Wednesday, 8 August 2018

WEDNESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2018

WEDNESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Karakia.

Speaker’s Observations

Hon Koro Wētere—Response from Family

SPEAKER: Members, I have received a response from the whānau of the late Hon Koro Wētere, which I shall now read to the House: “To the House of Representatives. The wife and family of the late Koro Tainui Wētere, former MP for Western Māori, wish to thank the House for your expressions of sympathy during the tangi. Our dad and grandad spent 26 years of his life in Parliament. You were his other family. All MPs’ families share one thing in common: we share our mothers and fathers with the House, and we share our whānau time with the entire country. This was our dad’s other home, his other family, his other marae. So from one whānau to the other, we, the Wētere whānau, wish to thank you for your kind words. We know our loss is your loss and our memories are your memories.

When our dad resigned from Parliament, he quoted a Māori proverb about the importance and status of the whānau both young and old: ‘ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi.’ It means ‘When one elder steps down, the young step up and take hold of the reins.’—the proverb our dad quoted the day he stood and announced his resignation. He was saying, ‘Give our young people a chance to take the reins. Give them the homes that flourish with the Māori language, give them the jobs to put kai on the table, and give all men and women an equal wage so that we can pick up the reins, when our time comes, to be responsible members of our whānau.’

We wish to thank the Prime Minister for giving her newly-born daughter a Māori name, thereby recognising the indigenous language of this country. Ka pū te ruha, ka hao te rangatahi.

Thank you all for looking after our dad in his 26 years in Parliament.”

The Hon Mr Wētere is survived by his wife, Girlie, their two daughters, three sons, 16 grandkids, and 14 great-grandchildren.

Personal Explanations

Marae Visit—Member’s Lack of Involvement

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): I seek leave to make a personal explanation.

SPEAKER: I think the member has to say in the general area with regard—

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I wish to make a personal explanation in regards to a marae visit that I was accused of being at and sending invitations to.

SPEAKER: Accused in this House?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.

SPEAKER: OK. The member wishes to make a personal explanation under the relevant Standing Order. Is there any objection? There is none.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you. Yesterday, in this House, the Rt Hon Winston Peters said he was invited to the marae to celebrate the appointment of Wallace Haumaha by the then Government of the day, and the National Party, and the Minister of Police as well. I believe I was the Minister of Police at that time. I wish to make it clear I did not attend the event, nor was involved in who was invited or attended, as it was organised by the marae in partnership with the New Zealand Police.

Bills

Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill AND BROADCASTING (gAMES OF NATIONAL SIGNIFICANCE) AMENDMENT bILL (NO 2)

Discharge and Introduction

CLAYTON MITCHELL (Whip—NZ First): Following discussions with parties, I seek leave for the order of the day for the first reading of the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill to be discharged and for the Broadcasting (Games of National Significance) Amendment Bill (No 2) to be introduced and set down as members’ orders of the day No. 10.

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

Tabling of Documents

Waiteti Marae Visit—Order of Service

Hon PAULA BENNETT (National—Upper Harbour): I seek leave to table the order of service of the Waiteti Marae event in partnership with the New Zealand Police.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There appears to be none.

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

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Employment Relations—Employment Law Changes

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s policies and actions?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): Yes, and I also stand by my statements such as “our agenda will grow the economy, will make sure businesses”—

Hon Simon Bridges: This isn’t comedy hour!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —“are in a position to grow and prosper because I need that economic growth to be able to lift the wellbeing of all New Zealanders.”

Hon Simon Bridges: Does she accept that her Government’s industrial relations reforms are a significant factor in the plummeting business confidence under her Government?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: If that is in any way featuring in the minds of the businesses who answered that survey, it shouldn’t, particularly given these reflect the changes in the legislation that existed in the 2000s—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order!

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: —when New Zealand’s economy was absolutely thriving.

Hon Simon Bridges: So was Shane Jones wrong when he said on Q+A that it is a factor?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I just said, if it is a factor, it should not be of concern to business, because that legislation around, for instance, meal breaks and rest breaks was in place in the 2000s, when we had the strongest continuous economic growth since World War II.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to point out that when the Leader of the Opposition asks his questions, he then starts shouting. He began by saying this is not comedy hour. I don’t know what “hour” is—if it means that time of the day, then perhaps he’s got a point, but the reality is he should not be allowed to do that every time he asks a question. He should sit there and get the answer properly.

SPEAKER: Right, well the Leader of the Opposition will stand up and withdraw and apologise now.

Hon Simon Bridges: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: No, the—

Hon Simon Bridges: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: Thank you. And while the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments were a reflection on me, they were not entirely without merit. If the Leader of the Opposition does want to have an answer to his questions, then I think he should at least, when he sits down, stop commenting at that point for some time. Is there a further supplementary?

Hon Simon Bridges: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can the Prime Minister confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without permission from that business?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: I say again: what is being implemented is in line with the employment legislation we had prior to the last National Government, and that was at a time when we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD, the strongest continuous economic growth since World War II, and when we delivered nine Budget surpluses.

Hon Paula Bennett: Stand up and say them.

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In terms of making sure that we are creating an environment where business can thrive, we did that and we are doing it again.

Hon Member: No, you’re not.

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I am now going to warn Paula Bennett. We have one person answering the questions, and her attempts to debate other frontbench members while the Prime Minister is answering are unacceptable.

Hon Simon Bridges: So can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without permission from that business?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: In order to visit union members, and at the same time ensuring that they are obliging and fulfilling all of the rules and obligations as set out on that workplace at the time. Should that affect growth amongst our businesses, their ability to thrive and prosper, to become exporters in our country? No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without their permission, even if, as is typically the case, say with a farm, the premises of the business is also the home of the business owner?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: That would only apply if that individual in question was a member of the union.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed legislative changes a union representative will be able to enter the premises of a business without their permission even if, as is typically the case—say in a farm—the premises of the business is also the home of the business owner?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, if they are visiting a union member, then that rule will apply—and, again, as it has applied prior to the last National Government. Now, I haven’t personally heard of any examples of a union member cohabiting with a farmer and then having a visit on that farm in that farmhouse, but if the member has an example that he has concerns about, I would welcome hearing them.

Hon Simon Bridges: So to be very clear, under the Government’s proposed employment changes, can she confirm that a union representative will be able to enter the property of somebody’s home without that person’s permission?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As I have said, only if the person in question they are visiting is a member of the union.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that under the Government’s proposed employment law changes, an individual will not be able to negotiate an individual employment agreement that is better than the union-negotiated contract prior to beginning employment?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: As the member well knows, the legislation that is currently being considered by this House includes restoring rest and meal breaks, the duty to conclude multi-employer collective agreements, 90-day trial periods for employers with 20-plus workers, and union access—those are the number of things we are currently considering around employment law. They are all changes that existed before the last Government came in. Now, if the member believes that, for instance, a union visiting a union member is going to cause major economic downturn, then I would be concerned by that, because I do not believe that will be the case or should be the case.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that the Government will abolish youth rates which would help young people into their first job?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: The member is referring to a Labour Party policy. As I’ve pointed out publicly many times before, if you want to look for this Government’s agenda, look to the Speech from the Throne, the coalition agreement, and the confidence and supply agreement. Every other policy is negotiated by this Government as a collective.

Hon Simon Bridges: Can she confirm that the two or three issues canvassed in this question are merely a handful of many, many significant changes being made by the Government in the industrial area?

Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN: No. The one example the member just used was a Labour Party policy. As I’ve said, this Government works by consensus. We negotiate everything collectively as a Government.

Economy—Innovation in Business

2. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he seen on the need for innovation in the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): KPMG’s 2018 New Zealand CEO outlook survey showed that a key concern for New Zealand CEOs is the challenges associated with digital transformation; 64 percent of those surveyed agreed that their organisations are struggling to keep pace with the rate of technological innovation in their sector, and only 26 percent are confident that their existing leadership team is fully equipped to oversee the radical transformation needed within their organisations. This is a consistent message I’ve heard from business leaders across the country: that innovation and adaptability are key to being successful in the modern economy.

Kiritapu Allan: What is the Government doing to help drive innovation in the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Speaker, I’ll just pick a couple of examples in light of your admonition yesterday. We’re making investments to help Kiwi businesses drive innovation through our R & D tax incentive. Budget 2018 allocated a billion dollars for this initiative, which will help hit this Government’s target of lifting research and development spending to 2 percent of GDP in 10 years. We have also assembled the Future of Work tripartite forum, bringing together representatives of business, workers, and Government, for exactly this reason. It’s an opportunity for all affected parties to discuss how we best adapt to technological change. Finally—just one more, Mr Speaker—we announced the micro-credentials programme last week to help employers access the skills they need by working with providers to deliver short courses so learners and workers can upskill in this time of rapid change.

Kiritapu Allan: How do these initiatives fit into the Government’s wider economic strategy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: These policies are part of our plan to transition the New Zealand economy away from economic growth driven by housing speculation and population increase. We need to increase productivity, work smarter, and lift our products up the value chain to remain competitive in a 21st century economic environment. We are working with business to help them adopt new technologies and further roll out digital infrastructure. Through this Government’s initiatives, we are partnering with New Zealand businesses and workers to make this a reality. We have a plan to transition towards a more productive, sustainable, and inclusive economy, and we’re getting on with the job.

Economy—Business Confidence and Economic Growth

Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): My question is to the Minister of Finance: does he stand by the Prime Minister’s comment, “I absolutely believe that our agenda—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think the member might want to start again.

Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, let me just check for the sheet, Mr Speaker

3. Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s comment, “I absolutely believe that our agenda will grow the economy, will make sure businesses are in a position to grow and prosper, because I need that economic growth to be able to lift the well-being of all New Zealanders”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): In light of the Prime Minister’s earlier answer: absolutely yes.

Hon Amy Adams: Despite everything businesses are telling him, does he still think that the Government’s industrial relations reforms, the banning of oil and gas exploration without consultation, shutting out foreign investment, and the prospect of new and higher taxes will grow the economy or help businesses to prosper?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t agree with the scaremongering rhetoric of the member, but I’ll just refer her to today’s statement by ASB chief executive Vittoria Shortt, who said: “It’s clear that New Zealand’s sound economic fundamentals have contributed to a positive operating environment. Unemployment is at low levels, the quality of trade remains high and the housing market is becoming more resilient.” Business is getting on with the job; maybe the member should too.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think that part of the problem behind New Zealanders losing confidence in the economic management of this country is due to Ministers not listening to business owners—the people that actually need to take risks to drive the economy—but, instead, dismissing the views of business as just “perceptions”, “bulldust”, “biased”, and “junk”?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: On this side of the House, we’re spending a lot of time with the business community. The issues that they’re asking us to work on are the under-investment in infrastructure over a nine-year period, the failure to invest in the skills of the workforce, and the failure to make real progress in international trade negotiations. On all of those counts, this Government has done more in nine months than her party did in nine years.

Hon Amy Adams: So what does he say to business owners who have lost all confidence in this Government’s economic management—who, after inheriting a strong economy, have so far produced the lowest economic growth since 2012, a drop in GDP per capita, and more people on benefits?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What I say to them is what I say to all the business owners that I meet: I value what you’re doing for New Zealand, and I want to work with you to help lift productivity, transition to a more sustainable economy, and make sure we deliver higher wages. It will take some time to get ourselves off what the National Party thought was sustainable growth, which was actually population growth—

Hon Simon Bridges: Unions in people’s homes.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —and housing speculation. But we have the plan to make that transition.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Before the member asks a question, I think—for about the 10th time during this session—I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition, when he interjects, not to do it in the second person.

Hon Amy Adams: Does he think that his comments this morning that, effectively, told businesses around New Zealand that their concerns are wrong and that those in the Beehive know more about what will help businesses grow and prosper than businesses themselves do, will actually do anything to help our economy grow or see those businesses prosper?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I totally reject the premise of that question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the historical record, does the Minister hope to achieve a much superior rate than 1.9 percent over the next nine years, in terms of growth per annum?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed I do, and if I look back to the last time there was a Labour-led Government, there was a 3.2 percent on average growth rate. The consensus forecast remains that we will achieve a 3 percent growth rate over the forecast period here. We’ll do that because we have a coalition Government that is unified in the purpose of lifting wages, lifting the value of our exports, and making sure that every New Zealander gets a chance to benefit from economic growth.

Economy—Business Confidence Reports

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he still think the ANZ survey of business confidence is junk?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Economic Development): As I told the member last time he asked that question, the ANZ business confidence index is statistically proven to be a very poor predictor of future economic growth, which is how the member misuses it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he think that Treasury was wrong in July’s Monthly Economic Indicators report to highlight weakening business confidence as one of the key risks to their growth forecasts?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I agree with Treasury that underlying some of the concerns we’re seeing are concerns with protectionism around the world. We’ve seen another lot of tariffs imposed today. In the last couple of weeks we’ve seen a United States proposal for $12 billion in farm subsidies. That’s certainly not good news for New Zealand. I think what it proves is it seems that National is not the only backward-looking right-wing party in the world.

Hon Simon Bridges: Well, so that’s allowed.

SPEAKER: Well, if the member thinks that it shouldn’t be allowed, there is an appropriate method of indicating that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There’s also an expectation that the Speaker will maintain a standard in here that’s reasonable and fair to both sides of the House. I don’t think it was at all fair for that comment to be made, and I think you should have acted.

SPEAKER: I want to thank the member for his advice.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very simple. It said, “Did he think Treasury was wrong to highlight weakening business confidence?” He made no reference to that whatever and just talked about another factor.

SPEAKER: He made quite a lot of reference to the report, I think, to which the member referred.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: When last week he described the ANZ business confidence survey as “a survey of the emotion of CEOs”, was he implying that New Zealand CEOs are being too emotional when they worry about the costs being added to their businesses?

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I wasn’t. Another way to express it would have been that that survey is a survey of the vibe of a self-selected subset of CEOs.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: That’s lovely. What makes him confident that Kiwi exporters will be able to pay a 27 percent increase in the minimum wage over three years while still maintaining their international competitiveness?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Most New Zealand exporters are already paying wages that are higher than that. If the National Party position is that they’re going to reverse those minimum wage increases, they should come clean and say so; otherwise, their rhetoric is meaningless.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance, who said this morning that businesses are optimistic about their own prospects despite the finding of the ANZ own-activity index, which has dropped to plus 4—the lowest level since May 2009, and well below the long-term average of plus 27?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I’d say two points in respect of that—or three, actually. First, I agree with the Minister of Finance. Second, in support of that I would quote another public board chairman, Rob Campbell, who just in the last week or so said, “This is a great place to open and operate a business. Negativity is for those who stand on the sidelines watching and commentating.” The final thing I would say is to compare business confidence now to that which was the case at the time of the global financial crisis is so desperate as to be delusional.

Hon Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that in the ANZ survey of businesses’ confidence in their own activity, in fact 75 percent of businesses believe that their own activity will be the same or get better?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I can. And that’s not surprising, given that virtually all of those businesses are expecting their own businesses to grow.

Family Court Inquiry—Independent Panel

5. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made about the Family Court?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Last Wednesday, I announced an independent panel to examine the changes made to the family justice system in 2014 by the previous National Government. Three people have been appointed to the independent panel: former Chief Human Rights Commissioner Rosslyn Noonan and family law experts La-Verne King and Chris Dellabarca, who will be supported by an expert reference group.

Dr Duncan Webb: Why has the independent panel been established?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The 2014 changes to the Family Court were meant to help people resolve parenting disputes without having to go to court, but, in fact, the opposite has happened. Prior to the reforms, 30 percent of applications were without notice; following the reforms, we’re now seeing 70 percent of applications without notice. This is clogging up the court and prolonging the stress of all parties concerned.

Dr Duncan Webb: What approach will the panel take to examining the changes made to the family justice system in 2014?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’ve directed the panel to take a human rights approach when considering improvements, to ensure that the welfare and best interests of children are paramount when settling disputes about their care. The human rights approach means that everyone’s perspectives will be considered, including survivors of family violence, who at the moment are saying they’re not heard, as well as men who say that they’re not being given the opportunity to participate in the parenting of their children as they should do. Talking with children who’ve experienced the Family Court system will also be vital for establishing how the system can work better for those who need it most.

International Education—Government Policy and Post-study Work Rights

6. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he stand by all of his statements and actions?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of Immigration: Yes, in the context in which they were made or actioned.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does he believe the material drop in first-year international student visas granted in the past year and, in particular, the 20 percent drop in Chinese first-year student visas is being driven by the proposed changes to post-study work rights?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: On behalf of the Minister, no, because they have not come into force yet. I’d also like to point out that while there has been a drop in new students studying lower-level courses, there was a 10 percent increase in the most recent financial year in Chinese student visas granted for study at university level.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Given that answer, does he then accept that the changes to work rights being consulted on will, when implemented, have a further significant negative effect on the numbers of international students studying in New Zealand.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: No, because we want to make sure that we have international students studying at a higher level here in New Zealand, as opposed to the “bums on seats” approach taken by the previous Government. I would caution the member for using some of the data that have been used for scaremongering around their sector to talk about the possible detrimental effect to the sector. One of those, I understand, said that there would be a decline in the number of student visas issued by more than the number that is actually issued at all.

Simeon Brown: Does the Minister consider one-year, level 7 graduate diploma courses to be “low-quality international education courses”, as described in the coalition agreement, and will he be cutting their visas this afternoon?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: The member will have to wait about an hour and a half to find out the exact details when the Minister of Immigration makes the announcement. But it is very clear that this coalition Government wants to make sure that the nature of international students coming to New Zealand are studying at a higher level, to ensure that there is a match of skills that our economy needs, not the approach that the previous Government took, which was volume and not quality.

Simeon Brown: Will he heed the calls from the National Party and the international education sector to reverse his proposals affecting level 7 graduate diplomas, which will cost the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand sector $40 million per year in what are not low-quality courses?

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: On behalf of the Minister, unlikely, and you’ll have to wait an hour and a half for the decision.

Energy and Resources—Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration

7. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What advice, if any, did she receive in respect of the obligation to act in accordance with the Minerals Programme for Petroleum regarding the Government’s decision to offer no new offshore permits?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): As the member is aware, I have received a range of advice on the Government’s announcement that no new offshore permits would be issued. This included advice on my obligations under the Crown Minerals Act and, therefore, the minerals programme for petroleum. Of course, as the member will also be aware, there was no statutory decision associated with that announcement. I also note that as signalled at the time of the announcement, policy development work has been proceeding on how to give effect to that decision, and this will be released, along with further advice, in due course.

Jonathan Young: Does she consider that the ban on offshore permits is a significant change to the regime for petroleum exploration, given the Minerals Programme for Petroleum expressly enables offshore permitting?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I would like to remind the member is that we currently are under way in the process for Block Offer 2018. What the Government also announced on 12 April when we made the announcement is that we intended to change the way in which we applied that in the future. We are currently undertaking the policy work. We have signalled there is likely legislative change for any further block offer announcements. That, of course, will also alter the petroleum programme, as the instrument that sits under that piece of legislation.

Jonathan Young: Does she therefore accept that the manner of the decision at the time was potentially illegal and has badly affected business and investor confidence in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: To the second part of that question, I’d say the only person whose confidence has been jolted is that member and his party. What we should look at, actually, is the decisions and the confidence that the industry are showing. I’d look to Todd Energy investing $100 million in a new gas peaker since the announcement was made. I point to Methanex signing a new gas contract through to 2029. I point to OMV’s decision to purchase Shell’s remaining assets in New Zealand. I point to Tamarind securing a state-of-the-art drilling rig for its upcoming drilling in the Tūī field, and I also remind the member that there is 100,000 square kilometres off the coast of New Zealand that still has exploration permits that this Government will honour. In regard to the first part of that member’s question of whether I consider that the process that we followed did not follow the Act, I point him to the answer I gave in my primary: that no statutory decision was made in regard to our announcement. We announced Block Offer 2018, and that process is proceeding.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that precise answer, does the member think that she’s answering the questions with sufficient clarity, seeing as the questions coming from that member over there are the same every darn day he raises them?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I consider repetition to be a fine form of learning.

Jonathan Young: Is one purpose of the Minerals Programme for Petroleum process to reduce the sovereign risk that “… [a] government may unexpectedly change significant aspects of its policy and investment regime and the legal rights applying to investors to the detriment of investors.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: A critical part of managing sovereign risk is giving clarity of policy. What this Government had the courage to do was give a very long-term signal on the direction we were travelling. We are talking about policies that will take 30, 40, possibly 50 years to roll out. This is a Government that has the courage to look beyond the three-year political cycle in terms of sovereign risk. I again point the member to the answer I gave in a previous answer—I’ll go through the list: Todd Energy investing $100 million—

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is tedious repetition.

Building and Construction Industry—Government Procurements

8. ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What procedures, if any, will she put into place to ensure Government agencies adhere to MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines for construction projects?

Hon JENNY SALESA (Minister for Building and Construction): The Government rules of sourcing are undergoing a general review, which will strengthen the provisions relating to construction contracts. As indicated yesterday, I will be seeking Cabinet’s agreement very soon to make it a requirement for Government agencies to demonstrate that they have applied the provisions set out in the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment’s (MBIE) procurement guidelines. These guidelines were developed together with, and in consultation with, employers and industry, and they set the rules and they set best practice for construction procurement.

Andrew Bayly: How is risk to be apportioned between Government agencies and their contracting counter-parties under MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines?

Hon JENNY SALESA: The Government procurement guidelines—at the moment they’re not mandatory. What industry tells us is that too many of their members don’t even utilise it or consider it as they are negotiating contracts. What I’m seeking my Cabinet colleagues to agree to is to ensure, moving forward, that we actually utilise these guidelines, because they will assist us in ensuring that there is a reset—that as we move forward, we actually utilise these guidelines. I’m also doing a piece of work that’s called risk and liability reallocation. That is another piece of work that I’ll be taking to Cabinet in the next few months. That would also assist us in ensuring that risk and liability are fairly allocated.

Andrew Bayly: How is whole-of-life costing to be assessed under MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines?

Hon JENNY SALESA: As I said in my earlier answer, I will be taking a Cabinet paper very soon. This is one of the things that Cabinet will look at and decide on the details of. Right now, the way that contracting over the last 10—if not more—years has been focused is on lowest-cost pricing. What we’re looking at doing is ensuring that we look overall at the whole-of-life of buildings, of developments, because, at the end of the day, it is us as taxpayers—when we actually have to maintain and fix a lot of these buildings, it really does come back to us. So we’re looking at a reset to ensure we look at the whole-of-life of our developments moving forward.

Paul Eagle: Who will monitor that agencies have complied?

Hon JENNY SALESA: Chief executives are responsible and accountable for giving effect to Government’s expectations, and the usual mechanisms for holding them to account will apply. This includes working with the Government procurement team at MBIE.

Andrew Bayly: When she met with leaders of the construction industry earlier this week, what changes did she promise to make to MBIE’s Government procurement guidelines?

Hon JENNY SALESA: I did not promise to make any changes to MBIE’s procurement guidelines. As I said in my earlier answer, what I said I would do is I would go with a paper to Cabinet to seek agreement from my Cabinet colleagues. This is not an issue just in my sector, as Minister for Building and Construction; this is a whole-of-Government approach that we are taking. We’re looking at all of the work that Government actually does. But can I say, I’m only talking, in terms of vertical construction, of 18 percent. Government is only responsible for 18 percent of vertical construction sector work.

Paul Eagle: Will this new approach to Government procurement apply to all construction projects in New Zealand?

Hon JENNY SALESA: It is in all of our interests to have a strong vertical construction sector. Government is taking a lead for the 18 percent of construction projects that we have responsibility for. As I said, I will be taking a Cabinet paper very soon to my colleagues to seek their agreement. This is a crucial issue that we must address, and, in terms of the meeting that we had with leaders from vertical construction, we agreed that we would do this together, in partnership.

Andrew Bayly: Does she believe that costs for Government construction projects will increase as a result of enforcing whole-of-life costing?

Hon JENNY SALESA: What I personally believe in terms of whether or not the cost of whole-of-life will be more expensive versus the lowest cost is a personal belief. What I can say, though, is—in terms of all of us as taxpayers—in terms of moving forward, it is in all of our interests to ensure that the cost of building and maintenance of Government buildings is actually of good quality. In terms of lowest-cost procurement, what we know—for instance, let’s look at Middlemore Hospital. Some of those buildings that have been built over at Middlemore Hospital—we know now it’s going to cost us millions and millions of dollars. This is us as taxpayers that it comes back to. So we are looking at a different way of contracting whole-of-life, moving forward.

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—Statements

9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by all of his statements on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill and the potential chilling effect it will have on the expression of dissenting views?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statement—and I quote—“I have been stunned at those with letters after their name, occupying senior academic positions scaremongering on this bill. They are all wrong.”, and if so, does he apply the same to the youth members of the Labour Party, Green Party, National Party, and ACT Party, who yesterday universally came out in opposition to his bill, describing it as both nasty and terrible?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: To the first part of the question, yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Could he answer the second part of my question—that is, does he apply the same to the youth members of the Labour Party, Green Party, National Party, and ACT Party, who have universally opposed his bill, describing it as both nasty and terrible?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for the parties being recited here. That member has been here long enough, and he should know that.

SPEAKER: And he—[Interruption] No, I don’t need the member’s assistance. The member has been asked an opinion about a potential chilling effect, and my view is that he has already answered questions in the House as to some of the evidence to the select committee, and he can be asked whether he agrees with other people’s opinions on the legislation of which he has charge.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I do not agree with the people to whom the comments were attributed by that member just now.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statements on his bill in Parliament last night that the Bill of Rights was—and I quote—“a pretty nasty device” and “There wasn’t anything particularly noble about [it]”, and is that why this Government takes such a cavalier approach to protecting free speech and our parliamentary democracy?

SPEAKER: The member will answer those parts which are in order.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Yes. I’ll just say that that member has a very well-established track record of taking things out of context, but I stand by my comments last night that the historical context of the 1688 Bill of Rights does not do favours to that legal document. It was an attack on the Catholics of England at the time, to limit their status and position in their community.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he stand by his statements on the bill in Parliament last night that the Bill of Rights was—and I quote directly—“a pretty nasty device” and “There wasn’t anything particularly noble about [it]”, given the fact that it is the founding principle of free elections of MPs, free speech of MPs, and Parliament’s exclusive right to pass laws and impose taxes?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: All those principles are incredibly important and highly valued; just as the principles contained in the Magna Carta requiring open trials, the right to hear your accuser, and all those sorts of things, but bearing in mind that the Magna Carta was a document to entrench the power of aristocrats at the expense of peasants and poor people. We should continue to take the true historical context of these founding documents into account, and we should not be afraid to criticise the historical relevance of those documents.

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

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does she stand by all her statements around the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): Yes, with the context and intent they were made with.

Chris Bishop: Why did she say in question time yesterday, “The Cabinet did not appoint me as the Minister to appoint the chair.”, when the Cabinet minute, publicly available on the Department of Internal Affairs website, notes, at paragraph 3 on page 1, “the Minister of Internal Affairs [will] be the appointing Minister for the Inquiry;”, and the Gazette notice appointing the inquiry member is in her name?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I want to really thank the member for this opportunity to clarify these highly technical details. Yesterday, the member asked me, “When Cabinet appointed her to oversee the Government inquiry into the appointment process for a Deputy Commissioner of Police,”—and I refer to paragraph 1.3 on page 1 of the Cabinet paper which he is referring to. I believe he’s referring to—and I quote—“Cabinet … [also] agreed in principle” to appoint me, as “the Minister of Internal Affairs … [as] the appointing Minister for the inquiry; … [and] that the Department of Internal Affairs provide administrative support to the inquiry;”. The technical detail that is somewhat confusing is the fact that, as the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Department of Internal Affairs is the default department with regard to inquiries. The concept of the appointing Minister—and this is where it gets really technical—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m trying to help the member, Mr Speaker. I don’t know if he wants the answer or not. It is a technical term meaning that I am the Minister who confirms the appointment by way of a notice in the Gazette. This is the final, technical step in a process that begins with Cabinet deciding to establish an inquiry. To be clear: my role as appointing Minister does not in any way mean that I, personally or unilaterally, create an inquiry or appoint its chair or membership; it is a formal role that confirms and carries out the will of Cabinet.

Chris Bishop: Why did Cabinet make her the appointing Minister for the Government inquiry into the appointment of the Deputy Commissioner of Police when the Minister of Internal Affairs has never been an appointing Minister for any Government inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I would have to go and check and verify that, actually. I would have to go and check the statement made by that member, because that is not the advice that I have received.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister to endeavour to clear up any misunderstandings of what was a very technical matter: will she use all media, including Snapchat?

Hon Member: That’s low, even for Winston!

SPEAKER: No, it’s a perfectly valid question.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m trying to be helpful to the House and to the member asking the questions, to clarify the separation of duties that are made around the Minister of Internal Affairs and the process by which inquiries are set up, because it’s very, very important for the public of New Zealand to understand that no single Minister of the Crown has the ability to hand-pick, as the particular member has put out in press releases, anybody to do with an inquiry. It is a process that is very important to uphold.

Chris Bishop: Why did she say Cabinet makes the overarching appointment and decision about any chair, in relation to the inquiry, when she is the appointing Minister for the inquiry and appointed the member to conduct the inquiry?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I’m going to have to refer back to the original answer. I think the member is confused about the word “appointing”. He is suggesting that that technical term means that I, independently—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! It does appear to me that some members are not entirely aware of Cabinet processes and responsibilities. The Minister is trying, I think it’s fair to say in a fairly complex manner, to explain to the House. It is not helped by people who have been closer to that position interjecting.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: What I am trying to express is that at no time have I, personally or unilaterally, been able to select any members or appoint any chairs. That is a decision of Cabinet. The appointing Minister, which is a technical term, is around making sure that the decisions of Cabinet have been gazetted, that the decisions of Cabinet have been followed through with regard to report back. So I answered the question yesterday with as much clarity as I could when the answers were about Cabinet appointing me to oversee the inquiry. I will not be overseeing the inquiry; I’m just the Minister of Internal Affairs. Then he asked me, also, when Cabinet authorised me—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I think that’s enough.

Chris Bishop: Can she confirm the following: Cabinet appointed her as the sole appointing Minister for the Government inquiry into the appointment of a Deputy Commissioner of Police; she appointed the inquiry member from a shortlist of at least five names; the Gazette notice appointing the member is in her name and her name only; and the Minister of Internal Affairs has never been an appointing Minister for any inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013?

SPEAKER: The member may answer any of those supplementary questions.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: In answer to the first question, no. Cabinet had conversations and there were three Ministers delegated to make the decisions. To the last question—sorry, there were a lot of them in there—no, I cannot confirm that either. To the second to last question, yes. As the Minister of Internal Affairs, it is my name only on the Gazette. It is my responsibility to gazette the decision of Cabinet. I forget the second question.

Health Services—National Bowel Screening Programme Review

11. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What confidence can the public take from the review of the National Bowel Screening Programme that was released this morning?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): The independent review of the National Bowel Screening Programme confirmed the safety and value of the programme. The review found that despite some issues with the pilot programme, overall it performed well, and the national roll-out of bowel screening is progressing well. We know that screening programmes save lives, and this review should give the public confidence that it is safe and effective.

Dr Liz Craig: So what are the key recommendations of the independent review?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The report makes a wide range of recommendations, including strengthening project management and reviewing IT governance; greater clinical oversight and refining the governance of the programme itself; ensuring a workforce development plan is in place; and a greater focus on equity of outcomes, including increased engagement with Māori and Pacific peoples. These recommendations and others contained in the report will help strengthen and improve the National Bowel Screening Programme as it is rolled out nationwide.

Dr Liz Craig: Has the Ministry of Health committed to implementing these recommendations?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Government is committed to making bowel screening a success. Once the National Bowel Screening Programme is fully implemented, it is estimated that as many as 500 to 700 cancers each year will be detected early, when they are easier to treat. This will save lives and improve the quality of life for many New Zealanders. The Ministry of Health has accepted the recommendations, and it will publicly report on its progress early next year, and again a year later.

Canterbury Recovery—Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal

12. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Justice: What advice, if any, has he received on the need for the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I and, I suspect, other Ministers in this Government have been inundated by correspondence from literally hundreds of Cantabrians who are concerned that eight years on their insurance claims are still not settled and have been caught up in a log jam, and they want action.

Stuart Smith: Why weren’t homeowners, the Earthquake Commission, Southern Response, or other industry specialists consulted, as noted in the regulatory impact statement?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Government made a commitment about establishing a means for the thousands of Cantabrians who are still waiting for their insurance claims to be processed, took appropriate advice, and we are now acting on the promise that we have made in getting an earthquakes insurance tribunal established.

Stuart Smith: How effective will the tribunal be, given its stated purpose of dealing with only simple cases when the regulatory impact statement makes clear that the vast majority of remaining claims are complex?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: One of the challenges that seems to have existed is that those who have gone to court and taken litigation so far are up against the giants of the insurance industry, who can expend any resources, frustrate any claim or any of the litigation on any claim, and this is a process of allowing those parties to come together in a relationship of greater equality with the assistance of the State so they can get their insurance claim sorted out.

Stuart Smith: Supplementary?

SPEAKER: No. The team’s supplementaries have all gone.

Sittings of the House

Sittings of the House

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): I move, That the sitting of the House today be extended into tomorrow morning for further consideration in committee of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Tariff (PACER Plus) Amendment Bill, consideration in committee and the third reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and the first readings of the Regulatory Systems (Economic Development) Amendment Bill, the Regulatory Systems (Housing) Amendment Bill, and the Regulatory Systems (Workforce) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: I don’t think there is a point of order that could be had now, but the member can try me.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The provision for extended sitting hours is a relatively new provision, and I’ve been back and checked with the discussion that occurred at the time of the Standing Orders review, and it’s very clear that the intent of the House was that the provision for extended hours was for non-controversial bills. I’ve also checked—[Interruption] Non-controversial bills, principally for Treaty settlements.

SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. I was involved in a number of those discussions, and what was absolutely clear was that where there was an acceptance by the Business Committee that it was for non-controversial bills, there was almost a parallel provision for the Government to move a motion of this sort rather than do it through the Business Committee, and there was no expectation that it would be non-controversial. It is also very clearly not a debatable motion.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

General Debate

General Debate

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

On this side of the House we’d like to, of course, welcome back the Prime Minister from her stint of maternity leave, and what a pleasure it is to have her back. We congratulate her on the birth of baby Neve. But, of course, in New Zealand First you can excuse us for having some mixed emotions, because we really enjoyed having our leader, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, in our Acting Prime Minister role. What a fine job he did—40 years of public service, and it certainly shows. You know on this side of the House that when you’re being endorsed by Mike Hosking, you’re doing something pretty right! But, of course, it was absolutely fitting that it coincided with 25 years of him building and sustaining a political movement, and it did go to emphasis the strength and depth of the leadership available to us on this side of the House.

Of course, now we’ve seen what the public think of Mr Bridges, as he’s had six months in the job and 70 public meetings up and down the country, and he is going down. We on this side observe the slow inevitability of a slide towards a Judith Collins - led National Party in the 2020 election.

And what about Mark Mitchell—what about Mark Mitchell? It’s the worst-kept secret in Wellington, isn’t it—a cynical, cynical ploy to split off a party. The voters will treat it with the contempt it would deserve. I think he needs to reflect and look across at the forlorn spectre of David Seymour, because that would be his future. He too would be at short odds to be having to don the sequins, do the paso doble and the twerk, as he had to try to find some relevance and some profile.

But all the while, on this side of the House, we are getting on with the job. We’re grappling with addressing the big issues that have been denied in this country after nine years of drift. We are going to be a bold and transformative Government—importantly, for all New Zealanders, not just the top 10 percent. Look at our programme: $1 billion in R & D tax incentives, as we look to add value and productivity; modern trade deals—the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and pending deals with the EU and the UK; the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund; and we’ve got the provincial champion “Matua Shane” out there rebuilding and investing in our neglected regions. Economic development isn’t just turning up and promising ten bridges in a by-election campaign. And, of course, there’s the billion-trees strategy—a billion trees, a nation-building project as we seek to meet our international commitments internally, not outsourcing those by spending $1.4 billion of hard-earned taxpayers’ money a year buying carbon credits.

In other visionary stuff, Ron Mark and his defence strategy paper—and wasn’t it good to see a Government finally saying what it meant on defence, delivering on the P-8s and restoring our military capability? Aren’t the military pleased to see one of their own back in charge? While he will be judged, maybe, publicly on the P-8s, I think the real measure of the man is the determination he has had to bring back those fallen soldiers whose families could not bring them back.

There’s housing that we’re addressing in Auckland and Queenstown, and all over New Zealand. We now have housing shortages in Balclutha and Invercargill. Nothing has highlighted this debate more than the overseas investment debate that we’re having at the moment in the House, because while we’re putting 100,000 houses in our KiwiBuild scheme to increase supply, what about demand? We have more levers.

Minister Parker is driving down demand by taking those foreign speculators out of the market, and nothing shows the values on this side of the House and the contrast with that side of the House more than that debate. We have the National Party getting up and defending the rights of some of the wealthiest people in New Zealand, based in Queenstown. We’re on the side of the nurses, the teachers, and the policemen as we seek to make this country the property-owning democracy that that once-great National Party leader Sir Keith Holyoake talked about in the past.

The National Party now are resorting to having to talk down the economy—and the news story from Dipton: “Tractor sales are at a 33-year high in Southland.” Bill’s not coming back, but perhaps he’s buying a tractor. But this is a real story; that’s the real factor in our economy. This is a Government that’s focused on building that and focusing on the big issues. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m quoting from Stuff: “Either Collins believed in the vast left-wing conspiracy to normalise child rape—which is scary. Or she didn’t believe it but tweeted it anyway because she knew some of the people who read her tweets would have no problem believing it was true.” Anyone in this House can make a mistake, but they shouldn’t double down, and they shouldn’t defend the indefensible. This is a serious issue.

Just a couple of weeks ago on 24 July the House of Commons released its report Disinformation and “fake news”: Interim Report. They said that the “threat [arising] from what [is now called] ‘fake news’, created for profit or other gain, disseminated [sometimes] through state-sponsored programmes, or spread through the deliberate distortion of facts, by groups with a particular agenda, including the desire to affect political [decisions].” We know that that’s happened overseas and that it has been serious in the United States, and in Britain and Indonesia it’s a serious problem. Then they go on to say, “the focus of our inquiry moved from understanding the phenomenon of ‘fake news’, distributed largely through social media,” to what they say is “Arguably, more invasive”, and that’s obviously false information which is being used in “the relentless targeting of hyper-partisan views, which [plays] to the fears and prejudices of people, in order to influence their voting plans and … behaviour.” And that’s what Judith Collins did. She didn’t just do it; she then denied that she had done it, and she misled the media.

What did she do? She said she didn’t call out people for fake news herself: “I’ve never used the term to people and I’ve never used it about websites.” Again, another newspaper found that to be incorrect: “[Ms] Collins [earlier] called a Newshub story ‘total fake news’ [herself] on Twitter in February.” Then what happened next? Well, you’d think there’d be a little bit of contrition. You’d think that she might’ve gone back to this website and she might’ve seen other headlines like “Australia To Forcibly Vaccinate Citizens Via Chemtrails”—maybe that’s the conservative party linked with the National Party—“Investigators: Anthony Bourdain … Killed By Clinton Operatives”; “Katy Perry: ‘Human Flesh Is The Best Meat; Cannibalism Got A Bad Rap’”; or “Real Life ‘Vampire Outbreak’ Reported In New Zealand”—perhaps that’s the first one she checked and wasn’t put off by.

There is a serious thing going on here, though. After you had embarrassed yourself, your party, and your leader in that way, why would you double down? Well, that’s what the Hon Judith Collins did. After, when she was asked if she had discussed the tweet with party leader Bridges, Collins said no. Bridges, speaking at the same to time to reporters around the National Party caucus corridor, said he had talked to Collins about the issue. Now, which of those two accounts is correct? They are absolutely irreconcilable. Both of them cannot be true.

Why would you throw your leader under the bus? And if you were Judith Collins, having such made such an obvious faux pas, why would you stick to your guns? Well, actually, Newshub is running a poll on who National’s leader should be at the moment—results: Judith Collins, 40 percent; Simon Bridges, 21 percent. That’s what’s happening. There is nothing too low for Judith Collins. She has proven it time and again in this House—misusing social media. Retweeting ridiculous claims about left-wing conspiracies for paedophilia is unbecoming of any member of Parliament. I say it’s too low even for Judith Collins of Oravida fame.

There are lots of people better qualified for being the future Prime Minister of New Zealand than Simon Bridges, but Judith Collins is not one of them. This latest episode, I think, is well described by the media as being both misjudgment when the original tweet was made, followed by denial, misrepresentation, and poor judgment time and again subsequently. That’s the National Party for you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I find Labour’s ongoing obsession with Judith Collins rather odd, and I’ll leave it at that. Can I begin by congratulating four young rangatahi of Ngāpuhi—Mr Henare may know them—Maia-Dean Martin, Atawhai Martin, Isaiah Kaiawe, and Purotu Martin, who performed so brilliantly at the secondary school chamber music competition last Saturday. They are outstanding, and I hope to get them down here to Parliament so that everyone can see how good they are. I just think it’s a shame that no Labour Party people were present. I was there. I can out-lovey the Labour Party on the arts any day. They talk the talk, but it would have been nice if someone had been there to support those four outstanding young folk from Ngāpuhi. I say this to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: it shows why we need to have a settlement in Ngāphui, because these are the kids who deserve the scholarships and the opportunities.

I also want to congratulate Tracey Martin this afternoon on her stellar performance in question time, because it shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is this Government incompetent on the big issues, they’re incompetent even on the easy ones. Now, in all my time in Cabinet, I was never once Minister of Internal Affairs, but I looked after quite a number of inquiries, from the whey protein inquiry, the two royal commissions into Christchurch and Pike River, and, more recently, the water problem in Havelock North. I don’t wish to be vain, but I have to say—oh, I’ll be vain then—it was dead easy. It’s not hard to appoint a good chair, to make sure the process goes clearly and expeditiously and a report comes out, but Tracey Martin has shown that even such a straightforward exercise is totally and utterly beyond her. Heaven forbid what she does in her other portfolios, but, really, this is not hard stuff. Other Ministers of various administrations have done it. It’s pretty easy, and she shows that even the easiest tasks are impossible for someone of her calibre.

There is one issue that’s incredibly important, and that is freedom of expression—the ability to have your view. We talk about it time and time again in this House, and it’s why this party is taking such a strong line on the electoral integrity legislation. But I want to commend the Prime Minister for her statement recently, condemning the overreaction by the vice-chancellor of Massey to the speech that was to be given by Dr Brash, because what she said was quite right. I think it behoves every party in this Parliament to make sure that the contagion which has spread to United States universities and has shut down the ability of people to express an opinion on a subject doesn’t extend to New Zealand.

I’ve read the speech of Dr Brash, which appeared in the New Zealand Herald yesterday. Look, for a person who’s a paid-up and founding member of Hobson’s Pledge, it didn’t seem to me to be too extreme. He had a go at me over Treaty settlements, but he’s been having a go at me over Treaty settlements since 2008. But I’d much rather that people like Dr Brash got out there and said, in the politics club at Massey and other such places, what they think on a variety of issues, rather than have the vice-chancellor of Massey University shut down the free exchange of ideas.

I can tell the House this: I had my disagreements over the years with Mr Maharey, but I bet he would not have done it, because he, as a son of the House of Representatives, knows the importance of free speech and knows that that is one of the most cherished things that we have in this country. The best way of challenging a particular view on a subject is to hear that view and then engage in the debate with the same ferocity and intelligence that you’d hope comes from the other side. So I’m very, very disappointed that Massey University have operated in the way that they have, and I call on the chancellor and the council of Massey University to have a little heart-to-heart with the vice-chancellor and say to her that this is not the way we do things in New Zealand, that we cherish freedom of expression, and that we cherish free speech. Engage in the debate; don’t shut it down.

MICHAEL WOOD (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to stand with members on this side of the House and thank the Hon Judith Collins this week for bringing to the attention of the people of New Zealand the important news that is broadcast through the YourNewsWire.com website. And while it may be the case that the absurd suggestion that France was altering its child rape laws has been disproven, there is other very important news that members of the House and members of the public should be aware of.

The one in particular that I want to draw people’s attention to is the extremely alarming piece which is titled: “Real Life ‘Vampire Outbreak’ Reported In New Zealand”. It goes on to say, “Two women from Napier, New Zealand have been arrested after it was revealed that they each performed separate vampire attacks over the weekend.” So alarmed was I by this news that came through to me through following Judith Collins’ Twitter feed that I actually visited Napier on Monday, and I can safely report from a stroll on the town on Monday night that while there are some dangerous cougars on the prowl, there are definitely no vampires on Marine Parade, so we can put that one to bed as well.

I want to move on to some more positive matters and some of the ways in which this coalition Government is delivering some real wins for New Zealanders. This week, I want to take my hat off and acknowledge in this House the incredible work of our beautiful men and women in nursing up and down New Zealand—those people in our hospitals and our medical system who put their skill and their care into caring for our fellow New Zealanders when they are not well. They do such an incredible job, such an incredible public service, but for years and years they have been undervalued, they have been underpaid, and they have not been listened to.

Nine long years of neglect, and this week, this coalition Government, after a year of negotiations, was able to sit down with our nurses and get a fair pay and employment settlement that starts to get us back on the track of properly recognising the incredible work of our nurses in New Zealand. They deserve it, as do our other public servants, and we are going to sit down with them—the teachers, the nurses, the police, and all of those other men and women that we rely on in this country to deliver those public services—and we are going to start to undo that nine years of neglect that they had to go through while continuing to deliver those public services to New Zealanders.

