the power of our democracy concentrated in the hands of the three or four or five leaders of parties who are in this House?

It doesn’t surprise me that Mr Little wants to stand up and say “Well, it’s now all about the party vote. It’s all about the party vote.”, because while that does determine the make-up of Parliament, the reality is that those three parties who are forcing this particular provision upon the electorate of New Zealand are all made up predominately of list members of Parliament. And it is completely disingenuous for the Hon Chris Hipkins to say, “Well, if they disagree with what is currently before the House, they should resign and they should test their mandate.” They can’t, unless the leader backs them. So there is no way that that is a legitimate thing to say. It is utter nonsense.

I’ll tell you something else: the idea that we should somehow be reprimanded for calling into this debate the past comments of Rod Donald is, to my mind, pretty sad. I considered Rod Donald to be a friend of mine. I’d known him for many, many years before we both entered Parliament at the same time. I enjoyed having a lot of discussions with him. I was on the wrong side of his argument over MPP, but he achieved something in this country that is quite unique because he, more than anybody else, swayed the vote in favour of MMP. But he did not see some kind of primacy in that going to the potentate leaders of trumped-up political parties.

When we come into this House after any general election and we take our seats in various places and we are called up by the Clerk to swear our oath or make our affirmation, we’re not called in party blocs; we’re simply called alphabetically, because every member who is declared elected to this House is elected equally. For a bill like this to come before the House that, effectively, will say, in the first instance, list MPs are totally beholden to the party machinery—

Darroch Ball: You haven’t read the bill.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —every bill, on every bill; totally beholden to the party machinery—is, I think, a great travesty.

Look at those who have in the past stood up against their parties. Let’s keep it into recent times, where people might be able to remember—going back to Brian MacDonell from Dunedin North. Brian MacDonell declared himself an Independent because he could see what the Labour Party was going to do. He could see that when they went into the 1984 election, they would present themselves as being the champions of the people, they’d present themselves as being—interestingly—a kinder New Zealand, but then, of course, we all know what they did. They completely upended it and became the most right-wing Government that this country has ever seen in delivery of economic policy. Brian MacDonell had every right, on behalf of the people who elected him, to take the position he took.

There was talk today about Tariana Turia. Well, Tariana Turia was elected by her electorate, by the Māori seat that she represented, and those people’s best interests, she considered, were not being served by the foreshore and seabed legislation. It would also have been interesting to members of this House to note that the Hon Dame Tariana Turia was also concerned about Māori health statistics, Māori education statistics, and Māori achievement statistics. She left the Labour Party, and she did seek a mandate and got it again. Had she been a list MP, she’d have been out the door, and all the concerns of those people who had supported her on that basis completely lost—completely gone, apparently not at all valid.

So we come today to a situation where a bill that’s before the House is, frankly, just a way of paying the piper—paying Mr Peters for his support for the Government. There is nothing more in it. But I’ll read these names: Tau Henare, Ann Batten, Tuariki Delamere, Jack Elder, Neil Kirton, Tukoroirangi Morgan, Deborah Morris, Rāna Waitai, and Tū Wyllie, and then Brendan Horan—all people who have left New Zealand First. Now, when you’ve got a list of 11 like that, you ask, who was it who really should have gone? What was it about the arrangements in that party that meant that those people lost their voice? It is because the leader set himself up in some kind of supreme position, and that’s what we’re mandating with this bill today.

I’m not surprised the Green Party heads are down, because no party in this current Parliament has benefited as much from the ability to move in and out of parties as the Green Party has. The Alliance was a loose collection—loose collection—of multiple parties, of which the Green Party was a substantial bloc. But they only got the opportunity to have their voice heard in Parliament by eventually separating themselves from the Alliance, staying in Parliament, and running their campaign for the last six months of that Parliament, virtually, as Independents, albeit there was this mickey mouse arrangement where Jim Anderton remained as the leader of the Alliance.

Then there’s Jim Anderton himself. There is a man who became an Independent, stayed in Parliament, and railed against the excesses of the 1984-90 Labour Government and, ultimately, was rewarded by the people of Sydenham. When it became Wigram, he was leader of the Alliance, but only so long as that held together, and it fell apart because the constituent parties felt their voice was not being heard. So it is a wrong proposition to say that, somehow, someone in this House standing up and saying “I believe in this, because I think it represents what the people who sent me here want me to do.” is somehow wrong, taken away, and put into the hands of a leader.

Let’s be clear: all this nonsense in here about a person notifying the Speaker and all that sort of thing—that’ll never happen. MPs can resign any day of the week they want right now. I know Darroch Ball’s considering it, and I don’t blame him. But to have a situation where a leader goes around and taps all the caucus members on the shoulder and says, “Hey, we’re sick of him. We want him out. So I’m going to write to the Speaker.”—that is not democracy. That is far from democracy. That is the sort of thing that you see in countries where there is turmoil every time there’s an election.

So our position is very, very strong. We will not support this bill. And, yes, people will leave parties from time to time; they will sit as Independents. In the end, in a short electoral cycle, there is plenty of opportunity for the voters to make a decision about the choice that that individual has made. But, I state again, it is totally disingenuous for anyone to say that a list member of Parliament can choose to leave Parliament and have their position tested by the electorate. They can’t, and what this bill does today is make it abundantly clear that if you are a list member of a caucus, you are beholden entirely to the views of the leader—in other words, the four or five people in this Parliament who will lead parties now control our democracy.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): I think Gerry Brownlee’s made it quite clear that one of two things has happened. The first is that he hasn’t read the bill properly, or the second is that he’s been led down the garden path by Nick Smith, down the creek with no paddle, and Nick Smith is taking the rest of the National Party members with him, with an ill-informed, uneducated, ill-read look at what this bill is actually trying to achieve and what it actually is going to achieve, whether they like it or not—whether they like it or not.

You see, there’s a couple of things that, firstly, Nick Smith said and that Gerry Brownlee backed up. A couple of quotes: the first is that it allows the leader “to dismiss an MP”. That is absolutely and totally false—absolutely and totally false. It is written in the legislation itself that there needs to be a two-thirds majority caucus decision. Now, I’m not entirely sure how the National Party caucus runs, or is trying to run at the moment—let’s put aside the fact that it’s rudderless at this point in time—but that’s not how a democratically run party that is represented in this House runs. Two-thirds majority—that is stipulated in the legislation.

The second is something very strange that Mr Smith said. He said that it doesn’t allow voters to fire the MPs. That’s what he said—quoted. This legislation actually does that very thing. It puts the mandate on the people of this country. It puts the decision on the people of this country, in two ways.

Brett Hudson: No, it doesn’t.

DARROCH BALL: In two ways, Mr Hudson. If you want to listen up, you might learn something, because, obviously, you haven’t read the bill, either.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I don’t have to read the bill.

DARROCH BALL: That member, Mr Hudson, will learn something if he listens, because he obviously hasn’t read the bill either. Stop listening to Mr Nick Smith. You see, if one is a list member, then who put them in this Parliament—who put them in this Parliament? Why are there a number of seats, proportionally speaking, in this Parliament, the way that they are very much today—the way they are today? The people.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not the voter directly.

DARROCH BALL: Oh, yes, they did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, they didn’t.

DARROCH BALL: Oh, yes, they did, Mr Brownlee. Oh, yes, they did. It’s called a party vote, you see. This is the biggest problem that this National Party has had over the last decade. When they were in Government, they acted like this was first past the post—like it was first past the post.

Here’s a question, Mr Brownlee, and all those sitting over there at this stage: hands up who believes—truly believes—that they would have got and won their seat, if they’re a seat holder, not standing on a National Party ticket. Hands up. Mr Brown—Simeon Brown—put your hand up, if you will. See, the only person was Mr Nick Smith. That’s how far out of touch that gentleman is, and that’s how far he is leading the rest of this party, the National Party, down the garden path. They want to listen to him. Mr Smith actually believes that he would have won this seat as an Independent, but no one else—no one else here.

See, this is the whole point. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, when he disagreed with the National Party, what did he do? He took his opinions and his grievances with the National Party back to the people. He resigned and he went back to the people and he got a mandate. That is what one calls a mandate.

The arrogance is palpable from that side of the House that they truly believe that they’re sitting there because of them—because of that tick. Whether that party likes it or not, we are living in an MMP environment, an MMP democracy. The most important word represented in MMP is the “P” for proportional. Who decides what proportion is sitting in here? The people—the people do. So what the National Party want in not having this legislation is that when the people are ticking the party vote on election day, they will have absolutely no certainty whatsoever that that will remain. Now, they can talk about the individual electorates voting that certain person in and whatnot, and if they truly believe that they got there because of that, then they should take their differences—that they quite obviously have—when they leave that party, and take it back and get a mandate, just like the Rt Hon Winston Peters did.

When someone such as Dr Smith has strong opinions about, obviously, political issues, you usually end up landing on the left side of the argument, on the right side of the argument, or somewhere in between. Unfortunately for Mr Smith, he has landed in la-la land, and he is taking the National Party with him.

I’ll give an example of what I mean. I’ve got two opinion pieces here, from opposite sides of the spectrum, and both of them agree with him. One is from Chris Trotter and the other one is from—not usually a bastion of or a flag-bearer for New Zealand First—one Mike Hosking. They both say the same thing. I want to quote, firstly, from Chris Trotter, because he’s actually got it right. If we listen to the likes of Nick Smith, he says, “The rights of the poor old voters are, of course, almost entirely disregarded by these upright constitutional guardians. The electorate’s assumption that the undertakings given to it by political parties immediately prior to the general election will remain viable for the full three years of the Parliament term is dismissed”—by the likes of Mr Smith and the National Party—“as quaintly naïve.”

Mike Hosking, opposite on the political spectrum but of the exact same opinion, who said—and Gerry Brownlee mentioned the Alliance—“Go back to Alamein Kopu. She fell out with the Alliance, but because she fell out with the Alliance, she just got to sit in Parliament.”

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I didn’t mention her at all.

DARROCH BALL: No, you mentioned the Alliance, so if—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I mentioned nobody.

DARROCH BALL: Mr Brownlee mentioned the Alliance, which is what I said—which is what I said. “She wasn’t elected to Parliament, she was elected on the Alliance list, but she got to sit in Parliament for free.” He goes on to say—and I quote—“if you are elected under the umbrella of this particular organisation.”—being the party—“If for whatever reason you cannot cope with that and you no longer want to be part of that organisation, you don’t get then to just sit in Parliament as an independent as you didn’t get elected that way and therefore you should get booted out.”

If Mr Brownlee or anyone else from the National Party has doubts about this legislation, perhaps they just want to see the writing on the wall from their mates. They are saying that this legislation upholds the very nature of MMP in this country—of MMP in this country.

