Thursday, 27 September 2018

THURSDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

THURSDAY, 27 SEPTEMBER 2018

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Visitors

France, Republic of—Senate, Delegation

SPEAKER: I’m sure that members would wish to welcome Mrs Annick Billon, Mr Éric Jeansannetas, and Mr Jérôme Bascher, Senators from the Republic of France, who are present in the gallery.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): The House next sits on Tuesday, 16 October. The business for that week will include the committee stage of the Telecommunications (New Regulatory Framework) Amendment Bill, the Courts Matters Bill, and the Tribunals Powers and Procedures Legislation Bill, and the first reading of the Equal Pay Amendment Bill. The Government will move to extend the sitting of Tuesday, 16 October until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 17 October. Wednesday, 17 October will be a members’ day.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Does the Leader of the House realise that the bills he’s circulated for consideration in extended hours in the hope that the Opposition might agree to select committees sitting are all bills that have been returned to the House by select committees due to sit that morning?

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): Actually, no, I wasn’t aware that that list had been circulated. I will certainly check that list. It is the Government’s intention to ensure that bills considered under the extended period do not clash with select committees.

Tabling of Documents

Documents Relating to the Chief Technology Officer Position

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Acting Minister of State Services): I seek leave to table a set of documents relating to the Chief Technology Officer position.

SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that process? There appears to be none. They will be tabled.

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

Motions

Mahatma Gandhi—150th Birth Anniversary

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): I seek leave to move a motion without notice or debate on the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi.

SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I move, That this House joins the Indian diaspora in celebrating the 150th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of a nation, and note that Mahatma Gandhi used the notion of civil disobedience to organise peasants, farmers, and urban labourers to protest against excessive land tax and discrimination, and inspired many others to the path of non-violence.

Motion agreed to.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements and actions?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Paula Bennett: Is he concerned that Meka Whaitiri still disputes the allegations of physical contact when the report details there were bruises left on the victim caused by physical contact?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The report is still private. There has been a leak. That leak is being investigated and the Government has supported that inquiry. We will find who the leaker is but, of course, we don’t have the advantage of launching an inquiry into a leak whilst knowing who the leaker was in the first place.

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very much about whether or not they still dispute allegations and not actually about the leak.

SPEAKER: Yes, and it was right at the margins of responsibility and, in my opinion, as much as the Minister was responsible for, was addressed.

Hon Paula Bennett: Do the actions of Meka Whaitiri make her a good role model?

Hon Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was intending to take one if you hadn’t ruled how you had previously. Meka Whaitiri is no longer a Minister in the Government and I think—you are obviously considering the question.

SPEAKER: And I accept that, but I don’t think one needs to be a—we could have had a lot of extra words in the question but I think we are talking about the actions of someone while she was a Minister and therefore the Prime Minister will answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The reality is that Meka Whaitiri has lost her ministerial position. That said, Meka Whaitiri in her past has been a standout woman who has made an enormous contribution to Ngati Porou and, indeed, Māoridom, and just because there may or may not have been a lapse is no reason for that member to repose on me the responsibility of being able to judge the worth or value of women.

Hon Paula Bennett: Has anybody in the Government apologised to the victim?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say that the victim is not known to me. The report is still confidential and is being released, and the delay to protect the so-called, or alleged victim—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Answer the question.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I’m answering the question in the way a lawyer would, not the way some twit like you would. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Yes, I can—[Interruption] When I call order I expect to get order from both sides. I understand what the Acting Prime Minister was trying to do and I’m not going to require him to withdraw and apologise, but I ask him to take care not to draw me into his reaction to interjections, whatever their quality.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he agree with the reported statement, “Instead of going on the defensive, Māori leaders and MPs have a responsibility to publicly acknowledge the problem and urgently address it, and Māori attitudes towards violence will not change until Māori leaders acknowledge the problem.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: To the best of my memory, Meka Whaitiri does not agree with that statement, does not agree with the allegation that that member is now joining from a secret report which is not available to me at this point in time. Let me make it very clear: we’ll wait till the report finally comes out in its entirety, and then we’ll be in a position to answer the House and the member.

Hon Paula Bennett: I seek leave to table that statement, which was made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and was sourced from the Parliamentary Library.

SPEAKER: Can I ask the member what the original source of the document is?

Hon Paula Bennett: It was a press statement, but I’ve googled and cannot find it.

SPEAKER: Thank you. I’m not putting the leave, and I say to the deputy leader of the Opposition, in future can she give original sources of documents. Something that is got through the library does not disguise the fact—or should not be an attempt to be a disguise of the fact—that it’s the type of document that, as my predecessors have made very clear, means members are disorderly when they seek to table them.

Hon Paula Bennett: Speaking to that, I searched for it and I thought the criteria was if it’s not readily available, which it wasn’t.

SPEAKER: Well, no. If it’s a press statement, if it’s available online, then we don’t seek leave to table them here, and that has been made abundantly clear for the entire time that that member has been a member of Parliament.

Hon Paula Bennett: Does he stand by Megan Woods’ statement that the Prime Minister was not actively involved in the appointment of Derek Handley as Chief Technology Officer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Utterly, and so does Mr Handley.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister exchange 23 messages with Clare Curran, discussing in detail the appointment of Derek Handley as Chief Technology Officer (CTO)?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have to confess that I haven’t seen all of the thousand or so pages at this point in time, but I have been prepared to come down to this House knowing full well that the Prime Minister left this process in the hands of Clare Curran, and that she is totally blameless on the question of her involvement, if that member seeks to say that there’s some sort of improper behaviour on the Prime Minister’s part. The Prime Minister was at great pains to ensure—and there is evidence of that, when she says she’s going to leave it to Clare Curran in terms of the role. That, of course, is backed up by a man called Handley, and thank God for him.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister’s chief press secretary proactively text Derek Handley, exchange 13 text messages with him, and call him at least twice to discuss his appointment as Chief Technology Officer?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That is a fallacious allegation. First of all, a series—[Interruption] No. A series of events is put up, and then an improper interpretation of them is put up in the question, and I’m happy to debunk the second interpretation. Yes, there was some communication—there were communications. None of it concerns the CTO’s job.

Hon Paula Bennett: Then why were they released in the papers that the Minister has just tabled?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Because this is a very transparent Government, and we believe in total, complete, full disclosure.

Hon Paula Bennett: Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff call Derek Handley to discuss his offer to help and support the Prime Minister?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I don’t know how many people work for the Prime Minister’s office, but I can see me answering questions for everybody that was there. The fact of the matter is it is the Prime Minister who is not involved here, and that is the truth in this matter.

Hon Paula Bennett: So does he still stand by Megan Woods’ statement that the Prime Minister was not actively involved in the appointment of Derek Handley?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I have been driven, from the very beginning, to support the honesty of Megan Woods in that matter. She’s been utterly truthful about that, and that member’s got a thousand things to start poring over to try and find some evidence.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Is it a goal of the Government’s economic development policy for New Zealanders to enjoy higher incomes?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, along with establishing a more productive and sustainable economy overall.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Which of these things is most likely to lead to higher incomes: banning new offers for offshore oil and gas exploration, reducing foreign investment when any land is involved—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That’s two. We don’t do multi-choice here.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No, it’s not a point of order. I have ruled that the question is finished—“Which of [the following]”, and the member gave two alternatives.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The decision around oil and gas is part of an overall plan for New Zealand to have a more sustainable economy, to be able to build on the brand that we’re all proud of in New Zealand about being a clean, green country, to harness the innovative potential of New Zealanders in a new technology, in clean technology. I would encourage the member to listen to the Mayor of New Plymouth, who’s actually echoing exactly those thoughts when he says we can have a robust economy under this policy.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Isn’t it true that there are a lot of things that New Zealanders have done in the past to make a living that he doesn’t like, and, if so, what would he prefer New Zealanders did?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Mr Goldsmith might want to look in the rear-vision mirror, but this Government, on this side of the House, is looking to the future, where we do want people in high-paying jobs. That means investing in research and development, that means making sure the economy’s more sustainable, and that means making sure that every New Zealander gets a fair go. If the member opposite doesn’t agree with that, more’s the pity.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How are New Zealanders going to get ahead if costs such as petrol prices, ACC levies today, and rents are rising faster?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I could challenge almost every one of those, but what I can say is that, on this side of the House, we made sure that one of the first decisions that we made was to reverse tax cuts that would have given Mr Goldsmith and me $1,000 a year and, instead, put that in to lifting the incomes of the lowest-paid people in New Zealand, making sure that families have more money. On this side of the House, we’ve got our priorities right.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that the costs this Government is piling on to owners of rental properties are flowing through to a reduced supply of rental properties and to higher rents?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I can’t answer the question about the supply of rental properties, but what I can say is that, in terms of rents, as I told the House, I believe, yesterday, the median rent increased 5 percent since the coalition Government was sworn in. The median rent during National’s last year in office rose by 5.3 percent.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: What typically comes first—

Hon Andrew Little: The chicken!

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon Paul Goldsmith: —higher productivity, leading to sustainable, higher incomes—

SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Paul Goldsmith: —or higher incomes mandated by the State, leading to higher productivity?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: What this Government is doing is realising that, yes, we do need to drive higher productivity to help lift wages, but guess what—newsflash—the Government can do something as well, like lifting the minimum wage.

Question No. 3—Finance

3. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): This week, CBRE released its latest MarketView report. It shows New Zealand’s commercial property market is having its strongest showing in nearly five years, with investors buying $2.9 billion of commercial property. The executive chairman of CBRE, Brent McGregor, said the New Zealand market was “active and attractive”—not a label I would apply to myself but to the New Zealand commercial property market—“with a mix of institutions and private investors buying [commercial property].” Mr McGregor said—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yep, straight out of residential.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: —Gerry, listen up—these buyers would be long-term investors in the country. On this side of the House, we welcome this vote of confidence in the New Zealand economy.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the overall state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We had a helpful reminder today about the state of the New Zealand economy and the Government’s fiscal management in BusinessDesk journalist Pattrick Smellie’s latest column. Mr Smellie said that “budget surpluses, low inflation, low unemployment, low government debt, rising wages, enviable annual growth rates compared to our peers, and a reaffirmed Aaa credit rating are proof the economy is in reasonable nick.”—this Government right here. Of course, we should not get complacent, and Mr Smellie also wrote about the risks facing the economy, namely the international situation and the potential for trade wars. We must make sure that New Zealand addresses this and New Zealand’s infrastructure and skills bottlenecks.

Dr Duncan Webb: What is the Government doing to address this bottleneck?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: The coalition Government recognises that after years of under-investment in infrastructure and training, we need to catch up. That’s why we’re making record investment in New Zealand’s nationwide transport infrastructure, including a $28 billion package alongside Auckland Council. We’re also rolling out targeted training programmes like micro-credentials, like Mana in Mahi, alongside the fees-free post - secondary school study. On this side of the House, we understand that it is an active Government working alongside the business sector and training providers that will break through these bottlenecks.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I ask the Minister as to whether or not, if someone had as his business experience five weeks as a director of a casino, that member would be attracted to this economy?

SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 4—

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

SPEAKER: If I need to explain it to the Acting Prime Minister, I will. It is an area of ministerial responsibility, and a general question like that about casino experience and the economy is one which Ministers are not responsible for.

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

SPEAKER: Well, I’ve dealt with the point of order.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I understand, but the reality is there are many elements to the market that might be attracted to New Zealand’s present economy. I could’ve asked whether it be the farming economy, the fishing economy, or, dare I say it, the timber economy, but I asked about a specific industry called casinos, and I wouldn’t have thought, in that category, I was being limited from making that inquiry.

SPEAKER: Yes, and I’ll give the member another reason for ruling it out, and that is that patsy supplementaries from the Government are not allowed to be used to attack the Opposition.

Question No. 4—Conservation

4. Hon TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Conservation: Has she done wrong by the hunting and tourism community in the way she has consulted on her department’s proposal to cull tahr; if not, why does she think the consultation she has undertaken has been appropriate?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE (Minister of Conservation): No. What is wrong is that National’s neglect and its underfunding of the Department of Conservation allowed tahr numbers to explode, devastate our threatened alpine plants and habitats, and what is wrong—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: —is that under National—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! A point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I make a plea for some consistency. You’ve just been very, very strong in putting the Deputy Prime Minister back in his place over what was an attack question—

SPEAKER: Order! The member’s not referring to something I’ve dealt with?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: —yeah, I’m getting there—but you’ve just allowed the Hon Eugenie Sage to justify her entire position by, effectively, an erroneous attack on the current Opposition.

SPEAKER: Well, I think the member might have been making some progress until the very end of it, when he drew my attention to the fact that there are disputed facts in the answer. It’s not my job to make a judgment around those facts. Can the member start the answer again, please.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. No. What is wrong is that National’s neglect and underfunding of the Department of Conservation allowed tahr numbers to explode, to devastate our alpine plants and alpine habitats, and that it stopped engaging with the Tahr Liaison Group. Under this Government, we have given the biggest increase in funding to the Department of Conservation in 16 years. That enables the department to properly implement the statutory Himalayan Tahr Control Plan. The department has consulted and engaged with members of the hunting community, and so am I.

Hon Todd McClay: Is the real reason she’s been forced to postpone her tahr kill and reduce the number of tahr to be killed because the Department of Conservation has received two legal letters from recreational hunting groups threatening judicial review unless she enters into proper and meaningful consultation with hunters?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The tahr control effort is going to proceed as planned. There has been consultation with the Tahr Liaison Group. There is another meeting with the group next week. I will be attending that meeting.

Andrew Falloon: Is today’s Timaru Herald article correct that as part of a postponement, the number of tahr to be culled will reduce from the original plan; if so, how many tahr will be culled under the revised plan and why?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: The plan is for the Department of Conservation to control 10,000 tahr. The meeting with the Tahr Liaison Group proposed that other hunting stakeholders also contribute to that control effort. There is further discussion on how many tahr groups like wild animal recovery operations operators and the Safari Club International will be controlling. The plan to control 10,000 tahr is proceeding, because the former National Government allowed them to explode to three times what the plan allows.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Stop lying to the House.

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Brownlee? Did the member make an unparliamentary comment?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Todd McClay: Can she confirm that the Department of Conservation has stopped using lead shot for West Coast predator control because of high levels of lead found in kea but that they’ve purchased 14,000 rounds of lead buckshot that they intend to use for her tahr cull?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: My advice is that the department is well aware of the problems caused by lead to kea, and that it will be using ammunition which does not result in the risk of lead poisoning to kea.

Hon James Shaw: Has the Minister been handing out weapons to her public servants, as alleged by the National Party Twitter account?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: No.