It’s just part of a package of good news about the rising wages that we are seeing under this coalition Government. We only have to go back about a month for the good news about our mental health support workers being included in the pay equity settlement—the pay equity settlement that has been fought for by E tū union members and brave people like Kristine Bartlett. This Government is commencing the work of bringing more people in those caring professions and other professions into pay equity, because they deserve fair pay and fair recognition for their care, their mahi, and their aroha for the people of New Zealand.

Yesterday, I noted the exciting announcement that the workers of Bunnings up and down New Zealand have achieved a living wage by sitting down with their employer and negotiating that. I want to congratulate them, their union, and Bunnings for that. It’s part of a broader movement that’s happening under this Government to ensure that working New Zealanders are paid fairly and can live in dignity when they go and do a fair day’s work.

Last month I was very proud to be part of this Government which fulfilled one of its pledges by ensuring that all our core Public Service workers are paid the living wage. I don’t think there is any case to say that a person in this country who goes to work, who puts the hours in, should be paid less than it costs to actually live on, and that is why this Government is very, very proud to support the roll-out of the living wage to more and more New Zealanders—something that that side of the House has always been hostile to.

At the same time as this is happening, unemployment is heading down: 92,000 more New Zealanders employed as of June this year compared to June last year. The economic fundamentals are good; investment is strong. We have strong fiscal surpluses under the very good management of our Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, which means that we could do things like respond to Mycoplasma bovis when it arose earlier today. Is it any wonder that New Zealanders are feeling positive about the future and positive about this coalition Government?

We contrast that with the other side of the House, who are obsessed, this week, with a bizarre right-wing social media feed. Their own leader couldn’t even put the Hon Judith Collins right about that. That’s the state of disarray that they’re in. That is the lack of leadership on that side of the House. On this side of the House, we are getting on with delivering wins for New Zealanders to make this a better and stronger Aotearoa for all of our people, and I’m very proud to be a part of this Government.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been a member of Parliament since 2011, and in the seven years I’ve been in this House I have never seen a more appalling piece of legislation than what we have seen this week with the so-called Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume her seat while I stand. That matter is a matter which is an order of the day. The member cannot anticipate the debate by speaking about it now.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Can I ask a point of clarification, please? So am I not allowed to speak about the bill at all and what it’s looking to do?

Jami-Lee Ross: Speak about the general principles.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The general principles I’m allowed to speak on?

SPEAKER: Well, not even referring to the bill.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: So the general principles that are at risk in this House, I think, are of democracy itself: the ability for people to stand in this House and to speak freely and fearlessly without having the repercussions that are inherent in a piece of legislation that is seeking to muzzle us is, I think, a complete travesty. We have a party in this House that is standing against the right thing happening, in my opinion. As far as I am concerned, when I look at what this House is contemplating over this past week and looking to put through under extended hours, I am amazed.

I think, for my point of view, this is a bill that has no place in this House. The principles which it stands for are not principles that I feel underpin what we need to do to safeguard democracy. Breaching the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, breaching the ability for members of Parliament to speak freely and fearlessly, is an appalling breach of why we are all here. I was elected as the member of Parliament for North Shore to represent their interests, and as a member of the National Party. In the last election, I think there was about an 80 percent voter turnout, and I got a reasonable majority, but the point is that this is a very important part of my voters knowing what they are sending me here for, and that is to stick up for them and to belong to a party that will hold this shambolic coalition Government to account.

We see a leader of a party in this House who has been here for a number of years and has had a number of challenges to his leadership. I doubt whether they would stop, but the point of having any kind of overall ruling that muzzles all members of Parliament from being able to exercise their consciences and being able to exercise what they feel is the right thing to do, I think, is a profound breach of democracy.

I think that incompetency in leadership can be addressed in a number of ways. The leader can stand down. The leader can be told by the members of their caucus that they are not fit for purpose. I think that when I look at the enormous amount of change that has occurred in the Labour Party leadership over the years—a plethora of Davids, for example, many of whom have gone from our memories. Struggles and disunity—parties can emerge sometimes with a leader that is their salvation. In the case of other parties, we are seeing leaders and co-leaders—for example, of the Greens—who, I believe, show no leadership whatsoever.

The integrity of purpose of a leader or a co-leader of any party is to represent the philosophies and fundamental values of that party and why it came into being. Any legislation that would ever stifle the ability of individuals to form their own parties, to make their own views widely known, and to cross the floor where appropriate in their conscience is, I think, something that most people in this House, most members of Parliament elected to this House of Representatives, would stand by—not the Greens.

The Greens have, I feel, shown this week their complete absence of values and their shift from the fundamental concerns that the founders of the party stood for. We have heard many members—former members of the Greens—protesting vigorously at the complete reversal of those fundamental values, and I think it’s deplorable. I feel that the Greens are on a very slippery slope indeed, but that’s their problem. The difficulty is, though, if they hold the balance of power which does vote through legislation that is something not the majority of people in this House would want. I believe that this is a travesty.

So when it comes to political leaders and political members of Parliament being able to decide what is in their consciences and what they want, I feel that this is a pivotal week for New Zealand. I think that when you look at the way that elections turn out, I think that when you look at what I would describe as a motley crew holding the balance of power, we do have a problem with the way that the perception of voters is being reflected. But that’s democracy—we live with it. But to sit in this House this week and listen to the level of debate that is applied, and for parties and members of a party to say they would have to swallow a dead rat but they will still vote through something they believe is undemocratic is, I think, a very, very sad day and a sad week for New Zealand Parliament. I would hope that the Greens and New Zealand First might see the error of their ways.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. I rise to speak in this general debate in a short call of about five minutes, and I just wanted to thank the National Party for their ongoing advice this week to the Green Party of Aotearoa / New Zealand. I want to use this call to address the issue of live debate—

Chris Bishop: You’re welcome.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —of freedom of speech—Mr Bishop—with that being expressed, obviously, in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, particularly in section 14, “Freedom of expression”, as everyone having “the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.” I note, because I am a philosophy grad and a nerd, that all of this is what’s technically called a freedom right, not a claim right. What that means is that you are able to have your opinion, but having your opinion does not entitle you to a platform. It does not entitle you to be listened to. It does not entitle you to be sheltered from critique, from alternative viewpoints, or from disagreement.

What I’m concerned about with the nature of the dialogue that we’ve seen over the past week is that I feel as though it’s been kind of pressed into this false binary that either people have freedom of speech, or they don’t. To that matter, I’d just like to say that if a private venue declines to host you, they are not impinging on your freedom of speech. If people are coming together to sing waiata and to hold heart-shaped balloons in Aotea Square, they are not impinging on your freedom of speech—particularly, I might add, if it’s in response to your xenophobia, your racism, or your sexism. The focus of this discussion ultimately, I feel, has become one of pandering to the attention of the wounded feelings of those with pretty abhorrent views, where freedom of speech is being invoked as a shield to protect people from the real-world consequences of their aggressive views—and not, I would add, as a vehicle to push society forward, which is what the Green Party believes freedom of speech is indeed supposed to be used for.

Lost in this heated and overly simplified conversation are the voices of people who face colossal, man-made barriers to participation in our democracy—those who have ultimately been marginalised in the dominant culture and by systems that disable and repress. Notably, these are the kinds of people who are actually also often ostracised and targeted by these self-styled, mislabelled fighters for freedom of speech that we’ve seen in the past week, because genuinely fighting for freedom of speech looks like making space for points of view that are neglected, overlooked, or oppressed in the mainstream, and not thinly veiled racism and sexism that actively attempts to take that space or to invalidate others’ freedom of speech.

I think one of the things that I’ve be most proud of in my time in this House in the past nine to 10 months whilst I’ve been privileged to serve is the unanimous support that Mojo Mathers’ Election Access Fund Bill received in its first reading. I want to thank members of the Governance and Administration Committee—particularly the likes of Brett Hudson and Ginny Andersen—who allowed me to sit in on the oral submissions that started this morning, where we heard from members of the Deaf and disabled communities and, actually, beyond, from wider society, about how we remove the barriers that we have unintentionally put up at every step of the process when it comes to engaging democratically. I want to say that I really look forward to the ongoing cross-party work to improve our democracy and to improve access to freedom of speech, because what I really hope comes out of the controversy that we’ve seen over the last week or so is that we progress the discussion forward and we end the conflation of controversy with value of content.

Genuine freedom of speech pushes society forward, it celebrates diversity, and it empowers everybody. Freedom of speech looks like equity. Kia ora.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to just reflect for a moment on the puffery of Mark Patterson in his initial remarks to the House today. I just wondered—and I’m not for a minute trying to undermine his freedom of speech—whether he would be that confident when he got up in Gore, with his 6 or 7 percent support, and said the same thing. I don’t think he would. But, none the less, I think that it’s all relevant and we all have an opinion.

I wanted to talk today about a couple of things, and I think one of the reasons I came to Parliament—and we just heard the last speaker, Chlöe Swarbrick, say why she came to Parliament, and I thought she made a very good speech on some very interesting points. One of the reasons I came to Parliament is to ensure our children’s future—and I don’t care whose children they are; they’re all the same to me. But I think we all have an opinion on how our children should live in the future and what opportunities they should have. If you think about New Zealand, throughout our history, thousands and thousands of New Zealanders have gone to war and other things to fight for the freedom of New Zealand and our right to stay and be what we want to be, as best we can within the law.

I want to just speak for a minute about integrity, because there’s a lot of discussion about integrity in this country and a lot of discussion about integrity in this Parliament. We’re sent here by people from all over New Zealand, and they expect us to uphold the integrity of this country, the integrity of the things we believe in, and I think it’s the most important thing. The moment this House undermines people’s belief in our integrity, we run a serious risk of losing credibility, and I think that’s a great shame for us as a Parliament. I know we come under a lot of criticism, a lot of it justified. I think we also put ourselves out there, in whatever we believe in, for a very good reason, and that’s because we came here, as I said earlier, to fight for our futures. So I think that we’re put here by electorates, parties, and people, and, indeed, we come here to fight for ourselves, amongst other things. We’re charged with expressing opinion, and a collective opinion, in the end, forms the legislation that we put in place to enable people to get on with their lives.

A couple of weeks ago the Mayor of Auckland made a decision, which I thought was flawed, to, I guess, interfere in what I think is people’s ability to speak. You can’t tell me that council property is not public property. You can’t tell me that university property is not public property. It is there for everybody, and I think it is most important. Just this week, a vice-chancellor of a university that I have a lot of time for, in fact, made a decision that I don’t understand. I think, as the Hon Chris Finlayson said earlier, it’s an extraordinary decision, in my view, to stop people from having a platform to put their view. I think that when we get to that point, we are running some very serious challenges with our freedom and our ability to express our opinion of where we want to go to in the future.

We have a very good law and order system in place. One of the reasons that law and order system—our police and the many other parts of it—is put in place is to enable us to feel safe in our communities. I guess, when I talk about feeling safe, I really mean it enables us to have no fear of whatever. I think when you have no fear, you do feel safe. Those police and our law and order system is put in place to enable people to have an opinion, to enable people to live a safe and fearless life, and to enable people to feel safe in their own homes. I think it’s hugely important that we uphold those principles and that we fund and ensure we have a system in place that enables people to feel safe to express an opinion, to live a life they want to live, and to actually—and, contrary to what the previous Labour speaker, Michael Wood, said, I do think people have a right to a decent income. I think everyone on this side of the House thinks people have a right to a decent income. It’s how we attain that decent income that’s most important to us.

That takes me on to another topic I want to touch on very briefly. Our economy is hugely important to us, and when you think about a car—those of us who are old enough to remember having to push-start the car quite often; I, fortunately, lived on a hill, so you could get it going down the hill quite quick, but the thing about push-starting a car is you don’t let the blimmin thing stop until you know it’s going to go again, and I think that’s the challenge we’ve got with our economy. It’s all very well to stall an economy; it’s hugely difficult to push-start that economy and get it going again. I think that that’s the threat I see in provincial New Zealand right now. I think we have some people who are concerned about the fact that we may not push-start this car again readily, and I think that’s what’s driving business confidence down a little and causing some of the challenges that I think we have, in our provincial communities particularly, because I think that’s where a lot of this lack of confidence is coming from. So I just hope we don’t slow that car to the point where it doesn’t go any longer. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): They just don’t get it, do they? They just don’t get it, and they can’t get their heads around a very simple principle. The National Party are still packing a sad over the election result. Even today, we see someone who normally oozes positivity—the Hon Maggie Barry—touch on the election result and, essentially, complain that it was unjust.

But it’s not just Maggie Barry; it is “Honest John”. “Let’s bring John Howard to the National annual conference—what a good idea. Let’s get the former Prime Minister of Australia to say the messages that we know New Zealanders are sick of hearing from ourselves.”—that has to have been, surely, the conversation that the National Party executive came up with when they were planning their annual conference. Here comes John Howard, and he says the messages that they want to say, but can’t say themselves—that this was an unjust result.

They just don’t get it. A majority of voters elected a Government and this is the Government that is working for New Zealanders, and, instead of holding that Government to account, the National Party sit there and whinge and wish that things were different. If it’s not on display just today, you only needed to see what Maureen Pugh had to say on Twitter.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is she on Twitter?

KIERAN McANULTY: She is on Twitter—she is on Twitter. Despite the National Government’s previous poor record on establishing rural broadband, Maureen Pugh is on Twitter, and she complained about the Government, saying that it was illegitimate. I couldn’t believe it that a list MP—an MP who is here by virtue of MMP, just like myself—was complaining about the very rules that brought her into Parliament and neglecting the fact that the previous Prime Minister, Bill English, was also a list MP. What I put to you is that the National Party cannot have it both ways. They can’t say that MMP works when it suits them, and they can’t sit there for 10 months and whinge when it doesn’t.

Speaking of time frames, let’s look at the last six weeks. For the last six weeks, the Prime Minister was on maternity leave. What a wonderful opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to take advantage and get his brand out there—to get his message out—so people would get to know who Simon Bridges was.

Hon Member: He went right around the country and talked to 10,000 people.

KIERAN McANULTY: And one of the only gentlemen of the House, Ian McKelvie, mentions the road tour. Simon Bridges’ medicine, what’s going to get him in the headlines—this is the silver bullet—is 60 to 70 meetings across the country: “Come and meet Simon. Once you get to know him, you’ll like him.”—but what have we seen? We saw in the Hawke’s Bay a prime example of what these meetings were like. Leading up to the meeting in Waipawa, there was lots of social media activity. There was lots of flurry and excitement. “We’re going to Waipawa with the Wairarapa MP, Alastair Scott. This is going to be a great meeting. Let’s do videos and posts about it.” What did we see on social media after the meeting? Nothing—not one post. Could that be because no one turned up? Could that be because those that did turn up wanted to talk about Alastair Scott wanting to sell our hospitals or about Alastair Scott wanting to sell our schools?

Could it be that the messages that the National Party, under the leadership of Simon Bridges, no longer resonate in what used to be their true-blue heartland? Could that also be why in the One News poll announced on Sunday, after six weeks of the Prime Minister being on maternity leave and Simon Bridges getting out there and talking to as many people as would listen, he went backwards—he went backwards. He was 12 percent—and even then, he was criticised for being 12 percent—and now he’s 10 percent, and 10 percent is actually a lot worse than 12 percent, so now he wishes he was 12 percent.

What a wasted opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about the things that resonate with New Zealand. I think it is a clear message to that Opposition to stop looking inwards, stop talking about things that don’t matter, and actually get behind the Government that is working for this country.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Mr Speaker and members of the House, the general debate is an opportunity to talk about things in general, and I’m going to seize that opportunity this afternoon and really start on a lighter note to just share with everybody here that this week, apparently, is International Cat Week. I mention that because in the House every now and then there’s quite a few spats that go on, and one could term it as being somewhat aligned with cat fights.

But I’m going to move on. Keeping in that sporting vein, I happen to be the MP for two sporting teams, the Central Pulse netball team, who have made it into the finals of the franchise league this weekend—I’m the MP for the electorate, so I’m skiting a bit here. As a former franchise netballer from some 30 years ago, to see daughters of former team-mates—Waimārama Taumāunu’s daughter and Leonie Leaver’s daughter, who’s about to take the court for the Tactix on the weekend—makes me realise how aged I am. But in being aged, it’s about the level of experience that one brings to the House.

Just on that sporting note as well, I note that two of my colleagues, the Hon Amy Adams and Denise Lee—they’re sporting some netball injuries, so I’m looking somewhat suspiciously across the House, knowing that. The benefit and the joy of these sporting teams—on a lighter note—is that we do have that cross-party engagement and collegiality, but I hope that they weren’t the victims of anything untoward coming from the Government benches.

Just a final note around the sporting element, as MP for the Whanganui electorate, reaching up Wanganui into the Taranaki boundaries: Ranfurly Shield. That game—the challenge was played in Hāwera on the weekend, and I think it’s a rare occasion and opportunity to be an MP for the defending team but also the challenging team, which is Wanganui. The title-holders, Taranaki, held that Ranfurly Shield—the old log o’ wood. In the 1970s, I remember watching the games with my dad and my brothers on the old black and white TV, so to be there as the MP was something quite special.

I’m just going to move along now to acknowledging the New Zealand firefighters that have gone over to northern California. I say that because what came up on my Facebook stream this morning was a benefactor towards my daughter’s rowing team. She attended Paparangi, and went to the University of California, Berkeley. The university is near the areas that our firefighters have gone to to quell and extinguish the massive life-threatening fires and the damage and devastation they’ve done there.

Moving on to damage and devastation as well, my thoughts turn to Lombok, the people there in the earthquake. I mention that because I attended the Ranfurly Shield match in the company of South Taranaki district Mayor Ross Dunlop. His wife and his daughter are over there at the moment, and they’re caught up amongst a number of international tourists but also the local people. We know what devastation is, back here in Aotearoa New Zealand, with what we’ve been through, so I acknowledge the people there.

I’m going to move on to something more on a heavy note, and it’s been addressed and canvassed in this House: the importance of freedom of speech. As a young student, I went to Auckland University, and it was about being exposed and the mind being challenged with alternative views, and I take the view that it is important. Irrespective of what we may not like to hear, it’s better the devil we know than that we don’t, and the devil is sometimes in the detail. So I say that, having been interviewed earlier this week by a Taranaki radio station, Radio Hokonui, asking what my views were around that, and I think that it is better that we do put it out there and we have robust, hearty debate.

In terms of putting it out there, I will just hearken and reflect that, regrettably, the Green Party have sold their souls to the devil by turnabout, where their founding member of the party, Jeanette Fitzsimons, is firmly of the view that the stance that’s been taken by the Greens with this toxic decision to support the “Electoral (Integrity—Not) Amendment Bill” is something that will draw into question the level of support that Green Party members will have towards their party.

Just on another contentious note, it’s interesting that the co-leader Marama Davidson is talking about trying to normalise the “c” word. One has to question the integrity of those open-debate discussions and, really, the relevance of that.

So I’m just going to wrap this up, in conclusion, by sharing that “integrity” is very much a key word and focus this week, but it continues to be. I will just acknowledge that next Tuesday, Dame Tariana Turia—her official formal investiture will be done at our local marae, Pūtiki, and I’ll have the privilege of attending that in support of many. Integrity—Dame Tariana Turia represents that. Kia ora koutou.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā. It would be rude of me not to comment on the last speaker, Harete Hipango. I think the netball comment is about how there are some members of the National Party who are injured. I think the netball injuries came from some party jostling for position: “Go, Judith Collins!” Anyway, let me get back to my speech.

It’s a privilege and an honour to stand here and take the stand on the general debate. My kōrero today is inspired by this whakataukī. It says, “Nāku te rourou, nāu te rourou, ka ora ai te iwi”—with your basket and my basket the people will thrive. It is accompanied by two four-letter words. The first word begins with the letter “f”, and it is about fair. The second word is about nine. I’ll talk about that later.

It is nine months since 8 November, when the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern in the Speech from the Throne talked about the coalition Government. I’d like to read it, because I think we need to be reminded on how the coalition Government came together. And I quote: “This new government was formed by negotiation … it was a negotiation that allowed each party to remain true to its values and honour its core election commitments. This Government will not be a Government of parties acting separately, it will act clearly as one Government in the best interest … of [New Zealand].” So then you say, “Well, what does that look like?” What does that look like? We have just settled the pay settlement for nurses, and it was done in a way that was fair and good.

I just want to remind people what the meaning of the word “fair” is, because we sometimes forget the meaning of little words that mean a lot to New Zealand. Fairness means treating people with equality, without favouritism or discrimination. Despite the nine years that we’ve inherited from the last Government, despite the nine years of overworked hospital health staff, we came to a good, fair pay settlement for nurses. Why? It is important.

In my field—I come from a field where past behaviour is a judgment of future behaviour—it is the beginning of fairness to New Zealand. It is the beginning. In this coalition Government, what did we achieve? We achieved 500 more nurses—500 more nurses—with a commitment to staffing levels. Pay equity for nurses—I think that’s a foreign language in the last nine years. This coalition Government has doubled National’s offer—has doubled what National had offered and started to make up for the last nine years.

Nine years ago I was working as a loyal diligent public servant, as a youth justice manager in Child, Youth and Family. And it was then that I realised the difference between a National Government and a Labour coalition Government. Why? It inspired me to take action. Because, all of a sudden, the things that matter: how we treat people with fairness, provide homes—and when we talk about homes, I want to acknowledge the inheritance that we inherited from the last Government.

I used to know the name of the homeless person on the street where I worked. I used to work in Auckland Central, and her name was Margaret—Margaret. The homeless person was Margaret. And then I think in Wellington it was Blanket Man. The reason why we knew them as people was because they were few and far between. Now there are so many homeless because of what we’ve inherited from the National Government that we cannot name them all. We do not know who they are. That’s because that is an inheritance that New Zealand did not deserve—because this is a country where fairness means having less discrimination, and caring.

I must end my speech now. I want to commend the accident and emergency staff at Wellington Hospital for the experience I experienced last week and how they did everything they can to make everybody that came into A & E feel like they mattered. This speech is dedicated to Ben Hana and Margaret. Bless their souls as they rest in peace, because I knew Margaret personally. Malo.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be talking in the general debate. I thought today that I might talk about building and construction.

As some of you may have noticed, I questioned the Minister for Building and Construction earlier in question time. I think the issue that’s very much at the forefront of everyone’s mind at the moment is the issue around procurement. It is a very, very important issue around the way that governments, both at central level and local council level, and also the way that companies and individuals go around procuring building and construction projects.

I do acknowledge that the Minister is at least looking at better procurement in the government sector, but the issue I really wanted to raise is that I just think if you spent 10 minutes talking to the construction sector—as I have done on more than a few occasions—it doesn’t take long for you to hear from them about what the real issues are in this sector. I think for the Minister to pick up one cudgel, which is around procurement, and, particularly, to be talking about the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Government procurement guidelines—which I’ve read, and they run to probably a hundred pages—and to say that that is the panacea for the New Zealand building and construction sector at the moment and that is the most important thing we need to focus on, I’ve got to say that I think it is somewhat misguided.

For me, taking into account all those conversations I’ve had with business owners and developers and people who are actually putting their money on the line and picking up the risk of doing those projects, whether as the person writing out the cheque or as the building constructor who hires carpenters to do the project or, in fact, the contractor who is helping to lay a road—those issues that affect those people are numerous. The first one, I think, is that in that sector alone—the building and construction sector—all they want to hear from you is the issue of certainty, certainty, and certainty. The first thing that a Government can do is actually help with its procurement time lines in terms of very clearly setting out what its procurement is over the next few years.

I think the greatest uncertainty at the moment is that, unfortunately, the Government has ripped $5 billion of roading projects out from the regions and is putting it into a new tram in Auckland, which will, in reality, take 18 months to be worked up and designed before it’s even tendered. That $5 billion that’s been ripped out of our regions, including the $500,000 that’s come out of my Mill Road project south of Auckland—so we’ve got what’s now called Redoubt Road, not Mill Road. As my good colleague down in front here, Jami-Lee Ross, the spokesperson for infrastructure, has quite rightly highlighted, ripping that type of procurement away from people is unbelievable, and you can see it in a number of the big roading projects—the one in the South Island, going from Christchurch to Ashburton. It’s already started, and now has stopped in its tracks. So the first thing this Government should be doing is being much clearer about the procurement pipeline that it’s putting forward and to work with parties to achieve that.

The second thing is around skills. The Minister has made some announcements, and one of the most recent announcements was around micro-skills. Well, I’ve got to say, first of all, that was trialled and piloted under the National Government, so it’s great that this Government wants to present a New Zealand National Party initiative. But, yes, it’s good for the industry—the micro-skills. But I understand the Minister’s got a working party looking at the skills deficit, and all that sort of stuff. Nine months into this Government, she should know what she’s going to do.

I haven’t heard anything about consenting issues around the country. We’ve got 78 councils. We all know that the issue around the time delay in getting consents is still a perennial issue that hasn’t been resolved. But worst of all is the time cost of those consenting issues, because when developers put their money on the line and they have to sit around for months waiting for the consent, that affects the project viability and, ultimately, the cost of houses that are built or the building that is built.

Then, also, it’s the issue around new products. So I haven’t heard anything about new products. I’m very concerned about it, and I wish this Minister would focus on the important issues in the industry.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to begin my call by actually clarifying something that a colleague of mine said in his general debate speech just a short while earlier. My colleague Michael Wood talked about the fact that he went to Napier and he determined that there were no vampires loose in Napier. Look, I can attest to that because I went with him. He also mentioned something about cougars, and I just wanted to clarify—before, there were a whole series of tweets from the opposite side; namely, Judith Collins—that that wasn’t me. That wasn’t the cougar—I wasn’t the cougar that he was talking about.

Hon Peeni Henare: Are you sure?

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: I’m absolutely sure. In this climate of fake news, it would be disastrous if I let that go and there was a whole news story about that.

SPEAKER: The member’s too young. Move on.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN: What I’m going to talk about, though, is what this Government stands for. We’ve talked about the fact that this Government stands for a fair go for everyone, but what does that really mean? It means—and we’ve heard it before—equitable access. It means that all of us can have a warm, dry, affordable home. It means that we get good quality healthcare when we need it. It means that we have an excellent education system and the best start in life for every child in New Zealand. It means that we have decent, secure work that allows all of us to lead a life of dignity.

But what have we seen? What has this Government inherited that we’ve got to fix? I won’t go into a lot of detail, because I think we’ve heard that in the House before, but there are a few aspects of changes that have come about recently that I’d like to focus on.

Let’s talk about the fact that on this side of the House, we want to stop our Kiwi homes being used as gambling chips by wealthy foreign speculators. We’re in the midst of a housing crisis. Over 70,000 houses—that’s the shortfall that this Government has inherited. Record homelessness, the fact that rentals are too high, the quality of homes that have been inherited—and yet, what are we doing? We’re allowing people who just want to gamble with our houses to buy them.

On the opposite side of this House, members said that we couldn’t do that—they wouldn’t support this—but we’re doing it. We are ensuring that our society is fair for everyone.

We’re an inclusive Government—that’s the other point that I want to make today. What does that mean? Our Families Package that this Government passed will ensure that 380,000 families are better off and that low and middle income families have a boost. We decided collectively that tax cuts for the 10 percent at the top is not what was a priority. What was priority for us is that everyone gets a share of the prosperity.

The Best Start payment that will ensure that every child has the best start. The winter energy payment ensures that our senior citizens can actually afford to heat their homes. How many times have we sat in the living rooms of constituents who tell us that they pile on layer after layer and that they have to dry their clothes inside because the place that they lived in didn’t have—this is an actual example; I was sitting with somebody. They didn’t have an outside space and had to dry their clothes inside. In winter, that added to the cold, damp house that they were living in, and they fell sick. That’s what an inclusive Government does.

The fact is that we want to, and we will, close the gender pay gap. The fact that we are adamant that everyone will have the opportunity to be in leadership roles, should they choose to—and that is important, because a number of the ethnic communities that I work with and that I engage with feel and have been very vocal about the fact that we are under-represented at every level of decision making. From the school board through to local government and central government, if we’re not at the table—if our people don’t have the opportunity to sit at that table—they cannot continue to be part of the conversation that shapes our country that is growing in diversity.

That is why promotion of fake news is such an issue, because those websites promote anti-Islamic, anti-Semitic nonsense, stuff that is racist—just news that is untrue and that threatens the fabric of our society and the very fabric of our democracy. That’s why it’s important to stand against that when we want to ensure that everyone in our society has the information they need to be able to participate. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill

First Reading

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): I move, That the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Governance and Administration Committee to consider the bill.

It is with genuine honour that I stand to introduce the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill to the House. In doing so, I acknowledge my fellow southern coalition colleague Dr Liz Craig and Clutha-Southland MP Hamish Walker for their assistance to date. The purpose of the bill is to specify the process for the Gore District Council to transfer the ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme to Otama Rural Water Limited. The bill seeks to allow the council to override section 130(2) of the Local Government Act 2002, which requires councils to meet their obligations to water supply. Under this Act, councils must not divest ownership of water schemes supplying more than 200 households. The Ōtama scheme provides water to 223 households, two schools, and a marae. In seeking this exemption, the Gore council are drawing on the very clear precedent set by the South Taranaki District Council in regard to passing the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act 2013. The transfer also enjoys the support of the local iwi, Hokonui Rūnanga. We can come to the detail later, but first some history.

It is said that the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme was first mooted by local farmer Ian Robertson at a branch meeting of the Otama Federated Farmers in 1969, or 1970. Until then, farmers and households had relied on natural springs, creeks, and dams for potable water and stock water. Contrary to popular myth, Southland can dry out in the summer, and water supplies were unreliable. One local farmer recounted to me bringing up a family with two children on a mere 50 gallons of water per day, pumped from a spring. Prominent among earlier drivers of the scheme were local identities like Stuart Baird, Charlie Kerse, Hugh Chadwick, and Les Morrison, and, of course, no mention of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme can be complete without mentioning Tom Affleck, a foundation member who’s been the chairman of the scheme for the past 25 years.

The first stages of the scheme got under way in 1972, and it was financed by a combination of contributions from the farmers and a soon-to-be-repaid loan from the Southland County Council, and a requirement that every farmer contribute 90 hours of labour to construct the scheme. These were certainly different times. Stages two and three were soon to follow, and stage three was completed in 1976. Stage three enjoyed a one-for-one subsidy from central government. Upon completion, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme provided potable and stock water for the districts of Wendon, Wendon Valley, Chatton, Maitland, Waikaka Valley, McNab, Whiterigg, and, of course, Ōtama. These are districts to the north and north-west of Gore. The scheme itself is fed from a well near the Pyramid Bridge, next to the Mataura River. Ōtama itself is idyllic countryside, settled around a settlement that comprises a community hall, a church, and a primary school. And while you may not have been to Ōtama, the community itself is instantly recognisable to all of us as typical of districts up and down New Zealand. The production from such has, quite literally, built this country.

The scheme operated seamlessly, and has done ever since, in its commission under the competent governance of the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee. It has consistently delivered high-quality water to its consumers. The maintenance contract has been with the Gore District Council. Over the 15-year period since 2003, the whole main pipeline has been replaced to bring it up to modern standards. The scheme maintenance and capital expenses have been financed by a targeted rates demand, but the money has always accrued in a specialist designated account, and a healthy surplus sits on hand to provide for contingencies—and so it would have continued if not for some concern within the consumers about the rising cost of maintenance. The committee, exercising due diligence, sought to consider bringing in private enterprise to maintain the scheme. It was at this juncture that the contention of the true ownership of the scheme came to a head, in September 2016.

The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee contended, not unreasonably, that they had financed and built the scheme and that the ownership should rest with them. The Gore District Council contended that they had inherited the scheme as a result of the washup of the assets from the old, now defunct Southland County Council, as a result of the local government reforms in the Local Government Amendment Act 1989. The dispute generated some heated local debate, including a packed meeting at the Otama Hall in May 2017. It was a meeting for which I was in attendance. The Gore District Council, to their credit, recognised the depth of public feeling on this issue and, while they were confident of their legal position as owners, decided to put the matter to rest by way of a binding referendum for the scheme’s 223 consumers. In July 2017, the resultant poll gave a resounding 76 percent endorsement of the scheme resting in the ownership of the committee and the company that would be formed from such. So the purpose of this bill was born.

I must address the elephant in the room: the Havelock water crisis of 2015 did highlight the imperative nature of the safety and security of our drinking-water supplies. The resultant report does recommend actions that point towards public policy heading in a different direction to that which this bill would be taking us. However, I urge the House to focus on the matter at hand. This is not a bill that seeks to determine the direction of wider public policy. This bill is about local democracy: that a local dispute can be settled in a mature and informed manner by local people. This bill is about enabling local people to make local decisions about important local issues, and we must use the laws of the day to dictate that outcome, not seek to pre-empt future Government legislation. The committee have worked diligently to ensure the compliance of whatever legal water requirements are deemed necessary by law, and, to that end, they have reacted to the Havelock inquiry findings by issuing a permanent boiled-water notice to the drinking water, and since May 2018, the water has been treated with chlorine. Of course, it is worth emphasising that the people who have voted for this action are also the consumers of the water. There is absolutely no way they would have taken this measure if they did not have total confidence and belief in the governance structure of the scheme to provide that safe water.

If this bill is to proceed, Part 2 of the bill sets out the process for obtaining authorisation to transfer the scheme. This, largely, follows sections 131 to 135 of the Local Government Act 2002. Part 2, clause 5 requires the order to transfer the ownership of the scheme to the company, which includes the requirements for the council to consult the medical officer of health and requires a further referendum, using the first-past-the-post electoral system. Part 2, clause 6 states that the Gore council is responsible for conducting a referendum in accordance with the Local Government Act 2002. Clause 8 details the company’s requirements to satisfy its obligations to the council, and clause 9 is specifics of the transfer plan. Part 3 deals with the matter relating to the transfer of the scheme, including how land is transferred, taxation accounted for, and notifications required.

This is a thorough process that has the support of both the Gore District Council and the unit-holding consumers to the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme. It is not only the right thing for this House to support this fundamental tenet of local of democracy; it is also recognising that this bill has the rock-solid legal precedent with regard to the Cold Creek Act of 2013. This is our opportunity as a House to endorse and support this process. I commend this bill to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a fine day, not because of this bill but because we finally have the Government saying that water storage is a positive thing. So it’s a fine day.

But back to the bill: this bill relates to a wonderful part of New Zealand, being Ōtama, which is just inland from Gore. In Ōtama, you will meet some of the friendliest and smartest people in the country. Their determination and commitment to the district is clearly shown through this bill, which has made it to Parliament, and this scheme has a very interesting story and has been widely debated in the district over the years.

Following a public meeting in May last year, a referendum was held, with 300 votes, where three out of four people voted for the ownership of the scheme to be transferred from the council to the water scheme committee, under a new ownership scheme where the users are the shareholders. This is a very straightforward local government bill, which transfers the ownership of the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme from the council to Otama Rural Water Limited. It also provides for certain related matters if the scheme is transferred to the council. This is a fair and practical solution.

I’ve been lucky enough to drive around the scheme, in the fine company of Hamish MacKay, on a wonderful sunny Southland day—as they all are, down there. You don’t actually realise just how impressive it is, and how much the scheme does for the local farming community, until you see it for yourself firsthand. I urge farmers out there who do struggle with water solutions to get in touch with the scheme, as it’s a great way—and the founders back in the 1970s and the current committee have done something wonderful here.

This is not a significant economic asset. The farmers who use it, who will be the shareholders, are the only ones affected by this and who will benefit from the scheme. This is about pipes and concrete; this is not about water. The bill enables community ownership of an asset built by the local community. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a very interesting story which started in 1969, when Bill English was a young chap, following a series of meetings of farmers who got together and considered that the supply and reticulation of water on the farms would be of great assistance to stock management and health. A group of Southland farmers, who have since passed, started this scheme and I think need to be acknowledged for having the foresight, in those days, to put in place a sustainable solution for the future generations to enjoy. This story gives you a small insight into the innovative nature of the people down south. They get on with the challenges they face and make improvements where they can, to make life just that little bit easier for future generations to come.

I want to briefly pay tribute to that group of farmers who got the scheme off the ground. Excuse me if I leave someone out, but they were Stuart Baird, Kevin Kelly, and Ian Robertson. Back then, the cost of the scheme was met in contributions in cash and labour from farm users of the scheme and a subsidy from central government and a loan raised by the former support of Southland County Council. Fast forward a few decades, and ongoing costs and related costs in transferring the scheme will all be met by the scheme users.

The scheme is still primarily used for stock, but it also services an estimated 223 dwellings that are likely to use it for drinking-water purposes. As mentioned, the water is untreated but is chlorinated. The ownership of the scheme has been a bit murky in recent years, but the council considers that it currently has legal responsibility for the scheme, hence why we are here discussing this today.

The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee has governed the operation of the scheme on behalf of users since it was established. However, the day-to-day operation and maintenance of the scheme is undertaken by the council, including all the admin duties, field work, technical advice, and reporting to the committee. The cost of the maintenance and operations of the scheme is met by the committee from fees paid by users. Reasons for this local bill come under section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002. A local government organisation—in this case, the council—must continue to provide water services and maintain its capability to meet its obligations relating to the provision of water services.

There is history, as mentioned, for a local bill such as this. The South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act 2013 was passed back in March 2013 for the same purposes. An interesting point to note is that New Zealand First, the Greens, the Māori Party, and Mana opposed the Cold Creek bill. New Zealand First wanted a referendum for the greater South Taranaki district instead of only those in the catchment. The Greens complained, on that occasion, that the South Taranaki District Council can privatise a community water scheme that draws water from a stream running off Mount Taranaki, and ratepayers contributed to its operating costs, and it was created and built with public money.

This bill has been drafted using the Cold Creek Act as its foundation. The Cold Creek Act was passed to enable the transfer of the Cold Creek water supply scheme to Cold Creek Community Water Supply Ltd—a company owned by the users despite section 130 of the Act. As with the Cold Creek Act, this bill, broadly, provides for the process set out in the Act for the transfer of a small water service—sections 131 to 135—with some variations to take into account the nature and size of the scheme.

The committee has consulted local iwi through the Hokonui Rūnanga, who confirmed, in writing, its support for the transfer.

The scheme supplies water to 253 connections, on 210 farms, in the Gore district. There is just under 240 kilometres of pipeline. I visited the site where the water comes from, which is a bore next to the Mataura River, at the site of the former Pyramid Bridge. Numerous homes, as well as two schools and a marae, use the water, and historically the water was untreated, as the scheme was originally only for stock water.

I want to finish by acknowledging some key members of the committee who have put in the hard yards, and those hard yards are about to pay off. I’d like to acknowledge chairman Tom Affleck, vice-chairman John Kerse, Chris Affleck, Gavin Cruickshank, David Smith, Donald Johnston, and Hamish MacKay.

I hope you’re all watching from back home with your feet up, relaxing for a change. You should feel proud of your efforts and your hard work over the last 12 to 18 months, and it’s finally being recognised. Well done.

I urge all members of the House to support this fine piece of work, undertaken by a group of talented Southland farmers. This will add a huge amount of value and certainty for the farmers who live in Ōtama. Thank you.

RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to speak at the first reading of this bill, the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill.

Hon Members: Arrr!

RINO TIRIKATENE: I do like to pronounce words properly, so it is definitely “Gore”—you’re supposed to roll those Rs, because we’re talking about a most beautiful place and a most beautiful region in Clutha-Southland. I want to acknowledge, first of all, Mark Patterson for sponsoring this bill on behalf of the Gore District Council and the community, but also, joining with him, Hamish Walker, Liz Craig, and I’ll throw myself in there, too, as a fellow MP that covers that beautiful part of the country.

What we are considering here today has been summed up as being about local communities taking control. Here we have an important asset, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme, which was largely funded and was founded by the farmers of that region. It has provided a valuable role in supplying water and reticulation to the farms and the communities of that area. There are three parties, I guess, to this bill. We have the Gore District Council, we have the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee, and ultimately we have the users of the scheme. This bill embodies, I guess, the resolution of some issues that have arisen in the past over who is responsible for what and ultimately who owns the scheme. What we’re doing today is clarifying that and we’re also putting in place a process whereby all of those three parties will be involved in ultimately transferring the ownership of that scheme to the Otama Rural Water Supply Committee.

We have the council, who are responsible for the day-to-day operations of this scheme, and have done so, and they report to the committee, and the committee has actually been in charge of governing the overall operation, and ultimately they foot the bill, which is paid for by the users. So, again, we’ve had all these different roles that have played an important part, and what we’re doing now, today, is bringing clarity to those arrangements and ensuring that the ownership of that scheme returns to its rightful owners—the locals who have funded and supported and been part and parcel of this scheme right from its inception back in the 1970s.

I want to acknowledge the Gore District Council for allowing this process to now proceed. The results from the referendum—the local referendum took that place from the 300-odd users—got a very, very high response rate. And it got very, very high—I believe the 75-plus percent—support for the returning local ownership to the scheme, which will be represented by their company.

We’ve heard some remarks made around the marae that benefits from this scheme and Te Rūnanga o Hokonui, so I do want to give a shout-out to my whanaungas down in Hokonui, who have been part and parcel, I guess, of this process and who are very supportive of it.

Ko Oparure te maunga

Ko Te Rakaitauneke te tupuna

Ko Mata-mata tana taniwha

Ko Hokonui te runanga

Ko Ngāi Tahu te iwi.

[Oparure is the mountain

Te Rakaitauneke is the ancestor

Mata-mata is his guardian

Hokonui is the tribal council

Ngāi Tahu is the tribe.]

I want to acknowledge them, because, if you ever get the chance, there on Charlton Road is a wonderful marae complex of the Hokonui Rūnanga. They are very much passionate about their ancestral landscape, which is demarcated by their ancestral tupuna and the mahinga kai, their traditional areas are very important to them, as are the rivers and, of course, as is the supply of fresh water. So with that I commend this bill at its first reading. Kia ora tātou.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m very pleased to make a contribution to this Gore [Pronounced with a Southland burr] District Council (Otama—

Hon Member: Oh, that was good.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: —you see, the South Island thing comes in here—Rural Water Supply) Bill. A rural water scheme is a very precious thing to the local community that are subscribers to it. I know the three southern MPs who have spoken already have acknowledged that fact, and I want to add my voice to that in recognition that for a small, rural community, having secure stock water and drinking-water is incredibly important, and you can only reflect back into the 1970s when the local farming community built the water scheme themselves, and we can only wonder at the processes that they went through. But, obviously, they needed to get permission to sink the bore and then lay the common pipes, and then the pipes going on to their properties, and allocate the water into points. I don’t know if it was points allocation. The member in charge of the bill might know that. Are they points of water subscribers, or do they—

Mark Patterson: Units—units of water.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Oh, units of water—same thing, I guess. So it is very much a community scheme.

I was just reflecting on the Cold Creek scheme, or the Cold Creek bill which is the precedent for this piece of legislation. I sat on the Environment Committee when that was going through the House, and the local farmers made trips to Wellington, from Taranaki, to plead their case, because they were so determined that they would take over ownership of their drinking-water scheme and stock-water scheme. They were very determined and very positive that they, as the owners of the scheme, were able then to truly regard it as their drinking-water scheme and stock-water scheme. So I’m very pleased to be one of those many voices that will be supporting this Otama rural water supply bill.

The process is interesting in how we have come to have a local bill. Of course, the Local Government Act prohibits the divesting of drinking-water schemes to bodies other than other Government bodies—unless, of course, it’s a small drinking-water scheme, which this is not, because the threshold for that is 200 subscribers, and this Ōtama rural water supply has 223 subscribers. So it doesn’t fit here nor there, hence the need for a local bill, which is why we’re standing here today. So I’m very pleased to be one of those voices to support the local community and to support their intention to take, finally and fully, ownership from the district council, understanding completely that they will continue to comply with drinking-water standards. They will continue to comply with water-quality standards and other legislation that comes upon them from time to time, and I can only wonder how they are contemplating the future when the Three Waters work of the current Government comes to being. I do hope that does not impose too much extra cost on this small drinking-water supply. In fact, I’d like to be reassured of that right now, as I’m sure the local ratepayers of that water supply would like to be reassured. They need certainty as they move in this journey towards owning their own drinking-water supply.

I was just talking to my excellent colleague Harete a moment ago, who was saying that the Cold Creek water supply has just had their official opening, and they’re very proud. One of the great benefits that has accrued to the community of Cold Creek is that they feel a huge sense of pride in themselves—and so they should—and a huge sense of community and a sense of ownership. That is very important with such an important resource economically, environmentally, to their homes, their farms, their businesses, as their very own water supply, which they put in the ground themselves, they laid the pipes, they planned it, they have the governance of it—working now on the passage of this bill, hand in hand with the Gore District Council. So I am very pleased to speak to this and very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. The Green Party is pleased to support the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill and, as the Hon Jacqui Dean noted, this is modelled on the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Bill, because a similar situation prevailed there where the community was seeking to have the management of the water supply transferred to them. This scheme, like that one, exceeds the number of households that will enable it to be classified as a small water supply scheme and then would enable the transfer to happen without breaching the requirements in the Local Government Act 2002, which, under the last Labour Government, imposed those quite explicit provisions which restricted councils from divesting themselves of water supply schemes because of the importance of maintaining those schemes in public ownership.