It is not up to the whims of the individual MP, just because they don’t like the ticket they’re sitting on any more, to quit and not represent what the voters want them to and what they voted for on election day, which was the proportionality of this Parliament. That’s why the arrogance is palpable coming from that side of the House. On this side of the House, we recognise as a basic fundamental that we represent the people of this country—that we represent the views and the wants and the needs of the people of this country and how they voted. Anyone else that is going to vote against that legislation disagrees with the statement I just made—disagrees with the fundamental basics of an MMP environment in this country. It is disgraceful and telling at the same time that all the seat holders sitting over there did not put their hand up when I asked them. That answers the question for them, and it speaks volumes for the public of this country.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): So, in answer to the last point that the previous speaker, Darroch Ball, made, actually, we don’t have the arrogance to put our hands up and make the assumption that people would vote for us again. We’d go back out to seek that mandate. But let me put one thing to you. Let me ask you—let’s see a show of hands here—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, don’t ask me. You can ask the member.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me see from Mr Darroch Ball—I’m very interested to see whether he’s going to put his hand up or not, because he’s talking about MMP and the system. So when people went to the ballot boxes and voted for New Zealand First at the general election last year, do you think two-thirds of your voters supported you because they thought that you’d form a Government with Labour and the Greens? Do you? Do you think—put your hand up. Put your hand up. Oh, he’s not putting his hand up—that’s interesting. [Interruption] So he’s not going to—oh, that’s very interesting. The big speech about MMP, and all of a sudden now he’s reneging on that. He won’t put his hand up. He won’t actually admit the fact that maybe it’s just possible—and, actually, the polls told us this, because they went from 7 to 3 percent—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: They saw his name.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, they saw his name. It’s just possible that maybe half of your voters under an MMP system voted for you with an expectation that you were going to form a Government with the National Party. Did you ever consider that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sure they did, but don’t bring me into the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So maybe we should have wiped the result and we should have just gone back and started again under the premise that you put forward to this House.

Let’s have a look at what else he said. This is what he said. He said that Nick Smith and the National Party—in fact, Mr Little said this as well in his opening comment—don’t understand the bill. He said we’re ill-informed, we’re undereducated—

Darroch Ball: Uneducated, not undereducated.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes, sorry—uneducated. So tell me something: what do you say to the Clerk of the House? What do you say to Dr Edward Willis, who has a PhD in constitutional law? What do you say to Dr Christine Dann, a founding member of the Green Party? What do you say to the Human Rights Commission or Sir Lockwood Smith, a former Speaker? What do you say to 19 legal—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you stop bringing the Speaker into it?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, you’re right, Madam Deputy Speaker. What’s your response to 19 legal and political science academics, including Andrew Geddis? What’s your response to the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee? What about Keith Locke? I know that there’s some sensitivities about past Green Party members—I will address that shortly. But what do you say to Keith Locke, former—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t keep bringing me into the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. What’s your response to—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —sorry—Graeme Edgeler, electoral law expert; Jeanette Fitzsimons, former Green Party co-leader? I’m going to come back to her submission because, honestly, from my point of view, her submission was actually one of the most credible, and she brought up some points that no one else actually covered. The New Zealand Law Society; Professor Janet McLean, constitutional law professor at Auckland University; Professor Jack Vowles, professor of political science at Victoria University of Wellington; the Rt Hon David Carter, a former Speaker—what you’ve done is you’ve stood in this House and you’ve told them that they’re ill-informed—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I haven’t.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and they’re uneducated—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I haven’t.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and also that there’s a lack of understanding around the bill.

Darroch Ball: Yeah, that’s what I just said.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Oh, you’re standing by that? So you’re applying all of that to the list of people that I just mentioned? OK, we’ll take that. No problem.

The other thing that I wanted to address was this, and it comes back to comments that the Hon Chris Hipkins made and that the Hon Gerry Brownlee addressed. I see that Marja Lubeck is in the House. Marja Lubeck was voted this year—

Marja Lubeck: Say something nice.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’m going to say something nice, don’t worry. She was voted into this House as a list MP—

Marja Lubeck: And a good one.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —and, she says, a good one. What she has done is she’s come out very strong in terms of issues in Rodney, which is the electorate that she lives in, which is my electorate, as the electorate MP. We’ve just had the extension of the road of national significance cancelled, so we’re fighting very hard to try and get that reinstated. My expectation is that she’ll be a strong voice within the Government for the electorate of Rodney. That’s what my expectation is. The problem with this bill is that the minute it passes, she is purely a creature of the party. That is exactly what Marja Lubeck is going to become—a creature of the party. I’ll tell you why. I’ll explain to you why. I’ll explain to you why, so people at home can understand why.

The reality of it is this: if I take a position against my party on something that relates to my electorate, and this bill was triggered—which, by the way, we won’t, because we highly value our list MPs along with our electorate MPs. We don’t differentiate between them. We all have got a contribution to make, and we’re all an important part of the team. So we won’t be taking any notice of this ridiculous bill. But, anyway, if I took a position on it, I can go back to the electorate, right? I can go back to my electorate, like you say, and I can seek a mandate. I can go back and say, “I’m no longer aligned to the values of my party. I don’t agree with this policy that they’re going to implement. It’s going to be bad for us. I’m coming back and I’m going to stand as an Independent, and I’m going to seek a mandate from you.”—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know you’ve given up on me, but I am trying.

But the problem is that Marja Lubeck can’t do that.

Marja Lubeck: Why not? Are you calling me a puppet?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Because you can’t go back—yes, you are. She’s hit the nail on the head. Now she’s starting to understand. Yes, you are a puppet—yes, you are a puppet. The problem for Marja Lubeck is this: she can’t go back and seek a mandate. You’re gone—you’re gone. There’s no coming back—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I bring the member to order. The member is actually addressing the Chair, and if the member thinks about that, it might help him in not bringing the Speaker into the debate.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s a very good point, because I know that you could seek a mandate, without a doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The problem with this bill is that she can’t go back to Rodney. She can’t go back to Rodney and seek a mandate, and that’s the whole point—that’s the whole point. I can; she can’t.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just cannon fodder.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: She’s cannon fodder. You are a puppet. When this bill passes, you become a puppet. You can’t represent the people of Rodney—she can’t represent the people of Rodney.

I just want to address the Green Party and the Green Party leader, the Hon James Shaw, very quickly before I finish, because he and I sat in the green room last week before we went on to The AM Show, and I said to him, “James, I wanted to acknowledge the leadership that you showed through a very difficult period when Metiria Turei had to leave Parliament around the benefit fraud storm that blew up. I thought that you showed outstanding leadership qualities through that—that was a difficult thing.”

Darroch Ball: I want to count how many times he’s said “you” in this speech. It’ll be ridiculous.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Have you got a comment to make on that, because I firmly believe, actually, that he did. But the issue that I have now with the Hon James Shaw is this—and I understand why you get upset when you hear Rod Donald being quoted in the House, but the reality of it is that he has left that on Hansard for a reason. He spelt out very clearly how he feels about this bill, or how he felt about a bill very similar to this one. So the thing that I’d be worried about, that I genuinely feel, is that if you continue down the path that you’re on—and I know you’re going to take a call—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you look at me—would you look at me? It might help you—it might help you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. If Mr Shaw carries on down the path that he has chosen at the moment, then I personally feel that the leadership qualities that were on display for us during the general election, you’re going to have a massive—sorry—Mr Shaw is going have a massive stain on that legacy that you have created. At the end of the day, if you—sorry. If Mr Shaw sat there and actually thought about it, if you sat there for a moment and reflected and thought, “If Rod Donald was sitting in this seat, what would he do?”—

Darroch Ball: This is disgraceful—this is disgraceful.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: No, there’s nothing disgraceful about it—there’s nothing disgraceful about it. I’m sorry—we’ve gone back and referred to Hansard, an official record in this Parliament. James is going to have an opportunity to address it, but what I’d ask is just to reflect on that, because I don’t personally believe that the leader of the Green Party supports or believes in this bill any more than we do. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN (Green): Tēnā koutou katoa. I want to start by thanking the submitters who came along to the Justice Committee. It’s a select committee that doesn’t have a Green member on it, but I went along, as did Marama Davidson. We wanted to hear their voices. I do thank them and acknowledge that many will be disappointed with our decision to support this bill today, and I would like to explain the background to our decision. I would also like to acknowledge and address some of the concerns raised by the Opposition for the well-being of the Green Party, our principles, and our decision-making processes, given that they’ve brought us into this debate so repeatedly.

Of the many, many decisions that we’ve made since the 2017 election, the decision to support this bill has been the most difficult for the Green Party. The decision to change the Government was not difficult. The decision to join this new Government was not difficult. The decision to ask for and win 20 incredible Green priorities in our confidence and supply agreement was not difficult. We have already implemented many of the confidence and supply wins, and we are working constructively with the coalition parties to implement all the others. It is not difficult to stand for Green kaupapa, even when we do disagree with the coalition parties. We have done that on trade policy, we’ve done it on defence spending, we’ve done it on animal welfare, and we’ve done on the Māori wards.

So the difficult decision on this bill is not typical of the kinds of decisions that we’ve had to make in joining this Government. What does make this decision uniquely difficult is the strong competing principles. The first is that the Green Party has spoken out vehemently against a bill like this in 2001 and 2005. The competing principle is that the Green Party is now committed to this new, multi-party Government, built on the merging of three parties’ priorities in the first truly multi-party MMP Government—MMP, a form of Government fought for and brought about in large part by the great work of the great man Rod Donald, a man who has been brought into this debate, whose memory has been dragged through this debate, by members in the Opposition who worked so hard during his life to impede his great work. That’s disgraceful.

Our confidence and supply agreement includes a commitment to act in good faith to allow Labour and New Zealand First to implement their coalition agreement. Mostly, that doesn’t involve the kind of proactive support in the House, but this bill does. So it is this commitment to good faith and our commitment to see the new Government succeed that has decided our position on this bill. We know that most out there—we know that nature can’t afford another three years of a neo-liberal National Party Government.

I now wish to address the process we’ve taken to come to our decision. Far from some sort of smoke-filled back-door deal, the Green Party has gone through a robust internal process. We announced initially that we would support the bill to select committee. That gave us the opportunity to reach out to our grassroots, and it also gave our members the opportunity to be heard and to have their views put on the record. We have discussed and debated the competing principles behind this bill, led by our party’s national executive and its policy committee, which represent elected members from the grassroots. I would like to thank that group for the work that they’ve done with our caucus in coming to this decision.

Many people understood our support of this bill and some didn’t—some pushed for us to oppose it, including many who submitted to the Justice Committee. I would like to acknowledge especially Jeanette Fitzsimons and Keith Locke, our great previous MPs, who will be disappointed in our support. These people were heard, and I’m sorry that the outcome will be disappointing them today.

To be clear, we do not think that this is a particularly good bill. We don’t think it addresses a pressing issue in New Zealand today, and we do have concerns about party caucuses—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I’d like to hear the member’s speech.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: —we do have concerns about party caucuses being able to remove MPs from Parliament. So, yes, this was a difficult decision, but it has come about because we’ve decided that this new Government must succeed and we must support it in good faith to succeed.

We decided to change the Government because we knew that the 250,000 Kiwi kids living in persistent poverty, beneficiaries, the multitude of families living in cars, our young people without mental health care living in an epidemic of youth suicide, and our natural environment could not afford another three years of the heartless, neo-liberal Government that that side of the House was leading. They couldn’t afford it. This Government is bringing about significant green change and principle-led green change: the zero carbon bill, an end to oil and gas exploration, removing dehumanising sanctions for beneficiaries, world-leading domestic violence leave, and mental health services for under-25-year-olds, just to name a few.