Hon Todd McClay: Can she confirm that she has instructed the Department of Conservation to use helicopters to herd tahr, and that they will be slaughtering bull, nanny, and baby tahr with shotguns from these helicopters?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I know the member is a very keen hunter and is a member of the Rotorua Deerstalkers Association, but what National is, effectively, saying is that the Department of Conservation should not be shooting tahr to protect our mountain lands and alpine plants; it should simply allow the hunters to do that. Recreational hunters have had—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would not be hard to make a case that that answer impugns the motives of the questioner; that’s quite unreasonable. Secondly, there is no way that the balance of the answer delivered today answers this very simple question that’s asked.

SPEAKER: I think that I was contemplating the first part of the answer, and I think it wasn’t quite an improper reflection on a member of the House, but the tone of it was heading in that direction. It’s not something I expect from that Minister. The next point that I would make to the Hon Gerry Brownlee is that I am sure that soon the Minister answering the supplementary question will get to the question.

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: Would the Minister like to repeat the question?

Hon Todd McClay: The member would love to, yes. Can she confirm that she has instructed the Department of Conservation to use helicopters to herd tahr, and that they will slaughter bull, nanny, and baby tahr with shotguns from these helicopters?

Hon EUGENIE SAGE: I have not instructed the department to do that, but the department will be using aerial control. It needs to do the control operation now before there is another breeding increment this summer. And, yes, it will be using shotguns, in the same way that hunters use guns to kill tahr themselves.

Hon James Shaw: Will there be any tahr left in New Zealand, once “Tahrmaggedon” is over?

SPEAKER: No, no, no.

Question No. 5—Biosecurity

5. Hon NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: How many passengers are estimated to have passed through the Green Lane at Auckland International Airport when a detector dog wasn’t working on that lane between the hours of 2 a.m. to 5 a.m. this year, and on how many days did this happen?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister for Biosecurity): Seven thousand, five hundred and sixty, and 270 days.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of the Minister’s answer, is the passenger pathway as secure as it could be in 2018 to keep biosecurity risk items out of New Zealand?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I would be dishonest to say that it was a perfect system, but I have to say that with the additional $9 million that we’ve put into the biosecurity system, the additional efforts we’ve made with an offshore intelligence unit, with tests and checks on passengers as they board the planes—and as they get off the planes there are new X-ray facilities—I think we run a far more robust system than was previously in place under the last Government.

Hon Nathan Guy: When he established the biosecurity intelligence unit in April this year, to give a clear line of focus and accountability for biosecurity, why didn’t the intelligence unit tell him that for nine months there’s been no dog detector teams working at Auckland International Airport between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The intelligence unit works offshore. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Come on; both sides, please.

Hon Nathan Guy: Have staff been told by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) that they have to stop reporting fatigue or stress due to management and the roster and that if they do not stop complaining, then they can leave the programme?

SPEAKER: Order! I’m going to give the member another go at making this relate. At the moment, I think we’ve got dog tired but we haven’t really got a relationship between the question and the supplementary.

Hon Nathan Guy: In light of the Minister’s answer confirming that there’s been no dog detector teams working between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. for nine months this year, is he concerned about reported comments from staff—both former staff and current staff members—about the toxic culture of management amongst this very small but important dog detector team?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I’m aware of claims that have been made. I received an email that has been passed on to the Director-General. I expect him to investigate those, and if any such culture exists, to get rid of it.

Hon Nathan Guy: When the Minister said in question time last week that he’s very grateful that he’s not rung up and woken at 2 a.m. to be told there’s no dog working on the green lane at Auckland International Airport, would he still be grateful for his sleep if there was a major biosecurity incursion at this time because of his lack of oversight?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I hope that we have no more biosecurity incursions. The ones that came in under the previous Government, such as Mycoplasma bovis, are something that this Government is determined to prevent in every way we can.

Question No. 6—Health

6. JAMIE STRANGE (Labour) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has he made about the delivery of air ambulance services?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Air ambulances are a critical life-saving service. Our current air ambulance providers have done a great job, but our helicopter fleet is ageing. The Government is committed to a 10-year programme led by clinicians that will modernise our air ambulance fleet, increase crew numbers, and reduce call-out times. Yesterday, I was pleased to announce that an agreement in principle for services in the northern region has been reached with an agency combining the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust and the Northland Emergency Services Trust. Announcements about the central and southern regions will follow at a later date.

Jamie Strange: How will the new approach to ambulance services improve outcomes for patients?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The average age of our air ambulance fleet is 29 years, and one in three of the helicopters are still single-engine. We need to modernise and upgrade our helicopter fleet and move to the use of twin-engine machines nationwide to allow more space for treatment of patients during transit. Nationally, the new contracts will also mean more permanent staff on base and will ensure crew and clinical staff are closer at hand to reduce call-out time. This is about putting the needs of patients first and reflects the Government’s commitment to improving the well-being of Kiwi families.

Jamie Strange: Will the new approach to air ambulance services require further investment from the Government?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Improving our nationwide air ambulance service will require sustained investment. That is why in Budget 2018 we invested an extra $83 million into air ambulance services over the next four years so that the dedicated medics and pilots have the tools they need to do their job. This Government is committed to investing in the health system and dealing with the legacy of underfunding that we inherited.

Question No. 7—Research, Science and Innovation

7. Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National) to the Minister of Research, Science and Innovation: Does she stand by her statement on her proposed R & D tax credit policy that “If no final decisions have been made, anything is possible”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Research, Science and Innovation): Yes.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: What is the potential fiscal cost of changing her R & D tax credit policy to include companies not making a profit, and removing the restrictions around companies spending less than $100,000 on R & D?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: The potential costs of the full policy were included in Budget 2018 when this Government allocated over a billion dollars over a four-year period in addition to the growth grant funding. So that is all laid out there. So the funding for the growth grant of $649 million remains in addition to the money that is set out of over a billion dollars.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Does she agree with Treasury’s advice that the design features may influence the fiscal cost, and that without design details the financial implications of introducing a tax credit are unclear?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: Of course the design details will impact on the total cost of the package. That’s why that was one of the key things that we had in mind when we put together the package to take out to consultation with industry around the final design details. These were done with the view that there had to be plenty of fiscal headroom.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: How is it, then, a responsible move to announce $1 billion towards this policy, given the details of the policy are still not known?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: It is responsible because this is a Government that is not content to languish at 1.3 percent of expenditure on GDP. We’re in a Government that is investing in our businesses to incentivise them to do R & D, and we have designed a policy within the funding that we allocated in Budget 2018. I know that member struggles with the fact that this is a Government that is seriously investing in research and development.

Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why did she reject the advice from Treasury to implement the policy in 2020, not 2019, to allow for proper development of the policy, and instead pursue her approach, that will result in higher fiscal risk and higher risk of not achieving the objective?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: We took a very prudent approach. What we are implementing in April 2019 is the incentive for companies that are in profit. We have given ourselves an extra year to do the most risky part of the policy, which is pre-profits, and we are putting in place incentives for those companies to carry them through. We’re a Government that wants to get on with helping businesses so they can invest more in R & D, and this is a Government that is dedicated to a sustainable, productive, inclusive economy, and we are willing to invest in that.

Question No. 8—Whānau Ora

8. JO HAYES (National) to the Minister for Whānau Ora: Is he still supportive of the principles and values of Whānau Ora; if so, what support does he have from his senior ministerial colleagues for the Whānau Ora policy?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Whānau Ora): Tēna koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. The answer to the question is yes, I continue to actively support the principles and values of Whānau Ora, and my ministerial colleagues and I are currently considering how the aspirations of whānau well-being can be supported even more.

Jo Hayes: What steps will he take to ensure the principles and values of the Whānau Ora policy is a priority in his Government’s work programme, after the Prime Minister acknowledged on Saturday that she couldn’t guarantee Whānau Ora would get the extra funding that Labour promised before the 2017 election?

Hon PEENI HENARE: I also quote the Prime Minister, who in the same interview said, “We’re undertaking [a review of Whānau Ora] so we can demonstrate the value of Whānau Ora.” To me, that sounds like this Government certainly believes in the principles and values of the policy, and with well-being at the centre of everything this Government does, I’m looking forward to the outcomes we can expect.

Jo Hayes: How will Willie Jackson’s comments that the Government’s 2019 social well-being Budget will be “more observant of community needs right across the spectrum, translate to more funding for Whānau Ora” when the Prime Minister is unable to guarantee any new money for Whānau Ora?

Hon PEENI HENARE: More broadly speaking, I am proud of this Government and the words of the Minister of Finance, the Hon Grant Robertson, in the prospect of delivering a well-being Budget, a first in this world—a well-being Budget—aimed directly at the well-being of our communities and our country. I am under no illusion that the words of my colleague the Hon Willie Jackson are in line of delivering well-being for our communities and country.

Jo Hayes: Does he agree with the statement from the Acting Prime Minister and leader of New Zealand First, “Whānau Ora is just a giant koha fund set up in a separatist system to appease the Māori Party.”; if not, why not?

SPEAKER: Order! I just want to make sure that that statement was made by the Acting Prime Minister or at least by the Rt Hon Winston Peters when he was a Minister.

Jo Hayes: Yes, it was. It was in the same article on 22 September this year.

SPEAKER: So, he’s made that comment recently? All right. Thank you.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The election last year was on 23 September. The Government began on 26 October. That member cannot possibly be right when she made that statement to the House.

SPEAKER: Well, I just want to check: is the member talking about this year or last year?

Jo Hayes: This year: 22 September 2018.

SPEAKER: So the member’s saying that the Deputy Prime Minister made that comment on 22 September this year?

Jo Hayes: That’s correct.

SPEAKER: All right. OK. [Interruption] Well, no, we’ve got to take the member’s—[Interruption]. No, we do have to take the member’s word. She has been asked and she has said that that statement was reported as being made by the Prime Minister, by the—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: She’s going to have to prove—

SPEAKER: No she doesn’t. Order! At the moment, she does not. She said she has the authentication for it. She has been asked twice about it. She has an absolute responsibility to be correct, because it is a matter of privilege—clearly, a matter of privilege. We must take her word at this stage.

Hon PEENI HENARE: I believe that member is wrong, but what I do want to say is I’m proud of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, because in the work that we’ve been doing on Whānau Ora and the discussions I’ve had with him, he’s been very supportive.

Question No. 9—Pacific Peoples

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): How is the Government—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Who was that?

Hon Kris Faafoi: I withdraw and apologise.

SPEAKER: And the member has just been responsible for some additional questions, the number of which I’ll decide, going to the Opposition. Please start again.

9. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: How is the Government promoting an understanding of Pacific languages, arts, and cultures overseas?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): In April, the right honourable Minister Peters announced New Zealand’s partnership with the Royal Academy of Arts in London to exhibit Oceania, the largest collection of traditional contemporary Māori, Polynesian, and Melanesian art ever displayed in the United Kingdom, with artworks spanning over 500 years. Tonga and Papua New Guinea are cultural co-sponsors of the exhibition. Minister Sepuloni opened the exhibition on behalf of the New Zealand Government on Tuesday. This is an exciting development, a unique opportunity, and a proud moment for Māori and Pacific peoples in New Zealand to see a small part of ourselves, with our representatives being profiled on the world stage with a sophisticated narrative of Pacific peoples who value their languages, arts, and cultures. Oceania artworks and artists are some of our greatest ambassadors and champions.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How will the exhibition improve international understanding of the issues affecting New Zealand and our Pacific neighbours?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Oceania will focus UK and international attention to our Pacific region and its peoples. Oceania will highlight, through visual and digital arts, some of the global issues that Pacific nations are facing, such as climate change, migration, and regional and environmental security. Oceania is an opportunity for New Zealand and Pacific leaders to build dialogue with UK stakeholders and encourage them to take a greater multilateral role in collectively solving these issues.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: How has the Government ensured that ex-pats are able to see the exhibition?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: This is exciting: this exhibition is an important part of our story and our history, and New Zealanders living in the UK will learn a lot more from seeing Oceania. That’s why we’ve made the entry to the exhibition free for all New Zealand passport holders and all Pacific Island passport holders. People just need to show their passport at the entry to the exhibition.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What is the value to New Zealand and its Pacific population of promoting Pacific languages, arts, and cultures overseas?

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Exhibitions of this nature are vital in keeping Pacific and Māori languages, cultures, and arts alive for future generations. Language gives voice to our arts and cultures. We believe that when the language dies, a culture dies. When a culture dies, our stories and arts will die. When our stories and arts die, connections to our lands and environment will die. When our connections to the environment die, identities die. When our identities die, we will truly be a lost people. Exhibitions such as Oceania help to build greater understanding, appreciation, and the collective will to uphold and protect the dignity of Māori and Pacific peoples’ right to speak their heritage languages and pass it on to the next generation.

Question No. 10—Prime Minister

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his appointment of Wally Haumaha as Deputy Commissioner of Police, and does Mr Haumaha still enjoy his confidence?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Acting Prime Minister): An inquiry into the appointment process is now under way, and I have confidence in Mary Scholtens QC’s ability to run a fair process. It would not be appropriate for me to comment during that inquiry.

Chris Bishop: Why was Wally Haumaha appointed as deputy commissioner when he was asked in the interview process by the State Services Commission words to the effect of “Is there anything in your past that would embarrass the Government?”, to which he answered, “No.”?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect to those matters that may relate to the inquiry, I can’t comment, other than to say there’s one aspect that I can comment on, and that is this: Mr Haumaha received two significant promotions under the National Party, and an honours. I suppose, at that point in time, some of us thought, well, the due diligence had been done and we could have confidence in the National Party’s judgment.

Chris Bishop: Why was Wally Haumaha appointed when he was not the preferred candidate of the State Services Commission interview panel that interviewed him?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Again, a very distinguished woman with qualifications, of course, Mary Scholtens QC, will determine the process and give us a report on that, and at that point—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Because he’s a mate.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No, Mary Scholtens is not a mate of mine. She’s married to a former National Party Minister. Didn’t know that, did he—didn’t know that, did he? So we’ll await her wise opinion when we get the report.

Chris Bishop: In relation to the Scholtens inquiry, why did the Government scale back the Government inquiry into his appointment from a short and sharp inquiry that would only take six weeks, when officials originally recommended an inquiry of three months, at a cost of $840,000?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I think the answer to that is so obvious. We are a very frugal Government. We’re famous for looking after the taxpayer’s money the same way we look after our own—very Scottish, in that fact. I just want to say $800,000 was far too much, and so we’ve reached a much more reasonable accommodation.

Chris Bishop: Has he asked the Rt Hon Winston Peters why he told Parliament he was invited to the celebration of Mr Haumaha’s promotion to assistant commissioner of police by the police and the Government of the day, when the evidence shows he was invited by the marae which Mr Haumaha is the chairman of?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At this point in time, there’s no such evidence on the last claim that Minister made, just like there was none yesterday. Now, let me just say this here: at the marae were all the police heads at the time, and a number of political parties. I just happened to be one of them. I got there—because I was a very busy man—well after the event started, and was seated at the direction of the police. That’s why I had the assumption that they were involved in its organisation.