I acknowledge the comments made by other members, particularly Mark Patterson and those who know the area much better, about the strong community engagement in constructing the scheme with the assistance of a subsidy from the central government, and also, I understand, a loan from the district council. When you’ve got a community of less than 300 households being responsible for its scheme, I think it is of a scale where people are committed at that practical level to maintaining it, to going out in all weathers if there’s a blockage in the pipes, for example. But it also requires the Southland Regional Council, Environment Southland, to do its work on controlling land uses to protect water quality, because I understand that the bore for the scheme is close to the Mataura River, and we have seen—obviously, with the tragedy in Havelock North; with 5,000 people getting very severe gastroenteritis and health issues and three people dying because of sheep faeces contaminating the bore—the critical need to ensure that the bore and the catchment around it is protected so that the residents who are drawing from it can get a healthy supply.

I was pleased that the community has committed to developing a water safety plan for the scheme and has also committed to implementing chlorination to reduce those risks of any health effects. I think it’s probably quite impressive that the chlorination equipment can be installed, as I understand it, without requiring any additional funds from the users of the scheme. Obviously those involved in constructing, managing, and maintaining it, and the way in which costs have been assessed over recent years, ensured that they built up an adequate reserve that there is not now a need for additional expenditure despite the fact that there’s going to be new chlorination equipment installed.

With the Coldwater Creek scheme—that community wanted to take ownership because they were concerned that the council might divest itself and privatise the scheme. I don’t think from the information I’ve read that there’s anything similar proposed here. I will be interested in submissions that go to the select committee and that are then available in the select committee’s report on just whether there are any ways in which the bill can be improved—recognising that it is modelled on that earlier bill. But the Green Party supports the bill and encourages people to make submissions. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to support the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I’m a bit intrigued by this, because these water supplies have quite a history in rural New Zealand, and quite a contentious history in many parts of rural New Zealand, as well.

I thought it was just worth going back in history a little bit because many of them came into being in the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s—well, basically, by the 1980s they were all done. They were brought into being by a Government subsidy, interestingly, in a lot of cases, or a Government contribution, basically, to rural water schemes, which were then sponsored by the council, because the council was the community-based body that was most appropriate to do it. In those days, most of them were county councils, and most of them were pretty small, actually. So they were sponsored by them, but they then put together local community committees, which ran them. So they weren’t, effectively, council-owned entities or council-sponsored entities, and they were put together and they ran pretty well. Often, dare I say it, private entities like these little community committees are much better at maintaining assets then councils ever will be, and that’s what caused a lot of contention with them.

Along came the 1989 local government reforms, and council CEOs, with their newfound power, decided that these were community assets, and they took them all over, like they took over thousands of recreational areas, parks, reserves, and things that little communities felt belonged to them. These water supplies were among those, and in the Rangitīkei there are a large number of these water supplies, very similar to this one, with, I guess, somewhere between 50 and 300 or 400 connections—in fact, the biggest one, I think, in the Manawatū may have upwards of 1,000 connections now. Along came the local government reforms and they, effectively, took them off the communities, and they were run as council entities with some input from the users. That, of course, created quite a deal of controversy because farmers and rural people have a way of thinking that they’re much better at doing things then councils are—they still think that—and so there was a lot of contention around the maintenance of them, the cost of maintenance of them, and the way they were run. So that’s how we got to where we’ve got to now. As well as a ratepayer subsidy or a council loan, there was also quite a significant capital contribution by the people who connected up to it. Those who didn’t connect up to it, interestingly, were left out, and so you’ll see, in some rural communities, there are people who never hooked up; they wish they had now, of course. And that’s a critical factor, too. So that’s a bit of a history of these schemes.

I think it’s absolutely appropriate that this scheme—and many others would like to do the same thing, I’m sure, in the form of a local bill—comes back through Parliament and gets to maintain itself, and I don’t think that’s necessarily any criticism of councils or a criticism of the way they’re run. But, in fact, the only beneficiaries of these schemes are the people who extract the water from them. So it’s pretty good, I think, that they get to be run, maintained, and paid for by those people who benefit from them. They were, of course, started off, basically, as stock water schemes, and in those days stock water and drinking water were much the same. There will be many of us all—well, there might not be many of us in this House who’ve drunk out of a water trough, but I certainly have. There were other things kept in water troughs, too. So we don’t find anything wrong with drinking out of the water trough and sharing with the sheep, but nowadays things are a little different.

Of course, the other thing that’s changed the way our water supplies are is the fact that we have so many tourists in New Zealand and so many people move through our rural communities and are not used to the same things that we were used to as young people, and whatever, and so it’s much more important that we have security of water supply so that these schemes are going to have to pay a lot more attention to this type of thing and the renewal and maintenance of them, and to ensure that they’re safe.

I think one or two other interesting things—and I noticed that Mark Patterson mentioned an old bloke called Hughie Chadwick. Whilst I can’t claim to be in the same age group as him, because I did meet his older brother, interestingly, in Gore the other day, and he was quite significantly a bit older than me—like, another generation removed—that’s the generation of people who put these things in place, and they’re a great credit to them. So I think this is a really good bill. I’m sure it will get through the House with complete agreement because, at the end of the day, it benefits that small community of people who will use this facility. So I say, “All power to them.” and well done to those people who put the bill together, and I’m sure it will be successful. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s an absolute privilege as a Southlander to speak on this bill. I think, as others have alluded to, what we are looking at here is how the Gore District Council will be transferring the ownership of the Ōtama water scheme to its local users. For those who haven’t visited our part of the country, it’s a really beautiful place to drive through to visit, but it’s also heavily reliant on our primary industries, and so getting our water supply for stock and for those living in our rural communities is absolutely essential.

So I think on the one hand that what this story is about is a local community who’ve invested in this significant community resource over many, many years. But it’s also a local community that’s also thinking about the transfer of this water scheme in the context of the findings of the Havelock North drinking-water inquiry, and thinking about the impacts of that on public health.

So just going back to what Mark Patterson was talking about in terms of the origins of the scheme, it was developed in the 1970s as a result of the concerted efforts and input of the local farming community, who contributed in cash and in kind. And then also some extra funding support came from the central government and also alone raised by the former Southland County Council. But, since its beginning, the scheme has always been run and overseen by a committee that’s reflected the wills of the local users and also has had input by a local councillor.

What’s been happening, though, is more recently the Gore District Council has been responsible for maintaining and operating the scheme on a day-to-day basis, but those operations have always been funded by the committee as a result of funding coming through from local users. I think that’s a model that’s worked reasonably well, but the problem is when you then start thinking about how we can invest and take this scheme further, then the issue of ownership has come up. This is something that’s happened in the last couple of years, because if you think about significant investment it’s really important to actually understand who owns the scheme.

In this situation, both the local users, who’ve invested over many, many years, and the council had differing understandings of that, so what’s happened in the meantime is that the Gore council has assumed the legal responsibility for the scheme. But what it did was it then went to the users of the scheme and commissioned an interim referendum, and that referendum had a really high turnout. So about 75 percent of the scheme users participated in that referendum, and 76 percent of those users voted in favour of transferring the ownership to the committee and the local users. So as a result the Gore council has undertaken to support water users in transferring that ownership.

But the problem—and this is the reason why we’re here today—is that section 130 of the Local Government Act 2002 prevents a local council from transferring a water scheme to anybody apart from another local government organisation if there’s more than 200 users of that scheme. In this case, we’re looking at over 220 households, plus some schools and a marae, who are users of this system. So why we’ve got this bill here is to facilitate that transfer.

What the bill outlines is that process. There are three, kind of, broad categories of what has to happen. The first is that they have to consult the medical officer of health. They have to develop a transfer plan. And then here has to be another referendum based on all that information. I think the thing is that consulting the medical officer of health is really, really important, because, what we’ve had is a scheme that was predominantly servicing stock over many years. It has now come on board, and it’s actually servicing a large number of households as well as children and schools and a local marae. So getting that right in terms of the drinking-water quality is absolutely crucial.

As a result of the Havelock North inquiry, the council undertook a review of the adequacy of the water scheme last year and found there was significant risk for contamination. So, as of May, the water system and source has been chlorinated so that there’s that extra protection for users. There’s also a range of other requirements put in place to make sure that the committee has the capacity to be able to implement and deliver that scheme over a prolonged period time—over the next 30 years.

As a result of that referendum indicating support from users, we’re very happy to support this bill going through to select committee. We also understand that the local marae has supported this, and so we’re very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Again, it’s my pleasure too to stand in support of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. In contrast to what my colleague Ian McKelvie has said about this being contentious, I disagree with you, sir. I think this is a very non-contentious bill, and I think we’re seeing that in the tone of the speeches here today, where this is actually quite a common-sense way of finding a solution to a problem that has existed for a long time—that is, who actually does own the assets that serve the water supply users?

I guess when things happened back in the 1970s—we’re talking nearly 50 years ago that this particular scheme was set up—it was built, as Liz Craig has said, because of a combination of things. In very typical rural style, they lumped together some local labour, some cash, a Government subsidy, and a council loan, and, together, they pulled together the scheme. But back in those days, we weren’t probably as tight as we needed to be about who actually did own the assets, so here we are today.

I want to commend Mark Patterson as well for sponsoring the bill. I think local bills are a much-unused tool in the Parliament. For that reason, I am encouraging my local councils to pull together some local bills, and I certainly look forward to cross-party support when they come into the House.

The Gore District Council has maintained and taken care of the day-to-day operations of this particular scheme, but the governance of the scheme has actually been managed by the community group. So when the time came to sort this all out, my good friend Mayor Tracy Hicks and his councillors at the Gore District Council pulled together the process that was required to enable this local bill to be here today, and that did involve talking with the community and there was certainly the consultation that is required as a matter of compliance with the Local Government Act 2002. But the reason that this one has had to come through for special legislation is—as we’ve heard today—that under sections 131 and 135 of the Local Government Act, a council can divest its assets for a local water scheme provided there are less than 200 users, and, of course, this scheme, the Otama Rural Water Supply scheme, is bigger than that. So this has required special legislation. Under section 130 of the Act, the council cannot divest its assets, so it must have special legislation to support that transfer back to the community.

I know that there are other ways that councils can sort these things out. I was involved in a similar dilemma of having nine council water supplies in the Westland District, and they ranged from Haast up to Fox Glacier and Franz Josef. There was Harihari, Whataroa, Ross, Hokitika, Kūmara, Ōtira, and a couple of community schemes as well—Ōkārito. But the one that taxed us most was in Hannahs Clearing in South Westland, where the water was particularly bad, and to get to it a suitable drinking-water standard required a huge amount of treatment and chemicals. The community didn’t want that and, besides, it was extremely expensive, so the solution that we came up with for that particular community was to actually close down the water supply. It turned out to be cheaper for us to buy every one of the users a water tank and hook them up to a rainwater catchment system. The council funded that, and the users repaid the loan for the water tanks back to the council through their rates. So that was a very casual and localised solution to what could have been a very expensive problem.

I think one thing I would like to note about this particular local bill is that it’s not about the water; it’s actually about the assets. I just note that when I was reading through the bill, I saw that it talks in the provisions of the bill about the assets that will be divested back to the community. It may just be terminology, but it doesn’t actually include the word “pipes”, and I just wonder whether the phrase “gravity and pressure mains” is a substitute for those words. But I do look forward to the bill being discussed, and I have pleasure in commending it to the House.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It is an absolute delight to rise to speak in favour of the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill. I’ll tell you one thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, just to emphasize—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Don’t tell me. Tell the House.

KIERAN McANULTY: I’ll tell the House via you, Madam Deputy Speaker, how excited I am and how keen I am to come here. I have left a group of farmers from Makuri and Pongaroa—the wider Tararua district of Central Hawke’s Bay—in my office, who I was hosting for a drink, just to come down here and speak to this bill. A group of farmers in a Labour MP’s office, they could be up to anything—trashing the walls and pulling the pictures down—but this is how much I was keen to come and speak to this, because what this shows is that this is another example of the House getting together in support of something that’s important for rural communities.

This particular bill, as a local bill, is one, clearly, that that community wants, and how good is it to see the House getting behind it? I want to commend the member that is sponsoring this bill, Mark Patterson—New Zealand First’s Mark Patterson, the locally based MP down in Southland. The community came to him as a staunch advocate for their issues and the concerns that they have. I’ve witnessed his actions in that electorate first-hand. He is a tremendous MP, deeply committed to his local community. This, in fact, is a community that I know well. I’ve played cricket for Riversdale and rugby for Waikaia, just out around this area here. It is a community that wants to make sure that they are as self-sufficient as they could possibly be, and this bill is yet another example of that.

In ensuring a special process for the transfer of ownership from the Gore District Council to the users of this scheme, this House, in supporting this bill through the sponsor Mark Patterson, is showing that we are listening to their needs. Of course, as mentioned by previous speakers, because it services more than 200 users, it does require a particular piece of legislation in the House in order for it to happen. But, of course, in other areas, water storage and the provision of that in local government can be—as has been mentioned by previous speakers—a contentious issue. So how good is it to see that that is not the case in this one? This bill provides the best long-term solution for what this community needs and the users.

I want to acknowledge the district council for actually acknowledging how important this was to the area and putting forward a solution to the issue that was presenting itself. Good on them—not every council would do that. I’ve worked in local government. I know how frustrating and cumbersome the processes can be in local government, but not in this instance. I want to acknowledge their foresight in putting forward this option and putting forward a referendum where over three-quarters of the people that responded said that they supported this solution. The Gore District Council have demonstrated a core principle of the Labour Party, and that is belief in local democracy: belief in what people say, and doing what you can without undermining or jeopardising your values, and ensuring that it can happen.

Of course this scheme is typical of many of these types of schemes—rural agricultural water schemes—where they also supply a domestic source as well. I think it’s marvellous when you think that the way that this scheme started is farmers and users getting together and getting the scheme off the ground—it’s actually quite good to see it going back. That’s a personal opinion. I think the Labour Party would have got behind this bill because it is a clear message from this community that this is a solution they have come up with themselves, and if it didn’t require legislation through the House they would have just got on with it. That’s how people in Southland do it. But it did require legislation. They’ve brought it through Mark Patterson, he’s heard their concerns, he’s gone to the meetings, he’s put forward this as an option as a local bill and sponsored it, and brought it to the House, and everyone’s getting behind it. So good on him, and good on the people in and around Gore and the people of the Gore District Council.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Do you roll your R?

KIERAN McANULTY: I don’t roll my Rs, Ruth Dyson. I live in Wairarapa. We speak very plainly and clearly.

Labour believes in democratic outcomes; it is what the party’s founded on. So it is the absolute privilege for me, on behalf of this Government, along with my colleagues in this Government from the Greens and New Zealand First, Rino Tirikatene, and Liz Craig, the hard-working list MP based in Invercargill, to stand in support of this scheme. It’s what the locals want, and how good is it that this House can come together to deliver it?

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to rise in support of this, the Gore District Council (Otama Rural Water Supply) Bill, because it’s fundamental, at the heart of this bill, this bill is about personal responsibility. We see the beneficiaries of the Ōtama water supply choosing—choosing to take upon themselves not only the ownership of the assets but the responsibility for their maintenance, upkeep, and improvement. They are the beneficiaries of the water that supplies those farms and they have voted—overwhelmingly voted—to take upon themselves the responsibility for those assets. Well, that is a core National Party value and it was a delight to see Mr McAnulty stand up in this House and champion the National Party value of personal responsibility. There’s hope for the man yet.

Along the course of the debate on this first reading, we’ve had a masterclass from this side of the House from Jacqui Dean, with her local body experience, on why this legislation is necessary to allow these people to take responsibility upon themselves for their water assets, and also from Mr Ian McKelvie on these community water schemes—how they were developed and put in place by small communities around rural New Zealand, how they lost control of them to councils, particularly over the 1980s and beyond, and how this, in some way, empowers particularly this community group to take that back.

Now, as a list MP based in Ōhāriu, I like to tell my colleagues in particular that Ōhāriu is a mixed urban-rural environment and I would encourage members from across the House to drive through Ōhāriu Valley, Takapu Valley, and Horokiwi and see the farms for themselves—not as large, it is true, as the farms in many parts of the North and South Islands but still people making a living from the land in Ōhāriu. And not just the land, because at Mill Creek in Ōhāriu Valley we have the Mill Creek wind farm, and they make money in Ōhāriu Valley from wind as well, which just goes to show that, despite what the media sometimes report, in Wellington you can get productivity from hot air.

But what I would say, in conclusion, on this particular bill is to reinforce what it actually is and the choice that the good folk that benefit from the Ōtama rural water supply have made. The Gore District Council acknowledged that they believe that they had legal responsibility for those assets, so that while they had been, for some years, charging the users of those assets for the maintenance and upkeep of them, ultimately, because the legal responsibility is borne by the district council, if something had gone truly wrong or badly wrong, then the ultimate financial responsibility for that could have been borne by the general ratepayers of the district and not solely by those benefiting from that water supply.

So that makes it even more remarkable but not uncommon across rural folk of New Zealand—so many of them good, strong National Party sorts. It makes it—perhaps not surprising to us but to some that the group of people from those more than 200 farms and other community members have overwhelmingly voted to take upon themselves that ultimate responsibility. Along the way, of course, they gain control of those assets. They can make the choices of what to do with the funding to support them, on where to invest and when, but alongside the power they get to make those decisions rests now with them the ultimate responsibility for those assets, for their upkeep, and for their prolonged ability to deliver for those farms.

I think that speaks volumes to those people—not just in Ōtama, actually, but across rural New Zealand and New Zealand as a whole, we would argue. But it speaks volumes for their character that where they could have kept the status quo where the ultimate responsibility would have been spread—socialising the losses, I believe it’s sometimes referred to as—and they could have maintained an environment where they could potentially have spread losses across people who don’t benefit from that water supply, when, given the opportunity, they have raised their hands in very large numbers and overwhelmingly chosen that they want to bear the responsibility. They want to be empowered to make their decisions, and they are prepared to take the risks that come along with that, and I salute them.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you, and it is a pleasure to sum up this first reading. I would like to thank the House for their indication of support for this bill. I will seek to overlook the very poor attempts to roll the Rs, and I’m sure there’ll be some southern MPs, myself included, that will be needing to douse down some local offence as, of course, everyone is watching with bated breath down there—it is an important local issue.

I think actually Jacqui Dean referred to the Cold Creek farmers and their appearance before the select committee, and I can tell you know that the Ōtama water users—farmers—will be here as well, and in some numbers, because this matters to them. This absolutely means something to them. They put this scheme in themselves. They drove this scheme, they put it in—the 90 hours of labour that they required to put in to get this scheme up and running and in the ground. And isn’t that a bygone era? In some ways, I just reflect on that—that we’ve come, as a society, almost backwards in some point where we’ve had to wrap everything up in cotton wool, and today we wouldn’t be able to do what we did. There would be too many health and safety concerns.

So I commend the House for focusing on what is the core issue here. It is enabling local people to make local decisions based on local reasons—and demonstrably so, with that 76 percent decision in favour of progressing this bill from the local people. I’d also like to thank the House for well referencing—not seeking to broaden this debate out into the wider issue of water quality. We know we have this Havelock situation that was incredibly unfortunate. We know this is part of a wider debate. Public policy will have to be looked at in this sense, and it is being looked at, but the House as a whole has focused on the core issue here. And of course, as also referenced, we are sitting on rock-solid precedent with the South Taranaki District Council (Cold Creek Rural Water Supply) Act of 2013. The Otama Rural Water Supply Committee themselves have to be absolutely commended on the way they have researched and resourced bringing this bill forward. They have left absolutely no stone unturned. They’ve bought the best legal advice that money can buy, and they know they’re on rock-solid ground. That’s, ultimately, why this House is swinging in behind.

Of course, as Mr McKelvie and others mentioned, the delivery of water is an absolutely fundamental service—not only the potable water, the drinking water that’s obviously for households to be able to survive, but the stock water and what that does for productivity. These schemes coming in allowed subdivision—paddocks to be divided up—on appropriate areas as opposed to having make fence lines around the contour where they could capture some water. So this is a really important tenet of farming, to be able to subdivide those paddocks. The productivity gains that will have come from this scheme will have been enormous back in the time. I’m always really proud of this statistic, and I mention it often in the House and I know others do too from the South, but Southland produces 14 percent of this nation’s GDP, from 1.5 percent of the population. This is an incredibly, incredibly productive and contributing area to our country as a whole, and most of that, I might add, is through small rural areas just like Ōtama and the surrounds—the surrounds that are covered by the bill that we are debating here.

So on behalf of the good people of Ōtama, on behalf of the Gore District Council, I do thank the House for swinging in behind and supporting this bill in such an overwhelming and complimentary manner. It is with this that I take great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Governance and Administration Committee.

Bills

Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill

Third Reading

JO HAYES (National): I move, That the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

It is with much privilege and pride and humbleness that I stand here today to take the first call in the third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. It has been a long time coming, from its inception by Dr Jackie Blue, who is sitting up in the gallery today. It was her hard work that got the bill put into the biscuit tin. Over the years, since 2010 through to 2017, we waited for this bill to be drawn. It was drawn, and I was the most fortunate member of Parliament to have my name on this bill.

I want to thank Dr Jackie Blue for the work that she has done, and for her commitment to ensuring the safety of young girls and young boys that have come here to New Zealand to make New Zealand their home, and for women overall throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. I also want to acknowledge the Shakti women’s refuge in Auckland and their researcher back in 2010, Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who is now a member of Parliament for Labour. I want to thank them for bringing the young girls’ forced marriage issue to the table and to Dr Blue. I want to acknowledge the 30 submitters that came to the Justice Committee and put forward their submissions on this bill, and also the advisers, parliamentary counsel, and, most importantly, I want to thank the Justice Committee. For a bill that we thought would go through a fairly smooth process, we had our ups and downs, but together we got this bill through to today.

My biggest thanks go to the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians—

Hon Member: Woo hoo!

JO HAYES: —who have—yeah!—stood by this bill, with Dr Blue being one of the very first chairs of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. They have continued to stand by the passage of this bill through to tonight. And to all of the parties in the House: this is an amazing evening tonight as we bring through the House this piece of legislation.

So, as I said, we had some ups and downs and changes within the bill. Just a couple of the main provisions as to why the bill went from its former name of Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill—it was because we altered a couple of other Acts as well. So the main provisions of this bill replace sections 18 to 21 of the Marriage Act 1955 to require consent to the marriage from a Family Court judge. I am reading this, Mr Assistant Speaker, because it’s right that I should read this to get it correct. The application must be considered through a Family Court hearing and must hear from the applicant of the 16- or 17-year-old themselves and their parents, so far as is reasonably practicable. Applicants and witnesses may be represented by a lawyer. No members of the public or media may be present. The court can hear any evidence, even if it would otherwise be inadmissible in a court of law.

Secondly, the bill also amends section 46C(3) of the Care of Children Act 2004. The amendments ensure the right, in section 46C(3), for a child to seek review of their parent’s or guardian’s decision or refusal to give consent. It does not apply for consent to civil unions or entry into de facto relationships, and that’s why this bill’s name was changed to its current name.

My contribution will be brief because there are so many others that would like to also add their contributions to it. But, as I said, today is a celebration for all women, not just parliamentarians. It signals that once again women take back, through legislation, their right to choose whom they wish to love and spend the rest of their lives with, without force or pressure. It provides a legal mechanism whereby a Family Court judge makes the final decision on whether the marriage can go ahead. It falls in a most poignant year, really, where we in Aotearoa New Zealand celebrate 125 years of women’s suffrage. That is really important, especially for this bill that’s coming through, where women gained the right to vote.

I came to Parliament so I could make a difference for the constituency of New Zealand, to help shape legislation for this country, and today I am privileged to stand in the House and say that through this, my very first member’s bill, this process for me has begun.

I close my speech—as I said, it was going to be short, sharp, sweet, and to the point—with this somewhat altered whakataukī. I just want to acknowledge my parliamentary colleagues and their support, and I mean all of our parliamentary colleagues. So what I have done with the whakataukī is I have added some threads to this whakataukī so it incorporates all of us. The threads include all the colours of the political parties of this House. So with the forbearance of this House and with iwi Māori who wrote this whakataukī, I just want to go through it: mā kahurangi, mā whero, mā pango, mā kākāriki, mā kōwhai, ka oti ai te mahi—with blue, red, black, green, and yellow threads, our work has been done. I commend this bill to the House. Tēnā koutou katoa.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. It is my absolute pleasure to speak to this third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill, which seeks to ensure that in Aotearoa New Zealand those who are 16 and 17 years of age who want to marry or who want to be engaged in a civil union or, in fact, a formalised de facto relationship do so not through the consent of their parents but through the consent of the court. In doing this, I’d like to acknowledge my colleague Jo Hayes, with whom I also co-chair the cross-party Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, and say I’m incredibly proud of you, Jo, for your advocacy and your being a champion for ending forced marriages in New Zealand.

I want to reiterate that this is a “give Kate a voice” moment. This is the 125th anniversary of women’s suffrage in New Zealand, and, actually, we’ve finally realised the power that women have across this House if we work together. I also must acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue, who actually started this process through her advocacy and work with organisations such as Shakti when she was the National Party list MP based in Mt Roskill. It does really speak to the, I guess, relationships that we develop with our communities, understanding some of our community needs and aspirations and then working with them constructively and pulling in partners to make sure that we find solutions to real problems. I’d also like to congratulate the New Zealand National Party for allowing one of your colleagues to put a bill into the ballot that, actually, has had a few members’ names to it, starting with Dr Jackie Blue and ending with Jo Hayes, and that means we’ll have a piece of legislation that’s fit for our purpose and is going to ensure that forced marriages do not happen in New Zealand.

I’m going to take us through a bit of a history lesson, because I think it’s really important. So where did this whole 16- and 17-year-olds being allowed to marry with the consent of their parents actually come from? It actually came from the Marriage Act of 1955. But, actually, if we go back even further, it has been since 1933 that if you are aged 16 and 17—actually, under 21—you can get married with the consent of your parents. So we’d said the minimum age was 16. What was it before that? It was actually 12. In New Zealand, you could get married if you were 12, if you were a girl, and 14 if you were a boy, and that was based on the English marriage Acts that we inherited when we were colonised. The first Marriage Validation Act was in 1842. So this whole issue about being able to marry from the age of 16 came from a 1933 piece of legislation.

So, forced marriages in New Zealand—what is the context? What was the evidence? Between 2000 and 2006, Shakti actually started reporting issues of forced marriage in Aotearoa New Zealand. Now, I’ve been able to find some data: between 2011 and 2016, Shakti worked with over 300 young people suspected of forced marriage. These were victims: girls aged between 14 and 16 who became engaged. The shocking part of this is that, actually, there were girls as young as 10 in New Zealand who’d been engaged to an older male.

In 2007, Shakti and New Zealand NGOs presented their concerns to the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) regarding forced marriage and the specific impact on migrant and refugee communities. CEDAW made a recommendation that New Zealand should actually address this issue. In 2009, a petition was led by Jane Prichard from Pacific Women’s Watch (New Zealand) regarding forced marriage and was presented to the House of Parliament. In 2010, the select committee outcome report to Parliament acknowledged that forced and underage marriage was an issue in Aotearoa New Zealand and urged the Government to address this issue. Unfortunately, the Government failed to address that issue in 2010.

So what happened? Well, what happened was that the concluding observations from CEDAW, in June 2012, provided strong recommendations to the New Zealand Government to do something about forced marriage. That inspired Dr Jackie Blue to write a bill, and she wrote that bill as the inaugural co-chair of the cross-party women’s group Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. I also want to acknowledge our colleague the Hon Carmel Sepuloni, who was also the first inaugural co-chair. They wrote this bill—Jackie did—got it through the caucus, and got it into the ballot.

In February 2015, our Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians became a champion of this kaupapa. How did we do that? We actually became the first purple country in the world to end forced marriage. It’s part of the “end child brides” kaupapa, and how did we achieve that? Because over 80 percent of this Parliament voted to end forced marriage and to end child brides. I do have to acknowledge that, at that time, I believe we could have gotten 100 percent, but some of the Ministers were unable to sign the petition. I am incredibly proud that we were able, as women, in all of our political parties, to talk to our men in our parties to support this kaupapa, and, overwhelmingly, they did. So I thank our male colleagues for actually understanding how important this issue was and standing with us, given we were collectively saying, “We need your help to address this particular issue.”

Now, this whole issue, in terms of an international context, was elucidated on 11 October 2012, which was the first International Day of the Girl Child. That first International Day of the Girl Child highlighted this issue of forced marriage and child brides. There are 1.1 billion girls worldwide who are married—some of them, a third of them, before the age of 15. You know, this is a big issue. Girls as young as five years of age are given away to men. They lose their childhoods, they have unwanted and life-threatening pregnancies, they lose the opportunity of an education, they lose life opportunities, they suffer psychological abuse, they suffer physical abuse, and they’re expected to provide sex to their husbands from that young age.

So what happens? They have ripped vaginal walls, there are internal ruptures which result in permanent incontinence, and, actually, for some of those girls, they die on the night they consummate their marriage. This is how strikingly repugnant this practice is globally, and for us as a Parliament to prioritise this issue and to actually work together as women and men—as colleagues—is something that we should be incredibly proud of.

I think the whakataukī that Jo Hayes created at the end of her kōrero is incredibly poignant, because what it speaks to is the power of us to work together. This place is incredibly adversarial; there’s a lot of conflict, but there are actually some issues where we can put politics aside and actually work as a Parliament for the betterment of specific groups in our society who are facing terrible, horrible circumstances. So I just want to say that, as a member of our Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, it’s one of the most satisfying roles, co-chairing that group, that I could ever imagine, because we’re changing the world. We’re helping to protect a vulnerable group of people, and we’re also making a statement as a country that we will do everything we can to contribute to the global eradication of ending child brides and actually fulfilling the potential of the sustainable development goals. For people who don’t think it’s that relevant in Aotearoa New Zealand, it is, and what we’re trying to do is create a global consciousness around these types of issues.

So, again, can I just finally say ka pai, Jo Hayes. You will go down in history. And it’s particularly poignant with our colleague Jan Logie in the House at the moment, because some of the bills that have been passed this year—call it serendipity or whatever, but the spirit of Kate Sheppard is with all of us. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

Debate interrupted.

Amended Answers to Oral Questions

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave during question time today.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora, thank you. During question No. 10 of question time today, Chris Bishop asked a question with multiple parts: “Can she confirm the following: Cabinet appointed her as the sole appointing Minister for the Government inquiry into the appointment of a Deputy Commissioner of Police; she appointed the inquiry member from a shortlist of at least five names; the Gazette notice appointing the member is in her name and her name only; and the Minister of Internal Affairs has never been an appointing Minister for [an] inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2013?” After checking the Hansard, I can see that I incorrectly answered the first part of the question no. This should have been answered yes, as Cabinet did appoint me as the sole appointing Minister for this inquiry, though, as I said earlier during this question, the appointing Minister is a technical term that describes the Minister charged with confirming and carrying out the will of Cabinet, such as publishing the Gazette notice and sending out the appointment letter. Kia ora.

Bills

Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill

Third Reading

Debate resumed.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise with enormous pleasure to speak to my friend and colleague Jo Hayes’ bill, the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill, at its third reading. I will echo many of the sentiments already expressed and no doubt still to be expressed.

This is a bill—I think I said it in the second reading—that has been a long time coming. I acknowledge our friend and former colleague who is in the House today Jackie Blue, somebody who has, as we’ve heard—I suppose the gestation of this bill began with and its conception was with Jackie. I won’t carry on those gynaecological references too far, but I do think that without your willingness, Jackie, to embrace something that was, at the time, considered pretty unnecessary in New Zealand—it wasn’t something that we felt in this country, apparently, was really much of a concern here, but it was.

I also commend Shakti’s Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who was working there at the time and has done a lot of work, I think, behind the scenes as well since she became a member of Parliament to really highlight the necessity for this bill. And to Jo Hayes: tenacity and determination are two of the qualities that I think spring to mind around this piece of legislation. When Jackie left Parliament, she passed the bill to me. It remained in the ballot and then it was drawn. Then I moved on to be a Minister and handed it through, and Jo has shepherded it through in a very skilful and collaborative way, and, as with the former speaker, Louisa Wall, I would like to commend her on her whakataukī and the multicoloured approach that you allude to, because this is a bill that could not have passed without the support of many in the House and the understanding as to why it is necessary.

Louisa Wall detailed some pretty brutal practices internationally, which I think are harrowing to listen to and horrifying, obviously, to happen to a young person. It’s extraordinary to us in New Zealand to think that child brides should be something that is a day-to-day reality for some people, in our ethnic communities in particular. When we come to the numbers as to how many might be affected, it’s hard to say. I mean, it could be up to 30 young people a year. Any one is bad, so it is important though to understand that this is a very focused and specific bill that relates to really difficult cases.

It is also important to know that it has been through many incarnations or iterations—I’m not sure what word would best describe it—but I think that once we got the bill to a stage where it was drafted, there had been other law changes that needed and necessitated us to change other aspects of other Acts. That is why this bill proposes changes to the Marriages Act 1955 and the Care of Children Act 2004, because it needs to ensure that all minors wishing to marry are doing so with the acceptance of the court and with equal consent from both parties.

So it’s been a multilayered legal approach, and that is why it needed to become an omnibus bill. Jo has talked to us many times and on many occasions about, perhaps, the frustrations of needing to guide this bill through some choppy waters because of some unexpected obstacles—not of a lasting variety, but just of the kind to prove a hiccup and to delay it. So when I said at the start that this bill has been a long time in coming, I really meant it in a heartfelt way, because it has gone through a lot of hands and a lot of considerations and a lot of legal refinements to get it to the state that it is in today.

I think it is in a very good state. I think the idea that to coerce a young person to marry now has to come with a penalty—recognition and a penalty: a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. This bill will close that potential gap in the laws against forced marriages by stopping someone being threatened or intimidated into marrying, and there are a lot of examples of this occurring.

I think the civil union factor, as well, was something that we needed to come to terms with, because since the bill was first conceived and written up, that was a piece of legislation that warranted an alteration, and it was robustly discussed at the Justice Committee, and I commend all the people that have been part of that wider discussion to get it into a state that is really fit for purpose.

Involving the Family Court, and an application being considered through that process, is a very important thing. Hearing from the applicant—either the 16- or the 17-year-old themselves, and their parents—as far as is practicable. There are obviously occasions where coercion and tensions between family members could result, actually, in that not being the ideal environment for all cases, but it is, ultimately, a place where decisions are made, and I think there’s a level of protection, and that is very desirable with these already vulnerable and at risk people.

The bill also amends section 46C of the Care of Children Act, which is, again, where a child has to seek the review of their parent’s or guardian’s decision or their refusal to give consent, because it does not apply for consent to a civil union or entry into de facto relationships. I don’t want to get too bogged down in the technicalities, because they are a kind of necessary evil—not exactly evil, but they needed to be very carefully thought through in order for this bill to reach the people who it needs to reach.

I think having a judge involved is a very important thing. The amendments include what matters in a Family Court judge’s perspective—so what that judge, who is not unaccustomed to a variety of difficult and complex cases, needs to be satisfied about when considering an application—including being free from undue influence or coercion. These are sometimes quite subtle, difficult things to understand and to appreciate. So I’m very glad that people of a high level of expertise and intellectual rigour will also be involved in this. The judge has to consider many things: the age, the maturity, and the views of the individual; the views of the parents as well; and I would imagine there would be quite a lot of other information that sometimes might be brought to bear. A judge is, I think, the appropriate person so that some circumstances are not given undue weight—that it is very carefully calibrated and considered on balance.

I think the cultural report is another very important part of this. There are very many ethnic groups that are in New Zealand and communities that adhere—and rightly so—to the traditions from their countries of origin. So it is important that in the context of their culturally acceptable patterns and behaviours, as well as within the law, these balances are understood. A cultural report, which would cover aspects of the applicant’s cultural background, including religious practices, would be taken into account.

I think legal representation is another tricky area. The court will have the ability to appoint legal representation to assist the application. Again, if a lonely, isolated young person has no clear direction or, in fact, a coercion effect from their parents, who do they listen to? Who are the wise guides who will give them proper advice? I think legal representation and payment for it would be, of course, out of the reach of a young person who feels in a dangerous situation. I think that is another layer which enables this to occur in a way that is meaningful and timely for the young person. Obviously, the age is an important element of this, and once a young person reaches that age of 18, then there are different decisions and choices that can be made. But in so far as they are young and they are being coerced, there is a need to move quickly, and I think that that has also been part of our considerations in putting together a view. I think that when it comes to a civil union, this was not something that we thought would impact enormously, given the cultural background of many of these forced marriages and child brides in the past, but it is an important consideration given the changes in our laws.

This is a piece of legislation that needs to be fit for future purpose. We do not want to have to bring this back to the House in a year or two or three and tinker with a clause or two. This needs to be, and I believe is, in a state of readiness to be of great use to young people who are undergoing, potentially, a forced marriage or coercion.

As a country, New Zealand wants to be part of a world that eliminates this sort of practice. It should not be happening anywhere in the world, and, in a year where we are celebrating 125 years of women’s suffrage in a country that—I won’t say gave women the vote, because it was too hard fought for to be given or gifted, but this was a country that allowed it. And in our 125th year of commemorating that major achievement on the international stage, if you like, this is a time that this bill is appropriate to pass and so I feel that it’s time has come. I commend Jo Hayes. I commend Jackie Blue and others who have helped to nurture this bill through about a 10-year period now, or more. Therefore, I commend this bill, without hesitation, to the House. Thank you.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I’m absolutely delighted to take a call tonight and talk on this bill. I haven’t been on the Justice Committee, so I feel really privileged to have the opportunity to talk tonight on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill.

I too add my congratulations to the member Jo Hayes for shepherding this bill through the House, and I’m actually really delighted to speak on a bill that has cross-benches support. It is a different feeling in the House, absolutely, when we get to talk on bills where we all actually agree that this is an important matter. I think we all do agree absolutely that the forced marriage of young people is wrong—absolutely, we do—so it is with great pleasure that I take a stand tonight.

I would also like to acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue in the gallery tonight. Boy, you’ve had a great few weeks, haven’t you, ma’am, with some wonderful legislation working through the House. It’s an interesting time to be in Parliament—125 years we’ve had the vote, and we get to talk on these matters.

I’d also like to acknowledge the member Louisa Wall. It was a bit of a harrowing speech, absolutely, but it’s the things that we have to talk about in this House, because these are the things that happen across our nation and in our world. It’s important that we speak the hard speak, we talk the hard talk, and we raise these issues.

So I turn now to the bill. This bill amends three Acts: the Civil Union Act 2004, the Care of Children Act 2004, and the Marriage Act 1955. I was greatly appreciative of the member Louisa Wall for telling us about the Marriage Act and its long history—quite harrowing history, too. I can’t imagine being married at 12.

This bill, as we’ve heard, provides that a Family Court judge, essentially, has to consent to the marriage of young people, minors—people of the age of 16 and 17. It’s really important that if we all think about ourselves at the age of 16 or 17—certainly, I was having way too much fun to actually think about marriage as a teenager. But, essentially, what would have needed to happen if I’d wanted to get married when I was that age was that my parents would need to consent.

There’s about 30 marriages a year that we believe—these are the stats that we can pull. So it’s not a lot of people in that age group, and, predominantly, those people who are seeking the consent are young women. So they’re young women of the age of 16 and 17 who are seeking consent, in a perfect world, of their parents to marry, but what we know is that this isn’t a perfect world. What we know is that, in fact, some families are coercing their daughters into marriage, and this bill absolutely addresses that matter.

Where the parental balance has gone, or there is a reason that perhaps isn’t in the young person’s best interests, the Family Court judge gets to make a decision, and it’s really important that this happens. It’s the objectivity of the courts—a judicial protection for our young people—which enables them perhaps to have a voice when they are often quite voiceless and, often, isolated young people who may not feel, within the confines of their family, that they can voice dissent to getting married.

So I will, with your indulgence, Mr Assistant Speaker, just look at new section 18 of the Marriage Act, “Marriage of persons 16 and 17 years of age”. What does the judge need to pay attention to when looking at the consent of the young person, or looking to see whether they genuinely consent to this marriage? I will read this because it’s a little section: “(4) A Family Court Judge may, on receipt of an application” by the applicant—the person who is 16 or 17 years of age—take into account that “(a) the party has made the application voluntarily, free of undue influence or coercion; and (b) the party understands the consequences of the application and wants the Judge to consent to the intended marriage; and (c) the intended marriage is in the party’s interests.” Now, that’s pretty wonderful, really. That takes into account the views and values of that young person. It gives them a voice, absolutely.

“(5) In determining whether the intended marriage is in a party’s interests, … the Judge must take into account …, [but] without limitation,”—so they can take into account lots of other things as well—“(a) the age and maturity of the party; and (b) [their] views; and (c) any views of the party’s parents [or] guardians that can reasonably be ascertained; and (d) any other information available to the court relevant to the party’s application.” So, very clearly, how does it work? The child, the young person, gets asked. The judge makes an objective and independent decision, and whether the marriage can be agreed to or not becomes a decision that is taken from the parent. So where the parents aren’t acting in the best interests of the young people, this takes care of it.

Of course, through the rest of the changes in the legislation, we have this theme revolving throughout the legislation. I think, certainly for me, having worked in the area of domestic violence and having worked very closely with Shakti Ethnic Women’s Refuge over many years, what I have come to learn and what I have come to know is that this is a highly specialised area of work, and I want to also acknowledge and thank the women at Shakti for their ongoing work. Culture and the context of working with families within the context of ethnicity is different work. It’s expert work, and it is absolutely important that we must acknowledge that at Shakti Ethnic Women’s Refuge, the workers there go beyond and above in order to support our families.

I’d also like to acknowledge my friend and colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her work. She has, in her own thesis, addressed this matter, and I’m just trying to think—Unholy Matrimony is the name of her Master’s thesis. The work that she did while working at Shakti and alongside her community is absolutely to be commended. It is the stories of our families—particularly for those of us who are not within those cultural contexts—that are being told. It is important that we tell these stories. It is important that we understand that in this country, these things happen, and we need to prevent them.

So I’m absolutely delighted to acknowledge my colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan and to thank her for her work, which she continues to do, and she was a member of the Justice Committee. With that, it is my great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to acknowledge the member in charge of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill and to join with the voices acknowledging Jo Hayes and the bringing forth of this piece of legislation. I also wish to join with the other voices and acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue and the work that has gone on before.

I want to acknowledge the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians association, which attempted to have a name from every woman from every party in this House placed on this bill and then bring it to the House. Not only would this bill have made history but that would have made history, and I just say that I think we need to continue to find that piece of legislation, and we need to make that happen. My understanding is that there is no barrier to that. Therefore, let’s go at it, ladies.

I do want to say, however—and it has been articulated by other speakers—that it’s calculated that this bill might affect 30 young people here in New Zealand. There’s two things I want to pick up on. First of all, 30 doesn’t sound like much, but in my family, we have one of them. So when it is somebody very close to you who, with their sister, has had to go through and actually reach out to Shakti and have Women’s Refuge lift them up, with the police, and then bring them down here, where Shakti Wellington—and we have not solved the issue of funding to Shakti Wellington yet. It is something we must solve, and we must solve it soon. But when it strikes your own family in this way, then you realise that it might be only 30, but it’s 30 too many.

The second thing I would want to just pick up on is that one of the previous speakers corrected herself when she started to use the word “child” but changed that statement to “young person”. In many other pieces of legislation that have passed through this House in the not too distant past, a “child” is defined as anybody under the age of 18—in our court system now; in our youth justice system—so I absolutely don’t want to take away from this piece of legislation and the fact that this is a step forward, but it’s merely a step forward. This is a step that we need to take.

The next part of the conversation is that when these young people show up at the Family Court, they go in with the judge, and they come out and the judge has said “No, we’re not going to allow them to marry.”, who’s going to be there to protect them from their family? Who’s going to be there to actually stand up for them in front of their father and their mother against what is—and let’s not put judgment on it, but it is a cultural norm from somewhere else, and we are trying to say, “This is the line here.” Who’s going to be doing that? Is that going to be Shakti Wellington? Is that going to be Shakti? Is that going to be Women’s Refuge? Who is that going to be, because that’s the next question here.

The other part of the question is that there were at least three submissions that were made that never got mentioned in the select committee report. One of them was Shakti Community Council’s position, which was to “Raise the minimum legal age for marriage from 16 years … to 18 years (with or without parent consent) in line with the worldwide trends in Western countries.” The Human Rights Commission: “The Bill aims to ensure that 16 and 17-year olds who wish to marry, are not being coerced to do so. The Bill removes the ability of parents to consent to the marriage of children under 18 and replaces it with an application to Court and a decision of a Family Court Judge. The Commission believes that the Bill should go further than this in protecting the minors from coercion to marry by removing the ability for those under 18 years to get married at all.” Family Planning New Zealand: “We raise questions about whether the law should include any provision [at all] for 16 and 17 year olds to marry. In its most recent evaluation of New Zealand, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women … recommended that New Zealand ‘Revise the legal minimum age of marriage to 18 years without any exceptions for parental consent’.”

This is the next conversation we need to have. If, under so many other pieces of legislation, these are children, why in this nation are children allowed to marry? Now that’s not a conversation for today, but it’s the next one that perhaps, ladies, we might be able to put our signatures to.

The only other thing I’d like to do—because I’m not going to hold this bill up any more—is I want to acknowledge Dr Parmjeet Parmar. She hasn’t been acknowledged to date, but she was in the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians association when I was part of it in the last term—I have been unable to go to the meetings since I’ve become a Minister—and she made very clear the difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages. I want to place that on the record because this is not about making a judgment on other people’s culture, across the board. This is about a statement inside New Zealand about where we believe the line needs to be drawn for our children and our young people.