So the confidence and supply agreement does that but it also allows the Green Party to speak out on our unique kaupapa. That is something that’s close to my heart. Protest is close to my heart and I value you it as an out-of-Government Green Party MP—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Flexible kaupapa.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I beg your pardon?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m calling you to order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Are you naming me?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I’m calling you to order, Mr Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well you cannot do that in that style.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Mr Brownlee, I have asked for the House to come to order. There has been a barrage across the House. I made it very clear that I wanted the barrage to stop. Now, we are permitted to interject. Those interjections need to be few and far between, and preferably witty, I think, is the phrase. Now, that is not the case. This is a robust debate, but I would like the opportunity to hear this speech.

GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. So the confidence and supply agreement allows the Green Party to represent our unique kaupapa, even when we disagree, and I will, in particular, continue to lead our position as the only party in this House who maintains our opposition to the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. We will work to change the trade agenda so that neo-liberal principles will not be able to mar our democracy again. I will keep loud on disarmament; I will keep protesting against mass spying and the spy bases.

Marama Davidson stood in this House not long ago to push the Government on discriminatory establishment of the Māori wards. She will continue to lead on honouring Te Tiriti and decolonisation, a paradigm-shifting stance that we’ll bring people along with eventually.

We have spent 19 years in Opposition and nine months in Government. The Green Party owes a huge debt of gratitude to the wider movement—to everyone who’s worked so hard to put us in this privileged position today. Deciding to be part of this new Government is the biggest opportunity in our party’s history to make great green change, and we intend to take that opportunity.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In this House today we have witnessed the death of a party. The Greens have left the building. They have left their principles, their foundation principles, everything they stand for in the dirt. They chose a new member of Parliament to make the call while their co-leader sat there—full of self-righteous indignation when interjecting earlier, and, as quiet as a lamb, gave the job to a junior member. What a disgraceful example of poor leadership.

We see the Greens completely tarnished. A difficult decision they had to make, “marring democracy”—they use these words, and yet they betray those principles. I have been astonished by their willingness to fall over, to show no backbone whatsoever, not only to the principles that they were founded on but also to the utterances of their wise leaders—the ones that paved the way, the ones that they stand on the shoulders of.

The member who just resumed her seat, who took the last call for the Greens—Golriz Ghahraman—is somebody who is supposedly a champion of human rights. That’s only if they’re overseas. The human rights that have been trampled on by this bill are in New Zealand. Those victims are in New Zealand and in this House, and I am astonished at their outrageous manipulation of the truth.

Essentially, what was confirmed in that speech today is that the Greens sold their souls for the baubles of office—and I’ll come back to New Zealand First soon. They did not have the courage to say no to Winston. They took it all and they—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! You must refer to the member with his proper name, please.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Winston Peters. They had no courage to say no to Winston Peters—just to be clear.

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I’m not going to sit here and listen to that member talk about people’s lack of courage.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Is that a point of order? That is not a point of order.

Darroch Ball: Yes, it is. It’s out of order.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): This has been a very robust debate—

Darroch Ball: She can’t say people lack courage.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Excuse me? Excuse me—do not answer me back when I am speaking. This has been a very robust debate. There have been lots and lots of very robust conversations across this House, and I will let the member continue with her speech.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Let’s look at what some of the submitters had to say, because I sat on the select committee hearing, to my amazement, a series of former Green MPs and Green Party supporters saying how much they condemned this bill and the Greens’ spineless stance on it. We had Jeanette Fitzsimons, the Greens’ co-leader from 1999 to 2009—no mere rookie who’s just come into the House, but someone who really did the hard yards for the party. She made a number of excellent points and she summed up this bill in this way: “The Bill breaches the Bill of Rights, denies freedom of speech and association, is contrary to international and NZ precedent, and is opposed by an impressive array of senior legal, constitutional, and political experts. It is unnecessary to address any real problem.” As far as she was concerned—and I agree with Jeanette Fitzsimons—“Integrity cannot be legislated for.”, nor, apparently, can it be drummed up in what’s left of the dregs of the party she was part of for so long.

When we look at what was said by that submitter when she came to the Justice Committee back in March, the idea, somehow, that proportionality of the House is disrupted, and that’s why this bill is needed—how ridiculous is that? The overhang, the by-elections—these are the kinds of things that change the party balance in the House. Are we going to legislate about those? What would have happened had this bill been in force—

Darroch Ball: No, because the voters vote for it. Get it right.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: That member wouldn’t be here, that’s for sure. New Zealand First would not be anywhere to be seen. In fact, both National and Labour were initially formed by party-hoppers: Labour back in 1916 by members switching from the Social Democratic Party and the united and labour parties; National in 1936 by members from the United Party and the Reform Party. New Zealand First—and one could wish it otherwise—would not exist if the Rt Hon Winston Peters had not left National, and he said in 1996, “Members of Parliament have to be free to follow their consciences. They were elected to represent their constituents,”—

Darroch Ball: He resigned and went back and got a mandate—he got over 90 percent, I believe.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: —unlike the member who’s barracking now, who has no constituents, and is utterly unelectable. Winston Peters went on to say, in 1996, that members of Parliament must “not swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party. If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents, then that can be put to the test at election time.” Rod Donald said, at the time, “What has changed?”, and I agree with his comments, as well.

I think that when we come to Jeanette Fitzsimons again, she says, “The bill is a poor solution, looking for a non-existent problem.” She also confirmed to us in March, when she came before the Justice Committee, that the Greens did not have to vote for this bill. They were not required to under their confidence and supply agreement, which was a revelation at the time. It’s subsequently come out because it’s been leaked by disenchanted Green affiliates, but it is certainly not in their confidence and supply agreement.

The Greens tend to talk about good faith. Good faith? They’re trying to prop up a coalition Government under good-faith measures—swallowing a dead rat was how the co-leader Marama Davidson referred to it. As my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith said, “Get used to the taste.”, because they’re selling their souls in a variety of different ways, but this is by far the worst.

We had another former Green MP, Keith Locke. He renamed it the “Party Conformity Bill”. He called it a new low in parliamentary integrity. He said that as far as he was concerned—he’d voted against this legislation, I think, four times—it violates the right of free speech by allowing for MPs to be expelled from Parliament as a consequence of speaking or voting differently from their party caucus and then, subsequently, to be excluded from that party caucus. He said, “It violates freedom of association by expelling an MP from Parliament for voluntarily ceasing his or her membership of a parliamentary party, or transferring his or her loyalty to another party.” Essentially, it turns party MPs into what Rod Donald called “party robots”—that was kind. They’re more like poodles, which we see every day with the motley crew across the House.

The Green Party, of course, would not have been in existence either with this bill. In 1997, they withdrew from The Alliance to pursue their more progressive agenda—that’s fine.

When you look at the history of the New Zealand Parliament, and you look at the way it has changed, and you look at the way this bill will stifle any further change—we had not one, but two former Speakers of the House who came before us, including the Rt Hon David Carter, who made a number of excellent points, not only reflecting his past role as Speaker but, because he also chairs the New Zealand branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, he is somebody who knows about the way it is exercised and the way parliaments are run internationally.

He said—and I quote—“This report is critical of the sort of law being proposed” and it will turn us into a place where we have party political dictatorships—excuse me for muffing your words there a little bit, Mr Carter. The essence of what he was saying is that while party loyalty and discipline are necessary, they must never impair the full and effective exercise of freedom of expression and association by any member of that party, since these are overriding, fundamental human rights, and the rights of people who are elected into this Parliament.

Other colleagues have talked about being electorate MPs and being elected, and this bill would override, for example, in my case, my North Shore voters who brought me in here. That the party leader, now or in the future, could expel an electorate MP is an outrage.

We also heard from Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith, who said that he felt it was his duty as a former Speaker to highlight how far this bill goes against the longstanding democratic traditions of our New Zealand Parliament. He said that this is a bill that “could breach that fundamental right of Members to speak in the House freely, even if it causes discomfort to a Member’s party” or its leaders. During his nearly 30-year political career, he said that parliamentary debate had “become more constrained and increasingly controlled by the political parties. Accountability to political parties has been strengthened at the expense of accountability to voters, especially local constituents. The instances of Members crossing the floor … have become almost non-existent. There is no case to impose an even tighter regime on MPs with this bill.” His submission was that the “protection of the privilege of freedom of speech in the House must take priority and not be put at risk by the provisions of this Bill.”

Many people suggested that this is a bill, like its earlier iterations that were voted down and were unsuccessful, that ought to have a sunset clause in it—an expiry date. Several submitters suggested that that expiry date be the end date of this shaky coalition, because that’s all this bill is designed to do—it’s to prop up a coalition that could not exist otherwise.

It has a number of names. We’ve been calling it the waka-jumping legislation. It could also be called the “Winston Peters Self-Preservation Bill” or—my particular favourite—the “Brendan Horan Memorial Bill”. As far as I am concerned, this is a bill that has no part in New Zealand democracy. This is a bill that has no part in this House. It is a bill that we should all be ashamed of, except for us in this party, because we will vote it down every step of the way. I commend the work that my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith is doing on this bill, and I do not in any way, or ever will, commend this bill to the House.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. The aim of this bill is to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system.

The Justice Committee received 55 submissions. I thank the officials and advisers, and the submitters. Labour members are disappointed because National members, led by Dr Nick Smith, chose to put politics ahead of select committee business. We can all reflect on what happened in committee last Thursday, the very last meeting before the bill was due to be reported back on the following Monday. National members, led by Dr Nick Smith, refused to deliberate on the draft report, despite the fact that the draft report was on the agenda and had been circulated for review and amendments in advance.

The Justice Committee is a split committee of eight members, comprising four from National and four from Labour. For any such split committee, and for any such narrative report, normally the report would be in three parts. The first part is the committee report, reflecting the views of the submitters—so in this case, their voice would be lost—the second part would be the views of the Government / Labour Party, and the third part would be the views of the National Party. In that regard, I believe that National members will also regret that their view is not reported to the House. They would otherwise be able to say anything they like within the Standing Orders, and nobody else would have any editorial control on that sort of report. I appreciate that Dr Smith is disappointed now because he probably wishes to paddle but is without a canoe.

During considerations, officials and advisers have been subject to criticism and attack. Dr Smith went as far as moving a motion of no confidence in the advisers and officials. With due respect, Dr Smith should really not challenge the advisers and officials, because their job is to explain the policy initiatives. He should really challenge the Minister who is responsible for the Government policy initiatives.

I recall also Dr Andrew Geddis’ earlier email to the committee seeking an extension for his law students, but that request was also defeated. We said “Yes.”, and National members said “Yes but”, provided the committee would grant an automatic and universal extension to everyone else.

It is fair for me to say that during the entire process that this bill was considered, the committee was subjected to constant disruptions caused, largely, by Dr Smith. Having said that, I also reflected on the latest development concerning the bill and the publicity it has attracted. Yes, I was quoted in the media as saying that Dr Smith’s been around in this place for close to 30 years and should be the father of the House but not the bane of the committee. I stand by the first part of the statement, but, reflecting further, I should not have used the word “bane”, and I’d like to apologise to Dr Smith in that regard. I say this sincerely.

Any advisers or any committee members that are subject to his sort of scrutiny or disruptive actions would walk out of the meeting room wiser and stronger. Why? Because, as they say, all trees need wind to grow stronger. I am that type of tree, and Dr Smith is that sort of wind. If he is happy, he gives us a breeze. If he’s upset, he becomes a strong wind. If he’s really upset, he gives everyone tornadoes.