Chris Bishop: In relation to that final answer, was he invited to the marae, to Wally Haumaha’s celebration, by the marae?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: In that context, I think the answer’s almost compellingly no, but, as some members will know here, in Māoridom we’re very much a wanted guest sometimes—not always, because of the effect of what our message might be, but, nevertheless, because it’s important that they hear all sorts of views. That was the reason, I assume, I was invited.

Chris Bishop: So if he wasn’t invited by the Government of the day, he wasn’t invited by the police, and, as he just said, he wasn’t invited by the marae, who invited him to the celebration of Wally Haumaha’s promotion to assistant commissioner?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The first thing that member’s going to have to do is get some cultural understanding. A marae can be a building, a marae can be a complex, or a marae can be all the people and the complex, all put together. So in that context, it’s very difficult to know—I know the building didn’t invite me, but as to who on the marae had the foresight and wisdom to invite me, I don’t quite know. That said, that member yesterday promised a revelation. When are we going to hear it?

Chris Bishop: What is the difference between Meka Whaitiri, who was stood down as a Minister once an investigation commenced into alleged inappropriate behaviour towards a staff member, and Wally Haumaha, whose alleged bullying behaviour towards civil servants is now the subject of two—and possibly, soon, three—inquiries, and why will he not stand Mr Haumaha aside?

SPEAKER: I’m going to make a minor amendment to the question and make it “public servant”, so we have a New Zealand not a UK context, and ask the Acting Prime Minister to answer it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say, the member actually gave the answer in his question—he said, “alleged”. In this country, people are presumed innocent. We have an inquiry going on now into the process that appointed Mr Haumaha, a twice-promoted police member under the National Party and an honours recipient under the National Party.

Chris Bishop: Why did he stand Meka Whaitiri aside as a Minister when the allegations against her were only alleged, and how does that differ from Mr Haumaha?

SPEAKER: I’m going to get the member to try again, at the beginning of the question: “Why did the Prime Minister”, not “Why did he”.

Chris Bishop: Why did the Prime Minister stand Meka Whaitiri aside as a Minister when the allegations against her were only allegations, and how does that differ from the allegations against Mr Haumaha?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The Prime Minister, in the Meka Whaitiri case, had the benefit of a report. In the case of Mr Haumaha, the inquiry is still being done, and so, as the member said yesterday, I can also reveal that we will wait till the report’s out.

Question No. 8 to Minister

JO HAYES (National): I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct a statement I made in the House. Mr Speaker, when you asked for my assurance—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Is the member going to seek leave to make a correction, presumably relating to something she said relatively recently?

JO HAYES: Yes.

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

JO HAYES: When you asked for my assurance that the statement made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters was in his capacity as Minister, I said it was, as it was an article dated 22 December this year. I was mistaken; the statement was in fact made in February 2012. I apologise to the House.

Question No. 11—Youth

11. KIERAN McANULTY (Labour) to the Minister for Youth: What recent announcement has he made on the Youth Parliament?

Hon PEENI HENARE (Minister for Youth): I can answer that question tickety-boo.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: You’re not young.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yesterday, I announced the nationwide selection process—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I’m going to ask Paul Goldsmith just to stop stating the obvious. I’m not. Thank you. Start again please.

Hon PEENI HENARE: Yesterday I announced that the nationwide selection process for Youth Parliament 2019 is under way. All MP offices would have received an information pack about the Youth Parliament 2019 programme and the selection process. I’m enjoying seeing how members are using social media to promote this fantastic opportunity—in fact, in the words of my good colleague, “keeping it lit.” There is wonderful momentum from all sides of the House to ensure we work together to bring youth voices into this Whare.

Kieran McAnulty: How will Youth Parliament be different this time round?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Great question. Rangatahi who will participate in the Youth Parliament 2019 programmes stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. We have listened to the voices of previous youth parliamentarians—namely, the Hon Kris Faafoi. They suggest that the programme include significant changes. The changes include the programme being from 1 March to 31 August, allowing for young people to work alongside their MPs and communities and take their views to the two-day event in July 2019. After the two-day event, these young people will return to their communities to share their insights and learnings. For the first time in the history of Youth Parliament, Youth MPs will be submitting and deciding on topics to be discussed at the two-day event. All rangatahi from across Aotearoa will be able to submit their thoughts on the 10 chosen Youth Parliament select committee topics through a public submission process.

Kieran McAnulty: What are the governing arrangements for Youth Parliament 2019?

Hon PEENI HENARE: Youth Parliament is governed by a multi-party steering committee of members, as well as a representative from the press gallery. I would like to acknowledge the following members, who have been championing more opportunities for young people to have a voice. Can I also acknowledge you, Mr Speaker, for your acceptance of Youth Parliament 2019.

SPEAKER: Just before we go on to question No. 12 from Jenny Marcroft, I want to make it clear that despite what has been a written appeal to me from people on behalf of Mr Faafoi, I’m not going to take the questions back that I have awarded the National Party because of his interjection. Even though there may have been some justification for it at the time, he’s got to learn to do things in an appropriate manner.

Question No. 12—Forestry

12. JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First) to the Minister of Forestry: What insights can he offer about his recent trip to China and Japan?

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister of Forestry): The insights I can offer about the recent trip are based on intuition and judgment—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Table the snaps.

Hon SHANE JONES: —during that period. Yes, don’t worry, pork belly was there, Gerry.

SPEAKER: Order! That’s enough. Right, the member will resume his seat. We’re not going to proceed with this question now because the member has—it’s the second member in two days to make personal reflections on the shadow Leader of the House, and I’m, frankly, at a loss as to how to otherwise improve the behaviour. I am now ruling that question time is concluded because I cannot think of a better way of indicating my concern to Mr Jones and other members of the Government about their inappropriate personal comments.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Brownlee said, “Table the snacks.”

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, “snaps”.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was his intervention—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, no, no—clean out the ears.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: He’s back into it again. This is a point of order and it should be heard in silence. Now, Mr Speaker—that’s a fact. That’s what we heard over here: “Table the snacks.” And now my colleague responded with an answer that pork belly was there. I mean, to be reasonable, if he had not intervened and shouted out that silly statement, then we would have got on and answered the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The word was “snaps” as in “holiday snaps”. I realise that most people don’t use those now because they’ve got cellphones, but I do have another point of order, though.

SPEAKER: OK, we have dealt with that one. That’s what I thought the member said, so we’ll just keep going. Further point of order, the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In question No. 1 today, you ruled that the Hon Paula Bennett could not table a document, on the basis that it had previously been published. But I would just ask you to consider what you’ve ruled today in relation to Speaker’s rulings 149/1, which talk about documents of a historic nature and not readily available, and Speaker’s ruling 149/2, that says that documents that are published by the media can be tabled if there has been a passage of time, effectively, and they come from a credible organisation. Now, the Parliamentary Library, I’m sure you would agree, as far as this House is concerned, is a credible organisation.

Further, Speaker’s ruling 150/2 says that a document published by media is much the same as 149/2 in exceptional circumstances. In this case, the statement that was tabled by the Hon Paula Bennett was 18 years old. Now, that creates the sorts of exceptional circumstances that I’m sure are anticipated in that. While that moment has passed, I would ask you just to reflect on whether your ruling today supersedes those other rulings.

SPEAKER: Well, I haven’t looked carefully at 149/1, but I have looked at 149/2, and I’m not sure that the member’s argument actually works for that one. I will look carefully at it. I’m not at the point yet of where I’m going to take the current Speakers’ rulings out of the book by superseding them, but I will sit down and have a wee look at the question and at the context. I thank the member.

Bills

Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill

Third Reading

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

This bill has been well scrutinised and canvassed, both in the Justice Committee and in this House. In fact, the committee of the whole House expended more than 21 hours examining this piece of legislation, and for very good reason too. It’s an amendment to our Electoral Act and where there is not consensus across the House on changes to our Electoral Act, it is important that the legislation is very closely scrutinised, and members opposite certainly did that.

This bill is about affirming the important principle under our current Electoral Act and in our MMP system that once the electorate has voted—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can we just have a little quiet for the Minister, please, as people leave the House?

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m obliged, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once the electorate has voted and established the proportionality of representation of Parliament, then it is not for individual members to undermine that proportional representation by political decisions or judgments that they choose to make. Public confidence is a vital underpinning in our democracy and for the benefit of this House. This bill will uphold public confidence in the integrity of New Zealand’s Parliament, our MPs, and our voting system.

For the public to have confidence in Parliament and in our electoral system, it’s the voters who should determine the parties’ share of seats in Parliament, and they do that with the party vote during a general election. This bill ensures that that proportionality that that share of the seats as a result of the party vote in the most general election will be the case. It will mean that the decision of an individual MP to leave the party for which they were elected does not alter that share, and that’s the vital point.

What is really interesting in the debates that we’ve had in this House is the energy and enthusiasm that members have brought to it, particularly members opposite, as they have properly discharged their duty as members of the Opposition looking at a piece of legislation that they disagree with and applying a very close examination of it. They did that. But it’s unfortunate—and I choose to do this at this part of the debate on this bill—that sometimes it is possible for members to go completely overboard in the way they approach the matter. It’s unfortunate that the Hon Nick Smith, in the select committee and in this House, made attacks on officials—on public servants of this country—that were totally unacceptable and totally uncalled for.

It is very important that when officials discharge their duties as officials, as public servants, they are not subject to the kind of tawdry behaviour that we, as elected officials, might have to tolerate, and sometimes welcome, because we are able to answer for ourselves. We stand in this House with a voice and are able to respond. We sit in the select committee, able to respond to the personal cut and thrust that goes with it, but officials are not. It is a very poor reflection on members who think that it is OK to attack officials, who cannot respond for themselves, and it is a very sad day that that should happen in relation to this bill—even worse when they are unapologetic in doing so.

This bill sets out a process by which, if a member disrupts proportionality by leaving their party—not by disagreeing with their colleagues and not by crossing the floor, but by leaving their party and joining another party—then they can be removed from Parliament. The MP’s party leader, with the support of their caucus, or the MP who’s leaving their party themselves can choose whether to activate the power in this bill by notifying the Speaker in writing.

There are safeguards in this. There has to be a notice in writing. The leader of the party, in giving a notice to the Speaker about this apparent change in proportionality, has to have a reasonable belief that the proportionality of Parliament would be distorted. There is a 21-day period—call it a cooling-down period, call it a chance to negotiate or to talk, or call it a chance to rally the numbers for that particular member or, indeed, for the leader who has to give the notice—and then there is the requirement for there to be a two-thirds vote in the caucus for the removal action to be taken. All safeguards, and all within a context in which political judgments have to be made, so that people know and expect that in Parliament there will be disagreements and arguments and that not every disagreement and argument leads to a spill or a conflagration that leads to a disruption in parliamentary numbers.

Some submitters were concerned that this bill would allow a party leader to dismiss a member of the party for any reason. That simply is not correct. The bill contains a number of safeguards to ensure that the process cannot be misused, and I’ve been through those. It is about making sure that the proportionality of the share of parliamentary numbers does not get distorted. Those safeguards mean that the power will only be used with the broad agreement of the particular MP who is the subject of any resolution of their party, and there will be appropriate time to respond. Moreover, if an MP wishes to contest the use of the procedure in the bill, they can seek recourse from the courts, as, indeed, a former MP in this House has done under virtually identical legislation.

I acknowledge that the bill raises the issue of parliamentary privilege, and that was debated in the House. Parliamentary privilege will limit the matters that can be introduced in evidence in proceedings, challenging the delivery of a notice to the Speaker. But the Supreme Court has dealt with this and has said issues under identical legislation are justiciable and matters can be brought for the scrutiny of the court, as, indeed, happened in the Pebble v Awatere Huata case.

Some are concerned that the bill will constrain MPs’ freedom of speech or freedom of conscience. This bill recognises that a balance has to be drawn between the freedom of individual MPs to act on their own judgment, which is important, and the principle that voters and only voters—not individual members of this House, but voters—should determine the parties represented in this House. The bill draws a better balance by providing a means to correct distortions of proportionality where an MP leaves the party under whose banner they stood for Parliament. That sheets home the importance of MMP and what MMP is about, which is the party share of seats in the House.

A key feature of the change in an MMP electoral system was that voters’ views are represented fairly. That’s what the House now is about. The proportions of Parliament are a vital manifestation of that improved representation. The bill aims to protect that improved representation. The reality is that having no process which can be used to remove an MP from Parliament when they clearly are undermining parliamentary proportionality risks bringing this Parliament into disrepute, and that would have a negative impact on our democracy.

Some critics have said that the bill isn’t necessary—that there are sufficient political safeguards in our system already to discourage and sanction MPs who depart from their parties. In fact, we have seen that the opposite is true. Dialogue within parties—robust dialogue—happens, and there should be incentives that mean that what remains is that the primary means of maintaining party cohesion is the whip and the caucus themselves. But this bill addresses those instances when these may not be effective, as we have seen in the past—for example, where an MP has, effectively, removed themselves from their party and their internal systems.

This bill doesn’t remove the role of dissent and robust debate within parties and across this Parliament, because that is vital for good development of public policy. Debate will continue to occur within party caucuses and between the different parties and debates in this House. Similar legislation to this bill has been in place in New Zealand in the past, and rigorous debate on policy and legislation was not impeded either across the House or within parties, apart from the time when I think Dr Nick Smith was involved with a number of MPs in trying to remove Maurice Williamson, who simply made a public statement that it was time for the National Party to define who it was.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Never from Parliament, and that’s not true.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE: The Attorney-General has considered MPs’ freedom of expression rights when assessing the bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and he considered that preserving the balance of representation in accordance with the wishes of the electorate is sufficiently strong democratic purpose to justify the very small limitation that this bill might otherwise represent on freedom of expression.

This bill has been criticised for restricting the ability of new parties to form within a current Parliament. It’s our view that parties wanting to enter Parliament should do so through the electoral process and have an electoral mandate, thereby establishing their legitimacy. Voters, and only voters, should determine which parties are represented in Parliament. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Acting Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I didn’t want to interrupt the Minister in his contribution, but you have previously called members to order for saying the phrase “That’s not true.” or for suggesting that a member is misleading the House. Dr Nick Smith—[Interruption]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Excuse me, but points of order should be heard in silence.

Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: The Hon Nick Smith audibly made that statement during the Minister’s speech, and I request that you call him to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did take note of that—[Interruption] I don’t need any help at the moment, thank you, Dr Nick Smith. In fact, I didn’t call the member to order because the Minister on his feet had made a direct statement about another member as an individual, and that individual responded by saying that that was incorrect statement. In fact, he said it wasn’t true. So I left it, quite deliberately, because it was an argument between two members, rather than when “That’s not true.” is normally used.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope you’re not going to dispute—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of course I’m not. The Standing Orders make very plain that a member cannot dispute a personal explanation. The issue which Mr Little commented on was in direct contradiction to a personal explanation that I’ve previously given to the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: And I do understand that. I’m sorry, that had slipped my mind. So that’s a further reason why.

Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Look, with all due respect to the member who’s now resumed his seat, that is simply not correct. There was a personal explanation that that member, Dr Nick Smith, did not lead a challenge, effectively, to Mr Williamson. I did not say he led a challenge; I said that he was involved with a challenge, and that has never been disputed when that has been asserted in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Well, we would have to go back to the personal statement. I have to accept a member at their word, and the Hon Dr Nick Smith says that he has disputed it. Regardless, saying that something isn’t true doesn’t mean that someone is lying. You’re not allowed to say that, and people are called to order. I go back to my original statement, which was that it was a direct accusation which was refuted by the member, and I think we would be better to leave it at that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): It’s with genuine sadness that I make this speech in the final debate on this Draconian bill that is being forced through our Parliament by the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and the Green Party this afternoon. It is an affront to New Zealand’s core values of freedom of speech, of respect for democracy, and of tolerance of dissent. We have one of the oldest and most progressive Parliaments anywhere in the world, so well symbolised last week by the celebration of women’s suffrage. This bill takes us backwards.

There is nothing very complicated about this bill: it gives a new power in our Electoral Act for a party leader to sack an MP. The Government has dressed this up in all sorts of nebulous language. They argue that an MP is not sacked; the wording in the bill is that a member’s seat “becomes vacant”. They say a leader can use their power only when an MP has distorted the proportionality of Parliament, but this is defined so vaguely that leaders have huge discretion as to when they trigger the process to get rid of an MP. They argue there is a strong check on a leader’s power by requiring a two-thirds vote of a party’s MPs.

Anyone who understands the reality of caucus culture knows it will be very rare for a leader not to get their own way—think Rob Muldoon towards Marilyn Waring, think David Lange and Jim Anderton, think Helen Clark and Tariana Turia, and think Winston Peters and Brendan Horan. This bill is a blunt tool to nail dissenters. We may not agree with their differing points of view, and sometimes they make our Parliament a little bit messy, but respecting dissenting views is crucial to a democracy.

The biggest loss with this bill is the change that it will make in the culture of our Parliament. It will make MPs more subservient and more like party robots; it will be less challenging and less individual thinkers. As the Government has acknowledged, it will have a chilling effect on MPs’ free speech. Further, it will concentrate political power with leaders and with parties. I am yet to meet a member of the public out there who has said “I just wish party leaders like Winston Peters had more powers.”, but that’s what this bill does.

The Government argues that this bill is about protecting the proportionality of Parliament. This does not stack up when there is no attempt to change any of the five provisions in the Electoral Act that also distort proportionality. It is also incorrect to assume that the voters of a party agree with their leader rather than with the dissenting MP, when history tells us, with examples like Jim Anderton and Tariana Turia, that often those MPs are more representative of the views within that party than, necessarily, the leaders.

To truly appreciate how obnoxious this bill is, it needs to be considered in a historical and international context. This bill breaches the 330-year-old Bill of Rights. Those rights protect the exclusive right of voters to appoint and dismiss MPs, and it protects free speech in this Parliament and the rights of freedom of association.

An international comparison just further highlights how out of step this bill is with international norms for democracy. The Inter-Parliamentary Union is scathing of provisions of this sort. If a law was proposed in the United States that gave President Trump, the leader of the Republican Party, the power to dismiss a Republican member of Congress, there would be outrage across the political spectrum.

A bill of this sort would be considered so out there in the Australian or in the UK or in the Canadian parliaments that it would not get off first base. In Germany, the home of MMP, their constitution specifically prohibits such a law. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled such provisions are undemocratic and are not allowed. Even in PNG and Malaysia, such electoral laws have been struck down by their constitutional courts. It is true that some countries like India and Japan have a more moderate provision that says that if an MP voluntarily resigns from their party, they must leave Parliament, but the only countries that go as far as this bill in enabling a party leader to sack an MP are authoritarian States like Zimbabwe and Pakistan, that have nothing to offer in terms of New Zealand’s democracy.

I also want to highlight the long list of respected New Zealand institutions that oppose this bill. We’ve had a chorus of condemnation from every one of New Zealand’s universities. Every major newspaper in New Zealand has condemned this bill with their editorials. The Law Society, the Human Rights Commission, and even the Clerk of this House—the first in 30 years—has condemned this bill.

The three political parties supporting this bill and their members of Parliament deserve to be condemned for their part in this erosion of our democratic values. Justice Minister Andrew Little dismisses the chorus of 23 constitutional experts that are critical of this bill with the response “I’m right. They’re all wrong.”, exposing the level of arrogance in this Government.

Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson’s interview on Radio New Zealand stating that this bill was undemocratic and stating that it was a threat to democracy but stating that the Green Party would be voting for it was like those that want to destroy the village to save the village. Even worse was fellow Green Party co-leader, James Shaw, crying foul over the quotations from former Green Party co-leader Rod Donald, who described an identical bill as the most Draconian, the most anti-democratic, the most obnoxious piece of legislation ever to appear before this Parliament. These Green MPs travel the world lecturing others on human rights. This bill they are voting for breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Greens did not take a single call in over 20 hours of committee debate. They voted down every one of National’s amendments that would have tempered this bill, without explanation. These included amendments that put in a sunset clause, a review clause, a judicial review on leaders’ powers to dismiss MPs, and a responsibility on political parties to have democratic rules before expelling a member of Parliament. I contrast the way in which this New Zealand First project continues just as Winston Peters demands it, whereas the Greens’ policy of banning oil and gas is being watered down by the day.

The members I am most critical of on this bill are those backbenchers in the three governing parties. They have a duty, actually, to stand up as members of Parliament, and they have let that down.

Perhaps the most extraordinary part of this bill is the way in which, despite this bill now being in its third reading and despite over 20 hours of debate, Winston Peters, its architect, has not taken a single call. It is like the master puppeteer making fools of us and a joke of this Parliament.

My final point on this bill is a constitutional one. The general consensus is that we make electoral law changes only with more and broad parliamentary support. Here we have the situation of a party with only 7 percent support leveraging across the negotiations to form a Government to make permanent changes in electoral law.

I have fought this bill at every stage, with every tool, and with every bone in my body. I hate it. I hate it for the crude power grab that it represents. I hate it for the way that it will mute MPs’ free speech. I hate it for the way that it will tarnish this country’s democratic reputation. I hate it for the awful precedent that it sets in terms of the future of electoral law. I hate the way it trashes the freedoms that were so hard fought for by our predecessors.

This law may pass today, but it is on notice. National’s campaign for the repeal starts tomorrow. We will ensure this ugly law is only a temporary stain on the democratic traditions of this beautiful country we share.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Mr Speaker, there—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Madam—it’s Madam, and I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you. There can be few past occasions when this Parliament has been treated to such cant and pious bull dust, particularly from that member there—Nick Smith—who stood in this House and told Parliament that he had made a disclosure to the person responsible for MPs’ pecuniary interests. That statement, of course, was not true, and he still has not shown Parliament the evidence for the statement he made about that. His record is to have been a deputy leader of the National Party for—guess how long? He was a deputy leader of the National Party for two weeks. But here’s my evidence. Go and ask Maurice Williamson—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Another personal attack.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: That member can shout at the top of his voice, but I’ll make a difference between me and that member there—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! Sit down. Now, I think we should all calm down, and I’d ask the member who has the floor to please address the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: This is a third reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it’s about what went on before. I know what a third reading’s about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Look, I’m sorry, but you do not argue with the Chair. I have asked you to address the bill—would you come to the bill. It is a third reading.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a third reading, and it’s about the matters that were dealt with before, and I’m getting to the principle that’s at stake here, which is this: if a member of Parliament disagrees with his or her caucus, then they should resign and put it on the line in a by-election. And guess who did that? I did. So I’m not asking somebody to do something different. No, I’m the one person in all those years that did it, and then went on to the next election with a full mandate. What this man suggests we do is that people carry on regardless of what the voters said, and regard themselves as the person in which the trust of the whole electorate is reposed, even though they’re not on the same ticket. And he gets up here, drooping and dripping with so-called sincerity about how he’s so ashamed. Ask Maurice Williamson.

Hon Maggie Barry: As opposed to slobbering and shouting, like that member.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Now, “Myrtle Rust” can make all the noise she likes. Oh, Mr Williamson knows, as I know, that the person who was the baggage man leading the charge to get Maurice expelled was—guess who?

Hon Members: Who’s that?

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh, that man of integrity called Nick Smith. I know this man’s form.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear—

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They are clear.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: —and that is, when a member has given a personal explanation, which I gave when the Prime Minister previously made this false accusation, and it should stand.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, and it does stand. The member knows, and he’s been here long enough, that a personal explanation—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Why don’t I get Maurice Williamson to be my witness, then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you asking—

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Madam Deputy Speaker, why don’t I get Maurice Williamson to be my witness?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m sorry, I have to ask the member who has the floor to speak, to focus on the bill, and he knows full well that the Standing Orders prevent him from raising an issue that has had a personal explanation. So will the member just resume his speech.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What Mr Smith is arguing for is that a candidate stand on a list that is supported by the political party and that candidate’s colleagues, get to Parliament and please themselves what they do, and all of a sudden have the whole trust of the electorate in an MMP environment reposed in that recalcitrant member. Everybody knows that, under this bill, it’s about MMP, and if the public vote a party 20 percent of the vote, then that party is, under our law, entitled to have 20 percent of the representation in Parliament.

That’s what the law says, but not Mr Smith. He says, “Oh, no, we can make that 15 just by the unilateral actions, unsanctioned by the electorate, of MPs.” Mr Smith is so beleaguered now that going on from the first reading, the committee stage, and the second reading, and every other time in this bill, he can’t even keep his mouth closed for 10 minutes because he’s still trying to make out a failed argument. Shouting won’t change it. Shouting won’t change it. Mr Smith, the difference between Winston Peters and a man called Smith is that I have the respect of the public because I resigned. I resigned and had a by-election.

Hon Maggie Barry: Smith has integrity; that member’s a stranger to it.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What would that member know? The weed-eating specialist. The weed-eating specialist decides she’s going to interpose and tell us what she knows about the matter. Can I just say that when I had a by-election on the question of representation, Mr Smith and his colleagues never even turned up. No, don’t smile now; don’t look away. Here’s the test of what I’m saying: I put the principles behind our arguments behind this bill on the line, and when I did, the National Party never even turned up. That’s why we got 90.28 percent of the vote, which is still a record—just in case “Myrtle Rust” doesn’t know that.

Hon Member: Use her name; don’t be disrespectful.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I did.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Could we come to the bill.

Hon Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would imagine that the derogatory reference that the member who has just resumed his seat is making is directed at me. I take offence at it and ask that he withdraw and apologise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The difficulty we have is that the member is assuming—because he didn’t actually name the member that he was being derogatory about, and there was quite a bit of insult being thrown around about a number of members. So, look, I would really like the member who has the floor to address the bill. This is the third reading, and I ask him now—we have 5½ minutes to go—to please talk about the bill as it has emerged from the committee of the whole House.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: The fundamental principle of this bill is that the electoral system in this country, which is MMP, is honoured, and that’s what I’m dealing with. I’m not going to be put off by all sorts of challenges as to whether it’s relevant or not. The fundamental principle is: does MMP exist in this country with exactitude, or can members of Parliament please themselves as to whether it stands or not? We passed this law on a choice in a referendum in 1992 and a final one in 1993. It’s been going for 25 years, and I’d expect people to understand the principles. It’s fundamental to this bill. That’s what I’m dealing with.

But why would the National Party be so concerned about this issue? I’ll tell you why it is. There are 45 members of Parliament who have left National in the last nine years. I would’ve thought they’d be grabbing this bill with both hands. I would have thought they’d be thinking this is their grateful sanctuary. Forty-five MPs—two pages—in the last nine years. A lot were kicked. A lot got the boot. Some got pushed. Some jumped because they realised that they were on their way. As a consequence, we have these people making all sorts of statements.

Now, can I just say, with sympathy to my Green colleagues, this: do they not remember when two members of Parliament for the Green Party—Fitzsimons was the first one. Do you know who the second one was? Does my colleague remember that? Well, I do. They signed a declaration to stay with The Alliance all the way to the next election. That’s what they did, and here we have people here saying that somehow I’m imposing this provision. That’s false. The law that we are putting through today was a law that existed on our statute book at the start of this century. It was a law that existed on our statute book at the start of the century. There is nothing new about that. Now, I can’t remember back then, of course, Mr Nick Smith ranting and raving like he is today. I know that the National Party’s a lost cause. The day you make your flag bearer Nick Smith, you’re lost.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Actually, I’m not lost.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You’re seriously stuffed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I’m not lost. I know where I am.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Sorry, not you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The day a party makes some tired, worn-out member of Parliament with such a specious political background—such a specious background—the flag bearer of the party, they are desperately lost. Mr Smith has in the past told Parliament statements, such as the pecuniary interest statement he made, which has never ever been honoured. On the question, for example, of whether it is right for a member of Parliament to be asked to stand aside and go and face a by-election to seek their own mandate, Mr Smith—when that was last put to him in the form of the Tauranga by-election on 17 April 1993, he and his party never even turned up. That’s how strong and principled they are on this issue.

There’s something unique about New Zealand First in this context. Only two members of Parliament in the last half-century have ever had the decency to put it on the line in a by-election. I’m one, and Tariana Turia is the other one, and all the rest are high-minded hypocrisy—false crocodile tears. No principles whatsoever. The principle behind the third reading of this bill is whether or not proportionality under our system, now 25 years old, should be honoured by members of Parliament and be required to be honoured by members of Parliament.

One last thing I want to say is about this allegation that it gives the leaders all the power in the world. This weekend, this party is going to its annual conference—

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In a phone booth.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —for the 25th year, and it’ll be wall-to-wall—packed to the gunnels. The only people who have phone booth meetings are members like that former Minister over there, who can’t even get himself into the phone booth. Let me ask you a question: has anybody seen that member from Dunedin in an audience?