So I want to acknowledge Dr Parmjeet Parmar, who made it very, very clear that there is a difference between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage. But even an arranged marriage can wait until people are 18. Kia ora, thank you.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): It’s my great privilege to rise and give a speech on this, the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill, and we look forward to it becoming an Act this evening.

I want to begin, as others have, by congratulating Jo Hayes. It is a great achievement to steer a bill through its passage in this Parliament, and to do so as a member’s bill is a particular achievement. It’s one, certainly, that I haven’t achieved yet and that I hope to achieve in my time in Parliament. Congratulations, Jo. In congratulating Jo, of course, I have to congratulate Jackie Blue, and it is wonderful to see Jackie Blue here this evening. I think what the passage of this bill from Jackie to Jo shows is that there is great friendship between parliamentarians, particularly when it can be in pursuit of common causes and objectives.

In that sense, I do want to dwell on the cross-party work that has allowed this bill to get to this point. It is a very positive sign of what is possible in this House that this is a bill that today, we hope, will receive a unanimous vote of support in this Parliament. I want to thank, in particular, the Justice Committee, who, I understand, worked productively and constructively to ensure that this bill did what it set out to do without having adverse implications for others, and who worked constructively to ensure that this could pass into law.

As is so often the case with pieces of legislation like this, I want to acknowledge all those men and women behind the scenes who advocated for its existence, whose advocacy and tireless speaking for those who may not have otherwise had a voice ensured that the likes of Jackie and Jo knew that this was a cause that should be furthered. Of course, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians, but other organisations like Shakti, the National Council of Women of New Zealand, Women’s Refuge, New Zealand Family Planning, and those who have argued for the human rights progress that this bill represents—thank you to all of them.

Of course, while this bill, rightly, applies to both men and women, pragmatically, we can see that this is a bill whose application largely applies to women, and, in that sense, we tonight take another step forward in women’s continued progress, of not only equal rights but equal opportunities in New Zealand. We reflect that, 125 years ago, women fought for the right to vote for the people of this Parliament, and gained that right. I want to take a small moment of personal reflection to note that 125 years ago my great-great-grandfather, in this New Zealand Parliament, voted to support women’s right to vote. I think he would be proud of us today to see women continuing to work together to ensure that our rights and opportunities are furthered.

In this case, of course, what we are protecting is, potentially, as the previous speaker, Tracey Martin, said, a very small group of people. In the previous year, only 30 times did a 16- or 17-year-old marry, and in 80 percent of those cases they were women. But this is an issue of the sort that Parliament should and must deal with from time to time, whose impact may not be widespread in terms of numbers of people impacted but whose impact on those individuals is so profound that it behoves us to take action, because the impact on those individual women, if even one of those 30 were forced into a marriage or civil union or de facto relationship against their will, with the threat of physical or emotional abuse, with the threat of rape—if those things are the case, then it is so abhorrent to this House that we are prepared to put in place legislation of this sort to prevent it. It speaks to the integrity of this Parliament that we will take measures like this even where the application may be so narrow, because we realise the depth of the injustice at stake.

What this bill protects against is, of course, young women who are vulnerable because of their age, because they are only 16 or 17, and because they are still subject, in many ways, to the control of their family. It protects those women from threats that could be emotional, psychological, physical, or financial by handing to the Family Court the discretion to apply judgment about whether or not that young woman needs to be protected from a marriage that may in fact be unjust. I think it’s important that we acknowledge that this aligns with article 16 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

I would note also that in passing this law, Parliament again acknowledges the role of judges in making sound judgments about what is right and what is proper, because, in this case, judges must be satisfied that a marriage is voluntary, that it is free from undue coercion, that the applicant understands the consequences, and that the applicant actually wants the judge to consent to it. It also allows for an objective assessment of the applicant’s interests. It allows the judge to consider whether the person has the age and maturity, whether the views of their parents are having an undue influence on them, and whether there is any other information that may be considered. In this sense, I want to congratulate the drafters of this bill and those who have worked on it, because I think it gives broad discretion to judges that will ensure good decisions can be made and that people at risk can be protected.

I want to take a moment, because we are discussing a subject that is a little bit dark, to reflect, actually, on the positivity of marriage and relationships and civil unions and de facto relationships, because that is actually the institution that is at stake here. That is the institution, in a sense, that we are seeking to protect, as well as the individual women. This bill encourages us to reflect on what the nature of a marriage should be, what the nature of a committed, long-term relationship should be, and I would hope it would be to the agreement of all members in this House that what we expect from those relationships is love, commitment, forgiveness, and kindness. For each of us in this House who have had relationships of a long-term nature with those elements in them, we know how sacred those things are, and we know that it is one of the ultimate expressions of human optimism for two individuals to enter into a relationship together, seeking that those values be continued into the future. It is an institution that we should seek to protect from the kind of corruption that a coerced marriage represents, because that is absolutely antithetical to what marriage is actually about. So I think that in furthering this legislation tonight, we are not only protecting individual women but honouring what it is that we expect long-term relationships to be about.

At this point, in what could be seen as a slightly sentimental move, I want to quote from a New Zealand poet—Jenny Bornholdt, one of my favourites. Forgive me; I’m an English literature student. She wrote a poem called “Wedding Song”, in which she said, “Now you are married try to love the world as much as you love each other. Greet it as your husband, wife. Love it with all your might as you sleep breathing against its back.” When we consider that sublime idea of what marriage is, we then contrast it with the low of what marriage could be if we did not protect women and men as we are with this legislation tonight.

If we want to reflect on that low, I want to use the voice of a young woman who, in June this year, marched in Auckland in a march about a future without violence. She chose to stay anonymous, but her voice should be heard in this House tonight, because she spoke of being forced into marriage—an eventuality she avoided. She spoke of the devotion she had to her parents but also the psychological abuse she had been subject to as a member of that family. She spoke of being forced into a marriage in which she remembered feeling like she would never be happy again, and she spoke of moving from a psychologically abusive life with one family to a psychologically abusive life with an abusive husband.

That reality, that story, is what we here tonight stand up against. We say no one should be in that situation, and we will use the powers of this Parliament, we will give powers to our courts, to prevent that situation. Just because we don’t typically see situations like this occurring does not mean that we should not take great steps to prevent them from happening, because the injustice of those things is so great, and the corruption they do to practices we hold so dear is so great, that we as a House will act to remove them.

So I end by mirroring the whakataukī from Jo and saying that tonight, with all of us present, we weave together to make a great step forward. Congratulations to all of those who made it happen. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Senior Whip—Labour): I regret I haven’t consulted with the other parties in relation to the point of order I’m just going to make—I was engrossed in the speeches, actually. This has been a very powerful contribution, from all the speakers tonight, and I am seeking leave for the House to rise early in order for the next speaker not to have a broken speech—so just for the dinner adjournment, a couple of minutes early. I so seek leave.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

Sitting suspended from 5:55 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

JAN LOGIE (Green): It’s a huge honour to get to stand and mark this occasion, which is a really significant moment in New Zealand’s history. I would like to acknowledge—add my voice of acknowledgment to Jo Hayes for bringing the bill to this point. I think I said in my second reading speech, and I’ll say it again, you’ve brought us all to this point, and that is no small achievement. To get a bill passed is one thing, but to bring the House together in support of a piece of legislation is very significant. I want to acknowledge you and the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians and, of course, the wonderful Dr Jackie Blue for all of your work to bring us this piece of legislation and to the point of passing it in a united way this evening.

Of course, it’s important too to acknowledge Shakti, who have been acknowledged by many speakers this evening. They brought this issue to public attention, and it is where they’ve been telling us for many years that our response to family violence wasn’t meeting the particular dynamics that many of the women that they were supporting were experiencing and that they identified significant gaps in our legislation. Forced marriage, and particularly forced marriage of girls, were particular holes. They’ve also brought to our attention dowry abuse as well as female genital mutilation. So I want to really acknowledge their work and note that this piece of legislation is significant in improving our collective response to domestic violence.

I too, again, will acknowledge the member Priyanca Radhakrishnan for her important academic work in this space, from when she was working at Shakti, that clearly defined this issue as an issue of domestic violence and that it is not an issue of religion, because there is no major religion in the world that supports this practice, and it is not a matter of culture, because there is significant variation in the dynamics of domestic violence across socio-economic groups. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be a culturally bound issue. However, we do know that certain populations and groups of young women are more likely to experience these dynamics around family violence. It is really important that we listen to their experiences and respond appropriately as legislators and as parliamentarians. So it’s fantastic to see that happening tonight.

As has been mentioned by others, this is not a huge issue. There are not thousands of young women being affected by this. But the truth is we don’t exactly know the scale of the problem. Shakti, over, I think, a five-year period, have talked about working with about 300 cases of forced marriage. So that’s not necessarily exclusively young women but does give us a sense because, of course, that’s not going to be all of the cases. We know that in terms of refuge they will only see, I think, about 10 percent of the cases of family violence across the country. We know that this is likely to be more significant than what the numbers tell us, particularly in relation to forced marriage. Statistics New Zealand identified 282 sixteen-year-olds and 17-year-olds who were recorded as married in the 2016 data. So there is a specific population that we need to make sure that we are meeting their needs and protecting, in fact.

I do want to acknowledge the work of the Justice Committee, as well, in really grappling with some quite gnarly issues, I think, in relation to the bill. I personally felt that it was significantly strengthened. As a personal opinion, I would’ve loved to have seen—and maybe that’s the next step—that we said “No.” to marriages of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds full stop. But the bill certainly went beyond marriage and included de facto and civil union relationships. I think, of course, when we think about the fact that our human rights legislation says that there shouldn’t be discrimination on the basis of marital status, it makes sense that we should broaden this legislation and ensure that protection for our girls in de facto and civil union relationships. I also understand that, you know, there is a particular type where marriages may not be formalised within our legal system but are culturally sanctioned. That would not necessarily have been covered by the bill in its first form. So I think that is particularly important.

What it will mean is that their judge will need to consider whether the girls want the marriage and that they fully understand the implications for their life of getting married at that time. I think they are very important considerations. But even more than that, the judge will also be required to be assured of the free will and to assess whether the marriage is in the best interests of that girl, taking into account her age and maturity, taking in the views of parents and guardians and wider information, including cultural reports, which is part of this, and that there will be legal advice and representation available for these young women.

I do think that while taking in the advice from parents and their viewpoints is important, it is the major shift that as our law at the moment allows marriage for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds with parental consent, it is really important that we are putting that in the context and with ensuring judicial oversight of that. We’ve heard from young women recently at the rally that Shakti organised just a few weeks ago: a young woman talking about how—saying, and in quotes—“I know that listening to your parents seems like the right thing to do, but it was wrong.”, talking about her parents forcing her into a marriage she did not want to enter.

We tell young people all the time that you need to listen to your parents, you need to do what your parents tell you. It’s one of those things. But when there’s violence at hand and views that take away and have lifetime consequences for those young women, actually, we need to be able to intervene and be able to say, “Actually, no. It is not appropriate what your parents are asking you to do. You have free will.”

I spoke in the first reading of forced marriages as a form of slavery, where there is, in effect, State-sanctioned rape and binding of girls to lives of degradation. That is something that we all need to stand against. I want to congratulate Jo Hayes again and this House for coming together and making that stand and another step towards a society free of domestic violence for everyone.

PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It is such a privilege to stand and take a call at the third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. When we come to this House, there are some bills that are tweaks, there are some bills that bring legislation that is outdated into the 21st century, and then there are some bills that will actually change lives, and it’s into that category that this bill squarely falls.

I want to begin by dedicating my third reading speech to the young women who have come forward and sought help, sought support—young women who have either been threatened to be forced into marriage or who have actually experienced this horrific act of domestic violence. I dedicate this speech to them, and also to the women who have supported them—supported them, walked alongside them, and been their advocates for many, many years because many of them have felt helpless in that journey that they have gone through in supporting some of the young women who have come out for help, because forced marriage is a hidden issue in New Zealand. There is a lack of understanding amongst agencies, whether Government agencies or non-governmental agencies, in terms of what forced marriage actually is. That then hinders their ability to carry out a proper risk assessment of these young people, and I know that they feel helpless, because I have been in that position.

Forced marriage is a hidden issue for two reasons—one, because often it is not talked about. That could be because domestic violence more broadly still has a stigma across communities, across our society, here in New Zealand. It could be because sometimes parents who force their children into marriage—and I say sometimes—do it for nefarious purposes. Sometimes it is for monetary gain, and there’s shame involved there and it’s kept under wraps; sometimes it’s because people from our own communities don’t actually realise that it’s happening. They don’t realise sometimes that the marriage ceremony they are witnessing is not consensual between the two parties. It’s a hidden issue also because there is an imbalance of power here, especially when we’re talking about young women who are forced into marriage. It is because their families are the ones who are perpetrating this violence—families, their parents—the very people who are supposed to keep them safe, and there’s shame in that as well. But I want people who are in that situation today to know that there is no shame in seeking help; that it’s OK to seek help.

Forced marriage is a form of domestic violence. As the member Jan Logie mentioned in her speech as well, it’s not a cultural or a religious issue per se because it is not condoned by any world religion. There are movements within all of our cultures and ethnic communities that fight against this. It is a human rights violation, and I just want to read a quote at this point from the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in 2005. This is a quote: “Forced marriages and child marriages constitute serious and recurrent violations of human rights and the rights of the child. It is an outrage that, under the cloak of respect for the culture and traditions”—or perceived culture and traditions, I’d add—“of certain communities, there are authorities which tolerate forced marriages and child marriages although they violate the fundamental rights of each and every victim.” And that, essentially, is what we are talking about. This bill takes one step in the direction of addressing this, and I’ll get to that in a minute.

Forced marriages are different from arranged marriages because of the lack of consent, and, in fact, the addition of coercion in many places. Young women I’ve worked with have been coerced into marriage sometimes. Sometimes there’s horrific psychological and emotional abuse that is a lot harder to detect, really. There is physical abuse as well. Sometimes it is done by parents who think they’re actually doing what’s best for those children. Sometimes, we have young people who have grown up in two different worlds, virtually, in a family that has very rigid gender norms and stereotypes, where a woman’s place or a young girl’s place is defined in a certain way. Girls who then go out and work or go to school in a different environment, where the norms are different, face an issue: which one’s right? Which one’s accepted? In some families, that is a conversation that’s had, and it’s worked on together. But in some families where the rigidity is such that they won’t be broken, these young women are forced into marriage as a way to control their behaviour and sexuality, a way to preserve a sense of honour that reflects on the family as well, and it’s not right.

What does this bill do? I’ll go over it briefly because members before me have gone into the details. It, basically, closes a loophole under the current Marriage Act that allows 16- or 17-year-olds who want to get married to get parental consent to get married. This bill, when it’s passed, will remove that requirement for parental consent and replace it with Family Court consent through a judge. Essentially, it’s a very simple change. It’s a simple change that has had an incredibly long history and will have a transformational future for those people whose lives it will impact.

The Family Court judge must be satisfied that there is consent; that both parties, if they’re both 16 or 17, consent to this marriage or civil union or de facto relationship; and the age and maturity of the individuals are part of the consideration that the judge gives as well. The parents’ and guardians’ views, as Jan Logie mentioned as well, are considered. It’s not a huge component of the consideration, as I understand it, but they are considered, and that’s an acknowledgment that not all parents force their 16- or 17-year-olds into marriage and, therefore, those views are also taken into consideration. There is an avenue, through this bill, for other information to be requested—for example, a cultural report, which can be provided to shed a bit more light into the context within which this occurs. The judge then decides whether the application is accepted or declined. If a declined application results in a marriage, then there are penalties for that, as well. A registrar is not allowed to provide a licence to authorise a marriage between 16- or 17-year-old unless there is court consent.

So, essentially, that’s what this bill has done. Why is it important? I understand that this is the first bill to go through this House that is directly related to an aspect of forced marriage. That is hugely important. That is momentous because it starts a conversation, a conversation that, as we’ve acknowledged before in this House, was actually begun many, many years ago—over 10 years ago—but it starts a conversation in this House around the issue of forced marriage.

This bill has quite a narrow focus. It doesn’t address the issue of forced marriage more broadly; it addresses it quite narrowly. But it’s a step, and it’s an important step that will protect some of our 16- and 17-year-olds who are likely to face this. But we need to do more. This is a good step in the right direction, but there is a broader conversation to be had about the broader issue of forced marriage, because there are others who are not 16 or 17 years old who are forced into marriage as well. There are other issues that disproportionately affect these communities—my communities—issues like dowry abuse that need to be addressed in this House as well.

This bill, once it’s passed, is likely to result in young people—perhaps, whose applications have been declined by the Family Court—facing even more pressure from their families and, therefore, more pressure on some of the services that support them, and so I’m proud that this Government has actually boosted front-line services funding through the Budget this year to ensure $76 million extra that will ensure a funding boost for 150 family violence providers.

Very quickly, it is a privilege to speak to this bill, because I have been part of this from the time that I worked in Shakti, before I came to this House, lobbying successive Governments for change, presented at the select committee that I then sat on till recently, the Justice Committee, and thank you all, members opposite, for listening to the arguments that were made and for making change, because that’s what we’re here to do. Thank you to the member Joanne Hayes; to Dr Jackie Blue, who was in the gallery until recently; to everyone who’s been a part of this journey; to Shakti, of course; to the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians; and to one person I want to name specifically, a police inspector, Brigitte Nimmo, who headed the Family Violence Unit and worked with me on the issue of family violence. She is no longer with us. She’s not alive, but I pay tribute to her memory. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. You have five minutes—Harete Hipango.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. In taking this brief call—like my colleagues who have addressed the House and those of you who are listening on Parliament TV—it is, indeed, a privilege to be able to stand and speak to this. It’s an historical and significant moment, as has been acknowledged by my colleagues here. As a lawyer, my training is very matter-of-fact. I tend to be non-emotive. However, as a mother of three adult children, two of those being daughters, there is a touch of emotion in my delivery this evening. They are young women who have been raised in privilege and opportunity, where they will not be exposed to the type of vulnerabilities that have been raised and addressed in the House and, particularly, addressed in this Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill.

To my colleague Jo Hayes, seated just in front of me, I acknowledge you, and also Dr Jackie Blue, who was in the House previously. I say that this is Dr Jackie Blue’s blueprint, as this passes into law—and it is only a matter of course because of the cross-party support that is there—and it has a touch of Hayes about it. It’s a “Blue Hayes”. Both are associated with the National Party, but I acknowledge everybody, cross-party, for the colourful contributions and the acknowledgments that have been woven into the stories that have been shared in the House this evening. I acknowledge the Justice Committee and, of course, the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians for the work and the advocacy that has been advanced to get it to this stage.

I’ve had the privilege of speaking three times now, addressing the House on this bill, and I’ve said particularly that this bill is premised on protections and providing the umbrella of protectionism to those of our most vulnerable. We’ve heard the stories shared in the House this evening, particularly focused on young women who have been subjected to or the target of forced or forcible marriages and the duress, the coercion, and the compulsion as a result of that. However, I have indicated in my previous speeches that this legislation is not gender specific or gender biased. There may be the rare situation where there is a young man who is exposed to vulnerabilities in terms of that as well, so let’s not forget that.

I’m now just casting my lens over the legislation, because this bill—the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill—is really in three parts. Of those parts, Part 1—specifically new section 18, inserted by clause 8—is addressing the marriage of persons 16 and 17 years of age, so therefore is an amendment to the Marriage Act 1955. Then I turn to new section 19, inserted by clause 14 in Part 2 under this bill, and that is an amendment to the Civil Union Act 2004. Then there is also, finally, Part 3, “Amendments to Care of Children Act 2004”, and replacement section 46A, inserted by clause 20, is “Consent for de facto relationship”. The test that a judge requires to satisfy it is formulaic in each of those clauses that I have referred to, so the standard and the test and the evidence is the same and applicable to each of those specific statuses or natures of a relationship.

What hasn’t been addressed in this House—and I’m going to draw on my years of advocacy and representation as court-appointed counsel for a child or children, and my youth advocacy role as well. There have been situations in my role where I have had concerned parents who have approached me, where they have an under-17-year-old, 16-year-old, and, in a particular instance, their daughter entering into a de facto relationship and the parents being powerless as to what they can or can’t do in terms of curtailing that. This law is going to enable parents to have their views heard before a court, before a judge, and for a judge to decide and establish the views and interests of the affected parties, which will be not only the young persons in those relationships but also the views of the parents and the guardians being factored in and taken into account.

So, conversely, this law is going to adhere to, listen to, and, to some extent, protect the interests of a protective parent who’s concerned about the compulsion or duress of a young woman entering into a de facto relationship, or into a marriage, or into a civil union. I say it’s a formulaic test because for each of those statuses of that relationship, a judge is going to have to be required to be satisfied that consent is willingly forthcoming; however, the views of the parents are taken into account as well.

In commending this bill to the House, I again acknowledge everybody who has contributed to this in a very, very emotional but also matter-of-fact way, and in such a way that our vulnerable become the least vulnerable. Kia ora tātou.

JO LUXTON (Labour): I’m actually really, really proud to be able to stand and take a call on this, the third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I was not part of the Justice Committee, which heard from submitters around this, but I have spoken to this on a few occasions now, and the one thing, when I look back on the times that I have spoken on this bill—and it’s something that the Hon Maggie Barry said when she referred to this situation as often being the untold story.

Actually, at the time, that made me feel quite emotional when she said that. I had to think why on earth does that really tug at my heartstrings and make me feel quite emotional when she said that, and I think it’s probably the fact—as has been said in the House tonight—that those who are mothers might look at their daughters or sons, potentially, of that age group. I think to myself how I might feel in that situation as a 16- or 17-year-old girl being pressured by parents, or whomever, to enter into a marriage or a potentially lifelong commitment that I might actually not want—as an individual and a person who has a mind of my own, having to be told how the rest of my life is, potentially, going to be playing out.

I also want to acknowledge Dr Jackie Blue, who originally brought this to our attention, and I really want to acknowledge and congratulate Joanne Hayes on shepherding this bill through the House and getting it to this third reading. I think it’s something that’s really, really worth celebrating. Given the collegiality across the House and through the select committee and everything, I think that actually, in fact, everyone will be celebrating this this evening.

I just want to talk a little bit about the legislation but also a bit about why this is so important to not only us as members of the Government but everyone as members of this House. Forced marriage, we know, has no place here in New Zealand Aotearoa—no place at all—and this bill is going to protect our young people, who are sometimes our most vulnerable people: 16- and 17 year-olds. They are at an extremely vulnerable age and time in their life.

I think back to something that Dr Deborah Russell said when she talked to this bill the last time she spoke on it. She spoke about what influence we have as parents over our children. As a young person, if your parents really put the pressure on you, you want to please, you don’t want to be in trouble, you don’t want to be punished, and in some situations you just do it just to keep the peace. Being put into the situation of a forced marriage—I agree with all the sentiment and all the words that have been spoken tonight in that it actually is a form of abuse. As a country, our abuse is far too high and absolutely unacceptable. I think this bill goes some way to making some steps towards helping to really erase that, and it’s something that we really need to do in our society.

This is a life-changing bill for some of our young people. It’s going to give them a voice—a voice that they didn’t have, necessarily, before—and it’s really important that we give them that voice. People’s parents will no longer be the ones who decide or insist on marriages, and the fact that it must go through the Family Court—through a neutral body, shall we say, that has no vested interest in the outcomes of this potential marriage—is hugely important. I think that it’s also really important that de facto relationships have been included in this legislation as well, because often that’s what a lot of people are entering into these days.

Just again, congratulations to Jo Hayes. I really commend this bill to the House.

Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’m thrilled to have the opportunity to speak in this third reading of the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. For those that may have just started watching this, yes, absolutely, peace has broken out in Parliament. It doesn’t happen too often. But, for those of you who may have just started watching or listening, this is a members’ day, and the members’ day bill process is often, I think, derided at times in the public area, but I think today is a wonderful example of the impact that a member’s bill can have. I want to talk about a number of those impacts.

The first is, of course, when a member of Parliament—list or electorate—raises an issue, brings the voice of a group to Parliament, and that is the job of each and every one of us in this House. There will be many, many MPs who never ever have the opportunity to have a member’s bill pulled from the ballot. But I want to start by paying a tribute to Dr Jackie Blue, who was responsible for initially bringing that voice to Parliament in the drafting of this legislation. The unfortunate reality of the ballot, when you have perhaps a one-in-eighty chance of getting a member’s bill pulled, is that her work sat in the ballot for many years. I’m really pleased that Jo Hayes was the member in charge of the bill when it did get its lucky day. We do talk about the luck of the draw, but at the end of the day the legislation that we will pass here in its third reading today will have a massive impact on a very vulnerable group of young New Zealanders.

So in terms of this member’s bill, I think there are a number of things that are quite unique about it and quite special. One has been mentioned before, but I want to bring that back to the House’s attention in terms of the support by the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group. Too often what the public see of this House is not peace—it’s everything but—and there are occasions like this where, through the patience of a member who has passed the baton to another in this instance, their patience and their perseverance mean that they are able to bring about real change.

The difference in this one has been the unanimous support that has been very significantly led and championed by the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. It’s not a group that most members of the public are probably even aware of, but there are a number of cross-parliamentary groups whose focus on issues that are agreed on, as opposed to issues where we don’t agree, don’t often make the light of day, but this is one fantastic example, and, Jo Hayes, I want to congratulate you on bringing this to the House. It does take a huge amount of work in shepherding a member’s bill through the Parliament, and I would say, this is my 10th year in Parliament, there have been very, very few that have had the unanimous support of the House, so that in itself deserves to be on the record.

One of the other comments that a number of speakers before me have talked about is bringing what has been a very hidden issue to the surface. Members before me have talked about the fact that New Zealand has quite a despicable record in terms of family violence and I can’t think of any greater level of coercion that would occur within a family than parents forcing a 16- or 17-year-old to marry, to enter into what is seen to be a lifelong commitment with no freedom attached. As many members before me have reflected on their own families, and I think of my daughter approaching the age of 15; it’s quite hard to reflect on the fact that, unfortunately—although, fortunately, small in number—in this country we do have parents that would force their children into marriage.

One of the challenges in this legislation was looking at how many young people are affected by this legislation. It’s very hard to put a number on it. The very fact that the New Zealand Parliament has a members’ bill process and has the ability, for what may be seen by some as a small group of New Zealanders—but they absolutely deserve the protection of our laws like every other New Zealander. So whether it’s an issue that affects 10 or 100 or tens of thousands 16- or 17-year-olds a year, they deserve the time of this House, and I’m very pleased and very honoured to be able to say that we are delivering for them today, because we are delivering protection that will change the course of their future, and what better use of parliamentary time than to do that?

The other thing that I want so speak about is the fact that we’ve seen a significant amount of work in the family violence space and we made progress under our time. I’m pleased that the current Government is also picking up the baton and running hard with it, because New Zealanders need them to. There’s one particular request that I do want to put on the record and that is the fact that the family and whānau violence legislation, very much influenced by Jo Hayes’ work, put into that legislation that it would be an offence—so coercion to marry was listed as an offence—which is yet another piece of the protections that we think are necessary. This isn’t a day for politics; this is a day for Parliament agreeing on an issue that absolutely protects a number of young—mostly women but men as well—16- and 17-year-olds.

The other thing that I want to put on record is the importance of New Zealand being an early adopter of this sort of legislation. So, yes, I understand that there are similar laws in Australia, but I reflect on the 11th Commonwealth Women’s Affairs Ministers Meeting that I attended in Apia, Samoa in 2016. This was an issue that was debated by the countries present, and just as New Zealand led the way 125 years ago, giving women the right to vote, this Parliament does have a responsibility in leading the way in legislation that does advance women, that does advance gender equality, that does advance not just the interests but very fundamental rights of young New Zealanders.

So this is a proud day for Jo Hayes, for Jackie Blue, but for this Parliament. I think it is a day that we very tangibly see the importance of the work we do, the importance of our cross-parliamentary groups that do mean we are able to sometimes traverse areas that have been controversial. I don’t think there was much controversy in this one, but to be able to be here today and to pass legislation that means 16- and 17-year-olds will have protection from parents that may have attempted to force them into marriage by requiring the approval of the Family Court, I think, is indeed a proud day actually for each and every one of us, but, more importantly, history-making for young New Zealanders who will bear the benefit of it. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia orana e Te Mana Whakawā. It is an absolute privilege to be the last speaker to make a contribution on the Minors (Court Consent to Relationships) Legislation Bill. I would like to echo all the speakers before me in terms of their congratulations to Joanne Hayes, who also co-chairs the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians branch of Aotearoa New Zealand, and, of course, to Dr Jackie Blue, who actually kick-started this journey to where we are now here today.

I want to extend my acknowledgment of the chair of the Justice Committee, Raymond Huo, and the seven men and the four women who were part of the select committee. I want to acknowledge their due diligence, as we’ve heard from many of the speakers before that it was a tricky and challenging area to navigate. I want to acknowledge Raymond Huo’s leadership in that select committee. I also acknowledge there were 30 submitters, and in particular the voice of experience from Shakti. We’ve heard many of our members refer to Shakti.

As the last speaker, I’d like to make a brief summary of what all the members today have contributed to this bill. The member Louisa Wall took us through a journey—the history of marriage in New Zealand, where it was legal to marry at the age of 12. She also took us internationally, and in her kōrero she shared the experiences, and we were vicariously traumatised by those experiences that she shared, but nevertheless they needed to be shared.

We heard the Hon Maggie Barry talk about the journey of the bill through the House, and how at one time her name was on this bill. I think her contribution was very insightful. I commented on my notes that it was very insightful.

Angie Warren-Clark talked about the role of the Family Court and the decisions that they would make. All those three speakers—Louisa Wall, Maggie Barry, and Angie Warren-Clark—also mentioned it that has been 125 years since New Zealand women fought for the right to vote. I want to acknowledge Maggie Barry for saying that it was actually a fight; it was not given.

The Hon Tracey Martin spoke about her personal experience in terms of having known someone personally who has gone through this experience of what we are trying to protect children from: forced marriages. She also challenged us in terms of what happens when a licence is declined. What then? What, then, is the protection for those minors whose licence has been declined—protection from whatever inevitability that’s waiting for them after that decline? She also talked about funding and any follow-up that would be required. She also mentioned a member, in terms of the clarification of the difference between forced marriages and arranged marriages. That’s where the Minister the Hon Tracey Martin took us, on an insightful contribution.

The member Nicola Willis talked about the protection of vulnerable women. She also reminded us of what she believes marriage is all about. Jan Logie talked about the work of Shakti, the work of the select committee, and, of course, her aspiration and mission that New Zealand be a society that is free from domestic violence. My colleague Priyanca Radhakrishnan talked about the voice of experience. She dedicated her speech to the courage and the bravery of those young women who have sought help, and also of the tautoko from the other women that had supported these young women when they had sought help. She also talked about closing the loopholes.

Harete Hipango talked about her insight as counsel for a child—she shared it with us. Jo Luxton—quoting Maggie Barry, yet again—talked about the untold story tugging at her heartstrings of a 16- or 17-year-old being forced to marry somebody they did not want, and inevitably the life they lead after that. Louise Upston, the member who just finished, talked about the importance of members’ day and how we as a Parliament are united in this union, in terms of how we are all collectively united in this protection, bringing the voice of a group to Parliament.

So, then, what is my role then as the last speaker? As the chair of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians in the Pacific region, I know there is a call from Tonga, from their women, to change the laws of Tonga. I encourage Tonga to look at what’s happening here in New Zealand, because there is still more do to, but I know that they will look at Aotearoa New Zealand for leadership in what we’ve done. There is still more to do.

So, then, I would like to fondly call this piece of legislation the five eyes of love. Why? Well, (1) the journey to the Family Court to get a licence is about love; (2) the judge provides legal representation; (3) the judge asks for cultural advice; (4) parents’ and guardians’ contributions are also asked for and sought by the judge; and, finally, the last eyes of love lie with the judge. I can’t remember—I’m not on the Justice Committee—whether the judges had put in a submission in terms of their responsibility in this.

So if we believe that de facto relationships and marriages are kick-started by love, last year, in 2017, just over 20,000 New Zealanders declared their love through marriage. Just over 8,000 ended their love through divorce. Thirty of our children ended their child status through marriage. A child is still a child until that final flick of the pen that they’re married—16, 17, whether it be your parents, whether it be the judge, at the end of the day they are still a child until they sign that form. This is the importance of what today is all about.

We’ve heard our Prime Minister—maybe I’ll leave that till last. Gender equality talks about equality between men and women. In my summation of today there were no voices of men. There were no voices of men in our House to contribute to this legislation that protects our children. I don’t know why that is. I don’t know why that is. But in this final reading—there were 11 men on the select committee, subbing in and out, and there were four women. But I think it would be advantageous and show leadership to have a man, to hear their voice—hear their voice.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m coming. I’m next.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Oh, you’re next? I’m not the last. My bad, man.

Hon Member: Not that man.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Not that man.

Anyway, when we speak of marriage, of relationships, the three are: (1) a man marries a woman; (2) a man marries a man; (3) a woman marries a woman—those are the three relationships in New Zealand, whether it’s de facto or marriage, and in two out of three a man is involved. So please, the next time we talk about this, have your voice heard, because you make it a union. OK? So that’s my challenge to you.

So to conclude, I have to say something about our Prime Minister. She speaks about her aspiration for New Zealand to be the best country—not just in the Pacific but in the world—to be a child. This piece of legislation is evidence of our care and love for our children, not just our new migrants that come into New Zealand but all of our children. There is still more to do, but today, tonight, this evening, we want to celebrate this step that we’ve taken forward.

I want to end my kōrero by congratulating the co-chairs of the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians New Zealand branch, Joanne Hayes and Louisa Wall, the work of Dr Jackie Blue and, of course, Jo Hayes as well. I want to end with this whakataukī: aroha mai, aroha atu [let mutual love and respect prevail].

I commend the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill to this House. Faka‘apa‘apa atu, malo.

[Respectfully, thank you.]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Can I compliment my previous speaker, Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki, on her contribution and pick up her challenge for a male member of this Parliament to contribute to the positive support for this bill. It is an important step for women’s rights in New Zealand, it’s an important step for young people’s rights, and I also think it’s quite an important step, as our country becomes more multicultural and while sticking to those important principles of recognising and accepting diversity, in being clear that there are some values that transcend culture which we need to reinforce as part of New Zealand law.

I am the proud parent of two daughters; one of those turns 17 next week. I find it unconscionable to think of a young woman that age being forced into marriage. Whether it’s by some misread parental obligation or forcing—or however that comes about—it is right that this Parliament is saying no to that in New Zealand and introducing the important check of our Family Court, protecting young people in that situation.

I do agree with those contributions that have been made by many far more capable women colleagues on this issue that this is a form of emotional abuse, it is a form of sexual abuse, and, sadly, it can also be a form of physical abuse. As a member of the Justice Committee, which considered this bill, I was quite surprised and shocked—maybe I have a rather naive background in my lovely corner of New Zealand, in Nelson—to actually realise that there are young people in the situation, particularly where we have new migrant communities, where young women are being forced into marriage and into abusive relationships at a very young age.

I do want to acknowledge that this is not entirely exclusive to new migrants. There are some rather peculiar, strict religious communes of the sort of Gloriavale where I think New Zealanders are equally uncomfortable about the forcing of young women into relationships without them being able to enjoy the basic freedoms that we would want to see associated with New Zealand.

In the select committee consideration of this bill, I found the hardest part was actually in terms of dealing with the situation of de facto relationships. When you’re a legislator, it is relatively easy to say, “You can’t get married or you can’t enter a civil union.” because there is legislative and statutory processes that people go through. It is a whole lot more difficult when Parliament wants to get into trying to regulate as to where people might or might not have de facto relationships. When I visited my daughter at Otago University and was told about some of the people that were young—17 years old—in the equivalent of flatting situations, I had some concern about how we make sure that this legislation is practical as well as being effective in meeting its objective.

I do want to comment on the broader issue around how New Zealand deals with this issue of cultural tolerance, because, yes, we want to be a country that welcomes a diverse range of countries. I am one of those of the view that we are a richer country for the wide range of people that come to our country. Today, there’s been a very significant celebration in my own community of those that have come from Burma as migrants, as they’ve marked the “8/08/88” of their communities and the harshness, and their culture. But where is that line that we need to find as a Parliament between being culturally sensitive to people that may not see things in the way in which New Zealand’s own cultures have developed, and, on the other hand, being firm enough that, actually, no, these things, regardless of culture, are not right. That is where this bill has things in the right place.

I do want to join with others and compliment the members that have been responsible for advancing this bill. Firstly, our former colleague from this side of the House, Jackie Blue, who advanced this cause; obviously, the sponsor of the bill, Jo Hayes, who’s put a large amount of work into it; but I also want to acknowledge Priyanca Radhakrishnan, who I sat on the select committee with. I openly acknowledge your expertise and your contribution. You were very persuasive in persuading me in a number of details of this bill that were more realistic and more knowledgable than I have, and in that way, this is a good bill.

The final point that I want to make in this legislation is this really challenging boundary that we have between where people’s liberties are to be able to hold different religious beliefs, different family arrangements, and where Parliament draws some lines in the sand. I have to say, I don’t think this is a simple area. Yes, this particular issue has been relatively easy to draw the line, at 18, but if we are to be a culturally diverse society, if we are one that is going to be tolerant of religions, if we’re going to be tolerant of different family arrangements that people have, where does the State intrude?

In my early parliamentary career, I had a pretty controversial engagement with the Exclusive Brethren community about where our law works with their particular religious beliefs and the way in which they treat families and members of the community, or whether it be the Gloriavale incident, I still think Parliament has more work to do in this area, in introducing the role of the Family Court to protect vulnerable members of our society from some values and some particular points of view that I think the majority of New Zealanders find inappropriate—as is the marriage of young people under the age of 18.

I think it is entirely appropriate that Parliament tonight celebrates the passage of this bill. As a long-serving parliamentarian, I do pay tribute to the women members who have championed this cause, particularly those that’ve been involved in the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians. It is the passage of this bill that is a reflection of a very strong, large number of women that now serve in this Parliament who make sure that our country addresses issues of this sort and ensure that New Zealand values protect woman, protect young people, and protect the values which New Zealanders collectively hold.

Bill read a third time.

Waiata

Bills

Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Debate resumed from 25 July.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. I congratulate the member for having this bill drawn. Unfortunately, it’s not a bill that we’re going to support on this side of the House, and I think to justify that position—and I accept that it’s a position that must be justified, because at first blush this might look a good idea—we need to go back and understand, really, what patents are all about.

What patents do is they lock up knowledge. They are, in effect, a statutory monopoly, so real caution is required before we extend the ability—before we extend the State endorsement—of prohibiting others from using what are, by definition, good ideas. Now, patents and monopolies have been around for a long time—since the 1400s, in fact—and for a long time they were used quite inappropriately, really, as a revenue-gathering means. But the balance to be struck, when we’re looking at extending patent law, is a balance between the free use of intellectual property, the ability of people to take the normal arts that are used in manufacture, in producing food, and in embarking upon all kinds of endeavour, and rewarding people for good ideas so that they can in fact be incentivised to embark upon that.

Now, under the current law—and I must say, the current law has been centuries in the making—we have a very clear step, and that is the inventiveness step. This mustn’t be something which is obvious. If we are going to give someone the absolute dominion over this idea, they have to show that it is a flash of genius—something that doesn’t leap immediately to mind but is a real and significant furtherance of knowledge; a really new way to do things.

Now, what we have proposed by the member is an advancement step, and by definition—in fact, in her bill she sets out and points out that—this is less than an invention step. I must say, even on a mechanical basis, I struggle to see exactly how that would work, and we know for a fact that it’s failed elsewhere.

One of the real problems that has occurred is that if we extend this ability to too low a threshold, it simply means that silly ideas—in fact, there was an invention in Australia of a pizza box that could be used as a bib. Now, handy as it might be, it’s not something we need a patent for. We don’t want people locking up ideas and shutting people out. Interestingly, this is used in Australia not by small businesses to innovate but by large businesses to appropriate knowledge to themselves and shut out small players, and that’s not what we need in New Zealand.

We think that the current law strikes an excellent balance—an excellent balance between a relatively significant inventiveness threshold and a good reward for those that cross it. What we don’t want is a quick and dirty system where anyone with half an idea can lock that idea down and exclude others from it. That would actually cut across the kind of innovation, the kind of inventiveness, that we need in our economy today.

So, look, whilst I absolutely commend any idea which encourages small businesses, which looks to encourage new ideas, we’ve got to be very cautious indeed before we have a framework which allows others to exclude knowledge. So, yes, patents are necessary—we’re always here to look at these ideas. The National Party did have an opportunity to do this in the last term when they in fact reviewed the Patents Act, but they clearly didn’t think that this was a good idea.

So to the member, I commend you for having this bill drawn. I commend you for your hard work on it—I know you’ve done a lot of hard work—but we don’t see this as good policy for New Zealand, and we won’t support it. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I call Parmjeet Parmar—five minutes in reply.

Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. To say that I am disappointed to see the Government’s stance on my member’s bill would be an understatement, because I’m disappointed on so many levels. It’s not only because they are not supporting my member’s bill; it’s also because they don’t even understand what my member’s bill is about.

As soon as I saw that it was Minister Iain Lees-Galloway who took the first call on my bill, I knew that no one wanted to front up and say that they don’t support this bill, because this bill is about supporting small and medium enterprises having this tool of intellectual property rights, and he’s the Minister who has publicly said that he doesn’t care about the survival of small and medium enterprises if they fail because of his policies. So why would they support this bill that is to support small and medium enterprises to support incremental advancements?

I wrote to so many Ministers. Yes, in the Labour Party, I wrote to so many Ministers. I wrote to some members in the New Zealand First Party. I also wrote to members in the Green Party. And did they give me even two minutes to talk about this bill? No. That is how they treat their colleagues. I want to acknowledge one Green Party member, Gareth Hughes, who I had not originally approached, but, because of his interest, I got to talk to him. So, yes, at least he was interested, and he was interested in engaging and having this discussion.

So even if members had listened to my contribution at the start of the first reading, they would have understood what this bill is about. There is no international consistency when it comes to a second-tier patent system. Then they would not have sounded so shallow and would not have embarrassed themselves and embarrassed the whole House.

I want to give this example from the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway’s contribution. Iain Lees-Galloway used the example of the Netherlands and he, like the member before, Duncan Webb, used the example of Australia as well. So in that contribution, the Hon Iain Lees-Galloway said that “As is common in most second-tier patent systems, there was no examination for novelty and an inventive step at the patent office. The unexamined six-year patents created legal uncertainty to competitors.” Exactly—so there was no examination required in their legislation and no examination required in the legislation that Australia is going through different phases on, but my bill is different. There’s a big difference, because my bill requires examination—examination is compulsory. I don’t know if Government members even understand what that means, because they kept giving examples of countries that didn’t require examination. So this is a big difference, and that’s why I say to Government members that they should have read my bill.

One Government member mentioned a company that is lobbying them not to support my bill, and, yes, I visited that company, and that was before the first reading of this bill started. They told me they are not going to support my bill and they’re going to lobby Government members. And, yes, I want to commend that company for their great work, because their job is to protect their interest and they have done well. But what is the job of a Government? A Government’s job is to look after all small, medium, and large businesses—look after the whole country. So what they have allowed here is for one company to dictate a public policy—they’ve allowed one company to dictate a public policy. That is dangerous—that is dangerous. Who is looking after the rest of New Zealand? Not this Government—not this Government. That’s the level of shallowness we have from Government members.

Yes, this is an important tool that is required for small and medium enterprises so that they have intellectual property rights so that other people don’t go out and copy their ideas, but Government members don’t understand that, because for each and every policy area they have working groups to advise them. This is too complicated for them. So they didn’t even bother reading my bill and understanding, and kept giving examples which are not even relevant.

So, at the end, I want to acknowledge my National Party colleagues for their understanding of my passion in this area. I want to especially acknowledge the Hon Chris Finlayson for all the discussions I had with him after my bill was drawn, and I also want to acknowledge all patent attorneys in New Zealand and Australia for their engagement on this bill since this bill was drawn. I want to give special acknowledgment to Grant Shoebridge from Shelston IP for his contribution. And, yes, I am disappointed. Thank you.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Patents (Advancement Patents) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Bills

Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill

First Reading

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I move, That the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Primary Production Committee to consider the bill. It is with great pleasure that I rise to introduce the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. I hope that it can receive broad cross-party support that will enable the Primary Production Committee to fully consider the bill.

This small, technical amendment might, at first glance, seem too inconsequential for Parliament’s consideration. It simply amends section 53 of the Companies Act to make it absolutely clear that if a company’s constitution so enables, profits can be divided differently across the same class of share. But, as with all legislation, there is a defining principle at its core. In this instance, it is the principle of freedom of association and, through that association, the freedom to design a commercial company structure in a manner that those freely associated deem appropriate.

This philosophy has played out across many of the businesses that I’ve had associations with throughout my 20-year career in agribusiness, in particular. This bill is about such freedom. It seeks to reaffirm, through the removal of legal uncertainty, that shareholders can, via their company constitution, choose the rules that will apply to their company. It clarifies a paramount shareholder freedom—how to distribute its company’s profits—without lessening the critical balance of protections explicitly outlined in the Companies Act. It does not change the high threshold for constitutional change of 75 percent support of shareholder vote. It does not change the obligations of directors to apply their fiduciary judgment prudently. It does not change the rights and protections of minority shareholders, who remain protected should the company change the constitution. But it does allow shareholders to pay out their profits only to those who are supplying shareholders, if this is the expressed wish of the company and is outlined in the constitution.