Nobody would deny that National has won many seats. I’d rather them being powerful but still being reasonable and humble. That will win them more respect.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek the leave of the House to table the draft select committee report on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the amendments proposed by National that the Government members would not want, so that they can be included on the record of the House.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave is sought for that action. Is there any objection? Yes.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour): To make Dr Smith happier and help him even further, given he has tried three times, I seek the leave of the House to table the draft report of the Justice Committee on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

Brett Hudson: With the amendments?

RAYMOND HUO: That’s what the draft report was.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Let the member put the leave. Can you put the leave again, please?

RAYMOND HUO: I seek the leave of the House to table the draft report prepared by the Justice Committee.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Leave of the House is sought for that course of action. Is there objection? There is none. It can be done.

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

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s a sad day for democracy in New Zealand when we are debating legislation which will limit the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, and the freedoms of New Zealanders here in this House. This is a sad day for New Zealand’s democracy. What we’ve heard from the other side of the House is excuses, excuses, excuses. We all know the real reason why this legislation is being put through the House, and it’s because it’s all about Mr Winston Peters and a deal that he’s done to try to get power and to try to protect his authority—

Brett Hudson: He can’t trust his own team.

SIMEON BROWN: —and because he doesn’t trust his own team. That’s right, Mr Hudson. He doesn’t trust his own team in Parliament.

The key argument—the only argument—which Mr Andrew Little put forward for putting forward this bill was to protect the proportionality of Parliament. Well, the only safeguard he’s put in the bill is two-thirds of a caucus. Well, I just want to remind Mr Little that he only got four other votes for his own leadership bid, so it would only work if he was the leader of the Labour Party. That’s the only person it would protect—him.

Well, I want to remind the House of the words of the late Rod Donald, and we’ve heard this: this is “the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting [piece of] legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament.” All we heard from the Green Party when they got up to speak was excuses, excuses. They have sold their souls and sold their principles in voting for this piece of legislation. They have not listened to their members, and they’ve come up with a whole list of reasons why they think that they are going to get policy concessions, but they’ve sold their principles—policy concessions, but they’ve sold their principles in the process. They have no courage, they have no principles, and soon they will not even be in Parliament.

This bill is an affront to democracy, and it is something which has been done in smoke-filled back rooms of Parliament, because there is nothing in the coalition document which requires the Green Party to support this piece of legislation. There’s nothing. They have sought Cabinet advice, and the Cabinet advice said there is no reason under the confidence and supply agreement why they should support it. The only logical reason is there must be something in the 36-page secret document, which still hasn’t been released, and it still hasn’t been released because they are hiding from New Zealanders what the real intentions and real policy decisions were, which were made in smoke-filled back rooms prior to this coalition Government being put together last election.

This bill is an affront to democracy, and I’ve heard Mr Darroch Ball get up and try to defend it from New Zealand First’s position. Well, he forgets that his own electoral record is that he received 2,155 votes at the last election—612 fewer party votes than the party even got in Palmerston North, and that’s probably the 612 people he met, because that’s what happened in Palmerston North.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He didn’t do that much work.

SIMEON BROWN: He probably didn’t do that much work. He probably met 100 people and they told six friends. That’s probably what happened. The New Zealand First Party MPs are getting up to try to defend themselves, because they are trying to defend their own list position leading into the next election. They know that they are at the whim of their leader, Mr Winston Peters, who will be determining whether any of them will stay or go at the next election.

This piece of legislation is to protect this coalition, because they know they’ve only got a three-seat majority. They’re scared of what might happen, and they want to stop all of these list MPs from firing off and deciding that they will do something. They’ve decided that they’re going to consign themselves to being bound by the leadership, bound by Winston Peters, and they’re putting aside the principles, which they have sold for no policy concessions and no real gain for them. We will not be supporting this legislation.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): What a lot of song and dance! I wouldn’t be surprised if we heard that the apocalypse was coming and that a tsunami would ensue if this legislation passed. I wouldn’t be surprised if the members opposite had been taking up some drama classes in their spare time, with the amount of stupid accusations that this legislation will not be bringing.

So let’s get down to the facts. What does this bill actually do? What does it actually do? Well, it protects the proportionality of Parliament, so that voters, when they vote, get what they vote for. As a list MP—one that has already been called a puppet today—I was elected to this House on the basis that I stood on the Labour Party’s shoulders—I stood upon the values that the Labour Party represents. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Settle, members—settle.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: That’s why I am here, standing, speaking in this House today. If I should depart from those values, I should not deserve a seat in this House.

So let’s just say that on a Thursday night, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the Hon Mark Mitchell, and I have a few beers and we decide we’d like to start up a new party. A new party—just the three of us. We’d be called the “Freedom of Speech Liberation Party” or maybe even “Feminists United”—you don’t know. So if we start up a new party, that’s fine, according to the National Party. All those people who voted for me to be here for the Labour Party would get me hanging out with the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon Mark Mitchell in a new party, with a different name. Well, I believe that that’s not fair on democracy and the voters of New Zealand, and, for all the cries we’ve heard about democracy, I believe that this bill furthers democracy because it ensures that the voters get what they voted for.

The main criticism we’ve heard today from the National Party is that this bill is an affront to freedom of speech. Isn’t that funny—freedom of speech. So when we had the opportunity in this House to vote on conscience for Green Party member Chlöe Swarbrick’s bill which would have enabled people to grow cannabis for medicinal purposes, I quite rightly remember a number of National Party members of Parliament who stood on the tiles in the morning and told me that they would be voting for that bill, because that’s what they believed in. But by the p.m., when the vote was taken, they were voting against it because they’d been whipped into line by their leader to do the right thing by their party. So don’t tell me that this bill is going to come along and infringe freedom of speech when we don’t even have it in the first place.

So what else are we going to say here? [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Settle down, members.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN: What is the National Party actually worried about? What is the real thing that they are so angry about in this bill that makes them stand up and take their drama classes and cry “Tsunami!” at us today in the House? Are they genuinely concerned about freedom of speech? Are they really concerned about freedom of speech? When do we otherwise hear National Party members quoting former Green Party members in this House? Is that the real motivation under this line? I believe the real reason is that it forms part of the coalition agreement, and that’s what gets under their skin. It’s a symbol of the fact that they are in Opposition, and where they are a drifting, bitter, and fractionalised bunch that have grasped on to this bill in some lame sort of grief counselling for the fact of coping with being in Opposition. This is symbolic of the fact that they are in Opposition, and that’s the true reason why we’re hearing this barrage today in the House.

So I would like to say that we support this bill. We support this bill in the House today because it stands for parties being represented in the House in the way they should be, and it stands for the fact that members can speak, indeed, whether they are list, whether they are electorate, or whatever they come from. If they come into this House on the back of their party, they have an obligation to the voters of New Zealand to stand by that party, and this bill delivers that result. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I commend this bill to the House.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): This bill is a constitutional affront. It’s not just me who says that. It’s not just my good colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith who says that. Academics from around New Zealand say that, human rights experts from around New Zealand say that, and the Green Party leaders from yesteryear say that. The only party in Parliament that has consistently voted against constitutional affronts like this bill is the National Party of New Zealand.

I want to canvass three things in my contribution to this afternoon’s debate, and I want to start with the Green Party. I want to start with the extraordinary contribution made by Golriz Ghahraman to this debate. Frankly, her speech was a disgrace to her party and an embarrassment to her predecessors in the Green Party. Let’s dispel once and for all the myth that the Green Party is obliged to vote for this bill—they are not. We know that because of leaked Cabinet Office advice that has come from ordinary, hard-working grassroots Green Party members that specifically says the Greens are not obliged to vote for this bill. What does their co-leader say? She says, “We are doing this because the confidence and supply agreement holds us to do it.” That is wrong. We know that is wrong. The Greens should have the courage of their convictions and listen—and listen—to their former co-leaders. They can and they should vote against this legislation.

What else did we hear from Miss Ghahraman? Well, we heard a lot about child poverty, and, I think, neo-liberalism—the bête noire of the left—was mentioned about 45 times. We heard a lot about oil and gas. We heard a lot about housing and poverty. I’ll tell you what we didn’t hear much of: not much about the bill—not much about the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. Golriz Ghahraman is a human rights expert. She is fond of telling us she’s worked around the world on human rights matters and she’s got a constitutional law degree and all sorts of things. Heaven knows we’ve heard a lot about that in the last nine months. She could not mount a single proper argument in favour of this legislation other than to say, “We’ve done a deal and we’ve sold our soul. We are unprincipled, and we are going to vote for this legislation.”

The third point I want to make about the Greens is they will not even come down to this House and promise that they will amend the legislation or attempt to amend this legislation when it gets to the committee of the whole House stage. If they were serious about putting through this bill and making it a serious bill, they would try and amend it. My colleague Dr Nick Smith has a whole series of amendments. There were loads of amendments suggested to us by the New Zealand Law Society and by lots of groups during the select committee process. None of those amendments have been made or recommended by the Justice Committee, so there’s plenty of opportunity to discuss them.

There is plenty of opportunity for us to amend this bill in the committee of the whole House stage. I note that there are constitutional scholars on Twitter and others in the public who have said they’re very happy to work with the Green Party to improve the bill. One amendment, for example—I’ll just throw this out there during this speech. One contribution could be to amend the retrospectivity, because, as the Law Society pointed out in their contribution to the select committee, members in this Parliament were elected with this law not in place, and if it passes in this Parliament, it will, essentially, retrospectively amend the law as at 23 September 2017, when the last election was, and say that members who are not elected under one system of our government will then have to be subject to a different system. That is constitutionally repugnant as well.

The Greens could get rid of that easily. The New Zealand National Party—I’m not the spokesperson, but I am confident in saying, because my colleague Nick Smith’s nodding at me—we would support that. Another thing that we would support is the ability to give judicial review, and that brings me to the second part of my speech, which is about human rights.

Why is judicial review important? I’ll tell you why. It’s important because one of the reasons why the Attorney-General has certified to Parliament that the bill complies with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is because there is the ability for judicial review to be taken. The New Zealand Law Society rightly pointed out in their contribution to the select committee that the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act analysis says that members can be not “ ‘subject to a capricious or unreasonable exercise of the measures they are not left without remedy’ as they could apply to the High Court for judicial review.”

Judicial review is very important. Basically, it’s the only reason why the Attorney-General has concluded that the bill is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However, the Law Society also made a number of very serious points to the committee. It is very doubtful that judicial review is actually available. Why do they say that? Well, in the only case decided under previous iterations of this legislation—Prebble v Awatere Huata—three judges in the Supreme Court expressly left the question open as to whether or not judicial review applied. Now, the parties in Prebble v Awatere Huata assumed that judicial review was available, and so the court, therefore, didn’t have to decide it. They just accepted that it was available. But, the Chief Justice expressly noted that it was at least arguable that such a decision was not reviewable or was only reviewable on limited grounds. Justice Gault said it was difficult to see the content of a notification under section 55D as reviewable, and Justice Keith made similar comments—three judges out of five, that’s a majority.

Why else is it arguable? They also expressly left open the question of whether or not parliamentary privilege prevented the courts inquiring into what goes on in Parliament, and the courts—in the case of cases like Prebble v Awatere Huata, and in the cases that may be yet to come—would have to consider voting records. They may have to consider caucus deliberations. They may have to consider what goes on in this place. In this Parliament, we are jealous, and we are keen to protect our privileges.