Hon Member : No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: What does that have to do with the bill? Just remind me.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well, what it has to do with the bill is this is a Parliament, and if people want to interject, they can stand a rejoinder.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: They do.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It’s called abiding open democracy. That’s what that’s about. Back to my point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: But there are rules in this democracy, so address the bill.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Can I just say this: the allegation that the leader has all the say is utter humbug. We go to our 25th-year celebration this weekend. Can I say, that is the second-longest surviving political party in our country’s history that has not changed its name—the second-longest in this country’s history that hasn’t changed its name—and we’ve gone for 25th years because we are a consultative democracy. We are a consultative democracy, and my colleagues know they have more say in this party than they would in any other. That’s why I commend this bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do seek your indulgence and I do want to explain. I seek the leave of the House to table a press release that is only available from the Parliamentary Library by the Rt Hon Winston Peters, saying that MPs must be able to leave their party and should not be blindly loyal—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Deputy Speaker, it’s not going to be allowed. He’s wasting time. This is a debating point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —to the party on which they were elected. No, it’s absolutely critical. It contradicts everything you just said.

RT Hon Winston Peters: Sit down. You’re not going to get it. The answer is no.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Are you using the Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Gerry Brownlee brought to the attention of the Speaker?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I was referring to the House earlier, because this press release is only available from the Parliamentary Library. It is not generally available to members, and it contradicts what the Rt Hon Winston Peters has just said to the Parliament.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On that condition, I will put the leave. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—otherwise known as the “Waka Jumping Bill”, the “Brendan Horan Memorial Bill”, and the “Winston Peters Self-preservation Bill”—at its third reading. Frankly, after the diatribe that we’ve just had to endure, with drivel added from a member well past their use-by date, I would like to read aloud from the press release that that member and his party—the motley crew—stood against the Hon Dr Nick Smith tabling.

To read aloud: “members of parliament have to be free to follow their conscience. They were elected to represent their constituents, not swear an oath of blind allegiance to a political party. If an MP feels that membership in another elected party better serves his or her constituents, then that can be put to the test at election time.” Winston Peters, on 6 March 1996, 22 years ago, did have a modicum of integrity back then; not much, admittedly. But, as he goes on to say, “Freedom should not extend to the ability to simply dream up a party and call yourself its leader, thus entitling you to extra taxpayers’ funds even though it is a hollow sham, nor should it extend to being permitted to construct a political parachute which is in the best interests of no one but the MPs involved.”

Well, we rest our case, except that there is more to be said, because, frankly, when we look at the roll call of shame that the member Winston Peters, who spoke before me, tried to go through with this party, what’s happened to Andrew Williams, Arsenate Lola-Taylor, Richard Prosser, Brendan Horan, Tuku Morgan, Delamere, Henare, and Mark? These are all the legacy of the leadership of Winston Peters—who was here a while ago. Some have been recycled, but not very successfully.

When we look at what we have been dealing with over the past 22 hours of debate—and as the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, I listened to the submissions. I paid attention to the vast bulk and weight of abhorrence around this bill—submitters who said that it was a sad day for democracy that this should even be considered, and that it does need a sunset clause. But, really, what it does, at its heart, is continue that New Zealand First - Labour - Green approach to changing electoral law without the true consensus of this Parliament. It is overriding democracy to entrench their own political positions, and it is an abuse of power of the worst possible kind. Their heads are now lowered in shame; they say nothing. What this bill needs is a sunset clause.

I absolutely agree with the Hon Dr Nick Smith that this is a bill that is on notice. The campaign for repeal begins as soon as it’s passed.

We have looked at a number of arguments in the last 22 hours. I have voiced my opinion and views on it, but don’t just take my word for it.

Hon Kris Faafoi: We never do.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Let us look at integrity, which cannot be legislated for—and it would do Minister Faafoi well to listen to this, given his reprimand and general cheekiness. So we hear from one our submitters, the Greens co-leader for 10 years no less, from 1999 to 2009—Jeanette Fitzsimmons said, “[This] Bill breaches the Bill of Rights, [it] denies freedom of speech and association, is contrary to international and NZ precedent, and is opposed by an impressive array of senior legal, constitutional, and political experts. It is unnecessary to address any real problem.” “This bill”, says Jeanette Fitzsimons, “is a poor solution, looking for a non-existent problem.”

Many of the arguments that were put forward by other people who came and submitted to us addressed the issue that she also made, which is that the main argument advanced for this bill is, in fact, its stated purpose: to maintain proportionality of political party representation. That’s as determined by electors. This bill elevates a bureaucratic structure—the party—above the principles it stands for.

A group of 19 academics came before the select committee and made a very substantial clause by clause rebuttal of it. Their four key points as to why it is inadvisable to consider this bill even with substantial amendments are as follows: because electoral integrity legislation creates more problems than it solves, and they detail those; because political defections are not a major problem in New Zealand—and they are not—because there are effective political sanctions where they occur; and, the fourth point, because it may well be in violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and there have been a lot of submitters who address that particular issue.

This idea that the further significant problem that is being caused by this electoral integrity legislation is that it inevitably makes a difference between constituency and list MPs and that the former—of which I am one; a representative of the North Shore electorate—do have the opportunity to contest the resulting by-election while the latter, the list MPs, do not. All MPs should have the same rights and the same responsibilities. Contrary to the opinion of many, list MPs are not second-class representatives of the people, and I know that colleagues standing soon to address some of these issues in this debate will go through this situation.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I’m glad to hear that!

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: A list MP is piping up that they are valued, and of course we endorse that, the Hon Paul Goldsmith—we do love and admire you. But I can say this: if the North Shore electorate, who elected me and subsequent members, was told by a leader of a party that I’d been kicked out of Parliament, they would feel—and rightly so—that their democratic rights as voters had been completely overruled and overturned.

We had a further submission from a respected academic, a professor of law at the faculty of law at the University of Auckland, Janet McLean, who was outraged by this. She called it a “major change to … New Zealand’s current constitutional arrangements and not [at all] the democracy-enhancing measure it claims to be.” She believes, and states with a lot of evidence—which I don’t have time to go into in this call—that this bill would give the parliamentary leader of a party “the power to sanction MPs who by their actions indicate they intend to cross the floor of the House including in a possible vote of no confidence. This would be a serious change to the New Zealand constitution and undermine one of its central democracy-protecting mechanisms.” As others have said, it would change the very culture of this place and is abhorrent.

Another former Green MP, Keith Locke, renamed this the “Party Conformity Bill”, describing it as a new low in parliamentary integrity. He said, “The Bill violates the right of free speech by allowing for MPs to be expelled from Parliament as a consequence of speaking or voting differently from their party caucus.” We debate things very, very strongly in the National caucus and then we go out with an agreed position, unless it’s a conscience vote. But, as far as we are concerned, the discipline and the robust debate and discussion that goes on needs to be respected. This overrules all of this. This bill would turn party MPs into what Rod Donald called party robots; others have called them poodles.

The late co-leader Rod Donald did quote the 2001 iteration of a bill very similar to this—except that that bill at least had a sunset clause—as “the most draconian, obnoxious, anti-democratic, insulting legislation ever inflicted on this Parliament.” I do hope that the Green members who are in this Chamber will be taking a call. It is extraordinary and outrageous that in 22 hours of debate in this House, we have not heard a single call from any of those members. This is a bill that contradicts all of their fundamental principles. It contradicts the very reason for their existence. They would not exist if this bill had existed, and it is extraordinary that they are so caught up in being sold out with the baubles of office that they cannot even stand up for a fundamental principle. It is a disgrace.

I will conclude my remarks in this debate by quoting from Dr The Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith’s submission to Parliament. His retirement followed his 29-year political career. He didn’t feel the need to come back for any old thing; he made an exception in this case. He came before the select committee and talked about the fact that “This Bill could breach the fundamental right of Members to speak in the House freely”—to cross the floor, as Damien O’Connor and Rino Tirikatene from Labour did. These are fundamental rights and principles. Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith was saying that as far as he was concerned, over the years “parliamentary debate [had become] more constrained and increasingly controlled by political parties. Accountability to political parties has been strengthened”—he believed—“at the expense of accountability to voters, especially local constituents. The instances of Members crossing the floor … has become almost non-existent.” He laments that and says, “There is no case to impose an even tighter regime on MPs with this Bill. The current sanctions [are sufficient].”

So his submission is that the protection of the privilege of freedom of speech in the House must take priority and must not be put at risk by the provisions of this appalling bill, which would empower a leader to dismiss a member in contravention of that all-important right. It would mute MPs’ ability to have free speech. It will change the nature and way we make legislation in this country. It is abhorrent, it is wrong, and the campaign to repeal it begins now.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I rise to take a call to support the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill at its third reading. This bill is one of the coalition Government’s priorities. It is a bill that serves the significant constitutional objective of preserving the proportionality of party representation in Parliament as determined in the last election. This bill upholds the public’s confidence in the integrity of Parliament, in the integrity of its MPs, and in the integrity of our voting system.

The bill amends the Electoral Act 1993. Prior to that, we had first past the post. If a member of Parliament came in here through the party system and decided for a number of reasons to vacate their seat or to leave the party, there would generally be a by-election. The expectation of the public would be that there would be a by-election. In 1993, we introduced this proportionality system. What was the reason for that? It was about ensuring that proportionality of where the voters wanted to go would be upheld. I think there may be some confusion from some on the other side of the House, because I think, for the first time, they are seeing what I would regard as a true coalition Government. It is a true coalition Government of three independent parties who have a point of difference in the electorate that they would be advocating for and in the cohort of voters that they would be championing, but none the less, ultimately, all three parties are fundamentally in agreement about where they want this country to go: a far better, kinder nation than ever before. So I don’t see any problems.

I disagree—listening intently to the words of the speakers on the other side, I have to say that scaremongering is so outdated. This bill is forward-looking. This bill is about keeping the proportionality. I don’t see a problem. If the leader of a particular party has an issue with any member, the two-thirds majority which they are required to undertake is a constitutional norm. There is a constitutional norm of a two-thirds majority.

Hon Tim Macindoe: So name one constitutional expert who agrees with you. Name one.

Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: What that means, Mr Macindoe, is it is not up to the one individual to determine what happens to that person. There is the collective of a party system. That’s the party system that we have—that’s the party system that we have. So if a person chooses, for whatever reason, to vacate their seat—if it’s an electorate member, they have the option of a by-election. If it’s a list member—how do list members get chosen into the House? They were elected by their parties. They are elected. They sign an authority—they sign an agreement—to abide by the rules of their particular party.

I just want to say, I listened intently to the Hon Dr Nick Smith, who said he hated what is happening. But I want to say I hate the feigned anger—the feigned anger—as if they were pretending. I hate the pretence of attempting to talk about protecting human rights of New Zealanders. What did they do about the human rights of workers in the last nine years? What did they do about the human rights of the poor and those who are desperate and wanting welfare protection that they did not give? What have they done about the rights of people who want to own their own home? In the last nine years, they didn’t even consider that. So, tonight, when I hear the right honourable Dr Nick Smith say that he hates this and that it somehow undermines human rights, I’d say to him that I hate his pretence about suddenly wanting to protect human rights, when in the last nine years, all they did was put the thumb on hard-working New Zealanders. So I’ve got no hesitation to recommend this bill for passage.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): This is indeed a very, very sad day for the international reputation of New Zealand’s Parliament and New Zealand’s democracy. I have been privileged to be a member of this Parliament for, now, 24 years. So I haven’t done as long as Winston Peters, but I’ve certainly done my 24 years continually, without having been kicked out a couple of times from this place. Having spent 24 years here, I can tell you that no one comes into this Parliament with all the answers.

Politics is a contest of ideas. We see that every day, here in this debating chamber, as we respect each other’s point of view, we respect the philosophies and the convictions, and, most of all, until today, we respected individual consciences of members of Parliament. But what we’re doing today is we’re changing all that. We’re saying that while there will continue to be a contest of ideas within this debating chamber, under this legislation, there will no longer be a contest of ideas within each caucus. This sort of legislation puts us in the esteemed company—the esteemed company—of parliaments like Zimbabwe’s and Pakistan’s.

I realised that when MMP came in in 1996, we would continue to do coalition deals for Government. I accept that this particular coalition Government, with three parties—the Greens, New Zealand First, and Labour—is the first of its kind, when the party that won the most votes has been sent into Opposition, but that’s the rules of MMP. But I still express my absolute disappointment with the Green Party, that has spent, since its inception in this Parliament, every chance to rail against this legislation, until this particular opportunity, and what became clear throughout this debate is that a deal’s been done. We know that the deal is the Greens got their oil and gas prohibition ban passed—to affect economies of New Zealand, but particularly Taranaki—and in return for that deal, they agreed to vote for the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

I think the Greens hope that this will be forgotten by the time we get to the next election. Let me assure the leaders of the Green Party here in Parliament today that it will not be forgotten by Green members—

Hon Tim Macindoe: Or forgiven.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: —or forgiven. I say that because one thing I know about the members of the Green Party that I know is that they are principled people. I don’t agree with many of their ideas at all, but they come to support their philosophies and their ideas with conviction, and they’re loyal to those convictions. They will not be happy to see eight votes cast later on this afternoon to support legislation which the likes of the late Rod Donald would have railed against.

I say to the Labour Party members that they, equally, have been shamefully quiet throughout this debate. We did have this type of legislation once before, in 2001-05, brought in, again, because of another political party leader’s inability to control his members, and I talk about the late Hon Jim Anderton. But in that particular case, there was a strong Prime Minister, Helen Clark, and she had the fortitude—she had the gumption—to at least set that legislation with a sunset clause to allow it to pass through for the period of 2001-05, when it was likely Mr Anderton could not manage his caucus. That’s the difference between the Rt Hon Helen Clark and the current Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern. She could have accepted this legislation was necessary—and I see Marama Davidson nodding her head in agreement—but it could have been done with a sunset clause that expires at the end of this Parliament. But, no, we have a particularly weak Prime Minister in this case.

Then we have New Zealand First, for whom we’ve now sat in this House for 22 hours, debating this legislation—for the benefit of New Zealand First as a political party. Not one call, I believe, was taken by a New Zealand First member to justify it. I know why they were quiet, because I think they have a vested interest in this legislation being passed because, allegedly, they have signed a bond—a personal bond—for $300,000, which will no longer be necessary and which will be cancelled once this legislation is passed. The Hon Ron Mark shakes his head and says that’s not so, but the Rt Hon Winston Peters said it was so. Other members of New Zealand First said they signed such a bond. The odd member of New Zealand First said, “Oh, I can’t remember.”—can’t remember that you’ve signed a personal commitment to pay $300,000?

This is the very reason this legislation’s before the House, and I think is shameful for New Zealand First to be in that position, whereby their own personal financial interests are potentially affected by this legislation. I think that the allegation that such a rule existed, raised by the Hon Dr Nick Smith, should have been contested through a Privileges Committee hearing to find out the truth. I well remember Mr Peters with his “No” sign about the donation received from Owen Glenn, and it was only when that went through a select committee process—the Privileges Committee—that we found out that, indeed, he had not been telling the truth.