This bill amends the Companies Act 1993 to give clarification of dividend rules outlined in sections 36 and 53 of the Act. As currently written, the Companies Act creates some doubt about the ability of a company constitution to provide for dry shares—i.e., shares which do not carry dividend rights in prescribed circumstances. The classic example is shares in a cooperative. Where the holder ceases supplying their cooperative, cooperative companies registered under the Co-operative Companies Act can provide for dry shares, but for companies registered under the Companies Act, there is legislative doubt.

The uncertainty arises because of the interplay between sections 36 and 53 of the Companies Act 1993. Section 36(1) provides the shareholder with “(a) the right to 1 vote on a poll at a meeting of the company on any resolution, … (b) the right to an equal share in dividends authorised by the board: [and] (c) the right to an equal share in the distribution of the surplus assets of the company.” However, subsection (2) provides for these rights to be “negated, altered, or added to by the constitution of the company or in accordance with the terms on which the share is issued”. However, the flexibility provided for in this subsection (2) is then subject to section 53, and section 53(2) prevents the board of a company from authorising “a dividend—(a) in respect of some but not all the shares in a class; or (b) that is of a greater value per share in respect of some shares of a class than it is in respect of other shares of that class—unless the amount of the dividend in respect of a share of that class is in proportion to the amount paid to the company in satisfaction of the liability of the shareholder under the constitution” of that company.

There are different views within the legal profession about the effect of this section 53(2). On one view, it prevents the board exercising a discretion to authorise a dividend in respect of some shares in a class, but not others—typically, the dry share scenario. But it does not prevent the constitution from containing a rule that some holders of shares in a class—for example, non-suppliers—are not entitled to receive dividends on those shares. In those circumstances, the board is not exercising its powers in a way that discriminates between shareholders, but is simply giving effect to the rule in the constitution. However, other experienced lawyers consider that the effect of section 53(2) is that it prevents the constitution from containing provisions of this kind, as that would result in the board authorising dividends in respect of some of the shares—the wet shares—but not other shares in the same class—the dry shares. The former view, in my view, is probably the better view, but the uncertainty is problematic and has caused a number of agribusinesses, in particular, to develop elaborate workarounds to make sure they have the capacity to treat dry shareholding differently in terms of dividends.

This uncertainty can be removed by adding a new subsection (2A) to section 53, to remove doubt about dry share provisions along the following lines: “(2A) To avoid doubt, nothing in subsection (2) prevents the constitution of a company providing that shares in a class do not confer a right to receive dividends in the circumstances specified in the constitution.” This would clarify that the constitution of a company can provide for shares in the same class to carry different entitlements to dividends in different circumstances—in particular, where the holder is no longer a supplier to the company. Such provisions do not raise any concern about discrimination among shareholders by the directors, which is the concern that section 53 is aimed at. Rather, this amendment enables companies and their shareholders to tailor their mutual rights and obligations to give effect to their commercial objectives.

There are good reasons to permit this flexibility in structuring commercial arrangements and, in my view, no good reasons to limit it. Remember that at all times, shareholders are free to exit and enter, and have embedded protections in the Act should the company change their constitution in a manner they do not support. Specifically, the potential for unfair treatment of shareholders by amending a company constitution to include a dry share provision is addressed by the interest group and minority buy-out provisions in the Act. Shareholders who object to the act can vote against it, and if the resolution passes, they are entitled to be bought out at a fair price.

This amendment talks to a key, fundamental principle—namely, that it is the shareholders of a company who should have the discretion on how best to run their company. If a company wishes to act in a cooperative manner and attach different approaches to how they distribute profits, then they should have the freedom to do so.

In my experience of over 20 years in agribusiness, I have engaged with many companies, both large and small, that have desired to treat their shareholders differently, depending on their supply arrangements. They are companies registered under the Companies Act, but wish to act in a cooperative style, specifically in the way they choose to link supply with their profit distribution. Our country is underpinned by these types of businesses, and where we can assist, we should assist in their progression. I believe the Act should enable such diversity of company design. It is a key point of principle and one that I hope this Parliament sees the merit in supporting here this evening. Thank you.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Civil Defence): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my pleasure to speak to the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. Can I do what we usually do when members’ bills are debated the first time and congratulate the member Todd Muller for having the bill pulled from the ballot. While in his opening remarks he may have said that an issue like this might not necessarily be worthy of the time of the Parliament, he has seen fit to seek some clarification in and around the issue, and, if there is a real risk in and around the conflict between sections 36 and 53 of the Companies Act, then he’s seen fit to bring a bill to the House to clarify that.

Usually, we wait until the end of the first contribution from the Government member to let the member know whether or not the Government will be supporting the bill, but because he is such a humble and good man—Mr Muller—we will be supporting this piece of legislation through to select committee because we do believe that it has some merit but also that there are a number of questions that need to be asked in its passage to possibly becoming an amendment to the Companies Act. It is a technical bill, and I’m going to try and turn some of the speech that Mr Muller made—because it is his bill, he had to refer to the Act itself and, obviously, the concept of dry and wet shares—into plain English for those people who may be up tonight who are interested in this piece of legislation.

Dr Deborah Russell: There’s three of them.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Ha, ha! All three of them—one of them being my mum. Everyone will know the concept of owning shares within a company, but as Mr Müller did mention, and predominantly in agribusiness—

Hon Members: Muller.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Mr Muller, sorry. As he mentioned in his contribution, heavily weighted towards agribusiness cooperatives, the likes of Zespri and Fonterra here in New Zealand, there are different types of shares: a wet share and a dry share.

Now, obviously, if you’re part of a cooperative, you are a supplier to the cooperative—whether it be of milk or kiwifruit, in the instances of Zespri and Fonterra—but if you have been a supplier in the past but then cease to supply the cooperative, your share class can be changed from a wet share, where you would supply and get a dividend if the cooperative were to get a profit. But, if you were not a supplier any more, you would go to a dry share, where you would still own shares in the cooperative but, because you’re not supplying the cooperative any more—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Very interesting, but I don’t have any shares.

Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Oh sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m glad to clarify that too, Madam Chair. But if someone were to formally be a supplier but then not be a supplier but still own those shares, they would, I guess, get the benefit of the increase in the price of those shares, but, because they are not supplying any more, they would not get a dividend from the cooperative itself if it were to return a dividend at the end of the year. So there is a distinction between wet and dry.

The problem, I think, with section 36 is that while it says that classes of shareholders can be treated differently and a constitution of a corporation can say that rights of a shareholder can be negated, over in section 53 of the Companies Act there is a lack of clarification as to whether or not companies can actually treat different classes of shareholders in different ways. Mr Muller’s amendment bill is a simple, I think, one-sentence or two-sentence amendment to subsection 2 of section 53 of the Companies Act to make it specific that a company can amend its constitution—as he mentioned, that has to be done by 75 percent of its shareholders—and that you can have a different classification or payment or treat those different types of shareholders differently.

There are some issues that the officials, when they first had a look at this piece of legislation, wanted to see addressed in the select committee, and I’ve already had this conversation with the member responsible for the bill in terms of what that does to payments that may have already been made. And, while this is not retrospective legislation, there may be some call or some lawyers who will look at previous payments that have been made and the clarification that is going to be made potentially through this legislation and question some payments that have already been made via section 36. So that is one question that I think will need clarification during the select committee stage.

Every so often, a member of the Government will come up with an amendment. I know it’s not going to change the world, but it will, I guess, clarify some of the discrepancies that some of those cooperatives mainly here in New Zealand have had when suppliers are no longer suppliers and whether or not they are entitled to get dividends or not. So, as I say, we are going to support this piece of legislation to the select committee to ensure that if it is a common-sense amendment, it goes through and it gets the scrutiny that it deserves. Again I congratulate Mr Muller for bringing this piece of legislation to the House.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’ve got to say it’s an absolute pleasure to be speaking on this bill, the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill, introduced by my good friend and colleague the good member from the Bay of Plenty, who, of course, has spent 20 years in the agricultural sector, in many parts of it. Not only in the dairy industry but in the kiwifruit—in a whole raft of other areas, and I think it’s only right and just that he bring such a good bill to the House. I’d also just like to acknowledge the speaker just standing before, Kris Faafoi, who has noted that the Labour coalition Government is going to support this bill, which I commend as well.

It’s actually a very simple bill, and it’s effectively about changing section 53 of the principal Act, the Companies Act, which states that “To avoid doubt, nothing in subsection (2) prevents the constitution of a company providing that shares in a class do not confer a right to receive dividends in the circumstances specified in the constitution.” So some people will be wondering what that means. I know you all have a firm, steely grasp on these issues, as you do on many things, but for those people who are not quite so financially literate, what this means is that there are many, many businesses that are established under the Companies Act and are in effect companies, but operate as cooperatives. That’s where the issue lies, and this is what Mr Muller’s bill is trying to address.

When you say “Well, there’s not that many cooperatives.”, well, in fact there are raft of them, and if you think of the main one—most people can think of Fonterra as a cooperative—but even in the dairy sector you’ve got Tātua Cooperative Dairy, you’ve got Westland Cooperative Dairy down in the South Island. If you think about the food type of thing, Foodstuffs NZ is the classic. My good colleague over here, Mr Dan Bidois, the good new member from Northcote, of course worked at Foodstuffs until very recently—until he got elected. Then, in the meat industry, we’ve got Silver Fern Farms, Alliance: these are all companies but are operating as cooperatives. Then we’ve got other farming industries such as Farmlands Cooperative Society, which is supplying. Then we’ve got the medical insurance industry—Southern Cross medical insurance. Then, every Saturday, most of you at some stage will be going down—when I say that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I mean all members—to places like Mitre 10. And the last one, which is an interesting one, is the Livestock Improvement Corporation. Many people won’t realise that it is a company, it is a cooperative, but is also listed on the New Zealand stock exchange. It has a market cap of about 85 million. It’s got 11,000 dairy farmers that are members of it.

So what this bill is doing is it creates the opportunity to be able to structure the cooperative’s affairs that meet the practicality of what really goes on. So, many people, whether it’s in a medical insurance arrangement or whatever, might become a member of the cooperative and therefore be entitled to a share and a right to a dividend and a voting right—those three aspects that normally make up a corporate-type arrangement. The thing about the Act at the moment, the Companies Act, is that it’s very unclear—well, it’s a technical bill, but it is unclear to the extent that to differentiate the different types of rights of the shareholder is not actually that clear, particularly under section 36, which people have noted before.

So this bill, which I think is a great bill, creates the opportunity for people to structure their affairs, and in many cases we’re talking about dry and wet shares; where dry shares are people who previously supplied to the cooperative but no longer supply those goods or services but still want to remain with that cooperative. This provides the mechanism to allow those people to remain, to have full rights as a shareholder, full voting rights, but just what they might do with the dividend flows and things like that.

So it’s creative, it’s much more permissive, and it’s much more appropriate, because it does reflect reality. Of course, there’s strong, overwhelming support for this, particularly from the cooperative sector, and I think Zespri, which is probably one of the most well-known of all of these, is one of the strong proponents, and I fully endorse this good bill.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m very glad we’re supporting this bill to give clarity to the law. I know the Companies Act is an incredibly detailed and complex piece of legislation. I’m not entirely sure that this is the most complex part of the Act or the piece that most needs reform, but, nevertheless, the lawyers seem to have won here—they have managed to convince us that there’s some lack of clarity.

So we do have here in the Act, in section 36, a very clear statement that a share gives an equal right to a dividend as authorised by the board, and then says, in section 36(2), “Subject to section 53, the rights specified [above] may be negated,”. Then we can go to section 53(2), and what does it say? That “The board of a company must not authorise a dividend—(a) in respect of some but not all the shares in a class;”.

Now, I’ve dealt with companies from time to time, in a prior life, and I’ve seen plenty of shares that carry dividends, or don’t, or carry differential dividends, or carry voting rights—preferential shares have different privileges on liquidation, and so on and so forth. One of the great wonders of the practice of law is seeing all of the different frameworks that commercial lawyers, in their dark little corners of the office, can dream up. I see that somehow they’ve managed to cast doubt on this area, and they have persuaded the member Todd Muller that clarification is needed. Well, good on him for standing up for his constituency in the Bay of Plenty, and I know he’s got a lot of really fantastic companies there—Zespri is a classic example, and other cooperative companies—that understandably want to have divisions and classes of shares, and I think that’s a great thing. So, look, if this helps people to structure their transactions, I’m absolutely all for that.

One of the really important things we need to make sure that the Companies Act does is give flexibility for people to enter into the business arrangements that are right for them. The great thing about company law and this Companies Act, which has been around for some two decades or so now, is that it is intended to give that flexibility so that people can enter into all kinds of arrangements through the constitution and can opt out of these default rules—such as the rule that all shares carry an equal dividend—and frame it themselves. So, look, if this bill goes down that road and says to people, “Yes, we just want to make it absolutely clear that you can enter into a transaction that steps out of this presumptive rule.”, that’s a good thing, so I congratulate the member on approaching it in that way.

Of course, these are cooperative companies: companies that use an innovative framework where all of the members are part of the business, like the fertiliser companies—like Ravensdown—and like other companies that enter into these cooperative arrangements. I entirely endorse what they’re doing. The idea of being a common enterprise, a joint enterprise, is great. If this bill helps them along that road—where it isn’t necessarily owned by a foreign shareholder or by someone who’s got all of the capital, but by the people who are actually working in the business—I absolutely endorse it.

I do think in some ways that this is a solution looking for a problem, that the problem here is not one of the larger ones facing the agriculture industry, but I take it from the member that his constituency has said that it needs addressing. In that case, I congratulate him for taking the baton, for taking his chance in the ballot, for using that chance for what he sees as deserving, and for forwarding it in that sense.

So, look, here we have it. This bill will clarify this rule beyond all doubt, and that’s got to be a good thing. So I hope, having clarified this, we won’t need to go searching for lawyers’ opinions, and those dividends will be able to be used on the farm and not on lawyers’ BMWs.

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): It is a pleasure to get up and speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill. I love nothing more than trawling through the Companies Act of 1993 and analysing the details of the various provisions, whether it be section 35, 36, or 53. Unfortunately, my colleague “Professor” Fletcher Tabuteau does enjoy that stuff, but it has fallen upon me tonight to progress our position on this. But, of course, this is actually—levity aside—an important matter. It does take out some ambiguity around the provisions, and particularly around dry shares in company constitutions.

Section 36 suggests dry shares can be made; however, section 53 contradicts that. Section 36, as has been said before, entitles those with shares to vote, to receive an equal dividend, and receive distributions of any surplus assets. Section 36(2) contradicts that by allowing companies to negate that within their constitution, and then section 53 prevents the board of a company from authorising a dividend in respect to some but not all the shares in a class. So there is a fair bit of confusion around that.

My interests in this bill actually sparked a bit when I discovered that the true beneficiaries from this will be the co-ops—and what an important model that is for New Zealand, particularly our agricultural sector. I am a huge fan of the cooperative model. On my own farm, I do as much business as I can through the cooperatives. I think it’s incredibly important as small farmers. Well, we’re mainly small businesses; some of them are quite big now, of course. If we can band together on the input side, where we can create critical mass and buying power—and we see that in the likes of Farmlands Co-operative Society, Ballance Agri-Nutrients, Ravensdown, Farmers’ Mutual Group in terms of insurance; all those companies that we can buy our inputs through—we can drive our costs down in our business. Of course, then, on the output side, it gives us the ability to own the value chain beyond the farm gate, to get money back from the market place as well as just at the farm gate. It gives us a degree of power, and it also gives us, importantly, in the likes of the red meat and the dairy sector, the capacity to build capacity for peak periods of production.

So these are very important businesses that sustain our economy, and I understand about 40 percent of New Zealand’s GDP goes through cooperatives in one way or another, and, of course, as Mr Bayly listed before, there is quite a list. Of course, the granddaddy of them all is Fonterra, with its $19 billion turnover. But I do find it slightly ironic that the National Party are here championing a cause that will help the cooperatives, because, of course, they were absolutely nowhere to be seen when Silver Fern Farms, our second-biggest cooperative, was looking for some help. They were everywhere when it was MediaWorks or Rio Tinto, but when our second-biggest exporter—a cooperative, Silver Fern Farms—came knocking on the door for a little bit of assistance while they sorted their act together, they were nowhere to be seen. So we’ve got dividends—well, perhaps we could set up some of these dry share amendments so that dividends won’t be heading off to Shanghai; they’ll be going to Southbridge, Stratford, or Sheffield.

Having said that, this does clarify some ambiguity in a law that does need clearing up. I commend the member Todd Muller for bringing this bill forward. It does provide some clarification for boards, and it does provide some flexibility for companies to adjust their arrangements to suit, particularly with those dry shares, those shareholders that are contributing versus those that aren’t—like me and Silver Fern Farms, where I get a dividend but I will not supply them another stock unit while I’ve got any sense of control. So I do commend this to the select committee, and we will look at the details there. Thank you.

ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Well, you heard it there first. You heard it from the New Zealand First MP—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can hear everything.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker—we heard it here first. We heard that New Zealand First wants to create some sort of dry share so that foreign investors won’t receive a dividend from an investment that they might make in New Zealand. That’s what—in jest, maybe tongue-in-cheek, but it just demonstrates the attitude that comes from the 5 percent party that controls the other 49 percent.

Hon Kris Faafoi: Pretty crucial 5 percent, though, eh?

ALASTAIR SCOTT: So that is the policy that comes from New Zealand First, dangerous as it is. Now, I would like to commend Todd Muller, Mr Foifoi. Mr Foifoi, I would like to commend—

Hon Kris Faafoi: Foifoi? He was a league player!

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Mr Muller for his—Mr Faafoi—for his luck and good fortune in drawing this bill from the ballot. It is a good bill. It clarifies a number of things—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Can we just stop this while there is this member on their feet.

ALASTAIR SCOTT: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But I would like to agree with Mr Faafoi when he talked about the language that’s used in, perhaps, the explanatory note and elsewhere talking about “wet” and “dry”. Mr Faafoi eloquently explained the difference, but this does not just apply to dairy farmers. This legislation applies to companies, not just co-ops. So this enables clarification for all companies to determine who receives what dividend across any particular share. Others have already explained the apparent contradiction or confusion between section 36 and section 53(2), so I don’t need to go into the detail other than to say that section 36 is a positive and then 53 is slightly ambiguous and then brings in some negatives, brings in the words unless (a), (b), or (c) applies.

As we know, the Companies Act can have a whole bunch of quite confusing language, and I would encourage the select committee to look at the language that’s used in the proposed amendment. In the amendment, there are some double negatives there already. So I encourage the select committee to look at that to try and make it as simple as possible for the layman to understand.

It is a good clarifying piece of legislation. We’re always going to be looking for improvements in the Income Tax Act because it is so vast, it is so technical, that there will always be opportunities to improve it because of the complex nature of the Act. So I do commend Mr Muller for doing what he’s doing by bringing this member’s bill to the House. I do also appreciate the support—though I’m sure Mr Muller will say so himself—from across the House on this bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. Ever since the Otago cheese cooperative in 1871, the first in the Southern Hemisphere, cooperatives have been a big and important part of our economy. I understand recent figures are that total revenue of the top 30 cooperatives in New Zealand is $42 billion, so it’s a substantial part. Reading the latest cooperative magazine there’s an article about how they can drive sustainability throughout the economy. It acknowledged the work of Zespri, Fonterra, and the likes, which we’ve heard mentioned in this debate.

I’d like to acknowledge the member who’s had his bill successfully drawn; I’d like to congratulate him. Look, the Green Party’s going to be supporting this bill. We support cooperatives. It’s been enshrined in policy ever since the earliest days—to make it easier to reduce some of those barriers or uncertainties for cooperatives. It’s been a good year for them with the recent bill dealing with the mutuality issue, I think, passing in the last couple of months. But this bill is dealing with the uncertainty around sections 53 and 36 of the Companies Act; around how those dividends are paid out and how it relates to the constitution. Why I think it’s important to clarify it is because we do want to encourage that flexibility in constitutions and dividend payment regimes so those cooperatives can do fantastic, innovative, more flexible approaches to the enterprises. We absolutely support that.

You would have hoped the jurisprudence would have at least resolved some of those uncertainties. It’s apparent that it hasn’t resulted in that, and that’s why we think there’s merit in having the select committee hear the issues and ultimately resolve them.

I won’t speak for long because I’d wager more words have been spoken in this debate in the Hansard than all the words contained in the bill itself. Of course, I wouldn’t be a good Green MP if I didn’t point out this could’ve been addressed over the previous nine years through various mechanisms. But, look, it’s a good day when we’re reducing uncertainty for businesses, supporting cooperatives, and supporting innovation flexibility. That’s why we’re supporting it tonight.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): It is with delight and some amount of surprise that I am standing here to speak on this bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You certainly don’t look like Willow-Jean Prime.

KIERAN McANULTY: Yes. That’s right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I’m astonished that once again this House rises in unison to support an issue that is so important to our regional areas. It is marvellous to see the second example, only just tonight, where we saw this. But I am also astonished that the seven speakers or eight speakers that have been before me have not taken the opportunity to define what a cooperative is, because, of course, this is the key element to this bill. The people watching at home have heard the benefits of this bill to cooperatives, but they might not actually know what a cooperative is. So I’d like to take the opportunity to do this.

A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. What a marvellous socialist idea cooperatives are. What a marvellous demonstration of the socialist ideas that the Labour Party was founded upon. Cooperatives, the organisations that this bill seeks to assist, dotted around this country in our rural and regional areas, are demonstrating the values that this side of the House hold dear and demonstrate in our actions in this House every single sitting day. So I say to my colleague on the other side of the House, Todd Muller, congratulations comrade. Well done for getting this bill pulled from the ballot and demonstrating once again that this House takes these issues seriously.

Cooperatives are not just about agriculture, that core of our economy; it is also manufacturing, insurance, and banking. It might interest the House that it also includes other financial services, utilities, education, health, wholesale, and retail.

I am also quite buoyed by the demonstration of good-natured banter across the House. We all agree, but we also want to take the opportunity to just point out little foibles that we see in our colleagues, like my friend Alastair Scott—my colleague and opponent in Wairarapa. He is the man that—we actually get on together reasonably well—had a pot shot at New Zealand First, calling them “the five percent party”, neglecting to remember that his leader is the 10 percent man. It’s interesting that polls are appropriate—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You don’t have to take the whole five minutes if you don’t have anything to talk about.

KIERAN McANULTY: Did you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the first cooperative was formed in 1871? You may have forgotten that, but it was mentioned just earlier. But what’s interesting is that 50,000 New Zealanders are employed by cooperatives in this country, and one in three New Zealanders are members.

So I am delighted that a man of such experience in this sector, a man that has great respect amongst horticulture and experience with agriculture, has brought this issue to the House today. It is, as my colleagues have mentioned, a technical bill, but it is a very simple bill. It is a bill where the explanatory note is two pages, but the bill is one little amendment to the section here: section 53 amending the bill proposes “To avoid doubt, nothing in subsection (2) prevents the constitution of a company providing that shares in a class do not confer a right to receive dividends in the circumstances specified in the constitution.” I’m glad the author of the bill believes that that removes doubt. I’m sure it does to those who this is appropriate to.

I note that in his press release at the point that this bill was drawn he identified that this bill had the support of the cooperative Business New Zealand and also Zespri—a company he knows well. I think this Government takes a very simple approach, as it did with Mark Patterson’s bill earlier today, the local bill from Gore, and this one today. This is clearly a bill that is influenced by the desires of the industry, and, as such, this Government is very pleased to again congratulate the member for standing up for the industry that he represents and putting forward a solution. We look forward to discussing it at the Primary Production Committee.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the chance to speak on the Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill.

Reflecting on the contribution, if I may call it that, from the previous speaker, Mr McAnulty, I reflect that it’s unusual to hear the words “cooperative”, “Labour Party”, and “business” in the same sentence, but nevertheless he did manage that. So for that much I pay tribute to him and, indeed, his colleagues for their cooperative approach to cooperatives tonight.

Much has been said already—too much, some might say—in relation to the length of the bill and in relation to the uncertainty that’s inherent in the Companies Act, which it seeks to clarify. But nevertheless it is an important amendment that my colleague Mr Muller is introducing by way of this member’s bill, and I join others on both sides of the House in commending him for that.

Key to the nature of the bill is the concept of dry shares. Dry, of course, can have a couple of different meanings—for example, in relation to this speech I’m giving now, it could mean either amusing or dreary, and I will allow the countless New Zealanders who are listening to this debate tonight to choose between those as they see fit.

However, in the context of shares, dry shares, as explained in the explanatory note of the bill, means shares that do not carry dividend rights in prescribed circumstances. It goes on to say that the classic example is where a non-supplier might have shares; that is to say, is holding shares in the company—in this case, a cooperative, or often a cooperative—but is not supplying the co-operative at that time.

So the need for the bill, as identified by Mr Muller, very astutely, is the fact that there is uncertainty, given that section 36 and section 53 of the Companies Act appear somewhat in contradiction, whereby section 36 provides some flexibility—the default position, as set out in section 36(1)—but goes on to say in section 36(2) that the rights set out as a default can be changed by way of a constitution of a company, whereas section 53, of course, prevents some of that ability, at least on the face of it—hence the need for a determination between the two as to which will prevail in the case of conflict or disagreement.

The phrase within the explanatory note that I think encapsulates the spirit of the bill well is “different views within the legal profession”. When considering the nature of the law, the phrase “different views” should sound alarm bells and so should the phrase “legal profession”. Taken together, it’s quite a lethal combination, and there are danger signs that can be flagged when there are different views from the legal profession—different views between the respective clients of lawyers who might be arguing the point can be expensive in terms of time, energy, uncertainty, and, of course, cost.

So in seeking to remove that uncertainty, the bill has a very noble aim. While it does express some view in the explanatory note—again, on which of the two major interpretations might be preferred—the fact that it notes there is uncertainty, that such uncertainty is problematic, and that it goes on to resolve that quite definitively is a very welcome thing indeed.

I note, in closing, that choice and the ability to control the fate of the company does still rest with the shareholders of that company, because a mechanism is provided—indeed, it is untouched within the Companies Act—whereby the shareholders can determine the fate of the company in respect of this particular matter. They can vote accordingly and nature can take its course in the usual way in that respect.

So I shan’t belabour the point any longer, except to note that, finally, in relation to it being easy to understand, the bill is accessible in the sense that it’s very easy to navigate—indeed, being printed pretty well on one side of an A4 piece of paper, and generously at that, with some space at the top—it would be hard to miss it. Within the Companies Act, it will be easily found too. It’s clearly set out. It’s a helpful addition to our statute book, and I join my colleagues—it seems on all sides of the House and, certainly, this one for which I am able to speak—in commending the work of Mr Muller and supporting it at this stage.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I just want to talk a little bit and follow on from what my esteemed colleague Mr Chris Penk has said. This is a very short bill. I note that the only thing Mr Muller hasn’t done is put it into a larger font size—he could’ve made it a little bit bigger. It does deal with an issue that needs to be dealt with—an issue of clarification. It is so short you might almost think that perhaps it was a trivial bill, except that one would never attribute a trivial bill to a man of Mr Muller’s stature. It is actually an important bill.

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Careful. There could be a leadership bid.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL: Ha, ha! It’s important because it actually affects a large number of entities in our country. My understanding is that there are well over 100 cooperatives in our country, more than that, and they’re actually a very important form of business organisation in this country—dear I say a socialist form of business organisation, where people get together and they decide to operate together, to share the profits together, because by doing so they will, in fact, do better for themselves and better for their communities. So I think it’s important for us to try to clarify this particular law around cooperatives, to make it easier for people to operate them, and to ensure that we don’t end up in a lawyer’s fashion, exemplified tonight by Mr Chris Penk and Dr Duncan Webb, as to the way the lawyers can sort of dig into and into and into an issue and find something to dispute.

Now, in this particular case, this Companies (Clarification of Dividend Rules in Companies) Amendment Bill—what it does is it clarifies an issue that we’re not even sure is going to be an issue. Within cooperatives, there are two sorts of shares, as some of my colleagues have referred to. There are wet shares and there are dry shares. For those of us who are not lawyers, I much prefer those terms “wet” and “dry”—they actually mean something. So a wet share is a share that actually carries a right to a dividend; a dry share does not. Now, that dividend is a share of the profits of the co-op.

The interesting thing—and this is what Mr Muller has picked up in the Companies Act—is that that particular distinction is not especially clear in the Companies Act. It is there—we think it’s there. We think the law is right. But there is just sufficient uncertainty that it is an issue which could be disputed, could be taken to the courts, could go all the way through our legal system, and that does seem to be a waste of time, a waste of intellectual effort, a waste of the courts’ energy, and, more to the point, the co-ops themselves are clear about what they want. They understand that they want some wet and some dry shares. No one is disputing what the members of these companies want. All that we need to clarify is the law, and that is exactly what this bill does.

So what it does is it makes it very clear that members of a company, a co-op, can set up the rules to suit themselves and set up the rules—within, of course, the limitations of our legislation—and makes it clear who gets a dividend and in which circumstances, and it clarifies the law that way. We have a lot of bills in this House that clarify the law, that just sets matters right, that just make things a little bit better, and sometimes you think “Well, why on Earth is the House spending its time doing this? Why don’t we just sort of let it disappear? Why don’t we just wait for, perhaps, a matter to appear before the courts and then we might deal with it?” But the answer is straightforward. For the rule of law to operate effectively, we need the law to be precise, we need it to be clear, and we need it to be defined in advance so that people understand their positions. That is exactly what Mr Muller’s member’s bill does in this case.

So, short as it is; in 12-point font, as it is; amending just a very small number of clauses in the Companies Act, as it does; even though it might seem to be the smallest matter, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not the smallest matter. It is worth the House’s time and attention, and, for that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. So are we awake, New Zealand? Are we awake? It’s been a very testing hour, hasn’t it, as we’ve navigated through some of the challenges of the Companies Act, particularly for companies who are wanting to establish themselves under the operating framework, if you like, of a cooperative. Can I acknowledge, please, actually with some humility, the feedback that I’ve had as members have spoken on this bill. As I said when I first opened, this is a small technical amendment, but it does have quite a significant import for companies who wish to structure themselves in a way that is more like a cooperative.

The level of support and perspective that has been shared around this issue over the last half hour is very gratifying, particularly from Minister Faafoi. Thank you for your support. I think the issue that the Minister raised around the official’s concern with respect to retrospectivity—I am very sure that we’re going to be able to find a way through that point. My colleague Andrew Bayly, who’s no longer here with us, spoke about the support that this has received from both the Co-operatives Association but also companies like Zespri and others who are not actually cooperatives in the true sense—they are companies under the Companies Act—but wish to be structured as some.

I think some of the distinctions in this bill, perhaps, have been lost. Kieran McAnulty’s fantastic speech around the glory of cooperatives possibly overlooked the fact that this bill isn’t about cooperatives. Actually, it’s about companies who want to act in a more cooperative way. But, in the spirit of the goodwill that has flowed on this particular bill, I’m not going to be too picky.

Thank you for the support. I think we’ve got a fair direction, and I look forward to the conversations with colleagues in the Primary Production Committee. I too, of course, commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Primary Production Committee.

Bills

KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill

First Reading

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I move, That the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services and Community Committee to consider this bill.

Despite the very lengthy title of the bill, this is a very simple issue which deserves the support of every member of this House. The bill was designed to solve a problem and create an opportunity for the most vulnerable children in our communities: 6,000 children who are currently in the care of the State. They are foster children, and it is the hope of every member of this House that these vulnerable children are all receiving the care, the security, the services, and the love that they need and deserve.

Foster parents are the mechanism we as a country use to give these tamariki a family—a family who will care, who will provide, and who will love unconditionally. Sometimes that family is the care of strangers. Sometimes they are whānau carers or kin carers, but the objective is always the same: give the child a safe, secure, and loving environment where their physical and psychological needs are met, where decency and kindness prevail, and where love flourishes.

This House has a responsibility to those children, and I am sure that every member of this House takes that responsibility as seriously as I do. The issue this bill addresses is simple. It seeks to give foster parents the same right as other parents to open a KiwiSaver account for these children. It also gives foster children aged 16 and 17 the same rights to open a KiwiSaver account as any other 16- or 17-year-old New Zealander. This sounds simple, and many members of this House would no doubt ask why this is not possible currently. Why indeed? Well, a foster child is in a very unique position. Often their legal guardian or parent is absent. They may be unable to be contacted. They might be in prison. They might be deceased. For whatever reason, their care is now the business of the State.

For children in this situation, our country allocates that guardianship responsibility to the chief executive of Oranga Tamariki—Ministry for Children. In the absence of a legal guardian or parent, that chief executive is responsible for all decisions affecting that child’s welfare. The chief executive exercises that care through social workers, who themselves are likely to be responsible for many other children. Foster parents or kin carers are the mechanism that is used to reassure the chief executive that a child for whom she is responsible is receiving the care that they need. But there’s a problem. This problem arises when foster parents want to open a KiwiSaver account for foster children in the same way as any other parent can open a KiwiSaver account for their children.

Why would a foster parent want to do this? Let me give you a real-life example of a family where the grandfather wants to provide a legacy for all the children in the family, including the foster children. Why a KiwiSaver account and not a bank account? Very simple: if you want to leave a legacy for a child that you know will only ever be able to be accessed by that child, then that is a KiwiSaver account. As the child grows, he or she may receive other financial bonuses which can be put aside for their future. No one else can access a KiwiSaver account except the account holder himself or herself.

So it’s a good thing to do this for a child—to provide that child who may have had many years of instability and insecurity with a valuable asset that will always be there for them in the future. So why can’t this be done now? Very simple: the chief executive of the Ministry for Children is a very busy person who has thousands of responsibilities. Currently, the only way to get an application to open a KiwiSaver account on her desk is through the social worker who is responsible for that child and, possibly, for hundreds of other children as well.

So form-filling to open a KiwiSaver account is not a high priority for the social worker, for the ministry itself, or, indeed, for the CEO, given her massive job. That’s what this bill was designed to address. If you want to open a KiwiSaver account for a child, you need that child’s birth certificate and an IRD number. Currently, foster parents cannot access those. They need the CEO of the Ministry for Children to do it all on their behalf. This bill gives foster parents who have been approved through the Family Court and who have been given a care plan by that court the right to apply directly for a birth certificate and for an IRD number. It’s that simple. It can be done by the Family Court judge, adding that responsibility to the care plan given to each foster parent through the Family Court process. Until this happens, foster children do not have the same rights as other children in New Zealand who have a legal parent or guardian.

At this point, I want to acknowledge the efforts of a number of very special people: a group of individual foster parents who have been working with not-for-profit KiwiSaver provider Simplicity and talking with the Government and various departments about how this can be achieved. I want to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister for Children, Tracey Martin, who has welcomed this approach, and also the Minister of Revenue, Stuart Nash. I want to acknowledge the support of VOYCE - Whakarongo Mai, the not-for-profit agency which aims to speak for and represent the interests of young people.

Unfortunately, all these people have received pushbacks from those in Government departments who say it’s too hard. To those who are worried about the costs or the admin challenge, I can give you my assurance that this is already taken care of. Not-for-profit KiwiSaver provider Simplicity—and it’s great to see Sam, the founder of Simplicity here tonight with his kids Ben and Emma; great to see you—has already committed to set up a KiwiSaver account for each and every foster child in New Zealand who wants one, waiving all admin fees, membership, and trustee and custodial fees for at least the first five years.

I ask every member of this House to agree to this very simple request to enable our most vulnerable children to have the same right, to access KiwiSaver as any other child in New Zealand. I accept that this bill should go to the select committee for consultation, and I look forward to hearing from foster parents and foster children.

I want to finish by thanking a young person who will remain anonymous in this House, who has allowed me to read this poem explaining their identity dilemma:

So you’ve asked what it takes - to get an ID

To prove I exist - that I am the “Real Me”

I can’t get a job - because IRD

Need to give me a number - to prove I’m the “Real Me”!

So I’m told by social workers - “well you don’t have a birth certificate”

Which in your adult world - kind of makes me “illegitimate”

There is a copy on file - but they say it’s not “the real McCoy”

So the lawyers say we have to go - and pay for one more!

So the powers that be - fill in an application

To get a new birth certificate - so I’m part of this nation!

In the meantime they tell me - “not to worry, it will be cool”

But after 5 months - they must think I’m a fool!

I’m not a fool, just powerless - relying on adults

I still can’t have a bank account - never mind a bank balance!

I can’t get youth rates - to get the bus and train to course

I have to pay as an adult - as there’s no other recourse!

So 5 months later - I am still waiting

No updates or news - it’s really so frustrating

You expect me to be patient - do you not think I have been

Try living my world - not sure you’d be too keen!

So this is my plea - for all of those teenagers in “care”

Can you sort this shit earlier - I wonder if you dare

The lack of these basics - is contributing to my stress

Is it any wonder - I am a teenage mess?

I hold on to “hope” - that somebody will listen

But frankly - it all seems to be too much of a mission!

Just get me my ID - so I can join the adult world

And don’t blame me - for what is quite absurd!

You just don’t make it easy - everything’s so tough

The process is humiliating - it’s really shit and rough

Because I don’t exist - as I cannot prove who I am

Maybe this has come from no one - do you know who I am?

I move this bill.

Hon STUART NASH (Minister of Revenue): Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. That was a very good speech by Hamish Walker, and I admire his passion. Labour is going to support this bill through to select committee, but we do have a number of major concerns about the bill. But let me start off by saying a couple of things.

First and foremost, we acknowledge that if you’re a child in foster care, then things have gone wrong at some point in your life, or with your parents and your upbringing. It is tough; of that there is no doubt, and I absolutely take my hat off to those people with massive big hearts that have taken in children into foster care—often damaged children, often with their own children, but providing the necessary shelter, the care, the love, and the support that these children have not had from whence they have come. So immense respect for those people who are foster parents.

But this is one of those bills where it sounds good. There are good intentions here, but I suspect it’s one of those bills where if the Opposition had had the experience of a Steven Joyce or a Bill English, or even a John Key, they would have drilled a little bit further and realised there is a little bit more to this than just saying foster parents should be allowed to enrol their kids in KiwiSaver.

First and foremost, under 18 you don’t get the compulsory employer contribution or the member’s tax credit, so by simply opening up an account with a zero balance, you can incur—not you Madam Deputy Speaker; a KiwiSaver member—fees. Now, I do accept the member’s point that Simplicity and one or two other KiwiSaver accounts don’t have fees, but I sort of wonder of the point of opening up a KiwiSaver account and having no balance in there—and keep in mind that when a person starts working at the age of 18, they are automatically enrolled in KiwiSaver anyway. It doesn’t matter where they’ve come from and what their background is—when a person starts working, they are enrolled in KiwiSaver.

I do acknowledge there are 6,000 foster children, and I think everyone in this House will acknowledge the fact that this Government has made it its priority to lift the well-being of children in our community and our society. I think there is no greater commitment to that than the fact that the Prime Minister herself has taken on the personal and portfolio responsibility of seeing this through, of introducing legislation and making it one of her key commitments for this Government’s legacy. So to say—and no one has said this—that enrolling foster kids in KiwiSaver is one of our top priorities really sort of misses the boat about what we’re trying to achieve as a Government.

The member talked about the Minister for Children, Tracey Martin, and I have seen a number of papers that the Minister has brought to Cabinet committees and I know the incredible work that is going on in this Government to better the livelihoods for the most vulnerable in our communities. And some of these are the foster children, but a lot of them are those who are going without food, who are going without shelter, and who have a substandard level of education.

The Minister of Finance will deliver one of the world’s first well-being Budgets. That Budget will say: this is a Government that judges things on more than just GDP. It’s not just about money; it’s about how we are treating the most vulnerable in our communities. Of course, some of the most vulnerable in our communities are our children. We know the statistics; they are terrible. Whilst this bill is well-meaning, there are so many more important things we need to do for the most vulnerable, for these children in our community. I would have thought that perhaps the member could have canvassed something that was a little bit more relevant to lifting kids and families and children out of poverty and into a world where they can engage.

Don’t get me wrong: I have said we are going to support this. We are going to support it. There are benefits of KiwiSaver—I absolutely acknowledge that, as do 2.72 million Kiwis who are part of KiwiSaver. I suspect the vast majority of members in this House are members of KiwiSaver, so we acknowledge this. We acknowledge its importance. I also acknowledge that there are 30 KiwiSaver providers. The member outlined the current process of enrolling in KiwiSaver, saying that you’ve got to go to your social worker, and it’s got to be a priority and it’s got to be done. There is a process to go through, but there is also a process to go through to take a KiwiSaver out of a default provider and into one that is not a default provider. As far as I’m aware, Simplicity or the others with zero fees are not default providers. So it is not simply as easy as going along and signing up.

I would argue that in a number of cases, it is actually easier when you’re developing a programme for foster parents and children to put this as a priority, so it’s listed there by the Family Court judge so the social worker knows that this is one of the steps that is important for the child, for the foster family. That is possibly an easier route than, in fact, requiring a foster parent, who has a number of challenges—in looking after children, there is a number of challenges—to then themselves go and enrol in KiwiSaver. As mentioned, when it’s compulsory, that’s easy. When you start work, that is easy, because you are automatically enrolled, and to get out of it you’ve actually got to make an application, and the rules are changing around that anyway.

So I will be interested to see what sort of submissions we get at the select committee around this, and it’s the reason why we are going to support this to select committee, because I think this is a case where I don’t have a great feel for whether this is a really big priority for foster parents. In my electorate, I’ve met a number of foster parents. There are loose associations or groupings of foster parents, and they come together and they share their stories. I suspect that the vast majority of electorate MPs have similar experiences to me. But I can tell you, in my—how many years has it been?—seven or eight years of being a member of Parliament—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Nine now.

Hon STUART NASH: —nine years, goodness me. No foster—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh no, you had a break.

Hon STUART NASH: I had a break. I had a cup of tea. I can tell you that in those nine years, no foster parent has ever, ever said to me, “You know, one of the things that I need to be able to do as a foster parent is sign my child up to KiwiSaver.” There was a time when foster parents did not get the same benefits as others who were caring for kids. There are a number of foster parents who struggle to meet the commitments of schooling, of sport, and of other financial obligations that they face in being a foster parent. But never has anyone said, “I just struggle with the fact I cannot enrol the children that I am fostering into KiwiSaver.” That is the reason why I sort of wonder if this is the priority that the member bases this on.

So, as mentioned, we are going to support this bill to select committee, and I will be interested to see if we get a number of foster parents or representative foster parents coming along and saying, “Thank goodness. About time; because this has been a really burning issue for me.” What we might hear, what we may well hear, is foster parents coming along and saying, “OK, well—”

Hamish Walker: That’s where it came from, Stuart. Do you not care?

Hon STUART NASH: Mr Walker, to say that I don’t care is missing the point completely—is missing the point completely. What I am saying—what I am saying—is that in my nine years as a member of Parliament, no foster parent has ever—ever—brought up the fact that they struggle to enrol their children in KiwiSaver. In fact, there is a pathway to do that, and as I’ve mentioned, I suspect that it might be easier to put it on the plan.

But anyway, I might be wrong. I could be wrong. What we may get in front of the select committee is a whole lot of foster parents coming along and saying, “This is a priority. Thank goodness this is going to be put in place.”, and in that case we’ll put it through.

Simeon Brown: So be open-minded.

Hon STUART NASH: I am open-minded, and that is why we are going to vote this through to the select committee. Do I need to make myself any clearer? Can I make myself any clearer? I suspect that, in fact, if the member went back to his electorate and concentrated on the issues that were important to the people of wherever he’s from, if he spends his time looking after the most vulnerable, then he would do a little bit better and make a little bit of a better contribution.

Anyway, just to reiterate, let’s see what comes back from the select committee. We are going to support the bill to select committee, but let me just say one thing: there has not been a Government in the history of—well, since the first Labour Government—that is doing more to lift children out of poverty than this Government now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just before I call the next speaker, can I just remind the House that every member is entitled, on members’ day, to have a member’s bill debated.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It’s a pleasure to be speaking on this member’s bill, the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill. I’d just like to acknowledge my colleague Hamish Walker and his emotional poetry that he displayed in this performance. I’d also like to acknowledge all of the foster parents in New Zealand. You are doing a great service to our community and to this Government, and, for the National Party, you are a priority to us.

This bill gives equal access to a great scheme for foster children under 18 years of age. We should help foster parents where we can because they are doing a tremendous service in helping to bring these kids up—many of whom are coming up from very tough circumstances. The current process for applying for a KiwiSaver account is cumbersome, and this bill seeks to streamline that.

KiwiSaver is a great initiative—

Kieran McAnulty: Thank you, Labour.

DAN BIDOIS: —that’s why the National Government kept it in place. And, yes, I would like to acknowledge that this was a Labour initiative, but this is what the National Government does. We keep good initiatives in place regardless of where they come from. We don’t get rid of things that are going well just because of ideology, and that is what this Labour Government is doing with charter schools, national standards, tax cuts, and the 90-day bill.

This will probably affect about a hundred foster children in my electorate, give or take. This will give these people a leg up in a life that they’ve clearly started out behind in. We should be giving, at a minimum, the same access to these children that other children have as well, but we do need to do more to provide more support and make it easier, in particular, for foster parents when they’re taking and shouldering the burden of our society.