The other point to make about parliamentary privilege is that Prebble v Awatere Huata was decided before the passing of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which has significantly tightened the law around what the courts can and can’t inquire into in this Parliament. The Law Society made all these points. They are important points, because if judicial review is not available, then the remedy that mitigates the harm done to a member’s rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is not dealt to. Therefore, the harm accrues to the member and makes it an unjustified limit on the rights that he or she enjoys.

What rights am I talking about? I’m talking about freedom of association and freedom of speech. It was a former justice of the Supreme Court in the case of Hosking v Ranting that made the point that freedom of expression is the first and last trench in the protection of liberty. It is, in some ways, one of the most important rights that we enjoy. It is particularly important for members of Parliament, and particularly electorate MPs, to be able to express, freely and frankly, the concerns of their constituents, because their mandate does not belong to party leaders. This is the critical point. The mandate that is given to members in this House does not derive from their party leaders; it derives from the people, and it derives from their votes. So human rights are extremely important in this debate. The analysis that I’m putting forward to the House that the Law Society offered is very important.

What engagement did we have with this on the select committee? Well, we attempted to get to the bottom of this very important issue. We asked the Ministry of Justice to provide legal analysis. That was declined by Labour members. We unanimously resolved to invite the Attorney-General and Crown Law to come to the select committee and explain, but that never happened. The Human Rights Commission expressed grave concerns about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act content of this bill, and various other legal experts did as well. I’ll tell you something very interesting. If you go to the Crown Law and Ministry of Justice websites, you will find the underlying legal analysis in relation to section 7 reports that have been made or not made by the Attorney-General to Parliament. The only example you will find of a section 7 underlying legal analysis being replaced by the Attorney-General’s own interpretation is in relation to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. That says everything about this bill.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It gives me great pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of this Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I do just want to say one thing in opening, because I think it’s important to get some things on the record, and that relates to the fact that Crown Law was indeed invited to come and speak to the Justice Committee but it did decline that invitation. It had a very good reason for doing so: Crown Law had given advice to the Government in respect of this bill, and, as legal adviser, it would have been entirely inappropriate for them to come to the committee. The only thing they could have said is, “The advice that we have given is privileged and we can’t go further into it.” That would have been an absolutely meaningless thing to do.

However, I want to turn to the bill, because I think it’s important to remember that the debates that happen here are significant. Whilst we can bicker amongst ourselves, people who want to know what is intended by this legislation listen to what goes on. I think that a lot of what has been said here is quite inaccurate. If we do look at the purpose of the bill, we see that the purpose is to maintain proportionality—to ensure that what people voted for is the Government that they actually get. Then, from that principle, we can look at the rest of the legislation. In fact, there is some scaremongering that’s gone on that there are no checks and balances here. That’s not true at all. In fact, if we look at what has to happen before a seat is vacated under this legislation, there are checks upon checks upon checks.

It is simply not accurate to say that the leader of a political party can dismiss a member, and it’s quite pernicious for that to be said in this House. In fact, the first thing that has to happen is that the party has to expel the person—not the parliamentary party, but the party itself. We can look at the bill and see that in clause 5, section 55A(2), requires that “the member of Parliament ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected.” If we go further, to section 55D(d)(i), we see that the leader has to warrant “that all other requirements imposed by the rules of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected relating to the giving of a notice … have been satisfied;”. So what we have there is a political procedure.

Now the interesting thing—and Mr Bishop delved into Prebble v Awatere Huata and that suggested that it might not be amenable to judicial review. He’s quite right to ask the question, but he’s quite wrong in his answer. If we go back a bit further, we can see that judicial review of political parties was well recognised in Peters v Colling back in 1993. Now, that was a case where Mr Peters was not selected—strangely, if I may say so—for the Tauranga seat by the National Party. They probably rue the day they ever did that. But whilst the judge there said that the internal workings of the party weren’t reviewable and that what the rules were and how they chose to organise themselves weren’t renewable, whether the rules were adhered to is reviewable, and that’s a really, really important distinction.

Chris Bishop: It’s completely—no, it’s not.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: So where there are rules about how the party determines its own membership—rule 12 for you, Mr Bishop, so you better look out for that one. For you, it’s your regional council and your board that decide whether you’re in or out, but that is a reviewable question because it is about rule adherence. In fact, in Awatere Huata itself, the question was left open.

Chris Bishop: Exactly.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: The parties there—I accept your point, Mr Bishop. It was left open, but both parties’ senior counsel there accepted two really important things—accepted them as unarguable—first, that the question was amenable to judicial review, and, second, that there was no question of privilege involved. So that’s actually at the first—party—stage.

Then we get the second protection, a really important protection—that this matter has to go to caucus, and two-thirds of caucus have to agree. Now, I think we need to recognise that members in every party of this House are pretty robust. They don’t lie down and just take someone else’s opinion. So to persuade two-thirds of the party that something has gone badly wrong is significant. [Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! [Interruption] Order! I’d like to hear the end of this speech, please. Thank you.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker. And we must remember, of course, that the leader has to be satisfied that the actions of the member have distorted and will continue to distort proportionality in Parliament. Now, what Awatere Huata does say is that that can be broadly interpreted. It doesn’t simply mean how they voted in the House, but, importantly, it’s forward-looking. It’s not just what they’ve done in the past; it’s how they behave in the future.

The further and additional protection is the notice to be given to that member. It’s essentially a warning shot. The member is given a notice saying “I think that you’ve behaved in a way which distorts Parliament. What have you got to say about it? What are you going to do about it?”, so the member then has a choice. They can do what some would say they should and resign, if that’s what their conscience dictates. They can go through this process, or they can go to their party and say “I recant. I agree that I have distorted proportionality. It won’t happen again.”, in which case there’s no basis for any notice to be given to the Speaker.

The other concern that was raised—another important concern—is the relationship between this and parliamentary privilege. The Parliamentary Privilege Act sets out what parliamentary privilege is, and it’s a critical part of this House. But what’s going on in respect of that party, in respect of the party members and its membership, is very clearly not a parliamentary proceeding. It is not subject to and does not attract the privilege of this House. That is what the Parliamentary Counsel Office has said.

I have read the Parliamentary Privilege Act and if we look at what a parliamentary proceeding is, it is set out in section 10(1). It is “words spoken and acts done in the course of, or for purposes of or incidental to, the business of the House”, and the membership of a caucus is not something that is critical to the conduct of business in this House. It’s not a parliamentary proceeding and, therefore, it does not attract that privilege. What that means is it is subject to the ordinary courts of the land, so that proceeding is subject to the ordinary proceedings of the land.

The fact of the matter is that we have a mixed-member proportional system. People go to the ballot and they cast that critical vote for the Government that they want. The current system is such that there can be aberrations in that if we get people changing their party allegiances midstream. Democracy does not stand still. This is a development which is needed to make sure that the will of the people is adhered to in this Parliament. The people of New Zealand deserve the Government they voted for, not some Government that individual members have constructed themselves.

The fact is there remains plenty of scope for members to act within their conscience, to promote their views, and to advocate for their electorates. In fact, they would be remiss if they did not do that. We, however, have to act in accordance with our own conscience. Electoral integrity involves not only proportionality—how one votes in the House—it also involves loyalty to one’s electorate and also courage to adhere to one’s conscience, and this legislation embraces and upholds all of those principles. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a second time.

Bills

Overseas Investment Amendment Bill

In Committee

Debate resumed from 1 August.

Part 2 Amendments relating to consent and conditions regime for overseas investments in sensitive New Zealand assets (continued)

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Members, when we were last considering the bill, we were debating the question that Part 2 stand part. The Hon Gerry Brownlee was speaking and has four minutes and 42 seconds remaining should he wish to continue.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I do wish to take this time. This, as I was saying as we came to a conclusion last night, is the part in the bill that fills out the substance of what is intended in the bill, in a legislative sense. But it kind of misses the effects that the bill might have on the New Zealand economy.

So the first thing is that I would assert that there is enough leeway in this bill for anyone who really wants to buy land in New Zealand but does not qualify by way of being a resident to drive a bus right through the middle of it. There are ways in which there can be a manipulation of the Government’s other policies, and, most particularly, their forestry policy, that could see people buy the properties they want. So let’s be clear: forestry blocks are allowed up to 1,000 hectares. So where are the best properties with the highest value in New Zealand? They’re generally at the lake’s edge, generally at the seaside, or generally in some well-respected, well-loved, inner-city suburb. Most of those will have various restrictions because of the fact you can’t aggregate policy there. But if it is a rural policy somewhere in the Queenstown district, or if it is anywhere up and down the coastline—perhaps Northland—and there is sufficient land nearby to put in a forestry operation, the law specifically says it’s OK to have a dwelling there, to superintend the forestry operation, and it won’t be hard for people to put planting programmes in place that ensure that the property can be onsold to the highest bidder from offshore in the future.

So it doesn’t do what it sets out to do. But what it can do is see some of the more productive land in New Zealand taken away from cash production on an annual basis and put into production that might be some 30 years out, in forestry—unless, of course, they do something clever, like plant some pine nuts, for example. These are a small pine tree; it’s called the stone pine. They grow to about 5 or 6 metres in five years, and they’re productive within that time. Now, of course, I don’t think Mr Jones thought that this would work, but I’m not sure that that would be excluded as a horticultural product. It is, after all, a pine, and it would be a forest. But the goal of somehow creating a massive carbon sink from trees that, after five years, only grow about 300 millimetres a year is completely lost, and also the chance that trees that height might block those pristine views of the ocean or the lake or wherever it is that their plantation goes is not high. But it further serves to recognise the nonsense of not encouraging horticultural investment in this country, as well.

Then there’s the opportunity to build, inside cities, apartment buildings. People are quite welcome to come in and build these apartment buildings and even hold the ownership of those apartment buildings, becoming a foreign landlord in New Zealand—all permissible in this bill; all permissible in a bill that’s apparently going to stop foreign ownership of land in New Zealand and make New Zealanders the tenants in those apartment buildings.

So we think, Madam Speaker, that this is—

Hon Jacqui Dean: Mr Speaker.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —once again—my apologies, my apologies. We think, Mr Chair, that this is a bill that just like the last one that the House was discussing before we got to this, is one of those “pay-the-piper” exercises—the cost of having New Zealand First in the right place at the right time. The problem is it will put huge pressure on the economy. We’ve seen building companies collapse in the last 48 hours, and there’ll be more. And that’s because of the tightness of being able to get capital. So I haven’t even begun to speak—and my colleagues who follow me will—about the restrictions on business activity in New Zealand.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise to speak to clause 19(d), which inserts schedule 3 of this bill, and, in particular, I wish to speak to a series of SOPs—Supplementary Order Papers—introduced by the Opposition.

Hon Judith Collins: What’s a “SOP”, dear?

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: The “SOP”, a slop, a slip, a slither, a slew, a slaw—a veritable salad of SOPs indicating that all they want to do is mess with the House. Let me read you one of the amendments that have been introduced by the Opposition.

The amendment introduced by the Rt Hon David Carter talks about horticulture. He wants to introduce an exemption in respect of horticulture. And on the very same form—the very same form, virtually the very same words—the Hon Alfred Ngaro wishes to introduce an exemption in respect of bananas. Simeon Brown wants one in respect of mānuka. Chris Penk wants on in respect of apples. These are all the same. Chris Penk goes on to strawberries. Todd Muller is going for kiwifruit. Melissa Lee is cabbage, Judith Collins is blueberries, Matt King is blackberries, Simon O’Connor is tamarillos, Jian Yang is gooseberries, and Simeon Brown is here again, on mandarins. Maureen Pugh has hops, Louise Upston has lavender, Jacqui Dean has nectarines, and more to come from Jacqui Dean: it’s apricots. Jacqui Dean can’t stop there—swedes. Lawrence Yule is interested in fajitas, Dan Bidois has raspberries and then he has tulips—perhaps he’s tip-toeing through them.