I want to conclude by saying that I felt so deeply about this legislation that I made a submission to the select committee myself. I have never had to make a personal submission to a select committee in my 24 years here. In making that submission, I took the opportunity of drawing the committee’s attention to a report of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). I want to take an opportunity to read my comments to the select committee to the House today. The IPU has published a report entitled The impact of political party control over the exercise of the parliamentary mandate. This report is critical of the very law that is being passed in this Parliament today, stating that it creates—and I quote—“political party dictatorships”. It argues in this report that the free mandate of members of Parliament is—and, again, I quote—an “indispensable guarantee of parliamentary democracy.” It goes on to state that “while party loyalty and discipline are necessary they must never impair the full and effective exercise of freedom of expression and association by any member of that [political] party since these are overriding fundamental human rights.”

Darroch Ball: Oh, it was written 10 years ago.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER: Darroch Ball may want to ignore the report of the IPU; I have no intention of ignoring that report. That report was produced because of other members of Parliament from right around the world being absolutely appalled with the sort of thing that happened in Zimbabwe.

I came here as a member of the National Party—as a proud member of the National Party. I wouldn’t want to stay in that National Party any longer if my conscience—my ability to express my opinion—was curtailed in that caucus. That’s what we’re doing today. We’re passing a law that will further damage the high regard in which New Zealand’s democracy is held around the world. It is a very, very sad day for the democracy of New Zealand.

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): This morning, I had the pleasure of announcing the repeal of Part 4A of National’s funded family care legislation, which restricted the rights of families of severely disabled people to take the Government to court for contravening their human rights. This was the most egregious abuse of human rights by the last National Government, and it was condemned by the courts and sent—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! I don’t really want to bring the member to order, but we are on the third reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill.

Hon JAMES SHAW: The point is relevant, Madam Assistant Speaker. It was condemned by the courts and the Human Rights Commission. The decision of the Green Party to vote for this bill—the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—has been the most difficult decision that we have taken in the last year that we have been in Government, but given the opportunity to change the Government and to repeal the human rights abuses of the last National Government, it does put it into some context.

The reason that we decided to vote for the bill and the process that we went through were clearly set out by Golriz Ghahraman in the second reading debate. We had to grapple with two competing principles. The first was our strong historical opposition to similar legislation, and the second was our commitment in our confidence and supply agreement to act in good faith to allow all other agreements, including the coalition agreement, to be complied with. I want to emphasise that the decision that we faced on this bill is not typical of the sorts of decisions that we have made or will make in this parliamentary term.

The agreements between the Government parties include a lot of progressive policy, and it is for that reason—the opportunity to advance that policy—that we entered this Government. There has been a lot of attention on the Green Party during the debate on this bill. This is understandable, given our historic opposition to similar bills in the past and also some of the great former members of Parliament who have spoken out against the bill.

I do want to acknowledge, in particular, Jeanette Fitzsimons and Keith Locke, who made a number of submissions against this bill at select committee, as well as other Green Party members who opposed the bill. We heard you. We do want you to continue to challenge us and to hold us accountable as we go through the experience of being in Government.

The National Party have been particularly interested in the Greens’ position on this bill, and I thank them—and, in particular, Dr Nick Smith—for their concern trolling. I have to say, there are a number of historical facts that have been completely misspoken during the course of the debates on this bill, because, while we didn’t take a lot of calls, we did listen to the words of some of the former speakers. I want to just set the record straight on a few things—in particular, actually, how the Green Party behaved in the 1996-99 Parliament, when Jeanette Fitzsimons and Rod Donald and the Green Party decided that they would contest the subsequent election under the Green Party banner rather than under the Alliance banner.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: They behaved with integrity.

Hon JAMES SHAW: They absolutely behaved with integrity. They maintained that because they had been elected in the 1996 election under the Alliance banner, they would continue to remain as members of the Alliance caucus for the remainder of that term and to vote with the Alliance caucus for the remainder of that term, even though they intended to contest the subsequent election as Green Party MPs under the Green Party banner. In other words, they actually acted completely consistently with the principles that are outlined in this very bill. They actually said that because they had been elected under the Alliance banner in the 1996 election, they would respect the will of those voters and maintain that through until the next election. So all of the words that have been spoken about that moment in history are completely incorrect.

I also want to just return to some of the words I heard earlier from Dr Nick Smith. He’s called this an affront to democracy. He said, “I hate this bill for the power grab that it is.” One of the things that has been overlooked in much of the debate is that there is a clause in this bill that says that the party constitutions must be complied with; otherwise, it’s invalid. Now, if you don’t like this—if you do not want your party to exercise or have the ability to exercise the provisions in this bill—you can include a clause in your party constitution barring you from doing so.

Marama Davidson and I have written to the Green Party executive and asked them to consider, as part of an ongoing constitutional review, whether or not they should include that clause barring us from using that. So I want to encourage Dr Nick Smith to ask his party leader, Simon Bridges, to write to the National Party executive and ask them to include a clause in the National Party constitution barring Simon Bridges or any other leader of the National Party from using the provisions in this bill, because they have that opportunity.

But I note that the leader of the National Party has already said that he may use the provisions in this bill if it comes to pass, even though it is an affront to democracy, in the words of his own members. Despite railing against the provisions in this bill for the months that it has been through Parliament, through the hours of debate that it has had—that the leader of the National Party cannot guarantee that he would not use the provisions in this bill against his own members is utterly extraordinary. So I want to encourage the National Party—if they’re so worried about this—to change their constitution so that their own leadership cannot use the provisions in this bill.

While we said that we had a number of concerns, we did decide to vote for this bill for two reasons, like I said. First of all was that we have a commitment to uphold our confidence and supply agreement and to ensure the integrity of the Government, and we back each other on this side of the House. We do uphold our commitments even when the going gets tough. And the National Party on a number of occasions have called on us to stand on principle, to trash our confidence and supply agreement, and to vote against the coalition agreement.

I want to ask the members of the National Party here present: if the Māori Party had stood on principle and had voted against the National Party’s swingeing cuts to social welfare and to beneficiaries in their Government, would they have said the same thing? Would they have said “That’s OK. The Māori Party is standing on principle and they’re destroying our cuts to social welfare.”? I don’t think they would have. I think they would have meted out such punishment on the Māori Party like you just wouldn’t believe.

Like I said, this has not been easy for us. We have been through an extensive—I say, very extensive—process with our party, with our executive, with our policy committee, and with our caucus, and we have arrived at the conclusion that whilst we are uncomfortable with this bill, the provisions that we have negotiated in this bill and the safeguards that we built—particularly in relation to the opportunity for parties to amend their own constitution—have made it OK and have gotten us to the point where we’re willing to let this bill pass.

I have to say that there are many opportunities that come with being part of this Government: the opportunity to have the most progressive, the most sustainable Government, and the most sustainable, the most progressive society that we have seen in a long time. But the opportunity to change the Government, to get rid of the last National Government, to repeal their human rights abuses—and Dr Smith’s behaviour during the debate on this bill has illustrated starkly why it was such a good decision to go with Labour and New Zealand First and to change that Government with all of their human rights abuses. We’re not comfortable with it, but we will vote for this bill.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): That was just an extraordinary speech from the co-leader—[Interruption] I find it amazing that the members opposite think this is funny. They’re actually sitting in the House, they’re laughing—they think this is funny. So take a call—take a call and address some of the issues that I’m going to raise.

I find it extraordinary that James Shaw, the co-leader of the Green Party, has just stood in this House and said that they’re going to use their vote—a vote, actually, that when you look around this wall Kiwis have gone overseas and fought for. It’s something that we should take extremely seriously, and it’s a huge privilege and a huge right to stand in this House and to be able to use a vote. He just stood in this House and he said, “We don’t believe in this.” He’s served his conscience up on a silver platter and he said, “We will stand in this House and you’ll get our eight votes and we will pass this legislation, and then we’ll go straight back to our caucus room and we’ll write a letter to say that we don’t want this law to apply to us, and we’re not actually going to allow it to apply to us.”, and yet they’re going to stand in this House and they’re going to vote for it. Someone on the Government benches, take a call and explain to us and tell us exactly what that means.

I’ve been making notes. The other extraordinary thing in this debate is this: this bill is the Rt Hon Winston Peters’. I haven’t been that long—I’ve been here for two terms and am into my third term. The author of a bill, when they’re lucky enough to have it drawn from the ballot or a Minister brings it to the House—they’re proud of it, they believe in it, and they’ll stand in this House and they’ll talk to it, they’ll defend it, and they’ll make a case. They might take the chair through the committee stage and they’ll stand and they’ll speak to the bill. The author of this bill has come to this House and made one speech, and it was today in the third reading.

I’ve been making notes on speakers so that I could stand up and I could respond to them. This was the Hon James Shaw: there are some notes here, and I’m actually going to—if I have time—come back to them. These are the notes that I made for the Rt Hon Winston Peters—nothing. Go back and have a look at his 10-minute speech in support of his own bill. Have a look at his 10-minutes speech in support of his own bill. He does not talk to one substantive issue contained within that bill. He spent the whole time making personal attacks on members of the Opposition. So what does that tell us?

Hon Ruth Dyson: It sounds like this speech.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sounds like this speech? OK, so she’s saying that I’m not talking to one substantive issue on this bill. Let’s get to some substantive issues.

The Hon William Sio stood and said that, effectively, list members don’t matter—list members don’t matter. What happens—

Hon Aupito William Sio: I did not. Don’t put words in my mouth.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: I’ll tell you exactly what you said. You said that the party—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! The member—

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. I’ll recite exactly what the member said. The member said that the party will put the list together, and so, if the list members—what happens then is that the party leader has got the right to be able to dismiss those list members of Parliament. Actually, a lot of people, on the face of it, if they don’t actually look at the debate carefully, might agree with you. But there’s a problem with that, and what you’ve done is you’ve completely undermined every list member of this Parliament—certainly on your side of the House.

But let’s think about that. That list is put together and it’s then published. It’s then published for the country to have a look at.

Dr Duncan Webb: It’s what they vote on.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: That’s right. Mr Webb just said it’s what they vote on. So is it the party leader that dictates who the public vote for? Is it the public that look in the list and decide who they vote for? The big thing that’s been left out in this debate is the voters, so that’s one issue that I want to raise.

This bill, without a doubt, is going to turn list MPs into zombies—there’s no doubt about that. They may as well not—

Dr Duncan Webb: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: You can laugh. Are you an electorate MP? It’s a bit different for you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Order! Mr Mitchell—thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you. It’s all right.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: But the reality of it is list MPs in this—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I know you’re trying.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Yeah, I am. I’m doing my best. It’s very hard.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Thank you.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: The reality of it is list MPs of this House become zombies. That’s a tough thing to say when you’ve got members like the Hon Ron Mark, who prides himself on being pretty fiercely independent and comes to this House and has never been afraid of letting his voice be heard. But the reality of it is this: when this bill passes, his leader owns all the power. His leader has the power. His leader can decide. If he wants to take a stand on something, his leader can just eject him from Parliament—that’s it. You’re gone. Pack your bags, and you’re out of here—sling your hook.

Hon Ron Mark: Yeah.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: He agrees. He’s agreeing with me. Right, OK. So let’s use that as a premise. So tell me something: how do you come to this House, and how do you—sorry, Madam Assistant Speaker. How does the member come to this House and how does he defend the community that he wants to actually represent? Right? How does he defend the community? What happens if there’s a direct conflict with his leader and the community that he’s wanting to represent? He’s gone. He’s gone—you’re out. What happens if the member wants to actually advance something in his portfolio as the Minister of Defence and his leader doesn’t agree? He’s gone. You’re out. Pack your bags—you’re gone. So you become a zombie—you become a zombie MP. The member cannot advance the interests of either the electorate or his portfolio. You are now under the full control of your leader. That’s it—end of story.

The great thing about us, the National Party, is that we want to repeal this legislation. The Green member James Shaw made a point around whether we’ll use this or not. The clear answer to that is this: no, we will not, and we will repeal the legislation. I’d be interested to know—and I’ll put this to the Green Party—would you support us if we brought a bill to this House repealing this legislation?

There was another issue raised around MMP. I can tell you, in my own electorate, I was at Wentworth College on Monday, and they were doing civics and they wanted to know about the history of MMP. MMP was formed in Germany post - World War II. It was a system that was put together so that they would try to prevent all the power being concentrated in one party like we saw in the Nazi Party. Germany, the home of MMP—what do they think of this legislation?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s banned.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: It’s banned. It’s illegal. They will not allow it to be passed in their House of Representatives for the very reasons that the Hon Dr Nick Smith has made and the very reasons that the Rt Hon David Carter has made. It will suppress everything in this country that we fundamentally believe in, and that is free speech.

I’m going to end up on one point, and I’m going to relate it back to my own electorate. In 2017, on the campaign trail, I had the New Zealand First candidate, the Hon Tracey Martin, stand up in front of a packed hall at a public meeting and say, “Mark Mitchell will not represent you. Mark Mitchell will not advance the issues in the electorate”—my electorate of Rodney—“because he’s a creature of the party, and he’ll always do what the party says and what the party tells him to do.” Well, the Hon Tracey Martin is just about to vote on a bill that is going to cement in concrete that she is a creature of her party. She will never ever take a stand against her party leader. She will never ever advance a local issue because she is just about to vote into law legislation that means that she is a creature of the party.

I’m proud to be a member of the New Zealand National Party, but I’m even more proud to represent my electorate of Rodney as their representative—

Dr Duncan Webb: “More proud”?

Hon MARK MITCHELL: —in this House of Representatives. Absolutely, I am. He’s amazed. Mr Webb’s amazed that I take more pride in actually representing my electorate. Of course I do—that’s what I’m sent here for. That’s what they voted—the electorate gets to actually make a vote for who they want to represent them, and they also get to make a vote with a party vote in terms of who’s best aligned with their own values and who they think can lead the country.

While I’ve been in this House, I’ve taken three stands against my own country in the last six years—all things that I knew were important to my electorate; all things that I knew were—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon MARK MITCHELL: They think it’s funny. Mr Greg O’Connor thinks that’s funny. You know what? The sad thing is that he took a stand on something that he thought was important two or three weeks ago, and he immediately had to—like a whimpering dog, tail between his legs—come out and apologise. He had to come out and say he was sorry. So that’s why this bill will make no difference to him. It will make no difference to him because he’s under the complete control of the leader. We’ve seen that clearly demonstrated.

We will not adhere to this bill, and we will continue to represent the people that vote us in and send us to this House of Representatives. Thank you.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call. Greg O’Connor—five minutes.

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): It is, Madam Assistant Speaker. It does give me great pleasure—for those that are listening at home, I think there’s been so much emotion and different things spoken about this bill, but I think, really, we need to go back to what we’re talking about. The new section 55A of the Electoral Act provides that the seat of a member of Parliament, either electorate or list, will become vacant when the member ceases to be a parliamentary member of a political party for which he or she was elected. That’s what we’re discussing here. It’s pretty basic democracy.