I’ve talked to people in my electorate who actually do this—foster children—and I’m just amazed at the level of burden that they shoulder individually. I do want to mention a particular man that I’ve met in my electorate, and his wife, who, over a period of well over 12 years, have taken on board many foster children. And they often feel like the world is against them—that that level of cumbersomeness, not just in KiwiSaver but in a whole range of processes with respect to the way they are able to provide care for foster children—they just feel like, you know, “What is the point?”, at times. We need to make it easier for these people to be able to do their job and also to contribute to these children’s lives.

The current processes for KiwiSaver for these parents are far too cumbersome. It has to go to the CEO of the Ministry of Social Development at present, and none have gone there at this stage, as I understand, because of how cumbersome it has been. So I would certainly support this bill as a priority because, as I said, of the number of people in my electorate who take on this burden. I would strongly commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

Dr DEBORAH RUSSELL (Labour—New Lynn): This is an interesting bill, and, as my esteemed colleague the Hon Stuart Nash has said, we will be supporting it through to select committee. And that’s for good reason. It’s an interesting idea, and it’s one that’s worth having a very good look at—and a good-faith look at. We do think there are some concerns with the bill, but we are engaging with the process in good faith. We do really want to examine what is going on with it, whether we can make it better, and whether we can make it work.

It’s an interesting thing with KiwiSaver. It’s not just a retirement saving any more. We know that many young people use KiwiSaver as a way to save for a deposit on a first home, and it’s one of the ways that we can help people to get some security in their lives, as Mr Hamish Walker did talk about in his opening speech. For my husband and I, it was easy for us to opt in for our daughters—to opt in to KiwiSaver, to give them that basis of savings, to start saving for them and with them. And it does seem to be a shame that it is much, much more difficult for foster parents, who take on the role of parents as much as possible, not to have the same fairly easy access to help their foster children. And, of course, foster parents do so out of love. It’s an extraordinary thing that foster parents do, and I think they would do this out of good faith for their foster children. So I commend the idea of making it easier for foster parents to opt in to KiwiSaver with their foster children.

I’m particularly interested in some of the clauses in the bill which talk about 16- and 17-year-old children, who cannot opt in directly by themselves but can do it in conjunction with one of their foster parents. To me, that gives a degree of autonomy to 16- and 17-year-olds. It recognises that they are on their way to adulthood. So that’s a very interesting provision, and I’m delighted to see it in the bill.

For someone who is less than 16 years old, they need to get their foster parent and one of the carers from Child, Young Persons, and their Families Act or guardians or so on to sign in for them, and that does seem to me to be appropriate as well—that people who are still really children do need to get two adults to sign in for them. So I find that an interesting way of structuring it.

What worries me is changing circumstances. Look, it may be the case that foster parents—one set of foster parents—may sign a young person into KiwiSaver, but circumstances change. Perhaps the foster parents lose jobs. Perhaps, sadly, the relationship comes apart. We know that foster caring relationships come to an end. And then they might be committed to a KiwiSaver fund that they can no longer fund themselves. But, of course, the same thing happens with ordinary parents anyway—so those circumstances would be the same.

But I think the more pressing worry is the extent to which fees on KiwiSaver accounts could erode savings that have been made in the name of the young person. Now, there are, of course, low-fee providers, and there is this generous offer from Simplicity KiwiSaver to charge no fees. I wonder if other KiwiSaver funds might also make the same offer, especially with respect to foster children.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)

WEDNESDAY, 8 AUGUST 2018

(continued on Thursday, 9 August 2018)

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Instruction to Committee

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I move, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and, if it thinks appropriate, adopt the amendments suggested by many submitters that constituency members of Parliament be exempted from the new power of party leaders to dismiss MPs.

Mr Speaker—

SPEAKER: No; the member has moved that there is no debate.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What? You’re joking!

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. It’s a debatable motion. I apologise to the member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No trouble. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Members of the Opposition were surprised, during the committee stage, when we tabled an amendment to make a differentiation between constituency MPs and list MPs on these new powers that are being created in respect of a member of Parliament being dismissed, that that amendment was struck out of order. And, as such, the only way in which the committee of the whole House is able to consider that amendment is for this specific instruction.

In the 55 submissions that the Justice Committee heard, there were 23 of those that requested this very amendment—in fact, it was the most common amendment that was proposed in the committee stage. In fact, 23 of the submitters to the select committee believed, where a constituency member of Parliament has a clear mandate from their constituency, that that was different to the list. Now, to be fair to the submitters, I want to make plain that only three of those 23 submitters supported the bill with that change. In other words, three of the submitters said, yes, they would support this bill if it only applied to list MPs and not to constituency MPs.

SPEAKER: I’m now going to do what I did to the member previously and remind him that this is not the substance of that debate; it is whether it should be considered. And we’re not going into the merits of the arguments made or the arguments that the member wants to make later.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that point; although, in arguing that it should be an instruction to the committee, I think it is reasonable to reflect on the views that the select committee had, particularly noting that the Government members of the select committee did not allow any discussion on any amendment, let alone this one, which was the most common amendment that was put forward by submitters. And it’s also interesting to note, if you look at the commentary on this bill, that there’s actually a very wide number of New Zealanders who believe that the mandate that constituency MPs have is different to that of list MPs, and, as such, Parliament should be able to consider and debate that issue on this important bill.

I’d also note that it was not just the submitters. In the official advice—that’s a matter of public record—from both the justice ministry and from the other arms of Government, there was recognition that there is a marked difference between a constituency MP and a list MP in the way in which they come into Parliament, in that there is a specific campaign in their district that does make it different, and that means it is appropriate that the House would be able to debate that amendment. I would suggest to this House that if there was any amendment that this House should be able to debate on this bill, this would be it. Why would we say that view? Well, firstly, because that’s what the public said—that’s what the submitters said. And I think, for any MP that’s been involved in political dialogue in the switch from our previous first past the post system to the system of proportional representation, one of the biggest debates has been about what is the constitutional difference between the rights and responsibilities of a list member of Parliament as compared with a constituency member of Parliament.

So the question for the House is not whether that’s a good idea; the debate is: should Parliament be able to consider it? Should Parliament, in the committee stage, be able to make that differentiation? And I think there is a very compelling argument that this is an issue of note, an issue of importance, and an amendment that should be able to be considered at the committee stage on a bill that has received so little consideration and debate at the select committee stage but should be able to be debated in the committee of the whole House.

So the form of that amendment that would be proposed and would be allowed to be debated as a consequence of this instruction to the committee would simply say that this bill and its new powers around the dismissal of a member of Parliament would only apply to those members of Parliament that came via the list and not the constituency. It’s quite a specific amendment, it’s an amendment that’s been tabled, and it’s an amendment that’s available to all members of the House to see so that they’re very clear about what it is that Opposition members want to have the opportunity to be able to debate. There’s no debate about what the detail is of that amendment that is being proposed.

Hon Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 77/1, which says that it’s out of order to move an instruction to the committee to consider an amendment that would already be in scope of the bill. I have listened carefully to the member, and he hasn’t yet given any indication that the amendment that he is proposing the committee be instructed to consider is actually outside the scope of what the committee is already empowered to do.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, I’d be happy, and if the member checked, the Chair of the committee yesterday ruled it was out of scope and that I couldn’t introduce it, and that’s the very reason for the instruction.

SPEAKER: That was the earlier point made by the member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So the very point that the Leader of the House, who’s just interrupted, doesn’t realise that it’s within scope—

SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. We’ve had a point of order. It’s been ruled on; it is not referred to again.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In arguing that the Parliament should be able to consider an instruction to the committee to be able to consider this important amendment to differentiate between the constitutional status of constituency MPs, that have a clear mandate from the electorate, and those of list MPs, that are only in Parliament as a consequence of their ranking on the list, is an issue that I view—and I would welcome a contribution from Mr Hipkins—is a reasonable amendment for us to be able to proceed. And, given his earlier comments, I’d invite him just simply to allow the resolution to be passed. That will enable the amendment to be considered, and that would enable this debate on an instruction to the committee.

I do say, Mr Speaker, I was surprised by the ruling of the Chair. I respect it, but I was surprised. And I was surprised because, in my view, it is absolutely within the scope of the debate that has occurred around this bill, as to whether these new provisions for creating vacancies in the seats of members of Parliament, whether there is a significant difference between those members of Parliament who have had their name on a ballot paper, who have secured the most number of votes in their electorate and then being different from those people that have—

SPEAKER: OK. The member is now heading right into the substance. Is there anything further that is relevant and new to say?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Mr Speaker, this is a very, very important bill. We’re in unusual circumstances, being in extended hours, with the Government wanting to progress a bill, and I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, and I would suggest to the House that this question is a very important one, and all we ask is—

SPEAKER: Right, thank you, Dr Smith.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I want to make a few comments in support of the motion moved by Dr Nick Smith that it be an instruction to the committee of whole House that we can, in fact, consider the difference between someone who is elected off a party list and someone who is elected directly by their constituency at the time of the general election in relation to the powers that are conferred, should this bill become an Act, in the party structures that make up this Parliament or have representation in this Parliament.

It’s very interesting, I think, to note that there are members of this Parliament who were returned from their constituencies with a party logo attached to their campaigns but who have, in those same constituencies, a majority for another party on the party list vote.

You could go through numerous seats held by members in the governing parties where the member won the confidence of the local electorate but the party did not share that confidence and, in fact, the Opposition won the party vote in those seats. That, I think, more clearly demonstrates the public’s differentiation between the two types of elected member than anything else. So all that this motion asks is that the Parliament can, in the committee stage of this bill, consider whether or not there should be a provision in what we expect would become law for a different treatment for constituency members of Parliament. If a member of Parliament is elected from a constituency, they’ve campaigned on a policy platform, and to ignore that—[Speaker stands] Hang on.

SPEAKER: No, no. Don’t hang on. You sit down.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, you’re going to rule—all right.

SPEAKER: Yes. I’m not quite terminating the member’s speech yet, but I’m warning him that he’s getting very close.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This will be one of those occasions when perhaps your diligence in listening to what members are saying is far more acute than perhaps other times, which is not particularly useful for speakers on their feet!

So I say again: if the majority of this House decides that this is an instruction to the committee that should not be made, then I think it has to be clear that that majority is made up largely of members who are not elected from constituencies, and I think that is quite a problem. It would leave open the suggestion that somehow there is no need for constituencies in the future.

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I haven’t heard any new relevant arguments from the member. I think we had an eloquent exposition of the issues from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, and the member has not added to them. In fact, he’s been much less relevant than he should have been, so his speech is terminated.

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

SPEAKER: No. The issue is absolutely clear.

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 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That it be an instruction to the committee of the whole House on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that it consider and, if it thinks appropriate, adopt the amendments suggested by many submitters that constituency members of Parliament be exempted from the new power of party leaders to dismiss MPs.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

In Committee

Debate resumed from 7 August.

New clause 3A (Distortion of proportionality) (continued)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): One of the critical definitions in this bill, enabling a leader to dismiss a member of Parliament—

Darroch Ball: That’s not true.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —is that they act—well, if the member who just interjected would simply take a call. Well, here’s a test for him: the leader of the Green Party says that it’s true. Twenty one academics say it is true. We have the Clerk of the House who says it is true. We have the Legislation Design and Advisory Committee which says it’s true. We have the youth wing of every main political party saying it’s true. So unless you are prepared to take a call and to argue that case, the Parliament can reasonably conclude that this bill provides the power for a leader of a party to dismiss an MP.

Here’s the key on this amendment. It says that a member of Parliament will be dismissed if they act in a way that has distorted proportionality. What the hell does that mean? What the heck does that mean? So if a member of Parliament puts a press release out and says that “Actually, I’ve got a slightly different view to the leader.”, does that mean they are acting in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament? If I phone the whips and say to our great whip “Hey, I’ve got a concern about that bill. I’m not sure I want to vote.”, is that acting in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament?

Why I’m worried about this is that in those awful authoritarian states that have laws of this sort, the House would be appalled to know under what circumstances members of Parliament have been dismissed. There have been examples in Zimbabwe where a member of Parliament accused Mr Mugabe of corruption, and he was sacked under a provision that said this—kicked out of the Parliament. Do we think that is just? Does the member of the Green Party think that is just? And then we look at a country like Pakistan. In Pakistan, we had a member of Parliament—you know what he did? He called a press conference without the permission of his leader, and he was dismissed. So I would like to know from the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little: would a member of Parliament who had a press conference against the directions of the leader—would that meet the definition of acting in a way that has distorted the proportionality of Parliament at last election?

Let’s make it practical: Marilyn Waring in 1984 had a different review to the National Party leader of the time on the issue of nuclear ships. She expressed it, and she said she was going to vote for a Labour bill banning nuclear ships. Would that that meet the definition of acting in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament? What about Jim Anderton, in 1989, when he stood up against Rogernomics—would that meet the definition of what this Government is wanting to do and to act in such a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament?

What about—let’s take a more recent one. Let’s take the example of Tariana Turia on the foreshore and seabed. Would her expression of views of that sort—and I’d loved one of the Māori members of the Government to tell me. Would Tariana Turia expressing a view of opposition to the Government’s position in respect of the foreshore and seabed meet the legal test for being fired—that is, acting in a way that has distorted the proportionality of Parliament?

What members on this side of the House say is we should not pass sloppy laws in this area. When you’re talking about the rights of members of Parliament and what they can say and what they cannot say; what they can do and what they cannot do—“act”: that’s what this amendment’s about; that’s what this definition is about—we need to have certainty, and Parliament can have absolutely no certainty in the provision that exists there at the moment.

Now, the amendment does a very important thing for any constituency member in this Parliament that takes their role seriously. It says that in that definition of “acting in a way that has distorted the proportionality of Parliament”, it shall not include anything that they have said or done in their role as a constituency member of Parliament. Now, isn’t that a good amendment that will assert the freedoms of those of us that are privileged to represent particular communities and ensure that we can speak freely and we can act freely? I could give you many examples. I could give the example of my good friend the Rt Hon—now Sir—Bill English, who in this first term of Parliament took a view as a constituency MP on the issue of native forestry in Southland, and he took a different view to what National took at that time.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): For anybody listening to this, they might wonder how all this works. I saw the member on the other side of the House, Darroch Ball, laughing away as Dr Smith was outlining some very serious concerns about the provisions and workings of this bill. So I would simply ask Mr Ball to reflect upon how often he is able to express his own view inside the New Zealand First caucus at the present time.

I think that what happens when people enter Parliament in a party like that, that is notorious for turning over MPs, is that the ability for an individual to express some degree of personal thought is naturally curtailed, and we don’t need this legislation for its effect to be available to that party. I’ll ask this question: if it isn’t up to the leader of the party, or available to the leader of the party, to dismiss a member of Parliament, and Mr Ball wants to continually say “No, that’s not right because 75 percent of the caucus has to agree with the expulsion, effectively.”, then what would happen if Mr Peters decided to expel Mr Ball for a minor thing? Perhaps he had a slightly different view on something, like, for example, the defence policy that’s being exercised at the moment. Perhaps he was upset by the expense that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade were going to go to over the higher-quality champagne and the more well-formed cucumbers that make up their sandwiches for their various functions they hold, and Mr Peters decided, “Well, I’m not having that. You’re on your way, son.” Is 75 percent of the New Zealand First Party going to disagree with Mr Peters? Absolutely not.

So while I might use very trite examples for what might cause a conflict, if it was something bigger—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Two-thirds, not 75 percent.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What is it? It’s not 75 percent?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it’s only two-thirds.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, it’s only two-thirds. Well, it’s still a fair number. And it makes the point that even if it was something big, and Mr Ball—who was sent to this Parliament and sits here as a free, unencumbered individual under the Westminster system—decides to speak out against it, and the leader says, “Not having this. Not putting up with this.” Then it’s quite clear that it’s either Mr Ball or Mr Peters. There’s no choice. So whether it’s 60 percent, 66 percent, or 75 percent, it doesn’t matter. It’s going to be a choice between the offending or offensive party—who might just be speaking out for their constituents—and the view of the leader. So any suggestion that this bill does not confer extraordinary power over the democratic operation of this country on to party leaders is a complete misnomer.

I’m sad that Mr Ball continues to sit over there laughing, although I suspect it’s a nervous laughter for fear that the constant reference to his name in this House might get him a recognition close to that of Winston Peters, which would be equally fatal, I have to say.

There is an amendment in front of the Parliament at the moment asking for some definition about what distortion of proportionality means. Well, I have to refer back to the breakup of The Alliance in 2001-2002. That was a party that shattered. It ended up with Laila Harré being the nominal leader of The Alliance, and the constituent parties—the New Labour Party, the Green Party, the Liberal Party, and the Democratic Party—all splintering off in their own direction. Well, under this provision, that couldn’t happen, if we accept that the distortion of Parliament can occur through these sorts of events.

The reality is that the Green Party would not sit here today as a strong, individual party in this Parliament if they had not been able to come together in The Alliance and then separate themselves out from that at a point. Now, while they didn’t abandon The Alliance, technically that’s exactly what they did. They used the vehicle of The Alliance—[Time expired]

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I just want to carry on from the Hon Gerry Brownlee’s comments. Yeah, there is an element of fun around it, but this is actually very, very serious. This bill totally, I believe, brings into question the value of having list MPs in this Parliament at all. I’m hoping that the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little—he did this yesterday, and I’m hoping that he’ll do it again today—will stand and will take calls and will address the important issues that are being raised today.

The reason why I say “What value will a list MP bring to this Parliament; what real contribution will they be able to make; what independent thinking will they be able to apply to this Parliament?”—the reason why I raise this—is simply this, and it comes back to the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee made, and he used Darroch Ball as an example.

If Darroch Ball felt very strongly about a policy that his leader wanted to support and he didn’t, and he wanted to make an argument, then he’s going to have to make his argument so compelling, or be so compelling in the way that he delivers that argument, that it’s going to put him in a position where, if the Rt Hon Winston Peters decides “No, we’re going in this direction.” and Darroch Ball says “Well, I don’t agree with this and I’m going to take a position on it”—which happens all the time, from my experience; certainly, inside our party, people are very free to get up and make their case and argue their position. The Rt Hon Winston Peters decides “Nah, he’s gone.” So you tell me—

Darroch Ball: So why wouldn’t you be gone in your party?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: You tell me. Who’s got—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No, I won’t tell you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, repeat.

Darroch Ball: Why wouldn’t you be gone in your party?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I won’t tell you, all right?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah. Sorry, Madam Chair. Mr Darroch Ball is barracking across the House. I’d like to respond to his question, but I can’t hear it, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just say that the purpose of the committee of the whole House is a much more informal environment where people can have the opportunity to take four five-minute calls and have a discourse. Having that through interjection is not helpful to the order of the House. So if the member continues the call—and that member is free to stand up and make his point in the discussion.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do apologise for interrupting my good colleague Mark Mitchell, but I am very concerned that throughout the whole of that ruling, his time was counting down. I appreciate that this is probably at the discretion of the Chair, but I wonder whether you were aware of that fact, because it is only a five-minute call, and much of that time has been elapsed, effectively, dealing with Mr Ball’s interjections.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It’s a valid point of order, and I hear it, and I have taken it into account.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Again, I just invite the member Darroch Ball to stand and take a call and outline for us, very clearly, the points that he’s trying to make. We will listen very carefully. We’ll record them, we’ll write them down, and then we’ll take more calls and we will address them. We’ll address those points. So I’d welcome Darroch Ball, instead of barracking from across the House, to stand up—it’s very easy—and take a five minute call, take a 10-minute call, and lay out for us very clearly why you think this bill is so important, why you believe in it so strongly, and allow us to get up and respond to those points. I would invite him to do that, and it will be very interesting to see whether or not, in the course of this debate, he actually does do that.

So, coming back to my original point, the reality is this—this is the reality. There is not one member of the New Zealand First caucus that would not back their leader—the Rt Hon Winston Peters—in a move by him to expel Darroch Ball from this Parliament if he chose to do it. Now, if Darroch Ball wants to stand up and he wants to make an argument, and he wants to explain to this House why that wouldn’t happen, then I’d invite him to do that. But we all know—everyone knows in this House—that if the Rt Hon Winston Peters decides to expel Darroch Ball from this Parliament, he’s gone.

He was voted in on the party list, and you can make the argument that when the party list is put out and the people of New Zealand look at the list, some of the votes that are attracted to the party are because of the strength of the list that the party actually puts out there. So you could make an argument, actually, even for a list MP that is ranked on the party list, that there could be some support that is actually behind Darroch Ball. There could be some New Zealand First members that have actually voted for him, that have supported him, that have supported the party because of him. The reality of it is their voice doesn’t matter with this bill—he’s gone. Darroch Ball is gone. He’s expelled from this Parliament. He’s got no recourse; he is gone.

I just want to come back to another point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made: “acted in a way that has distorted,”. [Members seek call] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m allowing the member to continue.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask the Minister to please take a call and stand and define for us exactly what he means, or what this bill means, or what this bill is trying to tell us as a Parliament—“acted in a way that has distorted”. Look, I find it very interesting that during this debate I’ve put up three very clear examples to the Minister in the chair around distorted proportionality.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you, Madam Chair. I wish to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name—No. 67 for anyone following along—relating to the requirement, as it will be if this SOP is passed, for the next available list candidate—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I’m sorry, we are discussing proportionality distortion. We grouped—there are a number of amendments discussing the distortion of proportionality, clause 3.

CHRIS PENK: Yes, beg your pardon, I understand. I was getting to it rather slowly but, in fact, I’ll speed up my deliberations on that.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I apologise now to my colleague Chris Penk. I ask for you to explain what has just occurred. About two minutes ago, you gave a second call to the Hon Mark Mitchell—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I hope you’re not questioning my—

Hon Tim Macindoe: No, Madam Chair, I wish to point out that I looked at the clock at that point and at no stage when Mr Mitchell began his second call did the clock start to count down. Now, clearly we have a problem—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No look, I’m sorry, but as the Chair, I have a clock here that I watched and I deliberately didn’t curtail the member’s speech when the clock turned to zero, and I gave him extra time. He made his point. Unfortunately for him, he only just got to clause 3A in that extra time, so I hope you’re not disputing my call.

Hon Tim Macindoe: No, Madam Chair, not at all.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): It wasn’t a second call.

Hon Tim Macindoe: I absolutely accept the point you’re making. My concern is simply the fact that the clock—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Would you actually make your point of order.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Well, Madam Chair, with respect I thought I was. My point is that while I understand that you are looking at a clock, the members in the Chamber are looking at a clock that we see across the Chamber to guide us in the times that are available to us, and the clock wasn’t working. That was my point.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I didn’t stop the member from speaking. I allowed the member to continue and then pressed the bell to curtail his speech. So if you were confused, I apologise. However, it doesn’t mean that people don’t take the call when the bell rings at the end of the five minutes, and it doesn’t mean that members don’t speak to clause 3A that is before the committee.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Thank you, but that wasn’t obvious to us over here.

CHRIS PENK: Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Chris Penk has the call and we’re starting the clock.

CHRIS PENK: Thank you, Madam Chair. Resuming the call, if I may at this time—and I choose my words carefully in that regard. Speaking to the point about the distortion of proportionality—and I distorted my own remarks, I suppose, by leaping ahead to a related aspect, but I won’t get into that for now, but rather reflect on the meaning of distortion. Distortion might be—in this context, specifically in relation to the section that we are discussing—either relating to a numerical distortion of the number of members of Parliament or, indeed, a distortion of the intention of the electors at the election, and it’s the distinction between those two things that I’d like to focus on.

Taking the first of them first, a numerical distortion will take place such that the proportionality of the votes in the House will be changed by this bill specifically because the number of MPs who represent positions that they took—each individually before the election and campaigned on that basis and gained a mandate on that basis—will be distorted because the number of votes that might be expected to be given for any legislative proposal within this House will be distorted because we will not have an accurate numerical representation of the true state of affairs.

Similarly, we’ll have a distortion along numerical lines if the number of MPs in the House is, in fact, distorted by being reduced by one in the situation whereby a member of Parliament is expelled from this House under the provisions of this bill. Until such time as that person is replaced, whether because of a by-election or some intervening delay for other reasons, there will be a distortion along those lines such that the members of Parliament who remain will be numbered according to the party vote or candidate vote—electorate vote as the case may be. But the total that they will make up is 119, and you do not need a degree in higher mathematics, Madam Chair, or anyone else listening to this debate, to understand that proportionality will be crucially affected by the numbers that are used to make up members of Parliament, and, as I point out, for very practical reasons, that could be 119 rather than 120, or perhaps in the situation of an overhang that existed for entirely separate reasons, we might have 120 MPs rather than 121.

But, either way, we would have a situation of a distorted proportionality along numerical terms as an unintended consequence of this bill, and that is why the distortion of proportionality—as well as being quite hard for me to pronounce—is also quite hard for me to understand. I wonder if the Minister can make some comment as to whether that was his intention, or if not his intention, that he at least understands and acknowledges the point I’m making in that regard and whether he will be prepared to contemplate any proposals that might be made for changes along those lines. So those are my thoughts on the subject of proportionality distortion from a numerical perspective.

From a qualitative perspective, rather than quantitative—perhaps I should have made that distinction; it would have been clearer—I would like to say the following. First, the proportionality will be distorted in the sense that the result of an election campaign is a collection of members of Parliament—the collective noun of which is of course a parliament—who have expressed support or otherwise, or perhaps expressed that they will be available to be persuaded one way or the other on any given matter that comes before the House. And so the quality, that is to say the nature of the House as a collective made up of all those individuals, will be fundamentally altered by this bill because the distortion that will take place will come about because of those positions that have been made and taken by individual MPs—yes, representing their respective parties, but also acknowledging that it’s not beyond the realms of possibility, certainly it’s constitutionally possible, that a person comes into this House as a member of Parliament who stood as an independent. Certainly, in the general meaning of that phrase—albeit that he or she might nominally represent a party that does not have typical party structures, and so forth.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to be back debating the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I do just want to correct the last member who spoke on one point—and that is, the collective noun “parliament” doesn’t apply to parliamentarians; it applies to owls. It is a parliament of owls.

I do want to assist members opposite because it is clear that there is some difficulty in reading the legislation, and so the debate we’re having at the moment is about distortion of—members opposite have referred to the issue of distortion. Of course that is not the end of the phrase that is used in the bill. Clause 55D(a) of the bill refers to members who have “… acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation”. The distortion does not stand on its own. So for Mr Penk, who is concerned about distortion and talks about distortion of intention, there is nothing in the bill that refers to a distortion of intention to the extent that an intention can be distorted. But certainly the proportionality of representation can be distorted.

The Hon Nick Smith asked a somewhat absurd question: could somebody who holds a press conference meet the definition of distorted proportionality of representation? Now, it is true that much of what Nick Smith says nowadays has to be taken with a grain of salt. So for the last two days, in questions and in statements in this Chamber, he has stated that there is a joint media release from Young Labour and the Young Nationals and what have you—there is no such joint statement. Here is the thing that he is referring to—it is the political page of Salient, the student magazine for Victoria University. No joint statement—something totally made up by the Hon Nick Smith. Now, at some point somebody in the National Party caucus is going to have to pull Nick Smith aside and say, “Nick, it is important to be factually accurate.” But that is not a joint statement. I am very pleased to say that VicLabour goes on to say how important this coalition Government is.

When we ask the question about distortion of proportionality, we have to go no further than the decision of the Supreme Court in the Awatere Huata case, where they said the resignation of a member of Parliament from their party is enough to constitute distortion of proportionality of representation. So the other case, or the example that the Hon Nick Smith brought up of now Dame Tariana Turia leaving—she resigned from the party and resigned from Parliament, precisely because she said, “My mandate from my constituency does not allow me to support what the party I’m part of, now in Government, does, and I will go back and test my mandate.” It was the honourable thing to do. And she was proved to be right. She was standing up for what her constituents in her seat of Te Tai Hauāuru believed in and required her to stand up for.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: She had a seat. What about a list member? If that member resigned tomorrow, he’s gone.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Now we come to—I think members need to control their anger—a very important point, which is that there is a difference between constituency MPs and list MPs. For the purposes of this House, every MP is equal. Every MP enjoys the same privileges of this House, but not every MP comes here through the same channel, so that is a big difference. The real point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee made, however, in his contribution was to ask whether if a New Zealand First MP spoke out against a policy, would that constitute distortion? No, because the words of the bill are very clear. The distortion has to relate to proportionality of representation of the Parliament. Speaking out of turn does not distort proportionality of representation of Parliament. The Supreme Court has made that very clear.

Then we come to the example about the splitting of The Alliance. Well, actually, in the splitting of The Alliance, no one actually left their party. They might have spoken at odds in the gilded halls of The Alliance offices at the time, but no one caused a distortion of representation. So all those issues are dealt with.

Mr Mitchell, in his contribution and indeed his previous contributions, has raised a number of issues, all of which I have responded to. It would help if he raised a new issue for me to respond to. I’m not going to respond to the same issues several times over. But, again, he refers to the words “acted in a way that has distorted”, but he does not complete the phrase, which is “the proportionality of … representation in Parliament …”. All those issues are covered off. The very detailed examination that the Justice Committee gave the bill covered all that off, and it’s been covered off again today.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I’d like to raise some of the issues that—the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, says he’s answered them all. Well, the question that I have is, if we’re talking about acting in a way that has distorted, or is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation—I think what the issue is, is is there an expectation of iron discipline within parties? That seems to be the underlying theme of this, as if to say that we now expect that if you’re elected as a member of the National Party or the Labour Party or the Green Party, somehow there is an expectation that you must vote always with them, and there is iron discipline imposed upon those parties. The question is: if a member was to vote against that party for a particular issue, would that be distorting the proportionality of political party representation by doing that?

That is a serious issue that we have to wrestle with as a country, as if to say—because there’s been many examples through history where individual members of Parliament have crossed the floor on issues. If we looked at the issues today, if you asked what would happen if one of the Greens members, for example, stood by their conscience and decided not to support this bill and crossed the floor. Would that be distorting the political party representation of Parliament by doing that? There is an argument that, looking at this bill, the answer would be yes. So, somehow, without really debating the broader issue, we are now sort of saying that MPs are automatons who, when they are elected—the only thing that we’re doing in a general election is deciding on parties, and the MPs are irrelevant; they just have to vote like robots for that party in iron discipline at all times, and if they don’t, they risk being chucked out because, according to this clause, they will be distorting the proportionality of political parties.

There are many other examples. You might say that if a member of the Labour Party decided that they didn’t support the anti-immigrant stance, for example, and voted against that—would we be saying that they would be distorting the proportionality of Parliament? So we’re left then with the conclusion that somehow this country has moved to a state where the only thing that matters is the great clunking fist of the party, and that is the Holy Grail of everything that the parliamentary system stands for, and anybody crossing the floor or disagreeing with their party in a major way, it seems to me, is exposed by this bill to expulsion, because they would distort the proportionality of the political party.

I think it raises a broader question: our general elections are not simply about electing parties, because we have two votes—we have a party vote and we have an electorate vote. So there are two elements to the election going on, where we’re electing parties and we’re also electing individuals, particularly in constituencies. The Minister said every MP is equal, but you can only draw the conclusion that, like in Animal Farm, some MPs are more equal than others. I look across the Chamber at that Minister and it worries me—me, as a list MP, I feel like I’m one of the little piggies who isn’t as equal as some of the others. I don’t think that’s true.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No one wants the runt.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: That’s right. So the two questions I have are: is the Minister, through this legislation, somehow establishing a new principle that there needs to be iron discipline within parties, and that any deviation for that is cause for expulsion because of disrupting the proportionality of political party representations; and, is he also saying that the fact that individuals in New Zealand get to vote—[Time expired]

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Many of the points that have been made around distortion have resonated with us clearly on this side of the Chamber. But, as a member of the Justice Committee, which heard many of the submissions, I would have to say that Jeanette Fitzsimons made some very pertinent points about this issue around distortion. She began her text to us by saying that you cannot legislate for integrity. But when she started talking about proportionality, she gave some examples, and I thought the committee would be interested in those. Kennedy Graham and David Clendon took on their party around the actions of the co-leader Metiria Turei. Jeanette Fitzsimons, watching from a distance, was highly critical of her former colleagues Kennedy Graham and David Clendon, and she did not approve of the way they went about their criticism. However, she would “defend to the end their right to [their] freedom of conscience, and to express their views in opposition to the rest of the caucus, without being thrown out of Parliament.” As she said, what is this proportionality and this distortion really about?

The argument advanced for the bill—in fact, its stated purpose in new section 55AAB, inserted by clause 5—is to maintain proportionality of political party representation, as determined by the electors at the general election. In her view—and I agree with it—this elevates a bureaucratic structure—in other words, the party—above the principles it stands for and the principles it was founded on. So when you come to a voting situation, for example, what are the voters to make of this, if individuals are distorting what their party’s values are? Should they be voted back in again? Does it dent the party’s credibility in the minds of their voters and support base? These are the sorts of complexities and issues that arise when you have something as poorly defined as distortion is in this bill. While the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, may thunder about the importance of paying attention to the detail of the bill, and, you know, it’s all very explicit—in fact, it is not—and I would emphasise that all of the submitters were against the bill and all of them referred to proportionality and distortion and felt that that was an appalling situation.

So let’s look at what you could do to improve this bill—it won’t take very long, because there’s not a lot that can be done around distortion. I guess, when we look at, again, what Jeanette Fitzsimons has said around this, coherent ideas, policies, and processes make up the platform of what a party exists to do. The voters have confidence in the representatives, so they elect them again and again and again, and proportionality in the representation of ideas, of policies, and of political philosophy is a very worthy goal, because voters’ wishes in a democracy should be supreme. The party should not be supreme; the voters should be, and the elected members should be able to express their discontent or their varying and different views to that of the party, particularly if it wanders as far off the reservation as Labour did. As Jim Anderton said, Labour left him, not the other way round.

So if, for example, in our party, one of our members decided that they didn’t like genetic technology, for example—Predator Free 2050 was a very firm policy of the previous Government and of National. Now, if a member went out in public and started to point out the defects and the problems with the genetic modification element that is part and parcel of achieving the goal of Predator Free 2050, then that member could be pulled into line. In our caucus, that would happen. The member would be taken aside and talked to and advised and spoken to. You know, we’re disciplined, and it works, but the member would not be thrown out of Parliament, and that is an absolute disgrace. The very idea that we cannot think for ourselves, that we can’t speak for ourselves, that we have no views other than that of the party leader—one brain, one opinion between nine or eight people. That is not the way the voters want to see it, and I would encourage members opposite and members of this Government, and, in particular, the Green Party, to reflect on the reality of the values and the fundamental principles upon which their party was founded and why they are there.

The members of the Green Party are turning their backs on what the principles are, and the voters will not appreciate it. Many, many people contacted us at select committee level. Many people who came before us, and others who have responded publicly since, think it is a complete disgrace that members of the Green Party cannot exercise their conscience, and I would say that Kennedy Graham and David Clendon are the heroes of the Greens because they stood up for what they believed in, and the Greens, under this bill, would throw them out for that privilege of them doing it, which is wrong and a disgrace.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Oh, thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a great pleasure to take a call on this new clause 3A, because it actually goes, I think, to the heart of what we are talking about here. I want to just follow on from my colleague Maggie Barry’s description and discuss a little bit of history—recent history—around the former Green Party members of Parliament Dave Clendon and Kevin Hague, because they certainly acted in a way that did have the potential to invoke this. Indeed, it was that close to the election that what was currently able to be done in law was done. They were thrown out—

Hon Members: Kennedy Graham.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Kennedy Graham, sorry, not Kevin Hague—is that what I said? Kennedy Graham and David Clendon. The Green Party threw them out of their party and took them off the list for the 2017 general election. My question is actually this: whose actions upset the proportionality of Parliament? Was it the actions of Kennedy Graham and David Clendon, in acting with honour and in upholding the whakapapa of the Green Party, or was it the remaining members of the Green Party, who threw them out?

Now, it’s worth speculating on that because I think we have a more recent example of where the Green Party stood for one thing before the general election and at least some of their members are now standing for something else, and that is with this bill. Every single member of the Green Party stood up and said how loathsome a waka-jumping framework was—every single one of them. So my question is which ones of them now are going to act with the sort of integrity that we saw David Clendon and Kennedy Graham display and demonstrate 10 months ago? My question is who moved from the principles—the grounded principles—of the Green Party in saying this bill is anathema to the things that they stand for? Yet there must be members in that caucus who are terrified, who want to do the right thing, who now know that the moment this bill is passed, if they do it with this or any other departure from Green Party principles, they’re out.

It is a fundamental philosophical question about who is upsetting the proportionality. Is it the person who stands on their principles or is it the party that moves away from their principles? I have to say, students of political history will know that this is just the latest chapter in a long-running saga in this Parliament, where members of Parliament have believed that it wasn’t they that moved from the core principles on which they stand and for which their party stood—Jim Anderton is a very good example of this. Even if it wasn’t so principled, even if it was relationship-based, even if it was the sort of thing that the Hon Maurice Williamson went through in 2003, where he was thrown out by the National Party caucus—what happened to that?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Suspended.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Suspended—touché. He spent another 14 years in Parliament—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Could we just talk proportionality as part of this?

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This is about proportionality, because that action, in standing up for the things that those MPs stood for, against their party’s wishes, is an action that under the new clause 3A that we are debating would constitute acting in a way that distorts proportionality.

I think this could even be expanded further with a potential amendment to say that the actions that distort proportionality are not the actions of the individual but the actions of the broader party that led to that point. Actually, it becomes a slightly existential question about who should resign: the member that stands up and says, “This is wrong—this is not what our party believes in.”, or the other seven members that say, “No, we’re going to fold like a red-hot Mars Bar because that’s what the Government wants us to do.”, because that’s exactly what the Green Party did in saying that they have a philosophical objection to this bill—“but we’re going to vote for it.” What kind of action does that speak to for a fine party that’s in its dying vestiges?

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

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): From one O’Connor to another, but one wishes to speak and not close things down. Madam Chair, you and the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, will know probably quite well by now that I have a great love of languages, having learnt quite a number, and of the importance of words. Obviously, as we are looking at this new clause 3A and the discussion around distortion of proportionality, one thing that’s been missed in the discussion to date is actually the very nature of what distortion is.

So I intend, if I might in the next four and a bit minutes, to try and drag that out, because I think we cannot, as a Parliament, discuss the distortion of proportionality without first and foremost understanding what distortion is, and then how that applies, actually, to what is known in philosophical areas as the hierarchy of understanding.

So distortion, ultimately, comes from the Latin “dis”, to pull apart, and “torquere”. Torquere means, effectively, to twist and to pull out of place. Where the Minister probably needs to first engage is—most of what he has proposed, and even colleagues with their Supplementary Order Papers are proposing it, is that this distortion is about twisting, but when you go back to the original Latin and torquere, it also is the root word of “torque”, when you think about engines. It’s about stability, actually.

As much as we want to stand here today and say the word “distortion” is about twisting the proportionality, the original word in “distortion”, torquere, means, like the torque of an engine or of a wheel; to hold firm; to actually be in one place. So the challenge, I suppose, Minister, is that there is a paradox in the wording that’s been chosen in your general policy statement and now in clause 3A, that, actually, distortion, as much as it means to twist, also means to force and to hold and to stand one’s ground. That’s the original Latin and that’s where we come from in the English.

The other, though, is that distortion sits within a hierarchy. We’re talking here about proportionality, but you cannot talk about proportionality without talking about where that stands, and that’s in terms of our Parliament and in our democracy. The very great philosopher called Bernard Lonergan talked about the figure and the ground. In other words, you can’t talk about a figure without seeing the ground before them. Very simply, Minister, and to the person in the Chair, you can’t see me as a figure without having the background. So when we look at this distortion of proportionality, there’s been a big talk that New Zealand First is worried it might lose its own support, and therefore, OK, we’re going to talk about the distortion around proportionality. But, actually, in passing this bill, we are fundamentally going to now distort the Parliament.

So if proportionality is supposedly at the top of this hierarchy of needs, what does that mean to our Parliament—the distortion of Parliament and distortion of democracy? If we’re going to hold, solely, firmly to the distortion of proportionality, as is suggested in new clause 3A, what is that proportionality going to do in terms of distorting Parliament? Fundamentally, Parliament is about our representation. I’m not going to repeat what a number of colleagues have touched on, but a number have expressed the problem that as they attempt to represent as an individual—yes, as an individual within a party; within, I suppose, their own constituency, where that’s applied—proportionality is going to actually override their purpose as a parliamentarian.

Then, continuing down the distortion line, if proportionality becomes the primary need, and if for some bizarre reason it overrides Parliament, that becomes a distortion, a twisting. I would suggest, without being far too dramatic, that the distortion of proportionality affects, ultimately, the distortion of democracy. And it’s sad that in the last week we’ve seen so much of an aggressive attack by liberals, primarily from the left but not exclusively, to attack the fundamental tenets of democracy—“I will only allow someone to speak if I agree with them.” It’s absolutely shocking. It’s absolutely shameful.

The heart of this attempt to talk about proportionality will, ultimately, in this hierarchy of need, distort the Parliament. It no longer is representative; it works to the will of a party leader, and it’s no longer really at the heart of a democratic process. It distorts that as well, because democracy is actually—well, actually, I won’t get into the Latin of “democracy” because, of course, as the Minister will know, democracy is a Greek word. Fortunately, I’ve learnt Greek as well—maybe I can use that in the next five minutes. The whole thing of democracy is “demos”—it’s the people. The thing is about people, when it comes to proportionality—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to respond to a couple of points made in the last set of contributions. To the member who has just taken his seat, Simon O’Connor, I appreciate the lesson in Latin. However, our legislation is written in English. We adopt English meanings. But I’m very thankful that he did, finally, in the closing seconds of his contributions, refer to the most important element of our constitution: the people. It is the people, those with the franchise when they get to vote, who determine the make-up of this Parliament, and this is all about making sure that the will of the people—“the demos”, as he, in his Greek formulation, would have it—make that decision.

To the Hon Paul Goldsmith, who asked the question “Is there an expectation of an iron will?”, I invite Mr Goldsmith to cast back to 2003. I don’t recall whether he was around these precincts at that time, but he will know when Maurice Williamson—then a National MP—had the apparent temerity to speak out and publicly say he thought it was time for the National Party to decide or work out where it stood or what it stood for. That invited a phenomenal reaction, principally from the Hon Nick Smith, who organised to have Mr Williamson expelled from that caucus. So if he’s concerned about—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Previously, I have given a personal explanation to the House. Mr Little was not present in the Parliament at the time. Members of the House that were will attest that that is incorrect and untrue. You can’t deny that a personal explanation has been said.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Thank you. I don’t think it’s helpful for the Minister to be traversing this issue, and this new clause 3A is very narrow. I’m going to ask all members—I’ve been watching and listening to this debate this morning—if they could restrict their comments to the proposed new clauses.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The point is, of course, as members opposite have been arguing now for the last hour and five minutes, that somehow actions unrelated to the decision of an MP to take themselves out or be pushed out of their party constitute a distortion of proportionality of representation. Maurice Williamson’s action in raising a question about his own party was not an act distorting the proportionality of representation in Parliament, notwithstanding the reaction of their caucus at the time. Likewise, the Hon Maggie Barry correctly says these issues are complex but then says that we should not be concerned about the detail of legislation. We are lawmakers; there is detail and we have to get across it. The detail in the legislation is very clear about the distortion of proportionality of representation. Members have to stop severing the phrase partway through for their own convenience.

Finally, the Hon Michael Woodhouse asks if people who are taken off the list for a subsequent election constitutes distorting the proportionality of representation of the extant Parliament. It would demonstrably not. The words of the legislation are very clear, and the Supplementary Order Paper calling for some further definition for a problem that doesn’t exist is simply not needed. Members should focus on the words in the bill. That’s the best advice I can give.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Mr Chairman, thank you. I just want to immediately respond to Mr Little’s last series of comments, where he is saying that members should focus on the bill and look at the detail that is in the bill. Well, on proportionality, what it says in section 55D, inserted by clause 5, is that if a leader “reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted, and is likely to continue to distort, the proportionality of political party representation in Parliament as determined at the last general election;”. What determines that representation at a general election is the policy platform that a party goes out on, so what happens when a member of Parliament decides to stick to that platform, as in the cases outlined by Michael Woodhouse? What happens when you get a different situation?

And make it very clear: we are here because Winston Peters was upset by Brendan Horan eventually becoming an Independent member. He became an Independent member because Mr Peters booted him out, because Mr Peters condemned him before he had been before a court. And when he went before the court, he was exonerated. So in that circumstance, who was it who distorted the proportionality of Parliament? Who was it who forced someone out of New Zealand First and no longer allowed them to cast their vote for New Zealand First? It was the leader of the party who, under this provision, would be able to simply say, “Well, I’m sorry. My caucus are too weak to oppose me; so, sonny, you’re on your way.” That’s what this is about. It’s as clear as that. It is a guillotine provision provided to every leader of a political party, against any dissent that might occur from in the ranks of that party, even if, as the bill states, they are the ones who are pushing the party policy as presented at the last election.

Everyone knows that under MMP there are compromises. Everyone knows that the current Government is cobbled together by both a public and a secret agreement between parties about what they’re going to do in Government. But everyone also knows that that means the Green Party have had to lay aside some of their policy planks, the Labour Party have had to lay aside some of their policy planks, and the other party’s got most of their policy planks. That’s what happens under MMP. But it doesn’t mean that members who come here cannot speak against the decision to abandon party policy.