I can understand why the Hon Gerry Brownlee gave the last speech: he’s keen on pine nuts. Simon O’Connor is interested in grapes and also in almonds. Jonathan Young is interested in exotic edible mushrooms. There is Jonathan Young, again, on plums. Tim van de Molen is interested in corn and also in maize. Matt Doocey is into quinoa and also into beans and also into peaches. Denise Lee favours cherries and lentils—that’s not a good mix, Denise Lee. Melissa Lee’s amendment has at least something pretty going for it—it’s sunflowers, but also flax. Denise Lee is back with pears and olives; Hamish Walker has wheat and oats; the Hon Judith Collins has sorghum, sometimes pronounced “sour gum”; Paul Goldsmith has barley—and on it goes. Paul Goldsmith also has rye; Andrew Bayly has potatoes and hemp—what is Andrew’s interest in hemp?—and hard nuts, not pine nuts. David Bennett—ah, that’s not horticulture; he’s going to move on to equine bloodstock. Good on him. But David Bennett also has canola—a healthy man is David Bennett—and peanuts.

A mix, a melange, a mess—I suggest that the Opposition is messing with the committee, messing with this bill. They are not interested in actually debating the substance of this bill. This is simply a way to delay progress, and one can only suggest that they should eat their salad, not present it to the committee.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity. I listened to the speech from Deborah Russell, and she listed all the possibilities for exemptions that were tabled, but, in her short speech, she didn’t give one valid reason why we shouldn’t accept them. So I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Ron Mark, whether he could explain to this committee why we are making an exemption for forestry. As the Minister thinks about his answer to that, I’m going to help him with his answer, because I know the answer. The issue is the bill was so rushed and ill-prepared in the hands of the Hon David Parker. It was about stopping foreign investment, because the other side of the Chamber does not like foreigners investing in this country. Then the Hon Shane Jones finally, at the eleventh hour, realised that this would stop his forestry programme from planting a billion trees each year. So they’ve rushed in this Supplementary Order Paper 19, which has suddenly made a grand exemption for forestry, and yet for nothing else.

So I want the Hon Ron Mark to stand on his feet and tell us why, and justify why we’ve got an exemption for forestry, because I don’t see any reason why it should be only forestry. I’ve got an amendment, as Deborah Russell pointed out, for horticulture. Why can’t we welcome foreign investment in horticulture when the Hon Shane Jones wants to welcome foreign investment for forestry? So I look forward to that answer from Mr Mark.

The second question I have for the Hon Ron Mark—and this is after an intervention by the Hon David Parker last night, when he said that this bill is here so we can drive down the price of houses. I want to know from the Hon Ron Mark how much they intend driving down the price of houses. I can tell him that if they drive down the house prices in cities like Christchurch and Wellington and Auckland, there will be a lot of people who will be very quickly in zero equity. A lot of people in recent years have struggled to buy their first house; they’ve mortgaged themselves to the hilt, leaving them not a lot of margin of equity. If Ron Mark and this Labour - New Zealand First - Greens Government is intent on driving down the price of housing, I warn him today that he’s going to face a backlash from voters that will, at least, have one desirable effect: make sure we don’t have to put up with New Zealand First in the 53rd Parliament of New Zealand.

The last point I want the Hon Ron Mark on his feet for is to provide an answer to me around rural proofing, the new concept in the House today at question time from the Hon Damien O’Connor. He gave a guarantee that all legislation advanced by the Labour Government would be rural proofed, and I want to know how this piece of legislation has been rural proofed, because I suspect it hasn’t. If it’s been rural proofed, then the first thing the Ministry for Primary Industries should have picked up is that the real estate value of farms has now been lessened by this legislation. Previously, there was a market where international buyers could have a look at buying a farm. They then went through a rigorous Overseas Investment Office process, and, ultimately, they had to prove net benefit to New Zealand. That’s good legislation, modified by the National Government, and it stood the test of time, but what you’ve got now is the effective elimination of those foreign buyers. For any farmer who’s heading towards retirement years, about to consider putting his farm on the market, I can tell the Hon Damien O’Connor that this legislation will affect the price that retiring farmer gets.

So I want to know what process it went through with rural proofing. We’ve heard the Hon Damien O’Connor in question time saying every policy and piece of legislation will be rural proofed—well, let’s hear it today from the Minister now in the chair, the Hon Damien O’Connor.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of State for Trade and Export Growth): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I’m very pleased to take the opportunity to answer some of the questions put forward by the previous speaker, David Carter. No, this piece of legislation has not been rural proofed. We are going through a thorough process of implementing this, because what happened last time in Government—we did rush to get it in place, it wasn’t entrenched, and then the National Government threw it out. In spite of being the so-called champions of rural New Zealand, they threw out rural proofing.

I don’t want to take the committee’s time for too long, other than to say no, it hasn’t been covered in this legislation, but if it was, I’d have to say that I’m sure the vast majority of rural New Zealanders would actually support this, because the one thing that they are most concerned about across rural New Zealand is succession. Succession is not transferring a New Zealand farm into foreign hands; it’s actually transferring it into the hands of another keen New Zealand family. The National Party, as it always does, just wants to sell—sell, sell, sell, sell—and give all their mates an opportunity to clip the ticket along the way. Frankly, we are here for New Zealanders, and this piece of legislation is unashamedly for New Zealanders.

Around the world—that previous Government may not have realised—there are trillions of dollars slushing around. A lot of it’s just been printed, actually, and if you can get a 1 percent return on your money somewhere, you’re very lucky. So the opportunity to bring that money into New Zealand, where there’s currently no capital gains tax and where, you know, you can get 5 or 6 percent for your money, is just a goldmine, literally, for them, at the expense of hard-working New Zealanders and farming families. So I have to say that, in defending and answering some of the questions, we’re unashamedly for New Zealand farming families.

The previous member and his colleagues might want to sell every farm to foreigners; we don’t. Quite frankly, we don’t, and we don’t want those foreigners to set unrealistic values based on them paying 1 percent for their capital when poor, challenged, hard-working Kiwis have to pay 5 or 6 or 7 percent for their money. We just want succession in the rural sector.

I don’t want to take too much time in the committee, but I hope that answers the previous speaker’s question. We are unashamedly for New Zealanders, not for foreign investors.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. Just in response to Minister Damien O’Connor’s statements about being in favour of New Zealanders but not in favour of foreign investment, he seems to have forgotten that the whole economic history of this country has been built on foreign investment over many, many decades. If we want to grow and have jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders, that requires somebody to make an investment, either to start a new business, plant a new set of trees, plant a new bit of horticulture, hire a new person—take a risk. It requires somebody investing. Now, if we want to rely on our domestic savings, that’s fine, but we’ll grow very slowly because there’s not many of them. If we want to grow faster, we import capital, as we have over many, many decades, and that is why this bill is so dangerous for the economic prospects of this country.

I also wanted to respond to the comments from Mr Jones the last time this bill was before the committee a couple of days ago, where he talked about why forestry was exempted from this bill in Part 2, as we’re discussing at the moment. Mr Jones—this is the same Mr Jones who doesn’t like being asked pesky questions about his involvement in the Provincial Growth Fund. He gave a long and detailed speech about why it’s important to shrink red tape for the forestry sector, and that was what he was going to go about doing. He’s going to shrink the red tape through this piece of legislation, and he also waxed lyrical about the need for investment in forestry. The thing that was left hanging was: what is so unique about the forestry sector that that needs to enjoy the shrinking of red tape but every other sector of the economy does not, whether it’s housing, all manner of other primary produce, whether it’s golf resorts and tourism spots—all those other things that benefit from investment and can provide jobs and growth? Somehow, that same logic doesn’t apply, and I think most New Zealanders are scratching their heads and trying to figure out what is so special about forestry. The obvious answer to that is it is something promoted by New Zealand First, and this is a political jack-up that’s been dealt with in this Government in an unseemly way. No normal Government would get away with legislation that is so unprincipled as this.

It’s always a good place to start to go back to the regulatory impact statement, and I dug this out because that’s where Treasury officials have the opportunity to have a look at the draft legislation and just check some basic questions about how it was developed and how it’s put together. In this regulatory impact statement, the first thing Treasury says is it was done very quickly in order to fit the time frames of the 100-day plan. That has meant that there has not been any opportunity to consult with private sector organisations or the general public to inform the development of this policy. Well, that’s obvious, because we’ve seen that there has been, certainly, no involvement from the population. Then it asks whether there was a range of options considered, and the answer to that is, well, no—because of the Government’s commitment to a specific policy, no other housing policy measures or wider overseas investment regime issues were raised or discussed. And then, thirdly, the assumption underpinning this impact analysis was that it was constrained by a lack of empirical data, including around current levels of overseas investment. So, basically, the only conclusion you can draw from the regulatory impact statement is that Treasury completely washed their hands of this bill and would have nothing to do with it.

So the question that I have for the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, is: has there been any further analysis asked for from Treasury as a result of the many detailed recommendations of the Finance and Expenditure Committee in terms of the costs and benefits of this part that we’re dealing with at the moment and the exemption of forestry? Has there been any further work done, and has there been any subsequent effort on behalf of Treasury, particularly in the regulatory impact unit, to try and get a better understanding of what we’re dealing with here in this particular part?

Now, I have a couple of amendments relating to “If it’s good enough for forestry, why is it not good enough for barley and for rye?”, and I’d be interested in the Minister’s views on that. He’s a man of the soil, and he’ll understand that we all need our barley sugars and that those particular crops are important to New Zealand. There is a logic that Shane Jones explained to the committee that we do need to have investment from around the world in order to grow our economy and we want to be slashing red tape so that people can get on with it and make the investment and draw upon global pools of capital. It’s good enough for—[Time expired]

MATT KING (National—Northland): Thank you, Mr Chair. First of all, I’d like to acknowledge the poor, suffering officials over there, especially under the regime they’re under at the moment, but I’d like to acknowledge the work that they’ve done. The Overseas Investment Amendment Bill: what a dog of a bill—a flea-infested, tick-ridden, mangy dog of a bill. Nothing surprises me. This is classic poor bill-making—ad hoc, piecemeal.

Now, I’ve heard from the other side of the Chamber the often-repeated phrase that we have the highest homelessness in the OECD. Do you really believe that of all of the OECD we have the highest homelessness? The infamous Nazi Joseph Goebbels said “Tell a lie once, it’s still a lie; tell it a thousand times, it becomes the truth.”, and I think they’re trying to cover that philosophy. Countries have different definitions of what homelessness is. The Japanese are the lowest end of the homelessness scale. They have 0.04 percent homelessness. That’s one of the lowest in the OECD, because their definition of homelessness is rough sleepers. Now, if you used that definition, we’re at 0.04 percent, down at the bottom with Japan. So that myth that we have the highest homelessness in the OECD—that is exactly what it is: it’s a myth.