I have to say I just heard the speech from the Hon James Shaw. I’ve sat through many deliberations on this bill. I don’t think I’ve missed any of the Justice Committee deliberations or any of the readings of this bill. I’ve heard a lot about it, but, actually, what the Hon James Shaw just said really should be the pivotal part of this whole debate. That was actually a man speaking who understands democracy.

Democracy is—I think we often talk about it; it’s something that’s often thrown around as a “when it suits people”. But the one thing that Winston Churchill—and often it’s quoted what he said about democracy: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” I think we just need to remember that and reflect on the Hon James Shaw’s speech, because what we’re about is making sure democracy works. It is the most important thing we have.

This bill is actually going to be something that is going to improve on democracy. We are a country that is on the world stage at the moment, and I think we’re all proud—even those with the blue ties and shirts over there. We’re quietly proud of what our Prime Minister is actually achieving on that world stage. I’m someone who’s actually had an international chairmanship myself, as many New Zealanders have, and the thing that we’re actually able to do in the world—the reason we New Zealanders do bat above our weight—is that we are nimble as a country. We’re a country that’s able to move. We’re a country that has common sense. We’re not hidebound by traditions, which so many other countries are, and that’s what the strength of our country is and that’s what our current democratic system is. We’ve gone to MMP, and this piece of legislation is something that will improve MMP. This is the first real MMP Government. We’ve mucked around with it in the past, but it’s evolving, and the nimbleness of New Zealand and the nimbleness of our system are on display here. That’s why this will be an improvement.

In my last position, I often came here and had occasion to speak to MPs, and as I went through this system, some names came to me: Kopu, Kirton, Awatere Huata, Horan. And do you know what? Those people, when they left their parties, became useless to democracy. I saw them. I visited them here. They were easy to get to because they were sitting in broom cupboards, out of the way here—sitting, waiting, and dreading the next election because they knew it was all over at the next election. They were actually useless to democracy, and that is why all four of them, when they did—for whatever reason, and there’s plenty of others who fell out for different reasons—fall out, they needed to go, because they were no use to man nor beast, and they were certainly no use to democracy, any of them.

I am happy, and for those who are listening at home, I am more than happy; I am relaxed about this bill because I don’t think, despite the doom and gloom we’re hearing from the opposite benches, particularly from Dr Nick Smith—and Dr Smith, I admire his passion. I don’t admire the way he treated officials during this, I might say, and I demanded that he apologise at one stage, and I will have that—I do not think you should treat officials who can’t answer back the way he did.

But, anyway, I’ll move on from that. I’ll just say that I am actually very happy to stand here. I’m more than happy; I’m relaxed to say that this is a piece of legislation that, despite the rhetoric around it, will improve our democratic system. It will, once again, show that New Zealand is a nimble country, a country that moves forward and can take any idea and make it better. I commend this bill.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): This is a very dark day for this Parliament and for our democracy. It’s the darkest day since the passage back in 2007, by the same three parties opposite, of that vile Electoral Finance Act, which I think cost them the 2008 general election. It’s a very dark day for the Labour Party, New Zealand First, and especially for the Green Party, who will never again have any right to lecture the rest of us in this House from that higher moral plane that they so frequently adopt, because if they try to do so as a result of their abominable decision today, they will have no credibility whatsoever. Today they have sold their collective soul to the devil. Today they leave a permanent stain on the legacy of the Green Party.

In the committee stage of this debate, the National MPs, including myself, put forward numerous amendments to try to improve this bill to mitigate against its worst effects, and no one other than Minister Little even engaged—not one speaker from those parties, other than the Minister—and none of those amendments were adopted or even considered. So this bill remains in its worst-possible form. Draconian, fundamentally undemocratic legislation that undermines the independence, integrity, and responsibility to our electorates of each one of us as MPs is being inflicted on the electorate today, with no mandate, no public demand or support, and no real majority, because we know that the Greens and most of the Labour MPs despise this bill as much as we do.

So let’s get an indication from the Labour members opposite. Who amongst them is proud of this bill?

Kiritapu Allan: I am.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: So Kiri Allan is happy to go on the record, and yet she took no call at all during the committee stage. Let me ask the same question of the Greens: who in the Green Party is proud of this bill? Or were they humiliated by the despicable, disingenuous speech of Winston Peters today, especially when he misrepresented the fine tradition of Jeanette Fitzsimons and the late Rod Donald, two very honourable members. I assume New Zealand First members wouldn’t dare to reveal their true feelings about this bill because if they did, they would almost certainly become the first MPs to fall victim to its odious provisions for upsetting “He Who Must Be Obeyed”. And while I am deeply, deeply disappointed in them for failing to resist this abomination, I do not want to see this bill ever utilised, so I won’t add to their public shame and humiliation.

They didn’t take a single call during the committee stage, and those parties opposite are clearly swallowing a repulsive deceased rodent at the behest of one minor party which didn’t campaign on this issue in 2017 and didn’t win a seat in that election. In fact, it’s not even one party; it’s one paranoid man with a history of inconsistency, of unfair treatment of his own MPs, and of adopting more positions on issues than I’ve had hot dinners. History suggests that if this bill is ever utilised to secure the expulsion of an MP, it will be somebody from the New Zealand First Party, and almost certainly it will be because that MP has stuck to what he or she understands the policies of that party to be while the bill’s architect, Mr Peters, has yet again changed his position on an issue for reasons of expediency or for his own political advantage, and that will highlight just what a disgraceful sham this bill is.

Ultimately, Oppositions cannot stop odious legislation from being passed when a Government has the numbers, but make no mistake: there is a majority against this bill in this House. So today, Labour, New Zealand First, and Green MPs are all in this together, and they must ask themselves whether abandoning their principles and compromising our democracy is justified in the name of a minor party leader’s paranoia and dubious coalition cohesion. It’s a day of shame for them all.

I’m so proud to have resisted this despicable measure at every opportunity, I feel contempt for those who are enacting it, and I look forward to the day when I can help a more principled Government to vote for its repeal. That cannot come soon enough, and today, I invoke those fine words of our national anthem: may God defend New Zealand.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. It’s time to just calm down and bring some common sense to this debate, I think.

We’ve heard the arrogance of Mark Mitchell saying he is bigger than his party—saying that he thinks his electorate means more to him than the National Party. Just remember that, on the other side of the House. That Mark Mitchell, he’s bigger than you are. He thinks he’s more important, and him standing in Rodney is more important than you are.

Those list MPs over there need to think about it as well, because there’s been a lot of talk about list MPs and the fact that under this legislation, if they go wandering and disappear from the policies of their parties, their caucus and their leader can bring them back into line, and if they continue to wander in a field of their own, they can be cut loose—that’s right. That’s what this does, and there is a very good reason for it.

Now, Nick Smith says that people on the street think that this is an outrage. Well, I’m surprised that he has even spoken to a person on the street, because do you know what people on the street really think? They think they should get the Government that they voted for—that when a party puts a list full of candidates before them, those candidates will remain in the party, and if they wander off, then they can wander off and lose their seat, or, if they’re a constituency MP, they can go back to their electorate, and we know what happens, historically, there. Sure, some people have gone off and stood under their own banner and they’ve won their seats, and they’ve perhaps started new parties. Others have faded into the true obscurity, where they belong, and that is exactly how it should be. But to be able to be a list MP and remain in this House is entirely at odds with what this electoral system demands.

Do you know what? Democracy—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why doesn’t Germany do it?

Dr DUNCAN WEBB: —doesn’t stand still, Nick Smith—a man who’s perhaps been here a little bit too long, because he thinks that what goes on in here is the only important thing. What is really important is what people out there think, and they think that they should get the Government they voted for, not some jacked-up agglomeration of new arrangements that you might be trying to line up.

No, we do need a stable Government, we need a Government that is proportional, and we need a Government that reflects the last election. That is what this bill does, and that is why I am proud to support it.

CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much, Madam Assistant Speaker. This is a sad day for our Parliament that we are, yet again, enacting at the behest of one man a stupid piece of legislation that will be reflected upon overseas as a Draconian, anti-democratic piece of legislation. When National is returned to Government, we will repeal it, and I will be proud to stand in that Government that repeals it.

Let me run through the reasons why this bill should not pass. Number one: there has as yet been no attempt by any Government member to actually outline any real problem that demands this bill be passed. Usually, when we pass legislation in Parliament, we look for what’s known in the law as a mischief. What is the mischief? Why are we here? What is the point of the legislation we are debating?

There is no mischief when it comes to proportionality in Parliament. MPs who dissent from their parties and leave those parties and are seen to have done so in an unjustified manner are thrown out at the next election. Taito Phillip Field was kicked out of the Parliament when he left the Labour Party. Gordon Copeland was binned from the Parliament when he left the United Future party. Likewise, those MPs who are seen to do so for good reasons—Tariana Turia and others—are returned. There is no mischief. The democratic process can handle MPs leaving political parties. This point was made repeatedly by numerous submitters to the select committee, including by the Law Society. This point has been utterly ignored by members opposite.

The second point: the bill is illogical, and I’ll explain why it’s illogical. By-elections change proportionality during parliamentary terms, but by-elections are allowed after the passage of this bill. Winston Peters and Andrew Little, the Minister of Justice, like to go on about the sacrosanct principle of proportionality as determined at an election time, except by-elections change proportionality between elections. The Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill is utterly silent about the changing of proportionality because of by-elections.

Winston Peters, in 2015—sadly, for the people of Northland—for two years, won the seat of Northland. National went down one seat in Parliament. New Zealand First went up one seat. I did not hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters campaigning up and down the country to have a list MP from New Zealand First taken away from him and another list MP given to the National Party to restore proportionality as at the 2014 election. Why? Because he doesn’t actually believe that proportionality is some sacrosanct principle.

The reason we are passing this law is because he cannot control his caucus, and he wants to be able to give himself the force of a quasi-constitutional statute to control his caucus. It is a disgrace. The bill is illogical.

Thirdly, the bill is unconstitutional. I don’t mean unconstitutional in the sense of it violating some written constitution—we don’t have one of those. I mean it’s unconstitutional in a number of respects, but I want to emphasise how it’s unconstitutional in the sense that it is not being passed with bipartisan support.

As my colleague Nick Smith has pointed out on numerous occasions, there is a convention in Parliament that when we make changes to electoral law, it is done on a bipartisan basis. We have an unwritten constitution in this Parliament. We have a Parliament that is sovereign. Parliament sets the law for how elections should be held. We subcontract out a little bit of it to the Representation Commission, but, actually, we write the rules. The Justice Committee conducts an inquiry, Parliament considers how elections should be held in this country, and we determine when electoral vacancies occur.

Because of that enormous power, Parliament needs to reflect and consider very carefully when it changes things like the Electoral Act 1993. It is a constitutional statute, yet here we are, again, considering a radical change to our electoral law, and it is being forced through by a bare majority of three parties, one of whom we know does not support the bill. We are in this extraordinary situation where the Greens openly admit they do not support the legislation, yet they will vote for it anyway. So we have a majority of Parliament opposed to a constitutional statute, but we are passing it anyway. It is a constitutional outrage.

The fourth point: this bill violates human rights—in particular, freedom of speech and freedom of association. There was no section 7 report issued by the Attorney-General on this piece of legislation. There should have been. Let me make it clear for the House. The Attorney-General failed in his responsibility to issue a report to Parliament advising that the bill violated the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. We had this curious situation where the legal advice that he relied upon was refused to be released. For many, many years, Attorneys-General have released the legal advice provided to them by Crown Law or the Ministry of Justice and made it freely available. The Attorney-General has waived privilege in making that advice available. That did not occur in the case of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. That is a disgrace. It should have been. The advice that the Attorney-General told us about was that the issue was finely balanced. Well, “finely balanced” is the understatement of the century.

What this bill does is arrogate enormous power to party leaders, and it has an enormous impact on the free speech of MPs and the freedom of association of MPs. That point was made repeatedly by constitutional experts to the select committee. Throughout the process, the Minister has disparaged them. He has treated those concerns with contempt. He has described them as only self-described experts—people with PhDs in human rights and doctorates of law from universities all around the world, including the Alma Mater of the list MP for the Green Party sitting in the Chamber, Golriz Ghahraman. He has disparaged them in a quite unfair way—I think in a disgraceful way.

This bill does violate human rights, and I want to briefly touch on the issue raised by the Law Society, because one of the points the Attorney-General did make was that the bill is justified and consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act because the judicial review is available and we’re not taking away the power of MPs to seek review through the courts, like Donna Awatere Huata did—except, as the Law Society made comment repeatedly to us in select committee, that is actually disputed. If you read the Prebble v Awatere Huata decision, three of the judges on the Supreme Court expressly doubted, in their comments in the judgment, as to whether or not judicial review was available. They also expressly doubted whether or not parliamentary privilege could be overridden in investigating why an MP could be booted out of Parliament.

The reason why Prebble v Awatere Huata actually proceeded was because all parties agreed to essentially set those issues aside so that there could be some resolution, but the point remains none the less. And, of course, that was before the passing of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014, which puts in place much more restrictions on the invigilation that the court can conduct when it comes to judicial review.

So there is a real issue about whether or not judicial review is available. Have we had any engagement on that point by Government parties and by Government members? No. Did they support any amendments that were put up by the National Opposition to make sure judicial review was available? No. The self-proclaimed human rights expert for the Green Party, Golriz Ghahraman, turned up to the select committee for a good couple of hours and didn’t bother with the rest of it, and yet she has not taken a call throughout the debate. The human rights experts in the Green Party and all of the people she corresponds with around the rest of the world will hang their heads in shame.

The fifth point: the bill is not supported. It’s not just not supported by the Parliament; it is not supported by those who know what they are talking about. We did not hear one submission in favour of the bill on the select committee. We did not hear one quality submission in favour of the bill at the select committee; quite the contrary. We heard the former co-leader of the Green Party Jeanette Fitzsimons come and speak to the committee and talk about what a disgrace it was. We heard constitutional scholars that the Minister likes to disparage come and tell us in no uncertain terms that the bill should not proceed.

We are here only because of one man and because a supine Green Party has decided to put their lust for power over their principles that they like to bang on about so much. Well, the next time the Greens get on their high horse and tell us about human rights—tell us about how New Zealand must stand up for human rights internationally—we will laugh. We will scorn them. We will treat those remarks with the contempt they deserve, because on this day, more than a year after the election of the Government, we are sitting here in a Parliament and we’re going to pass a tawdry, unconstitutional, obnoxious piece of legislation because of one man and one supine party. It is a disgrace.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I’m quite pleased to be the final speaker in the third reading of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill. I’m pleased because I am a Labour Party list member of Parliament. I’m a Labour Party list member of Parliament, and I thought I’d just have a quick little look over what the number of votes were that I actually accrued in the last election. I gave it my all. I tried my best, but, unfortunately, I fell short in the East Coast electorate. There were over 14,000 people that voted for the Labour Party on the East Coast—14,000 people.