I also ask the Minister this question: if a member is elected by a constituency and there were issues in that constituency, and if the leader of the party concerned came along and said, in the campaign, “We will remedy them.”, but then in the coalition arrangements it all gets pushed aside and the elected member—the person who has the majority of confidence of the electorate—is left high and dry, are they allowed to speak against that particular action by their party? Under this, no. It would mean, simply, that they have to knuckle under. It means that there is, effectively, no more electorate representation. There are just people who stand in electorates with a party banner over the top of them, and I notice it’s only the people who are not elected from electorates who are laughing and shaking their heads and carrying on in a completely ridiculous fashion on the other side of the Chamber.

This is a very, very important bill as far as New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements are concerned. It’s an important bill for democracy. The concept of proportionality must always go back—as the Minister has just agreed—to the will of the people who cast their votes, and to have a bill that takes that away is extremely undemocratic. We’ve already been through the exercise this morning where we’ve found out that an elected member, directly elected, cannot be exempted from the bill—or we can’t even discuss that, apparently, so I don’t want to upset the Chair. But it’s a very odd thing that there can be no discussion inside a bill that is about the proportionality of Parliament, the make-up of Parliament, and the representation of the will of the people in Parliament through that proportionality—that there can be no discussion about the views of those who are directly elected.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s a pleasure to take a call on this. Now, very clearly, this is an egregious affront to our democracy, but I think nothing is more so than this whole concept of the idea that a member of Parliament, or, in effect, a party leader, or even the collection of members can somehow know what it is that actually does distort party representation, or what is likely to. The reason I raise that is it comes to the heart of how can we have knowledge of what has formed, and the reasons for the forming of the representation of parties in this House.

The proportionality of the House is determined by the aggregate of individual, free-thinking New Zealanders each casting their own vote in a general election, and then the aggregate determining how many seats each party gets. So to know what has created that proportionality is to claim to know the exact reasons why each of those 2.5 million or more people cast their party vote the way they did. That is fundamentally core to this provision, this idea having any merit at all, and I would argue that no individual member and no collection of members in this House can evince that—no; we cannot claim to know that.

What we happen to know that parties do is they go out to the electorate at large and they have manifestos. They make announcements—some people may see them as commitments—on a campaign trail. One thing they also do—and they are required to do it under this very principal Act, actually—is publish a list of candidates. The public are able to make choices with their party vote that may have some weighting on the individual elements to the manifesto and the promises made and may also be based on who is present on that party list, and to the degree they do that, we cannot possibly know.

So if, to give this some example—potential, real-world example—Mr Darroch Ball were to take a position that the oil and gas exploration ban was wrong for New Zealand and were to make public pronouncements on that, not only would he be 100 percent correct, but he might find himself having a charge against him from his party leader saying, “This is an act that is distorting our party representation, because our caucus has a view that is different to what you’re expounding, Mr Ball.” But here is the actual fact, and it is why this clause is so important and wrong: the New Zealand First caucus’ view on that and Mr Peters’ view on that is not relevant, because what determined the party representation for New Zealand First in this Parliament, as is the case for other parties as well, was the decisions that individual voters used to cast their vote—the few votes they got—for New Zealand First.

So in order to be able to show that there was a distortion of party representation, or the likelihood of a continuation of such, that caucus or that leader needs to be able to show, evince, and have the evidence that they would receive a different number of votes if that member were to continue with that line of public position, and the only way they can substantiate that claim is through another general election. If it is the people that created the proportionality of Parliament, the only way to test “Has it changed?” is to give all of those people the opportunity to speak again, which is also, by the way—and in another important related point—why actually having an electorate MP have a by-election if they fall out of favour with their party leader and claim that doesn’t upset the proportionality of Parliament is abjectly false, because it takes the power away from the aggregate of 2.5 million - odd votes and places it in the hands of about maybe 14,000 people.

So this is an absolute disgrace of a bill. But this idea about individual members or their party leaders—because, in effect, it is the party leader that exercises the authority to claim to know what determines an impact on party representation—is fundamentally false, and the only way to test it is through a general election.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Jan Tinetti.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you, Mr Chair. I see that you were looking on the other side of the Chamber. I have an amendment in new clause 3A—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): What’s your point of order?

Hon DAVID BENNETT: —and I request to be able to speak on my amendment in this committee at this time without a closure motion being addressed.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): That is completely out of order. Please sit down.

JAN TINETTI (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I, firstly, want to respond to the contribution by Minister Andrew Little. Let me quote the words that he said to the Parliament: “All MPs are equal.”—right? Do you know the last time I heard that phrase? Animal Farm, and that is about how Orwellian the statement that “All MPs are equal.” is when we come to this bill and this amendment.

I will tell you why. Do you know who are the MPs that are exempted from this test that we are debating around acting in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament? It applies to all MPs except the leaders. So when the Minister in the chair said that “All MPs are equal.”, he forgot a little phrase: “But some are more equal than others.”

Can I put it even more deliberately: as every member of this House knows, who is the most unequal member of this House? He used to be the member of Parliament for Hunua, but they got rid of him. He used to be the member for Tauranga, and they got rid of him. He used to be the member for Northland, but the good mate Matt King got rid of him. But what this bill is about—what this bill is about—is giving Mr Winston Peters extraordinary powers that are an offence to anybody that genuinely believes in democracy. Because here’s the key—here’s the key. I’ve asked over and over again on this clause. It says that a member of Parliament can be fired by the leader of a party if they act in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament. And what we’ve asked with this amendment is that we need some definition of what that means.

Now am I—and I know the Minister in the chair has called me despicable for raising this question. Well, I put to him this: I am not the only one raising this question. The legislation advisory committee has raised exactly the same point. They have said, on such a crucial point as to whether a member of Parliament gets dismissed or not, a vague phrase saying, simply, that they’ve acted in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament provides no certainly. And it’s not just the legislation advisory committee that said that; the Clerk of the House has said that this provision is vague and needs to be defined. Now, if the Minister in the chair is saying I am despicable, is he also saying the Clerk of House is despicable? Because, in me asking these questions—I think they are reasonable questions. They are absolute questions that go to the core of our democracy, and that is the right for a democratically elected member of Parliament to stand in this House and not to be fired because they have acted in a way that distorts the proportionality of Parliament.

Then the Minister in the chair brought up the debate around Tariana Turia, but he didn’t answer the core question, and it’s this: whether it was Marilyn Waring, whether it was Derek Quigley, whether it was Jim Anderton, whether it was Tariana Turia, or whether it was, more recently, Brendan Horan—in each of those practical examples, would they meet the test of having acted in such a way as to distort the proportionality of Parliament? I’ve listened to this debate for more than an hour, and, I have to say to members that I am none the wiser. I do not know—I do not know—what this law says about what I can do and what I cannot do as a member of Parliament. How can this House write law that leaves so much uncertainty about what I can and cannot do as an MP?

And let me come to the amendment. The amendment says: let’s at least make clear that when I am speaking as the member for Parliament for Nelson, I cannot be fired for it. So if I want to stick up for my fishing industry, if I want to stick up for clean rivers in my area, if I want to stick up because I have a strong view about a school in my area, that should not have me fired as a member of Parliament. It’s my job. It’s my job as a member of Parliament to be an advocate for Nelson, and no party leader should have the power to kick that person out of Parliament.

So I say again to members opposite: support this amendment and reinforce the democracy, the free speech, and the capacity for members of Parliament to do their job.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): We are in the vote and you will wait to the end of the vote.

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 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.

after clause 3, insert new clause 3A.

3A Meaning of acted in a way to distort proportionality

For the purposes of this Act, act in a way that has distorted proportionality means a member voting and speaking directly against the stated policies of that party from the previous election but shall not include any comments or voting of a list member on a matter specific to their approved geographic descriptor as approved by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

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.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to.

after clause 3, insert new clause 3A.

3A Section 3 amended (Interpretation)

In clause 3(1), insert, in its appropriate alphabetical order:

distort and distorted mean, in relation to the proportionality of political party representation, varying the representation of Parliament by a degree greater than that caused by any other variation lawfully provided for in this Act

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.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon David Bennett be agreed to.

after clause 3, insert new clause 3A:

3A Meaning of acted in a way to distort proportionality

For the purposes of this Act, act in a way that has distorted proportionality means a member voting and speaking directly against the stated policies of that party from the previous election but shall not include any comments or voting of a constituency member on a matter specific to their constituency.

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.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can’t have a point of order, apparently, in the middle of the vote. So be consistent.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): It’s completed.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: It’s a completed vote.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And by the way, points of order are held in silence.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Mr Chair, this is a very serious bill that we are discussing today, and I’ve put up a very serious amendment. Only a matter of minutes ago, I brought a point of order to your attention—that as the mover of that clause 3A amendment, I would like to be able to speak on my very own amendment. Part of democracy would necessarily be that the person who moves the amendment should speak on it. That opportunity was not afforded.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That point of order has been dealt with and it finished there. I advised the member of that at the time. That ruling cannot be relitigated. I want to remind the member that he did in fact speak to his tabled amendment on the last sitting day that this bill was considered in committee. So on both counts he’s incorrect. I am not going to entertain the idea that those rulings can now be revisited. They cannot, and any further attempt to do so will result in a serious consequence.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I’m not relitigating your ruling at all, but the point that was being made by my colleague was that, essentially, there are a lot of amendments on the Table for a bill that is, to say the least, challenging, not only to many members of the Parliament itself but, many of us would contend, to the integrity of the electoral system—despite its name—and to the loose constitutional arrangements of New Zealand that ensure a high degree of freedom, particularly freedom of speech. We have been informed by members of the media that the Government has told them that this bill will be read a third time later today, recognising today is actually Wednesday.

Hon Members: What?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Points of order are heard in silence, thank you.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That, I think, is potentially an attack by the Government on the integrity of the Chair, the integrity of the Speaker, and the presiding officers. I would like to get some indication of whether or not there is some agreement among the presiding officers about how long this debate is going to go for. Is it a debate that is going to be unnaturally curtailed because the Government has a desire to get it through by a particular period at a particular time? Because I don’t think—you know, I wanted to raise this before. I didn’t because I don’t want to be seen to be unnecessarily interrupting things, but it’s an important bill, possibly the most important bill in a constitutional sense, that this Parliament will deal with.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The short answer: no.

New clause 3A (Definition of integrity)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I’ve made the point that I’ve never seen a bill that is so much the opposite of what it purports to be. It’s titled the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, and what I’m proposing to do with this amendment—and never in the history of Parliament has it been so important—is for us to actually define for members of Parliament what integrity means.

My amendment says that integrity should mean working in such a way that reflects the democratic will of the people, and it also says that integrity means that members of Parliament act consistent with the principles on which they are elected. I particularly want to challenge the Green Party on this definition of integrity and invite them to support it, because I have never witnessed in this Parliament the situation where a member says a bill is anti-democratic, a bill is awful, a bill is a threat to democracy, a bill is against their party principles, that their party is against the policies, but that they will vote for it.

Does any member of this committee believe that that’s acting with integrity? Do the members of the Labour Party and the New Zealand First Party believe that that is acting with integrity? I cannot get a whimper out of any member in the Chamber. Can any member on the Government benches tell me that what the Green Party is doing on this bill is acting with integrity? The silence is deafening—absolutely deafening—because it is not acting with integrity.

I will tell you what acting with integrity is. When Michael Cullen in 1998 introduced a bill to this House to do the same thing, National opposed it and outlined our principles. When the same bill was introduced in 2002, we voted against it at the first reading, the second reading, and the third reading. And when a bill very similar to this was introduced a third time, in 2005—guess what? National argued for the values of a liberal democracy and opposed it, and equally so today. We stand in this Chamber again opposing this bill, and here’s the part that I’m ashamed of: the only political party in the Chamber today defending the fundamentals of our liberal democracy is the New Zealand National Party.

I have differences with members opposite, but never in my parliamentary career have I thought that I would have a difference with them on the fundamental tenet of a parliamentary democracy—that members of Parliament be able to speak freely in this House without a guillotine hanging over them. I say that this bill is completely lacking in integrity, and the very least that we can do is to provide a definition of what integrity means.

I see the member for New Zealand First in the Chamber—can I give them an example of what integrity is not? I stood on a platform with candidates at multiple meetings, and the New Zealand First candidate said that they were completely opposed to 1080. They were going to ban it. And then they joined the Government and they doubled the use of it. Now, does that appear to members on my side of the Chamber as acting with integrity? Let me see what my definition says: “that members of Parliament act consistently with the principles on which they were elected”. So I say to the member from New Zealand First: why did you tell the voters that you are opposed to 1080, and then join a Government that doubled its use?

Chris Penk: To kill a dead rat.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the member raises the question of dead rats, and that is entirely appropriate for this bill, given that here’s the extraordinary part: a Minister in the Government has described this bill as a dead rat—a dead rat. So I put it to this committee: is voting for a bill that you think has the characteristics of a dead rat—is that acting with integrity? Well, come on, I’d love to hear a contribution. I’ve never seen members of the Opposition hang their heads so low, and so they should. Equally, I have to say to members opposite that integrity actually is at the core of what we stand for in this Parliament. It’s under attack with this bill and that is why we should support this amendment.

Hon JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I too want to speak strongly to Nick Smith’s alteration to clause 3 around the meaning of integrity. I think, again, of every MP in this House who stands on the hustings and stands for a party in their electorate, and they stand prior to an election and they say, very strongly, from the heart, “I stand for this. This is what I stand for.” I stand for the National Party because I believe in the values of the National Party. I stand for the democratic right of those voters in this room who are listening to the various candidates from the various parties telling the voters what they stand for and what they stand against. I know very, very clearly what I stand for; I know very, very clearly what I stand against.

One of the things I stand against very strongly is this terrible, terrible bill, which will take away my ability—except this is the National Party—and the ability of New Zealand First, of New Zealand Labour, and of the Green Party to show any degree of integrity when they are standing in front of voters and telling them what they stand for. Actually, upon the passage of this bill, what they will stand for is what their leader wants them to stand for. And if they don’t stand for what their leader wants them to stand for, well, they’re out, they’re gone.

Hon Member: That’s right. They’re out, they’re gone.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: They’re gone. So in the case of a list MP, they’re gone. But here’s the really egregious part of this: in the case of an electorate MP, they’re gone. So what does that mean for members of the Green Party, for members of the New Zealand Labour Party, for members of New Zealand First? It means only one thing—

Brett Hudson: Winston’s in charge.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: Yes, Winston’s in charge, and the concept—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Excuse me, members should use the full name.

Hon JACQUI DEAN: I beg your pardon. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Winston Peters is in charge. Whoever is the current leader of the Labour Party is in charge. Whoever is the current leader of the Green Party is in charge. So, in the future, every candidate for the New Zealand Green Party, New Zealand Labour Party, and New Zealand First who is standing up on stage on the hustings, speaking to their voters, will say, “I stand for what my leader stands for, because if I don’t, then I’m gone. So while I stand here before you, the voters, and I tell you what I stand for, I don’t really mean it, because the very moment when what I stand for comes into conflict with my leader, I’m gone”. So, actually, I come back to what I originally said as your Green Party, your New Zealand Labour, your New Zealand First candidate: “I actually don’t really stand for very much, because if I do speak out, if I do have principles, if I do show some integrity, then I’m gone. So, heck, vote for me anyway because I want to be in Parliament and I’d love to do my best for you, but you’ve just got to understand, my supporters and my voters, that I don’t really mean any of that, because, actually, the leader’s in charge, so there we have it, sit down, end of story.”

Not for us. We oppose that because we believe in integrity. The New Zealand National Party is the one party—the one party—in this House who stands for integrity, and that is why this Supplementary Order Paper is so very, very important in this debate. This debate comes back squarely to what we stand for as parliamentarians. Who do we serve as parliamentarians? Do we serve our leaders or do we serve the voters? And I can tell the committee and I can tell the New Zealand Green Party, New Zealand Labour Party, and New Zealand First who I stand for: I stand for the National Party and democracy.

VIRGINIA ANDERSEN (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to go back to a few comments made by the Minister, and this is in relation to when he talked about the test that we are here today. He was very clear that members on this side of the Chamber should take into account both sides of the test, saying that not only is the member of Parliament concerned that it acted in a way that has distorted or is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of the political party representation in Parliament—and he was very keen to emphasise that proportionality role. However, the key part of the test is not that; the key part of the test is at the start of the test, and it’s a subjective test.

The test says this: “the parliamentary leader reasonably believes”. All the other things are irrelevant. It is all about reasonable belief of the parliamentary leader. It doesn’t actually mean what the Minister was saying about those other tests—of whether it has happened and whether it has continued to happen is actually so unimportant. The only important thing is reasonable belief, and that is a subjective test done by the leader. If somebody wanted to challenge that and said, “Well, that can’t be right.”, well, have a look at other words in it. The word “likely” is another subjective word that the reasonability test applies to. The word “distort” is not defined. It is a subjective word. And so this is a subjective test put by the leader of a political party. It is not a test—as the Minister has stood up in this committee and tried to deflate the arguments of the Opposition—that is something that has two tiers that have to be satisfied. This is merely a personal belief of one person. That personal belief is enough to dictate the political careers of other people in this House.

We all know that when there is the personal belief and it has been put forward by one member who has had a history of conflict with members of their party, there will be personality issues within that party within the next term. And the New Zealand First members that are sitting there need to look at themselves and work out—and we all know what they are there for. Those New Zealand First members would never get into this Parliament through an electoral process, because they could never win a seat.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Can I just draw the member’s attention—that we’re actually debating new clause 3A, regarding the definition of integrity. Can the member refer his comments to that.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: First of all, we have to make sure that we counter what the Minister has said, because he has said it numerous times in this committee in relation to clause 3A amendments. And those comments made by the Minister are completely wrong. It is a subjective test on reasonability, which is what is being used in this—

Hon Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister has not participated in the debate on this part. The member cannot possibly be referring to comments that the Minister has made on this part of the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m going to repeat a comment that I made earlier in this debate: it’s a very serious matter for members to interrupt another member during their speech to point out, basically, an issue regarding the Chair having not picked up something during the debate. I’m going to ask all members to think very carefully about doing that in the future. It is the Chair’s decision on relevancy, and I’d ask the member to perhaps look at Standing Orders 105 to 115, paying particular attention to Standing Order 111.

Hon DAVID BENNETT: Thank you, Mr Chair. When we come to this clause and the amendment around it, around the word “integrity”, it is something that the Hon Nick Smith talked about just before—how it goes to the heart of the legislation. The word “integrity” and its definition are crucial to this bill—when we look at even the name of the legislation, it is named after this definition. So, of course, it is such an important part of this bill.

I wish to put forward an amendment to that as well, and I’m getting advice from the Clerk now as to whether it would be in scope—but I’m wishing also to enhance public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system through an amendment, as well, to that definition.

Now, we seek to do that because, on this side of the Chamber, we believe that integrity of the system is crucial, and a failure to enhance integrity by having a bill which enables list MPs to be treated in a different way from constituent MPs and enables all MPs to be treated in a different way from the leaders of their political parties does not sustain the virtues of integrity that every member of this House has come here to be part of and to sustain through their political career. So that is a very important part of what we are debating here, and I just wanted to clarify what the Minister had said and to reiterate that this is a subjective test of the leader of that political party, and whatever tiers the Minister may be looking to hide behind aren’t relevant.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Chair. If you could bear with me for just a moment, I just want to seek some guidance from you. The Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, stood and took a call and directed some comments directly at me. I’d like to be able to address those.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Is this a point of order?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yes. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): So what’s your point of order?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: So my point of order is that the Minister in the chair, in his last call, addressed some points directly to me about some issues that I had raised. I haven’t had the opportunity to respond to those. I’m seeking your guidance in terms of whether I can during my call.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, members can seek a call during this debate. The Minister did not address you directly; he addressed the committee. If you’re saying that you took offence, or you want to address something, there are rules within the Standing Orders that set out the procedures for members to take should they wish to address issues to the committee. So are you now—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. I’m on my feet, OK? You stood. I thought you were seeking a call. I gave you the call; in fact, you had a point of order. Are you now seeking a call?

Hon Mark Mitchell: I am now seeking the call. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, well, that’s just not fair against the rest of us, really!

Hon Mark Mitchell: Ha, ha! I was actually just seeking the Chair’s guidance.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Well, actually, that’s not correct. OK, so when the member stood, he was actually taking a point of order. That is not what he said—he stood as if he was taking the call; that’s why I asked.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Mr Chair. I just want to open my contribution by saying to and addressing the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little—because he stood and he said that he was very clear about the fact that the points that I’d raised about distorted proportionality, he had addressed—that issue has not been addressed, and I just very simply—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And we are now on the definition of “integrity”.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: OK. So if we move on to integrity, I’d actually like to use a very real example of the integrity around this bill. It was when I entered this Parliament in 2011 as a new member of Parliament and had campaigned very hard in my electorate on the delivery of the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance, which was an expensive road but critically important to both my electorate and the electorates of Northland and Whangarei, and their economies especially. I had the daunting task of having to go and lobby the transport Minister at the time, which was the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who, of course, was grappling with—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Door was always open.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The door was open. The door was definitely open. The door was definitely open, but I can say that I was also shown the door a couple of times, as well.

But I have to say the point is this: in his role as transport Minister he was having to deal with competing demands around the country and prioritising projects. I was in a very clear position where, although I might’ve recognised that those other projects around the country were important, the most important project, the project that I had campaigned on, the project that I’d come to this Parliament making a commitment to deliver, was the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance. I was given a mandate by the people of Rodney to come to this Parliament not just to represent them and advance their interests in our House of Representatives—because that is what our House of Representatives is about—but specifically to advance this project.

I was put in a position where I was having to deal with a very senior member of the party who was a senior Minister, the Minister of Transport, who was trying to manage competing interests and prioritise those and get them sorted, and it meant that there were some tough conversations where, like I was saying, although the door was open, I was also shown the door a couple of times through those talks as well.

With this bill here, I’m clearly now in the position—because when I walked into that room and when I sat down at that table, actually I’m sitting down with 25,000 people, or however many people who have actually gone to the ballot box and voted for me. They’re also coming in and sitting down as well, because they’ve given me a mandate from my electorate of Rodney. I’m sitting down with the confidence to know that, actually, although the party might take a very strong position against me, although there may be some very tough conversations, and although there may be a whipping system that is used, fundamentally, I have the freedom, I have the confidence, and I have the independence to know that I can go into that room, that I can sit down, and that I can advance and represent—

Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s a conservative contribution, isn’t it, Mark.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —the people of my electorate, the people that have voted for me to come to—sorry, what was that? I can’t hear.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I said it’s a conservative contribution.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: A conservative contribution? I’d encourage Ruth Dyson to stand and take a call. It looked like Iain Lees-Galloway was going to take a call. He’s told the press gallery that he’s the top performing Minister in the Labour Party, you know, so let’s see him stand and take a call—a legend in his own lunchtime.

The fact of the matter is this: with this bill, could I have gone in there with confidence and sat down and advanced the interests of my electorate? No. Do you know why? Because the leader has got the right now to dismiss me from this Parliament—to tell me “We don’t agree with your view. We don’t agree with the views of the people of Rodney, who actually sent you here to advance them”—[Time expired]

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I want to speak to the amendment in the name of the Hon Nick Smith, which essentially deals with the parameters that might go round the interesting word in this bill: “integrity”. I can’t speak about that without reflecting on the moments where past members of this House have made a decision about their future based on their integrity, based on what they see as the core in the relationship between the people who elected them and their own views on things.

The first member I want to talk about is someone who I’ve studied from an historic point of view, because I certainly wasn’t around at the time, and that is John A Lee. He was a World War I hero. He lost an arm. He got the Distinguished Service Medal, and was a stalwart, a very strong stalwart, for the Labour Party. But he was considered by some in the Labour Party to be too Marxist in his views. He clashed, throughout his time in the Labour Party, with Michael Joseph Savage. The two of them couldn’t see eye to eye on anything. Ultimately, he was suspended from the Labour Party and, of course, he set up the Democratic Labour Party after that.

Now, in that circumstance, had this bill prevailed, then the leader of the party, who was incredibly popular and would have had no trouble amassing the 66 percent of votes, or two-thirds of caucus votes required to back him, could have had John A Lee drummed out of Parliament and a by-election created in his electorate.

The same is true of Sir Leslie Munro, who was a National Party member. He was a very distinguished gentleman. He had a diplomatic career that is well understood by many who follow United Nations politics, for example. He came into this Parliament but clashed with Sir Keith Holyoake and clashed with Sir Jack Marshall, and so he never made the ministerial rank but he never stopped having views that he thought represented the people who elected him in his electorate. He demonstrated his integrity and commitment to that set of principles throughout his career, but had this bill prevailed, then he, as someone who was considered a troublemaker inside the National caucus, someone who crossed the House, actually, and voted with the Government—it would have been between 1957 and 1960. Actually, my apologies, it was later than that. The National Party was in Government; he voted with the Opposition. He would have simply been put through this process and shuffled out the door.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member, but would he like to, in the last one and a half minutes, relate those stories to the definition of “integrity”.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, perhaps if the member in the chair, who is only a member of this House but for an hour sits in the chair presiding over it, was prepared to listen, he’d have heard me mention integrity on numerous occasions and provide examples of how past members have shown a great deal of integrity in respecting the will of their voters. And that’s the problem here today: we know the jackboot’s on; we know the Government wants the bill off the Table and out to the Parliament as quickly as possible so that they can appease Winston Peters. And they’ve got the whole system working for them. Better than any other demonstration we could have had, it actually shows how little integrity is being shown by the Government and, frankly, the presiding officers in this particular debate. It is an utter disgrace that I should have even been questioned on that point of view.

So I want to go one further. Then there’s the case of Jim Anderton. Now, Jim Anderton was a man whose politics I did not agree with, but over my time in Parliament, I came to respect him enormously. I think he is a great loss to our wider community. But he was a man who did not like Rogernomics. He did not like what the leadership of the Labour Party was doing, and so he stood on his principles. He showed his integrity, and he left the Labour Party.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next call—I waited until the member finished his contribution—we are debating proposed new clause 3A on the definition of integrity. If members are not going to be relevant to that clause, then whoever’s in the Chair will be obliged to take and accept the closure motion.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I don’t think it is at all possible to speak to the definition of “integrity” without giving some examples of how people have acted with a great deal of integrity during their parliamentary career. The fact is that we only get these five-minute calls. So far today I haven’t seen anyone given an extension on their five minutes, apart from where one member was interrupted by the Chair. I think, in that event, then maybe for the flow and follow of an argument, it’s not unreasonable that most of that time might be taken up by giving examples of integrity. I did just that. I named four members of Parliament who are well-known, historically, for having demonstrated high levels of integrity who, frankly, would have been slung out of this Parliament had this law been in existence at that time.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I thank the member, but I have made that ruling. And, as I said, I encourage members—it is quite a narrow debate on new clause 3A on the definition of integrity.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair. I seem to have disappointed a number of my colleagues. But, look, we are here talking about a new clause 3A amending the interpretation of integrity. Look, if we are talking about integrity, it is, once again, important to define the word, but, in fact, I’m not going to spend too much time on that. As I’m sure the Minister in the chair knows, “integrity” actually initially came from the Old French “intégras”, which, ultimately, is linked to the Latin—to bring, to integer, to be intact.

But what’s really fundamentally important is, if you’re going to define integrity, it has to be defined within the context of the Parliament. Most years I give a post-graduate lecture at the university around the nature of what it means to be an MP. It’ll be interesting in recent times whether or not I’ll be allowed to return to that university to speak, but if we’re going to define integrity, one has to define it in the context of what an MP does. An MP is a person who wears, effectively, four hats. Our integrity is exercised as a parliamentarian, it’s exercised in my case as an electorate MP, and it’s exercised in terms of a party that I work in—and, of course, my integrity is exercised in who I am myself.

So if we’re going to redefine integrity—and as it’s done here, it’s saying “(a) working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people; and”—in particular—“(b) that [a] member … of Parliament act[s] consistently with the principles on which they were elected”. I posit through you and to the committee that to understand integrity, we have to understand those four hats. I think the problem that this bill runs into, amongst many levels, is that it only relies on, say, one of those four hats—saying that one’s integrity as a member of Parliament in this House can and is solely to be executed judged by the party alone. Your integrity as an electorate MP, your integrity as a parliamentarian, and your integrity as an individual is subservient to, second to, below, and, in fact, trampled upon by the integrity alone to the party.

I would suggest to the Minister in the chair that it not only makes us, as members of Parliament—[coughs]—croaky in the voice with emotion, but, no, is turning members of Parliament not into people who are intact, integer, but who are automatons of a party structure. The importance of integrity as a parliamentarian is that, first and foremost, we work for the greater purpose of democracy. The Minister himself from the chair earlier talked about the whole demos, the people—that is what we are as a House of Representatives. Our integrity, as it should be defined by this new clause 3A, is to work for the benefit of all the people.

The funny thing about people is that they are weird and they are wonderful. They are strange in their diversity. In fact, that’s where, if not a paradox of thinking, the integer, the integrity, that kicks in is that we as a House of Representatives must reflect that. In terms of an electorate, my electorate is different from those of others. That’s why mine is called Tāmaki and why there are 60,000 within that space, and I do my best. According to what this new clause 3A suggests, particularly new paragraph (b), I must work consistently with the principles of integrity as a local constituent to reflect them. What the members of Tāmaki think will be different to what the members of the Coromandel think, to what Ōhāriu thinks, to what Pakuranga thinks, or to what Rongotai thinks. That’s where the integrity comes about.

Where we’re running into major difficulties is, as I’ve suggested, without defining and understanding integrity properly, we are solely—via this bill and by the current structure, which we must amend by approving this Supplementary Order Paper 73—judging integrity by party. We all know—we’ve heard it from some examples being given; sadly only by one side of the House—that if integrity alone is judged by the party, we are actually making the individual MP subservient to the group. That is an affront to all the basic democratic principles which have evolved over time.

It is becoming de rigueur at the moment that group rights trump the individual. We hear it day after day after day that people define themselves by their age or their gender or their sexuality or their ethnic group—not on who they are as an individual but by the parties they belong to. As it would be no surprise to this House, I don’t actually give a tinker’s cuss what group—

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

ERICA STANFORD (National—East Coast Bays): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m really pleased to take a call on the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill, specifically Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 73, in the name of Nick Smith, around the definition of integrity, because this bill calls into question my integrity. This Supplementary Order Paper is vital for me to be able to maintain my integrity, because I went to the last election and I promised the people of the East Coast Bays something. I promised them that I would stand up for the things that they believed in. I promised them that I would have their best interests at heart. I promised them that I would put their concerns above all else. I put my integrity on the line. Nearly 23,000 good people of East Coast Bays put their trust in me. They put their faith in me to represent their concerns, to do what I promised I would do.

I put my integrity on the line, and this bill takes it away. Without this Supplementary Order Paper, without this amendment, my integrity is called into question.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Could the member actually confine herself to the discussion on the definition of integrity. Thank you.

ERICA STANFORD: Absolutely, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for your guidance. The Supplementary Order Paper specifically says “integrity means—(a) working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people;”. Now, without this, my integrity is called into question, because I promised those people of the East Coast Bays that I would stand up for the matters that were important to them, like the Ōkura marine reserve, like charter schools, like getting rid of our police station—which I stood up for. I promised them that I would put those things before everything else. I promised them that I would put their concerns above all else. This Supplementary Order Paper affords me that: “working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people”.

The democratic will of the people was to put their faith in me to put their concerns above all else—not to listen to my party leader when it comes to their concerns, not to put the party above all else, but to put them above all else. That is why this amendment is so important. We have to define this. This is a retrospective bill, let’s not forget. I went to the people. I promised them at the election that I would put their concerns above all else. I promised that I would do that. This bill undoes all that because it’s retrospective, but this particular amendment allows me to fulfil my promise to put their concerns above all else. That is what I went to the election to do. That is what I promised to do. I put my integrity on the line.

This bill strips away that integrity—and without this amendment, it’s gone. The very understanding they had, all 23,000 of them when they elected me—because that was the promise that I made to them, that I would put their concerns above all else—is removed by this bill, which is why we need this SOP. The abhorrent retrospective nature of this bill stops me fulfilling that promise to stand up for them. It turns me into a party robot. It takes away my integrity—to blindly follow that party line regardless of what my electorate want. And it doesn’t happen all the time. Let’s remember that those things I might stand up for, against my party wishes, that are important to my electorate and important to my integrity—they don’t come about often, but when they do come about, I want to be able to stand up for them.

I just want to speak, in my last minute, directly to the people of the East Coast Bays, because I think it’s really important that they understand what we’re doing here and why this amendment is so important. As I mentioned, I took to them that promise that I would stand up for them, and I will always stand by that. This SOP makes it clear that I will work in such a way that reflects the will of the people—the people of the East Coast Bays. The reason that this is so important is because this whole bill is happening for two reasons. One: we know Winston Peters is paranoid, and for good reason, because he can’t hold together his party; and also the Greens, because they’re going against everything that they said that they would always do. When it comes to the definition of integrity, maybe the Greens should reclaim different “c” words: core values, core principles, and core beliefs. When it comes to integrity, those are the important “c” words that they seem to have forgotten.

I just want to finish by saying to the people of East Coast Bays that I will always put their concerns and their worries above all else, because that is what I promised to do before the election. That is what I continue to promise to do, because that is what I stood up for. That is my integrity and this Supplementary Order Paper is so important to be able to keep that.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make some brief replies to some of the comments that have been made in the last set of contributions. To the speaker who has just resumed her seat, Erica Stanford, I simply say that it is a very sad day when she considers that in order to do her job and fulfil her moral mandate she needs a definition in legislation of what integrity is. She was well able to articulate what fulfilling the mandate of the people was—the democratic will of the people. It does not need to be defined in legislation.

Let me go back to the Hon Nick Smith and his contribution—and indeed many of the members who have spoken before, who, in terms of describing integrity, have talked about their right to stand up for very important things. Members in the Opposition may not like to hear this but I will say it, because it is important to put on the record that the track record of National Party MPs for standing up for things against their party is woeful; in fact, non-existent. So Nick Smith claims to be the great environmentalist, pledged in high office to reform the Resource Management Act, and failed. He says he wants to protect the waterways of Nelson, and he had ample opportunity for year after year as Minister for the Environment to do it, and did not do it. So there is no moral lesson taken from members from the National Party about being independent.

Jacqui Dean says that she does not want to stand for what her leader stands for. Well, she should tell Simon Bridges that, because I think he’s entitled to know. But it does not mean—

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Minister is taking advantage of his speaking role in attacking members of the Opposition personally. It should not be allowed in this House and that’s something that is not appropriate—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Thank you. Thank you, I do understand your point of order. Prior to the Minister taking this call, there was a previous member who went through a list of MPs as a definition of integrity. I’m suggesting to the member that as a counter to that argument, the Minister is providing another list. This is a very robust debate, so if I rule that particular discussion out of order, then I must also rule out the robustness of the debate that has happened previously.

Hon David Bennett: Yes—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, do not question the ruling. It has been made. Thank you.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I do not wish to question your ruling. I think it is a fair one and this is a robust debate. But I would ask that where the Minister does choose to attack a member, that you’ll take that into account in terms of future calls so members might be able to defend their reputation.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I will make that decision based on the quality of the debate and the relevancy of the debate. I will not make that decision based on a suggestion by a member in the committee.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: Thank you, Madam Chair. Now, look, I have listened very carefully to all the contributions, and I don’t want members to think that I have sat here not hearing what they’ve said, and I want to acknowledge them. So the next on the list was of course the Hon David Bennett, but of course he spoke about matters we’ve already voted on, so I have no further response to what he has said—

Hon David Bennett: A few, because you can’t answer it.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: —and because I’ve already answered the points that he has made, but because they’re light points there’s not much to respond to.

I want to say the Hon Gerry Brownlee, who typically makes well-informed contributions to the debate, did on this occasion, but I think his history is slightly awry when it comes to John A Lee. John A Lee’s hanging offence was to disparage his leader when his leader was terminally ill, and, in fact, it was a conference resolution of the Labour Party that saw him expelled from the party. Indeed, had the same thing happened even under this legislation, I imagine the result would have been the same as well. But I take his point on the other people that he spoke about.

Simon O’Connor at least referred to the proposed definition of integrity in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), but I just go back to the point I made in relation to Erica Stanford’s contribution, which is that we don’t need that defined in the bill. When it comes to the will of the people, this bill is all about preserving the will of the people—the collective vote of all New Zealand to establish the proportionality of party representation in Parliament. This bill inherently meets that definition, which is why this SOP is not needed.

Dr JIAN YANG (National): Finally—Madam Chair, I’m very, very pleased. Now I will focus on integrity and speak to Dr Nick Smith’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 73. It reads, in new clause 3A, “integrity means—(a) working in such a way that decisions reflect the democratic will of the people; and (b) that members of Parliament act consistently with the principles on which they were elected”. This is exactly what I understand of integrity for MPs.

Basically, seven years ago when I was elected as a member of Parliament under the National Party’s banner, I said to my community, “I believe the National Party represents the interests of New Zealand and the Chinese community the best, and that is why I will stand under National. However, if someday I believe the National Party no longer represents the best interests of New Zealand and also the Chinese community, then I would not hesitate to leave the National Party.” That was my pledge I made to my community. I’m very pleased that the National Party has been very faithful to the Chinese community in the past seven years while I have been a National member of Parliament.

Last week, when we were talking about the Overseas Investment Amendment Bill, I criticised Labour’s Chinese-sounding names theory. Had that disgraceful Chinese-sounding names theory happened to the National Party or if the National Party had proposed that, I would have resigned from the National Party simply because this theory deeply hurt the Chinese community. I would feel deeply ashamed to be a member of that party.

So this is the reason why I believe this bill will not help the integrity of MPs in New Zealand. Now, I’m the only Chinese National MP in Parliament. I’m here to represent the Chinese community; I’m not simply here to make up the numbers in the National Party. This is particularly important.

To talk about integrity, I have three perspectives. Firstly, my own perspective. That is, I’m here to represent the interests of New Zealand, the newly adopted country, home, and also to represent the interests of the Chinese community. I’m here to promote National Party policy to the Chinese community. That is my role, my responsibility. At the same time, I represent the party in my community. But one other particular role for me is to inform my party of the concerns of my community and, therefore, to make policies accordingly. That is my integrity. If I believe the party is no longer there representing the interests of my community, why the hell should I be in the party? That is exactly what I’m here to represent—the community in my party. That is important to remember.

From a party’s point of view, integrity, for me, means that I will be able to represent the National Party in the Chinese community, so that the party can better represent the Chinese community. That is exactly what happened in the past seven years while I have been a member of Parliament. The National Party has been very consistent in representing the interests of the Chinese community. We are the party which really defended the interests of the Chinese community when the Labour Party proposed that Chinese-sounding names theory.

Why it is important for me to be here to represent the party in the Chinese community is simply because it is very difficult for new immigrants to get into politics. There are many challenges, such as language, such as lack of understanding of the democratic system. From my community’s perspective, integrity means that I represent my community’s interests, and also make sure that I encourage people—people from my community—to participate in politics. So I am a role model for my community. If I can no longer represent my community, why the hell should I be regarded as a role model? This is integrity. Thank you, Madam Chair.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): 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 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 73 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to insert new clause 3A 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.

New clause 3A (Functions of Electoral Commission)

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): We now come to the debate on new clause 3A relating to the functions of the Electoral Commission, as set out in section 5 of the principal Act.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): The next amendment that this committee needs to consider relates to the important role that the Electoral Commission has. What we propose to do with this amendment is to extend the functions of the Electoral Commission to include reporting on the use of the new vacancy provisions where a leader can sack a member of Parliament. I think this Parliament has a great deal of respect for the independence of the New Zealand Electoral Commission. They conduct our elections, and, actually, I’m very proud of the fact that in the last general election we got one of the highest rankings in the world for the conduct of our elections and for the standing of our democracy. In fact, The Economist magazine last year ranked New Zealand the third-best of 170 democracies in the world.

Our concern is that this bill is going to take us backwards. Why do we know that? Well, we know from reputable organisations like the Inter-Parliamentary Union that these measures are described as “political party dictatorships”. In fact, the Inter-Parliamentary Union goes even further and says the free mandate of members of Parliament is essential to any parliamentary democracy. So what we’re saying with this amendment is that we need the Electoral Commission to independently report on the use of these new provisions.

I am deeply worried that these amendments are going to be used, in the words of the Government’s own Attorney-General, to chill the expression of views of dissenting members of Parliament. That’s what the Government says the bill will do. So I would say that we need someone, somewhere to act as a check on this extraordinary power that is being created. We think the appropriate check should be a new requirement in new clause 5(g) of the principal Act for the Electoral Commission to have to consider and to report to this House on those new measures that allow a party leader to dismiss a member of Parliament.

What sorts of things would I expect to be covered in those reports? Well, I’d expect the Electoral Commission to look at whether there was fair process, because there’s very widespread concern about the processes in this bill: the fact that it breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, in the views of 21 constitutional lawyers; the fact that there is very little definition—as we’ve debated—around the issue of what constitutes acting in such a way that a leader of a party is entitled to dismiss you.

It would enable the Electoral Commission to report on the issue of a by-election, because where a member of Parliament is dismissed, the Electoral Commission will then have the responsibility for organising the by-election in that particular area. Can I tell you why it is a real question and why the Electoral Commission does need to report? It is this: anybody that’s been involved in a by-election—do you know what the public asks first? “Why are we having a by-election?”—they do. They’re surprised, and they will be surprised when they find that their democratically elected member of Parliament has been dismissed—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Can I just remind the member that this proposed amendment will not have anything to do with the conduction of by-elections.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. I know that member is—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, Madam Chair, what this provision does is it requires the Electoral Commission to report to the House on any use of vacancy provisions that are created under section 55 and new section 55AAB. Let’s be honest about what happens in new section 55A: an MP gets dismissed and there’s a by-election. So, in my view, it is entirely appropriate.

What’s more than that is this: if the member is a list member, it is the Electoral Commission that has the responsibility for approaching whoever is the next member of Parliament on the list and with them being returned as the new, compliant member of Parliament—having been able to get rid of a dissenting one. Now, my view is it is entirely appropriate that this Parliament requires the Electoral Commission to regularly report to Parliament. I put it to the committee that there is a long list of matters and functions of the Electoral Commission: section 5(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and now (g).

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I rise to support the amendment that’s being moved by the Hon Nick Smith to insert new clause 3A, a clause that, if it’s inserted, would require the Electoral Commission to report on the processes that are used in any event of the provisions of this bill being triggered. It’s very, very necessary, because if we look at the triggers that are provided in the bill, it’s simply that the leader of a party reasonably believes that the member of Parliament concerned has acted in a way that has distorted and is likely to continue to distort the proportionality of the political party’s representation in Parliament.

Now, there will be a body of thought that says, well, only a political party leader can make that choice, but throughout the morning, throughout last evening, and throughout the other day, we heard Minister Little saying that’s not right: it’s not the leader that makes this decision, it’s the party itself, the caucus, the group of people, the two-thirds of the caucus. We have also established, though, this morning in discussions, that it’s the coercive nature of the leader’s role that means that the leadership will always be the determiner of when this is triggered. So to have the Electoral Commission reporting to the Parliament on how a procedure around this has been appropriately used, and given that they are the body who determines post any general election how the proportionality of Parliament is made up, once they analyse how the votes are cast—and everybody knows that that is an interesting and complicated formula. For example, in the last election, on election night, National had two more seats than we ended up with. Now, that’s not only just the final count of the vote, but it’s the ripple effect of the calculations that are used to determine that proportionality. So there is a mathematical aspect—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I don’t like to interrupt the member—I’m sorry, I’m just going to call you to order. It is very specific in this amendment that it calls on the reporting of the vacancy creation provisions as referred to in sections 55 and 55A. So—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, with respect, it actually says that it will “consider and report to the House of Representatives on any use of the vacancy creation provisions referred to in sections 55 and 55AAB to 55E” of the bill. So it would be unreasonable, I think, to say that all we can talk about is the first line of the amendment, without explaining how that first line and its subsequent second line are relevant to other sections in the bill.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): However, it is not unreasonable to ask the member not to refer to the previous general election, because that is not the intent of this particular clause. So if I could confine you to the specifics of—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Is the Chair now ruling that a bill that has the title of Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—there can be no reference in debate to past elections?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, I’m not ruling that. What I am asking the member to do is to confine his speech to this specific amendment. This bill has been debated for some time. Many of the arguments that the member is raising within his contribution have already been raised in other parts of the debate. I’m looking for some new and relevant material. That’s all I’m asking—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is the point, Madam Chair. We’re on a point of order here—speaking to the point of order, simply because someone else has said something—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Actually, could I just ask the member to—and could I just ask for the Clerk to stop the clock. I just want to make a couple of things clear. When we are taking points of order, there are clear processes about how that works. You seek a point of order, and I call for it, then I make a ruling. Then you might seek another point of order. However, a point of order is not necessarily a discussion and a debate and a conversation across the House. There’s a very clear process that has to happen. So I’m going to hear your next point of order, then I’ll make a ruling, and then, hopefully, we’ll be able to move on.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My point of order is asking if the Chair, having now agreed that we can refer to elections, because it would be ridiculous in a bill like this not to be able to refer to them—are we now, though, only allowed to bring up material that is completely new, without elucidating on points that’ve previously been made? It is a debate, and often in a debate there will be a restatement of positions from different perspectives so that there can be the widest possible consideration of it. This is a very important constitutional debate—no question about it—and we do need to be clear if the Chair or the presiding officers have some predetermination about how it’s all to be conducted.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. You will resume your seat. That, I’m afraid, Mr Brownlee, is calling into question the integrity of the Chair, and I’m going to require you to stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Speaker will be recalled.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Mr Speaker, the committee was debating the amendment to clause 5 with regards to considering reporting to the House of Representatives any use of the vacancy creation provisions referred to in sections 55, 55AAB, and 55E. I had given a ruling to the member to confine his discussions, as the discussion started to traverse to general elections, to the process of elections. We had a discussion, the ruling was given, but in the next discussion—the next point of order given—the member made the declaration that the presiding officers are working for the Government to hasten the passage of the bill. I asked the member to withdraw and apologise; he did so. He then asked for the Speaker to be recalled.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): First, I did not make such a declaration at all. I asked a question, which is not unreasonable. Further, the circumstances here relate to—while it’s clause 5 of the bill, it’s new clause 3A that we are dealing with, and it was the suggestion from the Chair that my comments needed to avoid mentioning general election results. I was making the point that when we are discussing a bill that is called the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill that has a capacity in it to see a general election result declared by the Electoral Commission overturned in individual circumstances, it’s not unreasonable, in an amendment proposing that the Electoral Commission report to the House on the operation of the bill in relation to sections 55, 55AAB, and to 55E that we do mention how a circumstance could arise. Otherwise, we’re simply left with the position of standing up and saying “I support this amendment.”, and reading it. Now, that doesn’t add anything to the debate that needs to go on around such an important constitutional issue as this.