Now, these kinds of statements are made by this coalition Government all the time. This bill is reactive legislation—no analysis. There’s no evidence that foreign investment increases house prices, and this bill doesn’t work overseas, so why would it work here? This bill is full of random exceptions. For example, in Queenstown, foreigners can buy an apartment; they just can’t live in it. In Singapore, it breaches the trade agreement with them, so they’re an exemption. This is full of loopholes. Ministers have the power to grant exemptions for whole classes. They could grant an exemption for all of the urban houses. In the bill, it says in new section 61C, inserted by clause 33A, “any transaction, person, interest, right, or assets … from the requirement for consent or from the definition of overseas [person] or associate or associated land.” Now, I don’t know about the rest of us, but I don’t want Government Ministers having that power. This will create a field day for lawyers seeking exemptions for their clients.

Forestry has an exemption: 72 percent of our forests are foreign-owned. Why not viticulture, agriculture, horticulture? This is full of unintended consequences. They saw that the telecommunications and the power companies—some of them are partly foreign-owned—would have to go through the Overseas Investment Office, so they carved out an exemption. But what about the developers of retirement homes? It doesn’t work overseas, and it won’t work here.

Now, this Te Ārai case—that’s a case in point. That stinks to high heaven. The Minister was doing backflips in the House a few weeks ago trying to explain this decision. No amount of cartwheels will explain away that faux pas. Last year, former MP for Northland Winston Peters said, “Why do Kiwis, going about their lives as best they can, have to fight every step of the way to preserve what is their right against a billionaire developer from another country and a complicit Government?” And you know what? Now he’s in Government, he’s doing exactly that. All I can say is thank God for the Speaker shutting this down. I’ve come to expect this from this coalition Government. The bar has been lowered—has never been so low. Lift your game; otherwise, you’re going to be gone in 2020.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Assistant Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s an absolute pleasure. I want to talk mainly about clause 10(1)(b) and its subparagraphs, but before I move on to that, I just want to reflect for a moment on the contribution from the Hon Shane Jones earlier in this debate, which a couple of my colleagues have also touched upon today, because I think it was really quite remarkable what he was really saying. In trying to justify why there should be exemptions and exclusions to allow large slices of land to be carved off for foreign-owned forestry investment, he is really categorising and characterising what New Zealand First has become in Government. For a party that campaigned upon being all about New Zealanders, it instead is all about foreigners, because Mr Jones is talking about the ability to use the Provincial Growth Fund to help to provide incentives for foreign companies to invest in forestry in New Zealand. That is $3 billion of taxpayers’ money, $3 billion that comes from the sweat of the brows of hard-working Kiwi taxpayers, and he wants to give a huge chunk of that to foreigners—hardly putting New Zealand first.

But I do want to actually talk about—because this part of the bill is actually where the ideology that sits beneath this legislation shines through, and nowhere is it more clear than in clause 10(1)(b) and its subparagraphs, because what they show is the Minister responsible for this bill in his full Marxist flight. One speaker last night was accused of being socialist, where they seek to grab the means of production. Well, this goes so much further than this, because this clause and the subparagraphs expropriate the property of New Zealanders without compensation, and I’ll explain how it does that. It expropriates the property by expropriating, in part, the maximal value that a New Zealander could realise on their property, by introducing, first, a new category that didn’t exist, which means that all residential land not otherwise sensitive is captured under the provision and has a set of criteria that determines who that property can be sold to—criteria that does not exist for such land today.

In a stroke of the pen and with the ink in creating this bill, the Government is taking from hard-working New Zealanders—New Zealanders that work, in some cases, for 20 or 25 years to pay off the mortgages on their properties—their right to sell that property to the person who is prepared to give them the most for it, and, today, they can. Today, New Zealanders live and go to work and live on those properties knowing that they can sell it to the person that will give them the most value. Those members can’t argue to oppose that, particularly New Zealand First, but other Government members—not only before they took those benches but since they’ve been in Government—have tried to tell New Zealanders that it’s foreigners that are coming in and bidding up the price of houses.

Now, the stats actually don’t show that. The data from Land Information New Zealand actually gives the lie to that statement, but they’ll make the statement none the less, and what they’re doing here is they are preventing New Zealanders from realising the full value of their property investments. That is an expropriation of that property. I ask this committee: where else in the world do they do that? Where? Where do they expropriate property without compensation? They’ve done it for years in Zimbabwe. This is a full-on Mugabe moment. But it’s worse. It’s not just Zimbabwe. If you were reading the news reports yesterday, the Marxist faction inside the African National Congress—if you go to South Africa, they’re going to be doing this, as well. So New Zealand’s going to join the ranks—the illustrious ranks—of the new South Africa and Zimbabwe in this piece of legislation.

Should we be surprised? Shocked, yes, but should we be surprised? No, because immediately before this discussion, we were discussing—and, in fact, passed a second reading of—another bill which is also shared by Zimbabwe, the ability for a party leader to dismiss errant members of Parliament. We’re going down that track very quickly—very quickly—and it’s an absolute disgrace that members remain in this House. When they go back to their electorates, where they’re electorate MPs or list MPs, look into the eyes of a constituent and say to them why it’s good for them that you can expropriate their property, because that’s what you’re doing.

This is a disgrace. I actually welcome all of the Government members to go out and tell New Zealanders that what they’re doing to them is a good thing, because it most certainly isn’t.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next—

Hon Member: Communist!

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Excuse me. Before I give the next call to the Hon Jacqui Dean, I just want to remind members, after that speech, that we are dealing with Part 2 of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill. Members have been drifting into other bills before the House, and as the sole decision maker around relevance, I’m advising members that if they have new arguments to this part, they ought to bring them out now.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Mr Chair, thank you. I too have been perusing the regulatory impact statement for this ill-considered and ill-founded bill and also noted the clauses that were brought to the committee’s attention by the Hon Paul Goldsmith, but I want to go over them again because they really are quite damning of this piece of work.

So the first comment is around “Key Limitations or Constraints on Analysis”. In the development of a bill, analysis and consultation with private sector and consultation with the public, with industry experts, and with colleagues is, I would have thought, a critical part of the development of any decent piece of legislation, particularly one as far-reaching and important as this one. The regulatory impact analysis notes—Treasury note—that “The key limitations and constraints applying to this analysis are as follows:”, and so right up at the front there, Treasury are saying that there are limitations and there are constraints. So this is not a good start to any Cabinet’s consideration of a significant piece of legislation that comes before them in the Cabinet room.

“Time constraints: Ministers have directed officials to prepare this policy within the timeframes of the 100 day plan.” Fair enough—every incoming Government has its goals. “Accordingly, this analysis has been prepared under tight time constraints. This has meant that there has not been any opportunity”—any opportunity—“to consult with [the] private sector organizations or [to consult with] the general public to inform the development of this policy.”

So, in other words, Treasury are saying—just as the Hon Paul Goldsmith noted—that the Government and Treasury have not had time and not had the opportunity to take New Zealand along with them on this very significant piece of legislation. No time to do it; no consultation with the public or industry experts—well, how does that make for good decision-making by Cabinet?

So we go on: “Range of options considered:”—really important, and Treasury does this very comprehensively, normally. They weigh up the options, because there are always options in the development of a piece of legislation. “This analysis”, they go on to say, “has been constrained by the Government’s commitment to implement this specific policy.” So, in other words, the Government has identified this specific policy in their minds—housing affordability—and all the work in this bill has to lead to that goal. OK—fair enough. “As such, no other housing policy measures (for example policies that would support the broader objective of increasing the supply of residential property)”—so, in other words, they didn’t actually look at any options; they just looked straight down the line at the end and aimed their policy work in that direction. No wonder Treasury are backing away and saying, “Well, you know, we didn’t have time—not our problem.”, which, actually, is what the Government is tending to do themselves.

Nor did Treasury have the opportunity to look at “wider overseas investment regime issues”. They haven’t been analysed and they haven’t been evaluated, so we’re going to do the work for them. We’re very happy to do that in recognition of the importance of the agricultural economy in New Zealand. So it is fortunate, in a sense, I guess, that this exemption for forestry development has given us an opportunity—and I know that the Hon Damien O’Connor is going to thank me for this—to widen the net of exemptions so that other aspects of the economy can have those exemptions under this bill, under this Act, to allow for overseas investment in their particular sectors.

I’m going to get very parochial here, and I’m going to now address my amendment which provides for “Exemptions in respect of overseas investments in sensitive land involving apricots”. Now, one of the members from over the other side of the Chamber helpfully ran through all the amendments which our members have tabled, and, obviously, having raised them and shown an interest in them, we are very happy and willing to speak to them. So, first of all, I’d like to address the issues of apricots—[Time expired]

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 52 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stuart Smith to clause 12 be agreed to:

insert after subclause (2) the following new subclause:

(3) In section 17(2) insert “section 17(2)(h): These factors should be considered in light of any other offers received, including international and domestic affairs.

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

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Amendment not agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party 8.

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Part 2 as amended agreed to.

Part 3 Enforcement and other miscellaneous matters

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair, and when it comes to Part 3 of this bill, it is important that we have a long debate on that since it was such a short debate on Part 2, which was an important—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. It is inappropriate for any member to question the decision of the Chair to accept a closure motion. I accepted it, and it is not to be commented on.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: OK. Part 3. Very sensitive day today, isn’t it, because we’ve had two parts—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! Order! Sit down. And you’re not allowed to comment on a ruling that I’ve just made. That’s two. Don’t do it again. Third time, I will terminate your speech.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr Chair, thank you for that. So when we come to Part 3 of the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, we’re talking about enforcement and other miscellaneous matters within the bill. When we look at the enforcement issue, it also comes down to what you would be enforcing in the bill. It’s important to look at some of the options where enforcement could come into effect.

If we look at clause 22, to amend section 39, it says, “Regulator may require any person to provide information for statistical or monitoring purposes”—that seems like a fairly standard approach. Then you get to new section 40, in clause 23, which says, “Regulator may require person who is subject to condition to provide statutory declaration”—that is also a fairly basic sort of approach. But, then, when we get down to clause 25, new sections 41AA to 41D, we get to things like providing information or documents, and confidentiality of information and documents, and conditions relating to publication or disclosure of information or documents. That’s where it gets a little bit more interesting because confidentiality is something that this Government is not known for. It had prided itself on having openness and transparency—that was what we were told when they started off in Government—yet we have yet to see that.

I just want to give an example of how we want to see how they would relate to that confidentiality in this situation. Just take the situation of an overseas investor that wants to come to New Zealand and invest in land. That overseas investor may have a less than reputable history in their home country. They may not meet the good-faith test that one would expect. They may even have a source of income or source of assets that one would not expect. Yet, when we come to that information about the confidentiality of information and documents, it would be really interesting to see about the sources of those funds that come into the country and how they’re used.

Take that potential investor that may come in—Mr Chair, it’s in new section 41C, inserted by clause 25, if you’re looking for it there—from that overseas country. Now, there’s an exemption for forestry that’s carved out in the legislation. So with that exemption for forestry, they don’t actually have to provide the information that would normally be expected. So there is an element of confidentiality there for that particular buyer.

What is even more important than that—and something that hasn’t really been traversed in the debate so far—is the payments that will actually be made to that investor. What will happen under this legislation is that there is an exemption for forestry, but, at the same time, the Government is going to introduce payments to forestry. So there will be an incentive that the Government will give, through its emissions trading scheme (ETS) programme, for forestry. We have yet to see the amount of that incentive, but we know it’s coming.