The further comment from the Chair was that there had been nothing new said. Well, that would entirely be the call of the Chair, but this, as I said at the time, is a debate and there will be new aspects of the reasons for supporting this in favour of this motion being put forward. Now, to my knowledge, there had only been one call prior to this. While there was a suggestion that there had been a lot of other discussions through the morning, through last night, and through earlier in the week about matters relating to the bill, they can’t be relevant to the debate that we’re having on the merit of this particular clause.

So it would be unfortunate if the Chair were to rule that in a committee stage debate, everyone speaking had to have a totally new point. It is perspectives on points that contribute to the quality of the debate, and when you’ve got a House of 120 people, there will be an awful lot of perspectives on any of the measures that might be discussed in the House.

SPEAKER: This matter is relatively easily dealt with. Before I do it, though, I will make it very clear that even by way of question, one should not reflect on the Chair. Disguising something as a question rather than making an absolute statement questioning the partiality of the Chair is unacceptable. The next point I will make is that I’m going to rely on the Guinness and Lang rulings that go back to 1910 and 1913, on page 74 of the Speakers’ Rulings. The question of whether something is relevant or not is a decision for the Chair.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

New clause 3A (Functions of Electoral Commission) (continued)

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There was some time elapsed between your interrupting my flow, if you like, and your deciding to stop the clock. Do I get those seconds back?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The member may seek a further call at the expiry of this call, should he so choose. Are you seeking the rest of this call?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, I’ve got my 45 seconds. Just to get back into the flow, we—

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Speaker made a comment to me as he was leaving the House that I took offence at. Can I get him to withdraw and apologise?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): That is completely inappropriate. Will you—that is completely inappropriate.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did he say?

Hon David Bennett: He said that my head would fall off if I shook it at him, and—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Will the member resume his seat.

Hon David Bennett: —he cannot make those disparaging remarks as he leaves the House.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Will the member resume his seat. The member cannot refer to another member who is not in the House. If this is a serious matter that the member is raising, I suggest—[Interruption] Excuse me, I am speaking and I am on my feet. Thank you. I suggest that the matter is raised directly with the Speaker in the appropriate way.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order—I would like to raise it directly with the Speaker—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am standing. You can raise the point of order when I have resumed my seat.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I wish to be able to raise that directly with the Speaker now.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): You’re perfectly able to do so.

Hon Member: He’s seeking leave.

Hon David Bennett: I am seeking leave for the Speaker to come back, yes.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Just a moment, I’m just checking. I apologise to the member for just taking some advice. This is not a matter for the House to debate right now. I would suggest that the member actually take this up with the Speaker right now. You can go and do so with the Speaker.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. We just got a lecture from the Speaker about the appropriateness of interaction between members and presiding officers, of which he is the senior presiding officer. If, in fact, the comment that is alleged by my colleague was made, that would seem to be completely in breach of his own ruling.

I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, that’s not going to happen, Mr Brownlee, because—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, why not?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Mr Brownlee, I have asked the member to go and speak with the—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I’m sorry, I seek leave for the Speaker to be recalled. Recalling the Speaker is a provision of the Standing Orders.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Members—[Interruption] Members, I will—[Interruption] Members, I will put the question to the House that the Speaker be recalled. Those in favour say Aye—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m taking a vote.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It’s on the vote. It’s very important.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am taking a vote. I have said those in favour say Aye—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Hon Dr Nick Smith will resume his seat. I am taking a vote.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m wanting a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think we are all well familiar with the fact that when a vote is commenced, the vote will continue until its conclusion.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is an important point of order, Madam Chair. As the father of the House—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No—no. [Interruption] Hush. Silence, please.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I am going to ask the member to resume his seat. We have started to take a vote as to whether the Speaker should be recalled.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Speaker be recalled.

Ayes 56

New Zealand National 56.

Noes 63

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

Motion not agreed to.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I seek your guidance, because I do not have the faith in going to see the Speaker, and I wish to find another remedy—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Sit.

Hon David Bennett: —than having to visit him.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The member will sit. Once again, I am having to rule on a point of order that discusses the integrity of this House and its presiding officers. I will not—I will not—accept that. If this is a chance for me to make a bit of a statement about this, there are three basic principles with which this House operates. The first principle is that every member is honourable, the second principle is actually the integrity of the process that we engage in, and the third principle is the regard in which you hold the Chair or the Speaker to be impartial and to rule fairly. Now, any of those three aspects that are out of balance cause disorder. What you are implying, Mr Bennett, could actually throw this House into gross disorder. I will ask you to withdraw and apologise. I have given you a course of action to take. You have raised a matter which is not a matter for this House, as it was a discussion that was not had as a part of a debate.

Hon David Bennett: Point of order, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I haven’t finished my ruling, Mr Bennett. I urge you to take that course of action. That’s my ruling. I’m moving on.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Are you going to relitigate what I’ve just ruled on?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I’m going to raise a point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Is that point of order in regard to—

Hon Member: You don’t have a discussion about points of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I can ask that because we are setting aside the business of the House to deal with this. So I am within my rights to ask whether the member is going to relitigate a ruling I have made.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The point of order I wish to make is that your role as Chair is to uphold the conventions in respect of the House. Those conventions have been such that in my 28 years, there has never been an instance where the Opposition has recalled the Speaker and governing parties have voted that down.

Hon Chris Hipkins: Yes, there has.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The convention—no. Well—

Hon Chris Hipkins: There has. I moved it, and you voted it down.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, I’m happy to—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Order! Order! We’re hearing a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a very unusual step to take. That is against the conventions of the House—that’s my first point. My second point is that for there to be respect for the presiding officers of the House, the respect needs to be mutual, and I believe the words that Mr Bennett—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Oh, be careful with what you say, Mr Smith.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, what are you threatening me with—not being able to raise a point of order?

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I’m just saying be careful with what you say.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: All I’m simply saying is that if what David Bennett said was correct about the comments of the Speaker, that brings the Speaker’s office into disrepute, and he’s entitled within this House to raise that with him.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): And that’s—

Hon David Bennett: Point of order.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No, the member will resume his seat. We’ve already had this discussion. I have suggested a pathway forward for Mr Bennett, which is that he should avail himself of going to speak with Mr Speaker. He should avail himself of that.

Hon David Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I’d just like clarification of your ruling, because you had three points which you raised around the integrity of this House, and I fully support those points. I’m on the wrong side of points one and three: point one, where I was abused as the Speaker left the House, and point three, where unparliamentary remarks were made by the Speaker against a member. I have no course of action to take at this stage. There’s no way I can go to the Speaker and have a reasonable conversation with him. This House and he should uphold those rights as a member of Parliament.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): OK, OK—thank you. There is an opportunity for the member to facilitate what needs to happen. The correct way, when you’re questioning the Speaker, is by a motion on notice. There is no other way to question the integrity of the Speaker. Now, the matter is finished. We are moving on with the debate. The Hon Gerry Brownlee has 36 seconds.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, it’s just a technical point of order. When you stopped the clock last time, I had 45 seconds, so I’ve managed to lose nine seconds in between times, which would be a disappointment to the committee if I wasn’t able to exercise that additional time. How has that happened, is the real question.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): I think it’s because a point of order was taken, and once I’d called the member, that’s when the clock was stopped a second time. So that’s how that happened—that’s how the loss of the nine seconds happened. If the member would like a further call at the end of his—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): He’s entitled to seek it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you, Madam Chair. We are, of course—

Hon Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I apologise to the Hon Gerry Brownlee for interrupting him again, but I raise a point of order under Speaker’s ruling 74/3. I do this realising that it was a ruling by Speaker Kidd in 1998, and the circumstances in which it was made will not be known to members of this House at this moment, and I realise that its initial reference to the right to recall the Speaker on the ground of relevance—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): Look, I’m sorry, the Hon Tim Macindoe. I’ve already ruled on this matter.

Hon Tim Macindoe: Well, I haven’t had a chance to make my point of order, which is separate—

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): No. We’ve already ruled on this matter. We’ve already ruled on this matter and we’re not going to engage in this any longer. I’m going to give the call to the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith simply makes the point that once these broad powers that now would be granted to party leaders are in place, there needs to be some check on the subjective nature of the bill itself to make sure that there is some containment of what leaders are able to suggest by way of the distortion of Parliament and its proportionality. [Bell rung] Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Poto Williams): The Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: So, Madam Chair, thank you, but can you see the point that having a body like the Electoral Commission—which does have the responsibility for ensuring that the members who are called to the table post any declaration of a result, and who are sworn into Parliament as free and unencumbered individuals, do, in fact, represent an appropriate proportionality in the Parliament. Now, if we are simply to say that proportionality is determined only by the label that a party puts upon a person, then we seriously diminish the role of a member of Parliament and we enhance the role of the party operatic itself, and I think, in a democracy like ours, that is not a good intention.

So while there may be members who want to disagree with that, it would be hard to see how any member could disagree with the concept that there is some other check, some other report to this House—not a veto, not a decision-making body, not a yes/no, “you can”/“you can’t” body, but simply a report to the House by the Electoral Commission—on the process that has been used to create a vacancy in this House. They are the body who then, once the vacancy is created, oversee the procedure for the filling of that vacancy.

Now, let’s get to a point where you might say that someone is removed from the House because the leader has managed to convince—interestingly, and perhaps not surprisingly—two-thirds of the caucus that that’s a good idea. So that person’s gone. If they’re a list member of Parliament, does that mean that the leader then goes to the next person on the list and says “Well, are you with us or not? Do you agree with the changes that we’ve made to our manifesto in order to accommodate our coalition commitments?”, and that person says, “Well, actually, I’m part of the XYZ Party and I believe in these principles, and so, yes, I would support you, of course, but straying too far from those principles, then I don’t want to be constrained.” In that case, the leader might say, “Well, I’ll have to notify the Electoral Commission that even if you were replaced and you come into the Parliament, then you’re out straight away.”

I just think that to have the Electoral Commission having a role that simply reports on the use of the facility could be an important aspect that might make this bill, in some people’s eyes, a little more credible. If it’s going to stick to that word “integrity”, “integrity” is a much overused word, but, in the end, if the integrity relates to the proportionality of Parliament—and so Parliament itself has to show its integrity by being proportional—then there has to be a clear understanding of what distorts that proportionality. We’ve had that debate—I appreciate that. The governing parties don’t see that view. They see the position of the leader as being ultimate and supreme. This amendment says that that supremacy should be tested by way of consideration from the Electoral Commission, and I don’t think that that’s an unreasonable thing.

Now look, Mr Little sits there, scoffing away, saying, you know, “It’s a waste of time.” and all the rest of it. He knows, in actual fact, that the whole bill’s a waste of time. He knows that there’s very little integrity demonstrated in any of the aspects of this bill, and he knows that the idea of members of Parliament sitting in this House and being unable to express themselves freely is totally against every democratic concession won since the Bill of Rights, which he mentioned the other night, where he, of course, said that that Bill of Rights was set up to establish some kind of aristocracy in the British system. They were his words, and I could get the Hansard out for him if he wishes. But, effectively, this bill, without any check over the top that would be provided should this amendment be agreed to, creates a new aristocracy in New Zealand. If you want to get into having the Star Chamber, the Upper Chamber, the Upper House of this country, then simply become a party leader and have total authority over even those who are just recently elected.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Madam Chair, thank you for the call. In this amendment in my name, members of the National Party wish to add to the functions of the Electoral Commission in section 5 of the Electoral Act 1993 a new paragraph (g) extending it to reporting on these new elements in the bill.

The reason members of the Opposition believe that is an important check is that New Zealand is headed into unguided waters, uncharted territory, with these powers. Remember the Bill of Rights, on which our democracy was founded, established 330 years ago that members of Parliament could only be removed by the vote of electors, not by party leaders. So our argument is that if we are going to introduce these extraordinary new powers into our Electoral Act, powers that only exist in a few authoritarian states like Pakistan, like Zimbabwe, and like Sierra Leone, those great bastions, in the Minister’s view, of democracy—if we’re going to introduce those provisions, at the very least, we need to have the Electoral Commission as an independent body reporting to this House of Representatives on how those provisions are working.

Now, if the Minister’s assertions are correct—and they are that no member of Parliament’s rights will ever be encroached upon—nobody is ever going to be affected by this. Well, he has no good reason to object to this extension of the function.

I have found it extraordinary—absolutely extraordinary—that the Green Party has not taken a single call on this amendment or bill. How is it possible that they are prepared to travel to the far ends of the earth to champion human rights and democracy, but in their own Parliament in New Zealand will not even take a single call on this amendment or on this bill?

I ask the Green members—they are asking this party, the National Party, to support their amendments to the role of the Electoral Commission. They’ve got a bill that’s being considered at the Governance and Administration Committee that says the Electoral Commission should work on people with disabilities being able to get greater access. We supported that on first reading. I say to Mr James Shaw, I say it to Mr Gareth Hughes: cooperation strikes both ways. It runs both ways. If you want our support for extending the function of the Electoral Commission in areas of which you feel strongly—and you do feel strongly about the democratic rights of people with disabilities—we say, support us on this amendment that extends the function of the Electoral Commission to protect one of the most fundamental rights of members of Parliament, and that is to be able to speak freely, and not have some Draconian provision that would allow that member of Parliament to be removed.

I invite the Green Party to take a call. I invite them, if they really want us to consider their amendments in this House in good faith, to consider our amendments in good faith. Their amendments and our amendments need to be related in terms of the functions of the Electoral Commission.

I do note already, in section 5, the Minister can call for reports on the administration of the Act. I want to say I don’t have confidence that the Minister would require the Electoral Commission to report on these new Draconian powers. We know from the way in which this deal has been put together for this whole bill with Winston Peters that we cannot have confidence that he would have the Electoral Commission pick up the voluntary provisions that are provided for in section 5(d) of the Electoral Act, where the Minister can require the commission to produce a report. So I say that Parliament, having had its faith in democracy so shaken by this obnoxious law, should at the very least put this check into the Electoral Commission’s role and require them to regularly report to the House on the administration of these new, unique provisions giving the power of party leaders to be able to dismiss members of Parliament. We think the Electoral Commission should have that new function in its role.

KIERAN McANULTY (Junior Whip—Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Madam Chair, thank you. I stand in support of this amendment. At the heart of this amendment and at the heart of what we are proposing over here on this side of the House is the word “integrity”. The word “integrity” has elements of definitions such as trust and of faith. If you think about this amendment, it talks about the role, which is a statutory role, of the Electoral Commission. Its role of responsibility is to ensure that the process to both administer and fulfil the electoral process is entrusted into the Electoral Commission. So I would say to the Minister that this amendment proposed by the Hon Dr Nick Smith is a practical amendment that will, again, continue the extension of that process.

I cannot see that it is unreasonable to ask that the Minister will consider this amendment, because what it means is that it’s a further extension. It’s nothing new. It’s what we currently have in process, in place, at present. It’s what we entrust. All New Zealanders throughout New Zealand know that election day, and even in the advance voting and in the process leading up to that, and even whether it be the promotion of the election itself, is entrusted in the Electoral Commission. So I would say to the Minister, how difficult is it to ensure that in this amendment all it is requiring is that the Electoral Commission have the role to ensure that they report back to the House. There’s nothing new there. We entrust them with that role of responsibility as it is now.

I’d like to read from the departmental disclosure statement. On page 5, section 3.3, where it talks about the consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights of 1990—and I quote here—it says, “Has sought advice provided by the Attorney-General”. This is the advice that has been returned: “The Attorney General has reviewed the draft Bill. The Bill significantly limits freedom of expression and freedom of association and so raises the issue of whether those limits are justifiable under section 5 the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 … The Attorney-General has concluded that while the issue is finely balanced, the limitations on the freedoms are justified.” So we have to accept that that’s his view. I want to go back, though, and in his statement is this: “The Attorney-General has concluded that while the issue is finely balanced,”. So if it is finely balanced and if he has already said in his previous remarks that, actually, it is a significant limitation on freedoms, then who do we place that responsibility on? That responsibility should be replaced back to the Electoral Commission, and that is what we are asking for here.

In the explanatory note it simply says this: “The use of the MP exclusion provisions in the Act are an extreme measure undertaken by leaders of political parties and should require significant oversight.” When we talk about significant oversight, I again say to the Minister, it is not unreasonable to include this amendment. It’s what we currently have as a provision of care and responsibility—a statutory role from the Electoral Commission that is in there as well.

I want to conclude by saying this: if the intent shown by the speeches from the Minister himself, and of the Government of the day is to ensure that this will provide integrity, then why not include this amendment? Why not include this amendment? Why not include the provisions of responsibility that are already there with the Electoral Commission so that it can report to the House? It’s a body that has a neutral positon. It’s a body that’s already trusted by all of New Zealanders. It’s not unreasonable to be able to have this provision as a significant oversight. The Attorney-General has himself already noted in the departmental disclosure statement that this is a finely balanced piece of legislation here. So, in order to find that balance, we should have the care and responsibility in the hands of those that are able to provide that.

I conclude my remarks in saying that I hope the Minister will consider this. It is a small but significant amendment and it means that all New Zealanders can entrust—if we are arguing for integrity, and integrity in its definition about faith and trust in the system, when we are seeing a significant shift and change, and when the democratic rights of New Zealanders have been to vote, whether by list or by constituent electorate, MPs into that position, then surely the process should have integrity and faith inside of it. We propose on this side, with this amendment, that the pathway forward for this is to allow the Electoral Commission to take on this role and responsibility.

I’m looking at the Minister. He’s a reasonable person, I know. We’ve spoken on different occasions. I hope that he will see this as a reasonable proposition about an amendment to the bill that’s been proposed to the committee. I propose and support this amendment to the committee.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will just respond to just the last clutch of speakers. I say to the member who’s just resumed his seat, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, that I agreed with his proposition that the Minister in the chair is a reasonable person, and he listened very carefully to the submissions that that member indeed made. The reason why I don’t support that particular proposed amendment is that it is totally unnecessary. The Electoral Commission’s role is to ensure that the electoral processes—the means by which members make it to this House—are conducted properly and in accordance with the law and the institutions that we have. They report on those matters and those means in their report to Parliament on the conduct of elections, and Parliament, in fact, scrutinises what the Electoral Commission has done from one election to the next.

The Hon Gerry Brownlee says that we need the containment of leaders’ powers—if I summarised his argument. With all due respect to the honourable member, I think he has conflated two propositions I put yesterday: one in relation to the Bill of Rights 1688, which was, frankly, a charter of anti-Catholicism; and the other was the origins of the Magna Carta, which was about the aristocrats taking control at the expense of the peasants and the poor people. They were two different things and several hundred years apart, but we refer to both of those documents now with some considerable glee because they contain propositions which, taken out of their historical context, look pretty good, so we embrace them.

But does there need to be any greater containment of leaders’ powers, and does this proposed amendment provide that containment? No, it doesn’t. The Hon Nick Smith says that we are in new territory, we are in uncharted waters, and this is a new law. Of course, he is wrong on that—could not be more wrong. We’ve had this legislation on our books before. Previous legislation had a sunset clause and it’s gone. Now, this Government is putting it back in place. I think it is important for members when they are making their submissions to at least be accurate, particularly if you’ve had 28 years of experience in this House. I think we are entitled to look to those experienced and senior members to be exemplars when it comes to the accurate statement of facts, and not sort of make things up.

So the Government is not supporting these amendments. They are unnecessary. There are checks and balances on all of these processes throughout, and, of course, the ultimate—as Donna Awatere Huata found—was to go to court and test the justiciable aspects of these processes.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Just before I call the next member, I just remind the Minister and other members that all members of this House are honourable, and there are a number of rulings around suggesting that people aren’t telling the truth.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the call. I just want to make a few comments in support of my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s amendment, a proposed additional clause which will give the Electoral Commission some oversight over this legislation, if it is to be passed—and I hope that it isn’t, but if is to be passed.

I think one of the things which I think the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, really needs to reflect upon is that when his Government came into power at the end of last year, they said, “This is going to be the most open and transparent Government in New Zealand’s history.” This amendment helps to support their intention—if they still hold to it—to be open and to be transparent, because it gives to the Electoral Commission the ability to have some oversight over this legislation. He said, “Well, there are checks and balances.” We know there are no checks and balances. Every constitutional lawyer up and down this country has submitted, opposed to this piece of legislation and saying there are no checks and balances. And if he thinks judicial review is the way that we should be going with this, well, then we just give the power to the courts and we do not have the independent ability for the Electoral Commission to be able to have its own ability to oversee the implementation of this legislation.

I’d like to commend the Electoral Commission for the good work that they do do. They run our elections. They ensure that there’s public awareness of electoral matters. They consider and report to the Minister or the House of Representatives on electoral matters referred to them. They have a number of statutory functions under section 5 of the Electoral Act 1993, and what this amendment and this new paragraph would do is add an additional role that they will have, which is to consider and report to the House of Representatives on any use of the vacancy creation provisions referred to in section 55 and new sections 55A and 55B.

I think another reason why it is so important that we have this openness and transparency is because what we will see if this legislation is passed is party leaders and caucus decisions being made behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, and the public won’t have that transparency which is required, the openness which is required, on important issues to do with electoral law. I think at the fundamental point here is that this is about electoral law. This is how New Zealanders determine who is in Parliament and who is representing them, and we need openness and transparency to ensure that the public know what is happening if this legislation is passed.

The Minister might say this legislation was on our books before. That doesn’t make it right. That doesn’t mean that that was put in place for the right reasons. That doesn’t mean that it should be put back in place again. It was actually put in place and then it was repealed because Parliament saw that this legislation shouldn’t have been put in place in the first place, and then it was taken off the books. So I’d like the Minister to have an accurate description of history. I mean, he seems to have a very good understanding of the historical narrative around the Magna Carta and 1688 Bill of Rights. What he doesn’t seem to have is an accurate narrative of the history of what happened in the early 2000s, when this legislation was first put in place in the first place.

So I think this legislation is needing amendment. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith is working very, very hard to try and help the Minister and help the Government so that they can be open and transparent, so that we can have independent oversight over this legislation and we can ensure that we do have the integrity of this House upheld. Even though we will still vote against it, we do ask that the Minister does take into consideration some of these amendments which are being proposed.

I would like to ask the Minister: how will reporting be done on this legislation? How often will this House be informed of how this law is working? How will we have an independent assessment of whether this legislation is working and whether the integrity is upheld of this Parliament for the people who vote for us to be here and for our parliamentary democracy? How will that be done? How will it be done in an independent manner, because I think that’s what we’re asking for in this new Supplementary Order Paper to make an amendment. What checks and balances are in place? I’m really interested to know what checks and balances other than judicial review are we going to actually see to ensure that this legislation is being done to ensure that the parliamentary democracy is retained. How will we ensure that MPs are not chilled and have their freedom of expression curtailed? How are we going to ensure that?

How are we going to ensure that our parliamentary democracy will not be weakened—as many, many submitters raised in the Justice Committee? They have raised huge concerns, which I think the Minister needs to take incredibly seriously and address the committee on those questions. Thank you.

WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour): I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to respond to some of the points that the Minister in the chair made that are actually factually wrong by law. What we are debating on this amendment in my name is extending the functions of the Electoral Commission as set down in section 5 of the Electoral Act. The purpose of this amendment is to require the Electoral Commission to regularly report to this House of Representatives on these new provisions, which so many New Zealanders, so many experts, and members on this side of the House so strongly object to.

In the course of the Minister’s contribution, he made the incorrect statement that the Electoral Commission actually has responsibility for scrutinising elections. That’s not correct. In fact, any member of the Justice Committee would know right now that we have an inquiry into the 2017 general election, of which the very purpose is to scrutinise the election and the way it was conducted. So on that point the Minister in the chair is simply factually incorrect.

The second point that the Minister has attempted to make is that because the Electoral Commission has responsibility for the conduct of the elections—and I’m one of those that believes they do a good job of that—the Minister has argued that it would be inappropriate to extend that function to reporting to Parliament on the new provisions that are provided for in this bill. I think he’s incorrect, and let me tell you why. The reason the Minister is incorrect is that the functions that we’re wanting to report on are functions that exist within Parliament. It is the leaders of parties that are going to be administering these procedures, it is the Speaker who receives the notice that a member of Parliament is getting the boot, and I don’t see any conflict at all in the Electoral Commission presenting a report to the House on the way in which those new vacancy provisions of the Electoral Act that are proposed in this bill be provided for. So the argument does not stack up. The Electoral Commission is not actively involved in the process by which a member of Parliament is dismissed.

Let’s review how it occurs. The leader takes this view, and the view is that the member has—this very vague term—“acted in a way” that distorts the proportionality of Parliament. The leader serves a notice to the Speaker. The Speaker declares the seat vacant, sends a notice across to the Electoral Commission, and—depending on whether that member is a constituency member or that member is a list member—then either organises a by-election or, in the second instance, simply recalls the next member of Parliament on the list

So I say, getting to the Parliament: what do Government members have to fear from the Electoral Commission being able to regularly report to Parliament on the administration of those functions. What is it that they are trying to hide? Now, we know they’re trying to hide quite a lot. We’ve had huge issues in the debate over this bill about matters being kept away from Parliament. Parliament may be interested: I received four inches of documents last night that I had requested under the Official Information Act (OIA). The disappointing part was that large parts, including over this very issue of the role of the Electoral Commission, were deleted from that OIA, from a Government that says it is the most open and transparent—and not showed through in that OIA, including the provisions in that OIA request around the role of the Electoral Commission that’s relevant to this clause.

So members on this side of the House have a very simple proposition. These provisions are unusual. We know they don’t work well. Anybody that was in this House at the time when Jim Anderton was a party leader—we know it was a mess and an embarrassment. We know that it brought Parliament into disrepute. There were editorials in all the newspapers at the time that said that this showed that these very provisions were a nonsense—having Jim Anderton in Parliament pretending he was the Alliance leader, and, outside of Parliament, saying he was a member of the Progressive Party. Having a role for the Electoral Commission to provide reports on that to the House would at least enable a mechanism by which we could ensure that the provisions of this bill might half-work. It’s a very important check on the new powers that are being proposed.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): I’ve listened to this debate over a number of days with, I suppose, a degree of interest, but I also take this call out of a matter of concern, I think. The concern, really, revolves, in this particular instance—and I’m obviously speaking to the amendment proposed by the Hon Nick Smith. My concerns are around where, I guess, the protection of a member of Parliament starts and stops. I think the Parliament itself has a role in protecting a member of Parliament. Once put here through an electoral process, I think it’s essential that then Parliament itself has an opportunity to protect those members of Parliament in one form or another. It also has, certainly, a huge mandate to protect the electorate from the activities of a Parliament.

Now, I have a great deal of sympathy for a leader of a party in Parliament who then is forced, under this legislation—or given the opportunity under this legislation—to eject a member of a party who was elected by the people of New Zealand to come to Parliament. I think it’s essential that we have a policing method, I guess, for this process, and I think the amendment of the Hon Nick Smith to insert the Electoral Commission into this role and add—I think it’s probably the ninth role that the Electoral Commission has. I think they have eight, currently. I think it’s essential that we in the Parliament have some form of review of this system, and an internal review of this system. I hope the Minister in the chair takes notice of that.

I have a bit of concern about the whole of this process, and I think that if we don’t have protection around the process at the end of the day, then, as we put this piece of legislation into law—if, in fact, that happens—I think that we’re all a little fraught. I heard a comment earlier—and I think it came from the Minister in the chair—that the National Party has a very poor record of contesting things. Well, no one in this Parliament but the National Party caucus knows what we have a record of contesting, because we do our stuff internally, and that’s how a political party should operate. Frankly, under MMP, that’s the way this Parliament operates, because we have an opportunity to object or to take things up that we don’t like with our parties, and, of course, democracy, in the end, rules that we become part of the system.

I think that as we do become part of the system, we then end up in a situation where I could well be ejected from the Parliament on the basis of 66 percent of my colleagues thinking I’m a spent force, and that could well be the case—I hope it isn’t. My leader might also think that, and then I’m gone. I often don’t know whether I like what the Electoral Commission does, or that it tells us how to do things, but none the less, I would be very pleased to have that Electoral Commission sitting in behind there and having the opportunity to perhaps comment and at least give the Parliament a view of whether that decision was logical, right, or wrong.

I don’t like any part of this piece of legislation because I do think it tests out our democracy to the core. I do, however, have some sympathy around the fact that perhaps when you’re elected to Parliament as a member of a party, as I was, and as almost—in fact, I think everybody in this House was elected to Parliament as a member of a political party. I’ve got some sympathy for the fact that they should probably stay loyal to that political party, but, as I explained a moment or two ago, that opportunity happens both in the Parliament and behind the scenes in the caucus room, or wherever else it might happen in this building.

I hope that the Minister in the chair takes a bit of notice of the debate that’s taken place around the fact that we need an internal policing method to monitor the way this whole provision operates. I hope that the Minister takes note of this amendment and that the potential for a review by the Electoral Commission is included as part of this bill as we move forward.

It’s the first call I’ve taken on this bill, and I’d like to say a whole lot more but I, clearly, have to stay within scope of this piece of the bill, and there will be opportunity later on. Thank you very much.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a very important amendment, and the reason for that is because we do need oversight in terms of what is a major, fundamental change to the way that this Parliament is going to operate. It’s not small. It’s not a minor change on the fringes; this is a major change in terms of how this Parliament is going to operate, and it changes the rights of the members of this Parliament.

I could get into the argument about this being retrospective, in that I believe that the Minister, if he wanted to show real leadership around this, if he really believed in it, should take it to the next election. Take it to the 2020 election, and let the people have a say on it. Let the people decide, because, as it’s become very clear on this side of the House, we feel that it’s a massive attack on our democracy. As Kiwis, we are fiercely independent. Yep, we come together. We love getting out supporting our national teams. When we travel, we tend to stick together. But we also have a fierce independence, and that’s reflected in the way that this Parliament operates, too.

So we need to have the Electoral Commission actually having oversight in terms of being able to monitor how this piece of legislation is going to be applied and how it’s going to work. I’ll just give you one clear example: fundamentally, the Minister keeps standing up, and although he hasn’t been able to give us any clear example of why this bill is going to stop a distortion of proportionality—because it doesn’t. It won’t do that at all, and if you listen to the arguments and the debate that we’ve had on this side of the Chamber, we’ve clearly laid out clear examples of that. This bill will not stop a distortion of proportionality in this House. It will not do that.

Coming back to the Electoral Commission and why it’s important for them to have oversight, the formation of the New Zealand Parliament is at the conclusion of the general election, and the formation of the New Zealand Parliament is directly linked to the party vote. It’s the party vote that matters, and in an MMP environment, everyone accepts that. That is what will create the proportionality of this Parliament. [Interruption] Yep, so the Hon Damien O’Connor—he’s clicked on to it; he’s suddenly got it. So take a call—take a call and support me on this, because I see you understand it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s worried about it. He’s nervous.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: He is—you can see it. I haven’t seen him like that for a while. It’s only the thought of parliamentary rugby games that get him that nervous.

The reality is this: the Parliament is formed under the party vote, and yet what this bill is proposing is that the list members that have come into the party as part of that party vote are discarded. They are, literally, auto-bots of the party—the parties that choose to actually adhere to this and embrace this legislation. I can assure you the National Party will not be doing that. But the other list MPs—yep, I’m sorry, you guys are cannon fodder. Really, there’s no point; you’re warm bodies that are turning up—effectively, that’s what it is. The reality of it is the leaders now have all the power. This bill that you’re passing puts all the power squarely at the feet of the leaders in terms of what they decide, what they’re going to do with their caucuses. So that independence is gone—it’s been snuffed out.

The party vote is what dictates the proportionality of our Parliament, but what this bill is proposing is that it’ll go back to an electorate vote, and an electorate vote is very different. An electorate vote is not going to deliver a guaranteed result that’s going to maintain the proportionality of this Parliament as it was formed; in fact, quite the opposite. If you look at by-elections, they often change the proportionality of Parliament.

So it’s very important that the Electoral Commission is able to have oversight on this so that they’re able to record that, they’re able to watch, and they’re able to actually report back to the Parliament and say “The purpose of this bill”—the reason why the Minister has chosen to bring this bill to the House for us to debate and pass into legislation—“is actually being adhered to. The spirit of the bill is actually delivering what it says it was going to deliver.”, and, actually, the Electoral Commission is going to be the best body to do that. They’re going to be able to analyse it, they’re going to be able to look at it.

I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee made a very good point—I’ll finish on this. We believe that, you know, 100 percent of the country is watching and hanging on every word in this Parliament. You’re very naive if you think that everyone—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m not naive, at all.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Chair. We would be very naive to believe that even 10 percent or 15 percent of the country are sitting around hanging on every word of the debate in this Chamber. That’s the reality of it. They will start to understand. Don’t worry, once this bill is passed, they will start to have an understanding of exactly what this bill is trying to achieve and what it’s about.

But the point that the Hon Gerry Brownlee made was this: with the implementation of this bill, if a Labour member of the caucus who is an electorate MP decides to take a position and a stand on something that is fundamentally important to their electorate, and the leader and the caucus dismiss him, or her, so she’s gone from Parliament and all of a sudden a by-election is called, I can assure you that the people in that electorate—people do not like by-elections. They’re costly. They’re disruptive. When people go to the polls every three years, they expect to go there and be able to make their vote, to tick the party vote, and to tick the candidate vote, and that’s it. They say, “Get on with it. We’ve made our vote, now we expect our Parliament for the next three years to get on with it.” They do not like by-elections. They certainly don’t like having them forced on them by parties, and that’s exactly what this bill is proposing to do.

So I can assure you that when the provisions of this bill are triggered and the leader of the Labour Party dismisses from Parliament the MP that’s trying to actually take a stand on something that they inherently believe in, and strongly enough that they’re willing to actually put themselves at risk—but actually they’ve got to do it because they’re there to represent the interests of their electorate. When that happens, I can assure you that the electorate will want to know why we are faced with a costly by-election: why and how has this happened?

So I’ll be very interested, and actually maybe the Minister can stand and take a call on this and address this point and explain to us what is he going to say and what is the Government going to say, and explain to that electorate when the MP that they voted to bring into Parliament to represent their views, to come here into this House of Representatives—and they expect them to, by the way. They don’t want them to be a creature of the party. They understand and they expect that there’ll be some discipline applied—they get that. They understand the values, they want to look at how the parties actually can govern, and they look at the positives and the negatives. But the one thing they expect from their electorate MP is that they’ll come into this House and they’ll have the intestinal fortitude and they’ll have the character to be able to stand up for what they want.

Let’s not forget the fact that this is their House of Representatives. This is where their representative comes to advance and stand up for and make a stand on their interests. It’s the only voice that they have. This House is the only voice that they have, and what this bill is saying to them is that, now, this does not matter; what matters is the party leaders become the dictators of who stays and who goes in this Parliament. So they’re going to have to get up and they’re going to have to explain to that electorate why a by-election is being called and why their member of Parliament—I’m coming back to why the Electoral Commission is a big part of this, Madam Chair—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Good.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —has been expelled from Parliament without them having any say in the matter at all.

So that’s why I believe that this is a very good amendment, and I support the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I would appeal to the Green Party to have a look at this amendment and to get behind it. You’ve taken a massive hit on your integrity. I don’t know if it’s recoverable. I don’t think it is—I, personally, don’t think it is. But one thing that you can do, and I see that the leader is in the—sorry, Madam Chair. One thing that the Hon James Shaw can do, as the leader of the party—he has not taken a call in this House yet on this debate—is take a call, talk about this amendment, and say that at least the Green Party can support what’s a very good amendment and relates directly to oversight. Thank you, Madam Chair.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s my pleasure to take a call on this particular amendment, and it’s also my pleasure to sit behind two learned gentlemen who know more about this than probably the rest of the House put together. I compliment the Hon Dr Nick Smith on the effort and energy and rigour he’s brought to this debate, ably supported by the shadow Leader of the House, the Hon Gerry Brownlee. What I look at today is a really simple amendment that actually seeks to add some rigour to this debate and to this change.

We shouldn’t kid ourselves. In my short time here, this is the most significant constitutional debate that this Parliament has had, and yet we hear nothing whatsoever from the parties that are proposing it to support their strength of conviction. To bring the Electoral Commission in, to me, is a simple thing. If nothing else changes in this piece of legislation—and it appears that that is going to be the case—to bring the Electoral Commission in simply says that there is some rigour about what is going to occur and what has occurred after the event.

I’ll put it in context. A number of speakers, including the Minister, have talked about the preservation of proportionality. We’ve had debates about how that will be threatened, about how there could be distortions. We can’t even have a debate, actually, on the difference between electoral and constituent MPs and list MPs, because we’re not interested in the real facts and implications of what’s happening here. If I listen to the Minister, it is all around the party vote—the party vote rules supreme. Well, I’m an electorate MP, and I’m elected to support my electorate, and I’ll do my damnedest to do that, even if that means from time to time that I am at odds with my party. Unless we have a system that actually measures what happens when, and will report to this House over the period of time, then, actually, we have no rigour in recording that.

We know that all the academics have opposed this bill for a variety of very good reasons. If we don’t have the Electoral Commission reporting on what actually happens, we will have no Government agency whatsoever keeping tabs on this and impartially reporting so that this House can have some way of interrogating that. I give an example. Earlier today you might have noticed some children in the audience, Madam Chair—you may not have been here; the former Chair. They are children from a school in Napier, where National has the party vote by majority and it is held by a Labour MP. If that Labour MP, for whatever reason—and I’m not proposing this at all—was removed under this provision, there is a really high chance that that seat would become a seat held by National, as a constituent MP. That fundamentally changes the proportionality of Parliament, but we can’t even have a conversation about that,

So I think it is really important that this Parliament and this House has an ability for a regular and scheduled work programme of the Electoral Commission to report on these changes in its normal cycle, or, if it’s something extraordinary, in an extraordinary way, so this House and the select committee and the process can have a debate on what is actually occurring.

It is easy to try and rush this through, but the consequences are such that electorate MPs’ integrity, particularly, I think, is significantly compromised. The consequences on the make-up of Parliament could be compromised, and the principal objective of this bill and the amendments that have been made aren’t achieved anyway. So, if nothing else can be achieved as part of the amendments from this side of the House, I would argue that this one should be. The Electoral Commission plays a vital role in all elections, and this particular task should be added to its list.

ANGIE WARREN-CLARK (Labour): 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 56

New Zealand National 56.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith be agreed to:

after clause 3, insert the following new clause:

3A Section 5 amended (Functions)

Insert new section 5(g):

(g) consider and report to the House of Representatives on any use of the vacancy creation provisions referred to in sections 55 and 55AAB to 55E.

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.

New clause 3A

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Brett Hudson’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A, inserting new section 27A relating to freedom of members in respect of confidence votes, is out of order as being outside the scope of the bill. Chris Bishop’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A, inserting new section 45A relating to the expulsion of Māori constituency members, is out of order as being inconsistent with the principles and objects of the bill. The Hon David Bennett’s tabled amendment to insert new clause 3A, which inserts new section 4C(d) in the principal Act, is out of order as it’s outside the scope of the bill. Members, that brings us to clause 4.

Clause 4 Section 55 amended (How vacancies created)

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): This is the king-hit provision of the bill. What this clause does is add to section 55 of the Electoral Act—the section that deals with the issue of vacancies—new paragraph (fa) of subsection (1). I want to point out to colleagues that section 55 deals with what happens if you die and section 55 deals with what happens if you becomes insane, and the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, wants to add the provision that—and I will read the exact words—“if, … he or she ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which he or she was elected;”, and this is the provision that we find so offensive.

If this was Germany—and I remind this Parliament that we adopted the MMP system from Germany—this would be unconstitutional. This breaches the constitution of Germany. It is also interesting to note that Serbia tried to put in a provision like this. Do you know what happened? The European Court of Human Rights struck down the provision. No country that is a member of the European Union would be allowed to have that provision. If we want to consider other countries, let’s look at our own part of the world. Papua New Guinea (PNG)—you know, that country that we really want our country to be like—they tried to do what Mr Little did, and they did introduce an amendment identical to that in clause 4. Do you know what happened? The Supreme Court of PNG struck out that provision. So a piece of law that was unacceptable in that great democracy of PNG is going to be introduced on to the law books of New Zealand, with the support of parties like the Green Party.

Madam Chair, let me tell you what’s wrong with this provision.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, don’t tell me.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I’m going to tell the committee what’s wrong with this provision. It says that a member ceases to be a member of Parliament in the event that they are no longer a member of the political party for which they were elected. So here’s my question for the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little. A very famous man, of whom members opposite should be hugely proud, is Alfred Hindmarsh. He was a member of the Social Democratic Party, and in the middle of the Parliament, the 19th Parliament, he left the Social Democratic Party and became a member of the Labour Party. This provision would have said that he had to resign because he left the Social Democratic Party and became a member of the modern Labour Party. At the same time, another fellow, Harry Holland—Harry Holland is celebrated by members opposite as the founding member of the Labour Party. He, if this was the law, would have had to resign. The very foundation of the Labour Party would have had to resign from this Parliament at that time.

Then we come to the great New Zealand National Party, a party that’s provided more years of Government—and I have to say I am hugely proud of the heritage of our party, because what actually happened in 1936 is that Adam Hamilton, Keith Holyoake, and other members of the Reform Party and the United Party, halfway through the parliamentary term, changed from being Reform members or United members to being members of the National Party. This bill—let’s see what it says: if a member ceases to be a member of the parliamentary party of which they were elected, they must resign. Are we really saying they would have to resign?

Or we could take a more recent example, and I’m pleased that Mr James Shaw is in the Chamber, because this provision would say that when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald left The Alliance and joined the Greens in 1998, they would have had to resign from Parliament.

Now, I tell you what’s so serious about this. What this is about is the evolution of political parties is actually a natural part of a democracy. It’s a really important part of democracy. We believe in the competition of political parties and, equally, the evolution of political parties. The political parties in this Parliament today do not have a right for ever to exist. Every election they have to go to the voters and prove their worth. There may be future realignments of political parties into the future, and the significant part is—the significant part is this—this is an anti-competitive clause. What we are doing here—[Time expired]

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you, Madam Chair. Look, I listened very closely to what the Hon Nick Smith was just saying, and, as he sometimes does, he makes a very powerful, compelling, and logical argument. It’s just unfortunate that he doesn’t include all the words of the clause with which we are dealing at the moment.

So clause 4, “Section 55 amended (How vacancies created)”, relates to the vacancies by members, but it refers to where a member “ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which he or she was elected;”—go back to the beginning of that paragraph—“under section 55A”, so the cessation of being a member of a party in Parliament under the rest of the provisions of the bill. So those examples that he gave—and again, look, it’s great that members take an interest in our political history, but Alfred Hindmarsh changed political parties as a consequence of the great Unity Conferences of 1913. It was by agreement. Harry Holland changed political parties by agreement, and so the clause providing for section 55A would not be triggered. It would not be engaged. The creation of the National Party—a once-great political party in this country—in 1936, after their trouncing in 1935, was done by agreement, because political forces do realign, and they realign by political agreement.

That’s one thing that the honourable members opposite completely have failed to include in their calculations about the operation of these provisions. Those political judgments will continue to be made, and if we are going to call on the great examples of the political history of this great country of ours, can we just make sure that they are actually relevant to the provisions that we are debating. The examples the member gave are not relevant because they were changes made by agreement.

Changes made by agreement will not trigger these clauses—that is another point. The provisions in this bill are not mandatory. They’re not compulsory. They have to be triggered by a caucus and their leader and the party, and what have you. So members need not fret about that. Political realignments will continue in this great institution of ours.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): That’s a totally and unacceptably trite explanation of these provisions, and I’m disappointed. Andrew Little has been, I think, quite reasonable in providing a lot of information to the committee about how he sees the bill that he’s brought before the House. But I would ask him, if his position is correct, how do we read new section 55A(2), in clause 5: “The seat of a member of Parliament to whom this section applies becomes vacant if the member of Parliament ceases to be a parliamentary member of the political party for which the member of Parliament was elected.”? Now, I can’t see where the tie-back is that says there’s some other provision in there that would trump this—it’s absolute. So to suggest that somehow that’s not the case is interesting—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to report to the House.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I’m always being interrupted. It’s incredible.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I know.

House resumed.

Progress reported.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 12.55 p.m. (Thursday)