So, effectively, that foreign investor that may have a background that is less than rigorous and less than successful, in the sense of a normal investor that would come in under an overseas investment regime would have a free ride to come into New Zealand, to pick the best of New Zealand land that’s under 1,000 hectares—

Andrew Bayly: Probably it’s around the Waikato.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —yes, it’s probably in the Waikato—and to put that land into forestry and not care about it. The Minister, when he spoke, talked about a 1 percent return as being something that some of those investors from overseas that are just looking to park their money would be quite happy about. Now, are we going to have that confidentiality clause apply when we actually have the payment that will come from the New Zealand Government to that investor? I can guarantee you—

Andrew Bayly: What was that again?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: That payment that will come because there will be a forestry incentive payment coming under the ETS. We know that’s coming. So, basically, that foreign investor that might be less than reputable and not meet any criteria under New Zealand foreign investment now will get a free ride to invest in New Zealand. There will be confidentiality clauses that will apply, and then there will be a payment to them from the New Zealand Government. Now, we don’t know whether that payment is actually going to be equal across all forestry investments or whether that payment is going to be on the basis of scale of forestry investment. We don’t know if that payment would actually be there to encourage that investor to come in. There may be some other compensation that that person was looking for, as well.

So there’s potential for this clause to be used in this bill to actually mean that it will hide information around someone that may be less than reputable and that has got a free ride to invest in New Zealand land now, under this legislation, by going into forestry, and that will get a payment from the New Zealand Government which would exceed the 1 percent return that the Minister had said some people around the world would be quite happy with. In fact, many people that are in the situation that a confidentiality clause wouldn’t apply to don’t want any return; they just want to park their money up for a number of years. They just want to have a balance of investments around the world, because they may have business interests in their home country—

Mark Patterson: You’re a bit late coming to this conclusion.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —that they’re not so clear about. What was that from the member across there—that member across there that has been trying to be like “We’ll look after this bill.”?

Hon Member: He’s only got about 20 more contributions before he’s gone.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: He has. So I think there’s a real problem here with transparency for this Government, because we have heard this is going to be the most transparent Government out. What is happening here is the worst kind of a foreign investor: the person that doesn’t want to actually add to the New Zealand economy, that actually would take a very effective dairy farm or kiwifruit farm or apple farm out of that and put it into forestry just to park their money, just to have their assets there. They would be quite willing to do that, knowing that they are getting a guaranteed return from the New Zealand Government on that investment and nobody would know—nobody will know.

The members opposite say, “Oh, that will never happen. That will never happen.” Well, mark my words, the exact people that want to come and invest in New Zealand that can’t now, under our current regime, because they are banned—whether they’ve got a reputation in their country, or whether the funding that they are going to bring in has a source issue, or whether they are not going to add anything to the New Zealand economy; they just want to park up their assets—have now got a free ride and a free cheque. They’ve got a free cheque from this Government.

I can’t understand why the New Zealand First Party, which is against foreign ownership, is now enabling foreigners to come in and paying for them to come in. That’s what they’re going to do. The New Zealand First Party will be passing in this Parliament, before the end of the year or next year, a payment for forestry investment. They are paying for foreigners to buy New Zealand land. What has happened to New Zealand First? But that’s what happens with Shane Jones running it and making great economic decisions!

Where’s the Green Party—the Green Party that’s for the environment? Where are they? Why aren’t they actually thinking about those kinds of potential investors that will have their hands on dirty money? There could be money from making bombs that are sold around the world. That’s who the Green Party is letting come into New Zealand now and have a free investment. What’s worse, they’re going to pay for it. They’re actually going to pay for it, and then nobody will ever know because of the confidentiality clauses that will be in this.

So I think this is a disgrace to the New Zealand Parliament. I think it really shows how, if you make legislation on the hop and you’re doing it for a particular issue, and not actually looking at what the practical application will be, it will mean that New Zealanders are taken for a ride by the wrong people. What we need is an open, transparent Government, and we need to be able to know who are making these investments, why they are making these investments, and where the money came from.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ll just take an opportunity to clarify a few things in Part 3 of the bill, “Enforcement and other miscellaneous matters”, and it does provide provision there for regulators to get access to more information. One of the things that have happened with overseas investors is that they’ve come in, purchased, made promises, and not delivered. This will increase the ability of people in charge—the Overseas Investment Office—to follow through.

There were a couple of comments made—questions, I guess. Firstly, I want to acknowledge that the coalition Government does support overseas investment, but for the good of New Zealanders. You see, what we are passionate about is actually having investment into this country for New Zealanders. Those who want to come and live here are New Zealanders. So they can come here and bring themselves and their families and be residents and they can invest, and we welcome that. The reason for forestry is—the National Party may not have heard of greenfields investment, and if ever there was an example of that it’s forestry. You create greenfields—forests—where they would not have otherwise been, and that’s why we welcome that investment.

There was a comment made by one of the members of the National Party that this is a dog of a bill. Well, I don’t disagree. In fact, this is an amendment bill—an amendment to the Overseas Investment Act. The Overseas Investment Act, run by the National Government, was a lapdog bill. We are going to change it to a watchdog bill—a dog bill, yes—because it now will be able to be a watchdog on the investments that come into this country and be an appropriate level of scrutiny that ensures the objectives of the bill, which should be—they certainly are under the coalition Government—to invest for New Zealanders’ benefit. Then we have watchdog provisions in here—particularly through Part 3—that enable the regulators to check on that investment and have those people deliver on their promises.

There will be members of the National Party who are happy to clip the ticket on the sale of anything to anyone around the world just to make a quick buck. We’re not into that game; we are into long-term strategic investment. We welcome partnerships. We welcome people who want to come in and invest in greenfields projects like forestry and other things that add to the value of the economy in this country. But just being a lapdog bill, as it was prior to the amendment, where the previous National Government allowed anyone to come in, to make their capital gains, and to take their money—we are not going to sit on our hands and allow that to continue. So Part 3 of this piece of legislation will provide the tools to turn this bill from lapdog into watchdog, and I know each and every New Zealander will appreciate that overseas investors are welcome, but they’ve got to add to this country and work with us.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Chair, for this opportunity. I must say that was an interesting speech from the Hon Damien O’Connor. He told us—he told Parliament—that this Government is pro - foreign investment. I think they’re as pro - foreign investment as they are pro - the West Coast: not really at all, actually—certainly not at that protest I was at the other day. Gosh, it was fun getting back to protesting. I haven’t been able to do it for a while. Fantastic! Now we’ve got something to protest about, and it’s this useless Government. And, I’ll tell you what, the West Coast people were busy down there. I didn’t see Greg O’Connor there. I didn’t see Greg O’Connor. He wasn’t there—he wasn’t there. No, they’re all wondering what happened to him. They used to think he was one of theirs, but they don’t now.

I thought it was very interesting listening. This part of the bill is all about enforcement and other miscellaneous matters, so let’s have a look at this enforcement, shall we? We’re going to have bureaucrats enforcing it and checking things are happening. Well, are they going to have a little uniform? Are they going to have a little uniform? What are going to be their little powers? Is the Government going to give them the powers of the Search and Surveillance Act? No! No! The Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor, is looking a little bit worried now. This is, by the way, the same Government that wants to get rid of the Serious Fraud Office.

Andrew Bayly: Oh!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yeah. So they’re the people in charge of corruption investigations, and what they’re doing is they’re going to get rid of that and, at the same time, by the way, they’re going to have all of these bureaucrats running around checking what’s happening—checking without any powers of search and surveillance. Oh dear! So I suppose they’ll just have to ask for some paper, because that will definitely tell the truth.

I think that we’ve got a Government that doesn’t quite understand that if you’re going to have enforcement and lots of rules around things—or you say you are going to have enforcement—you have to give your bureaucrats the powers to do so. So I just think this is a most interesting part of the bill. We’re going to have all sorts of opportunities here for things to be done outside of this bill and within the exemptions as well. When we look at this, what they’re going to say here is that the “Person who acquires interest”—this is new section 51A in clause 31—“in residential land must make and provide statement”. Oh, that’s going to be good! That’s going to be tough!

Andrew Bayly: A one-pager.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A one-pager—a statement. Well, I guess the trouble is that if you’re dealing with people who are telling the truth, that won’t be a problem, but what if they’re not? Who’s going to check? Are we going to have people checking are they really living in a relationship with a New Zealander, are they really permanent residents, or are they actually having us all on?

I’m also fascinated about why we have the exemption for forestry. I say this because the Hon Damien O’Connor talks so much about it. Some of you will remember that there is a place called Kāingaroa Forest. As a child—so just a mere 10 years or so ago, or a few decades, maybe—I was taken on a bus trip. Not to be lost, thankfully, like little Gretel, but, instead—

Rt Hon David Carter: I bet she sat on the back seat, eh? I bet she sat on the back seat!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I always did—I always cause trouble. Back seats made more fun on the bus, and sometimes in Parliament too, I’ve found. Anyway, we went down to see Kāingaroa Forest, and it looked like it was this fantastic forest, except that it wasn’t because it had been planted during the Great Depression, and once employment came on, once the Second World War came on, there weren’t people there to prune it. So we ended up with this massive forest that was only ever good for pulp and paper—for newsprint. And that’s the problem: you can’t just plant trees and think it’s all going to happen. They have to be pruned, they have to be looked after, and one of the things with this is that it doesn’t actually require any of that.

We’ve got 70 percent of our forests currently owned by foreign interests. This Government that’s so against foreign investment is happy for the rest of them to go to foreign investment and get emissions trading scheme credits. There’s something very strange going on here, and I think it’s something that this Parliament should be asking more about. Why forestry? Why not sorghum? Why not blueberries? Why forestry? And when I look at the exemptions and the rules, it’s very hard for this to be operational.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I’ve just got to say I’ve got to congratulate my colleague here before. There are not many people who can see into the future and know what’s going to go on. When Mr Bennett was talking about the future and saying to mark his words, I think we should mark his words.

If you’re talking about people really doing work, it’s a little bit disappointing. On this side of the Chamber we have people actively engaging, seeking the call, wanting to talk to the matter, because this is an important bill. But the most disappointing thing—I’ve got to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Damien O’Connor. I’ve got to congratulate him because he is doing a good job, standing and responding to well-asked questions about this bill. We need to understand more about this bill, so I do congratulate him. But the disappointing thing, as I look across the other side of the room, is people have buried their heads, and not one of them is taking the call other than to close this debate down. I just invite them all to stand up, stand up for what they want to vote for, and talk to the bill, especially Part 3—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And I invite the member to speak to the bill.

ANDREW BAYLY: I am. I am, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No—no, you are not.

ANDREW BAYLY: Especially anything starting after page 26 of the bill, for you people across the other side.

Just to a matter I do want to talk about, which is enforcement, I particularly want to turn my mind to the issue of new sections 51A, 51B, and 51C, inserted by clause 31. One of the issues we had about enforcement is that when we were hearing from the officials, we asked them a simple question: how many consents do the Overseas Investment Office process a year? The number was about 150, I seem to recall—150. So, in the context of the Overseas Investment Office and with this new bill coming through, we, naturally, asked the next question. We were informed that they couldn’t tell for sure, and I understand that entirely, but I seem to recall—and I’m looking at Mr Carter—I believe the answer they said is an approximate figure—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m afraid I have to interrupt the member. It has come time for me to report progress.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.