Now, I’d say—and, you know, as much as I wish it wasn’t the case—I think that of those 14,000 people that voted for the Labour Party, probably about 13,999 of them didn’t really know who Kiri Allan was, and that was an ancillary matter. What was important to them was the values of our party, and what’s important to people is that when you cast your vote and you cast it for a party, that you are getting what you bargained for.

I want to just reflect for a moment on the purpose of the Electoral (Integrity) Amendment Bill—in particular, new section 55AAB in clause 5, which is the purpose of the amendments. It is to enhance the public confidence in the integrity of the electoral system. Now, most people aren’t going to be sitting in their homes debating the nuances of how their parliamentary electoral system operates, but what we do know is that every three years, the good folk of New Zealand come down to cast their votes: one for their party, and one for the person that they hope they will have represent them in this here House. I don’t think that it crosses the minds of most people that actually, for me, as a list member of Parliament, at any old whim I could, for example, go and join my colleague over there, David Seymour, whose party stands in absolute contrast to my own party’s values. So what this bill does, effectively, is it tidies up an anomaly in our law.

I must pay homage to the Hon Andrew Little, who has had to steward this bill and has sat in this House for about 21 hours listening to the Opposition filibuster left, right, and centre. I can only imagine, which is why, actually—we’ve heard all the debates, and we’ve heard the sorrow from the Opposition about how our constitutional arrangements are in flux and our electoral system is going down the drain, but the reality is that most ordinary New Zealanders want what they bargained for. They want to know that when you cast your vote in a wee box once every three years, you get what you said you were going to get. So that there is about enhancing the public confidence of our electoral integrity system.

Now, I do want to just briefly touch on—because I do think it is important, and the member opposite, Chris Bishop, who spoke just prior, did make reference to it—the range of constitutional experts that did take the time to submit, and I do want to thank them for their submissions. There were many former colleagues and friends. I want to reflect, though, on probably two things briefly. First was the Attorney-General’s New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report. They considered section 14 and section 17—that’s freedom of expression and freedom of association. Applying the Hansen test on every single one of those limbs he determined, as did the Solicitor-General in 2005, when he had to consider a very similar piece of legislation before this House—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: That’s wrong.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: No, that absolutely correct—Sir Terence Arnold in 2005. They both fell in the same place, which is that, yeah, it is a fine balance. It’s a fine balance striking the balance between trying to achieve the objectives of an electoral system that has integrity—counterbalance those with those rights. But both pieces of advice—both then, over 10 years ago, and now—erred on the side that under a finely balanced test, the objectives of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act were met. After we listened for, like I said, 21 hours of debate in committee stage, or just over—I think it was 21 hours and 20 minutes to be exact.

Chris Bishop: 22, and you didn’t take a single call.

KIRITAPU ALLAN: Oh, I thought it was 21 hours and 20 minutes. But, anyway, I might be 40 minutes shy. We have heard the ins and outs of where the Opposition stand. Look, they gave it their best effort, but the reality is that most New Zealanders want an electoral system that they can trust. As a list member on the Government’s side, I can only applaud Minister Little and those that have championed this bill. So I commend this bill to the House.

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

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a third time.

Bills

Education Amendment Bill (No 2)

First Reading

Debate resumed from 20 September.

DENISE LEE (National—Maungakiekie): It is my pleasure to continue where I left off on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). One of the points I was making when I was last speaking was my confusion, and this side of the House’s confusion, that these particular changes weren’t absorbed into what I would call the “Education Amendment Bill (No 1)”. It’s not called that, of course. But, in fact, this week has been confusing for me, whether I was going to speak on this on Tuesday or Wednesday and now here it is Thursday—what a confusing week. The way the House has been run or “mis-run” if that’s a word—it has been a real shambles this week to try to understand what’s been up, what’s been out, with urgency, with extended hours, and 15 minutes a pop here. It has been a real dysfunction junction—there are no two ways about that.

I also want to pick up where I left off on two words I used, “confusion” and “hypocrisy”, in regard to one primary purpose of this particular bill, and that is in regard to giving the Minister of Education direction over the Education Council. So what this bill does is it requires the council to consult the Minister prior to making changes to teacher qualification requirements or registration criteria, and, of course, the Minister—him or her—can issue a direction relating to the Education Council.

Now, the hypocrisy with this is—and everyone on the Education and Workforce Committee will know this—there was huge, vigorous debate, the rallying cry from the other side of the House, around the independence of the Teaching Council and how much they should be honoured and adhered to and looked after and debated and nurtured, and here we are in the first reading for this bill which does the opposite. It gives the Minister the ability to issue a direction to that same council. How can you have that on the one hand and increased independence on the other? How can we have gone through hours of debate, nurturing and fostering this so-called independence, when here we are doing the exact opposite?

I query why a Minister of this Government feels the need to do this, and I also would like to ask the question: where’s the trust in the profession? Where’s the trust in the Teaching Council—because we now know it’s named the Teaching Council. And I’d also like to ask a third question: how do we think the unions feel about this? Will the unions look forward to another Government of another hue and will they still continue to like the fact that a Minister can issue a direction in relation to the Education Council? Let’s see what the unions say in the select committee process, should this pass. I’ll be sitting there listening very closely to what they might say in regard to this bill.

I would also like to point out that we had two members on the other side—Mark Patterson and Jamie Strange—when we were in that Teaching Council debate refer to what they said was a conspiracy theory around, on the one hand, giving independence and, on the other hand, taking it away. Well, again, here we are this afternoon doing exactly what they called a conspiracy. It’s not a theory; it’s a reality, it’s a fact, and that’s what we’re doing here right now.

I will touch on two other points that the bill brings into play. One is making student safety a registration criteria for private schools. So what the bill does is it amends the Education Act 1989 to include a new registration criteria for private schools, which requires that they are a safe physical and emotional place for students. Now, while we here on this side of the House would support logical and reasonable criteria and limits around student safety—of course we would do that; that’s just the right thing to do—it’s not clear to us at all what has led to the Minister progressing these changes. It’s not clear at all why these changes have been drafted into this initial take on this bill. We’re potentially supportive of having the Education Review Office provide greater scrutiny, but we’re also very cautious around how it looks like cancellation of registration of private schools will become—with the passage of this, should it take place—too easy. Why and how has that come about? Where is the evidence that this is actually an issue for private schools?

Now I want to switch over to the regulatory impact statement in regards to this point, where it states that there is “no evidence”—this is in the impact statement—“of harm arising from the status quo, unless changes could result in unnecessary cost.” So you’ve already got a caution there. It says in the impact statement there is “no evidence of the level of bullying and other forms of physical and emotional harm that it is better or worse in private schools.” So we’ve got some serious caution being laid here—again, something else that we’ll be paying attention to through the select committee process, should this pass. If there is no evidence for this, where have these changes come from? What is behind the Minister’s intention to insert this in the No. 2 bill?

The third thing that I want to touch on is the cohorts around 5-year-olds. So whereas the National Party allowed changes for a small group of students to start school a maximum of eight weeks before their fifth birthday—we saw that as allowing flexibility and choice; it was a pragmatic and a practical, flexible arrangement for parents; it made sense—this particular bill allows cohorts but only after they have turned five. Where’s the flexibility in that? It’s not there.

The other thing that this bill does is, basically, take backwards communities of online learning. There’s going to be reduced options for students currently enrolled in distance learning and much reduced options around accrediting providers offering that valuable online tuition. These changes are unnecessary and we do not support them. We’d like to know why they’re here.

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): I understand this is a split call—Jamie Strange, you have five minutes.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Madam Assistant Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this bill. This is another excellent bill around the area of education. Building on the trilogy of the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill, the national standards bill, and the Education (National Education and Learning Priorities) Amendment Bill, we now have the Education Amendment Bill (No 2).

While the Opposition flounders around conspiracy theories on this bill, this Government has been busy this week passing a number of bills through this House, bringing about positive changes for New Zealanders. Some of the key objectives of this bill are: (1) to ensure that the Education Council of Aotearoa New Zealand ensure that their decisions on matters relating to the teaching profession are made within the context of Government policy; (2) to require private schools to be safe places for students; (3) to remove provisions due to come into force on 31 December 2019 that will enable communities of online learning to be established, while the future of online learning is considered in the context of a wider education sector review; and (4) to ensure that school boards cannot adopt a cohort entry policy that enables children to begin school as part of a cohort before the age of five.

I’d just like to elaborate on a couple of these points. The first one I’d like to talk about is starting school before the age of five. The previous regime put in place a series of legislation which would enable the option for children to start school at the age of four.

Simeon Brown: Ever heard of the word “choice”?

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! Mr Brown, please.

JAMIE STRANGE: Now, the question here is, is the age of—[Interruption]

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Poto Williams): Order! If you have an interjection, may it be witty—but not a continuous barrage as we’re getting from the member on that side of the House.

JAMIE STRANGE: If the member would like to listen carefully, I will elaborate on some of these key points. So, the question is: is four too young? This Government believes four is too young. Let’s have a look at what age some other countries have their young people starting in school. Let’s particularly look at the Scandinavian countries, who, without any doubt, regularly achieve at the top of the international field: Sweden, age 6 to 7; Finland, age 7; Norway, age 6; Denmark, age 6. We are undertaking a review of the education system to see what the right age might be, but we are convinced that four is absolutely too young.

One of the key aspects here is around the importance of play: creativity, social skills, being ready for formal education. We believe the age of four is far too young to be sitting down in the classroom with formalised education. As Fred Rogers once said, “Play is often talked about as if it were a relief from serious learning … Play is really the work of childhood.” There’s lots of learning that takes place within an environment of play—the environment of creativity. We believe that the age of four is far too young to start in a formalised schooling system.

The second point is around online learning. There’s certainly a place for online learning at school. But the issues we have around here are that if we take the teachers out of the education system and people can just learn at home, solely online, the students miss out on key social aspects and face-to-face aspects with the teacher.

The final point is around school safety. Bullying is a real issue. It’s important that all schools, whether they be public or private, have strong standards around protecting their students.

This is another excellent bill in the education field. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I have to say to Mr Strange that, far from being an excellent bill, this is another appalling one. This is a particularly bad week for a Government that has passed some shameful legislation and, in this case, some pointless legislation that goes against the best educational interests of the children of this country.

I want to pick up on the final point that my colleague Denise Lee was making in her excellent contribution. I’m a February baby, and I started school when I was 4 years old, as part of a cohort entry. No, I don’t blame my long-suffering mother for wanting to shove me out the door at the earliest opportunity; looking back, I’m sure I’d have done the same thing. But I am glad that I did, because I started school with a group of friends, many of whom remain friends to this day.

I recall my first day at school very clearly. It might not surprise some members to know I got into trouble on my very first day at school. I’m sure that pointed to a subsequent political career. I was sitting in the front row in an assembly, and the principal was up on stage pontificating. I didn’t find him as fascinating as he evidently did, and I took out a plastic aeroplane that I’d got out of the Weet-Bix or the Corn Flakes packet that day, and I started flying it around. The next thing, I was summoned up on to the stage to atone for my sins and to be publicly humiliated. But the person who was most humiliated was my older brother, who was sitting near the back of the assembly that day. It’s his birthday today, so I feel it’s a particularly appropriate time, bro, to say, after all these decades: I apologise for the shame and humiliation I caused you that day.

But there is an important point to make here. As our society changes, for many parents this is a necessity. There are many single-parent families, where the parent who is the caregiver has to go out to work, and being able to send a child to school—perhaps just a few weeks before the child turns five—makes a huge financial difference. That’s the point that Denise Lee was alluding to before, when she pointed out that we’re only talking about a few weeks; it’s not as if we’re sending a child who’s three.

I have to say, personally, I’m not a fan of sending four-year-olds to school, but I think for Jamie Strange to say it’s an appalling thing to do flies in the face of reality for many New Zealand families. I would hope that we would look at the welfare of the children, and the needs of the parents to provide for their families—and I salute all those parents, the length and breadth of this country, who are doing just that. Let us never forget: this is a fabulous country, where the vast majority of parents love and care for their children and want only the very best.

Here we have another ideological provision that will mean that no child will be able to start school before he or she turns five, regardless of the conditions that may make that the most appropriate thing for that particular family. When the last National Government was in office, we introduced that opportunity entirely to give that choice and flexibility to parents. I cannot believe that the Labour Party and their coalition partners are taking that choice away from parents when the evidence is clear that this is what is in the best interests of many of those families.

The other thing I want to turn my attention to—because there’s much in this bill that I oppose—is the illogical decision to repeal the start-up of communities of online learning. This flies in the face of technological advances, and it’s another blow to the regions, in particular from the New Zealand First Party, which claims to be a champion of the regions.

When one looks at who communities of online learning can really benefit, in many cases it’s people who live in isolated rural and provincial communities. It’s also the children who are attending schools where there is a small roll and there’s no ability for those schools to employ teachers in the school to deliver the subject that the child—particularly at secondary level—may wish to be studying. I think of subjects like Mandarin, but there are so many languages now where it’s really desirable for us to be able to offer them to New Zealand schoolchildren but it’s not economic for a single school to do that. So it makes perfect sense to suggest that online communities of learning should be able to deliver those programmes in a way that is able to be accessed by a child from north of Kaitaia, down to Stewart Island and the Chatham Islands, or wherever.

I know the Government will say, “Oh, well it’s all part of a review of Tomorrow’s Schools.” But why do it when it is such an illogical thing to do? Why do it when it’s actually a cruel thing to do to the children who benefit? I have only a five-minute speech, so that’s all I can cover, but those are two very important reasons why I oppose this bill.

JO LUXTON (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, I, for one, am pretty happy to be standing here and taking a call on what I believe is actually a really effective bill. It is going to address a few things that I don’t think were thought-out that well previously. I want to talk, firstly, about the requirement for private schools to be safe places for students. I don’t think that there’s any underlying evil here, that—as we’re hearing from across the House—it’s going to be the start of having the ability to close these private schools down if they don’t adhere to this. I actually think that in this day and age, when we know that our teen suicide rate is one of the highest in the OECD, it’s really important that we ensure that our students feel safe, physically and emotionally, at school.

I note that one of the members opposite said previously—I think it might have been Denise Lee—that there is no evidence to say that whether you’re in a private school or a State school means that you’re more likely to be bullied or not. I think that, regardless of that, it’s really important that our schools—regardless of whether they’re State or private—have to ensure, to the best of their ability, that our students are kept safe from physical and emotional harm, particularly with the rate of bullying. I was actually really surprised when I read that private schools weren’t required to have something in place that ensured the safety of their students, and I’m not too sure how many parents out there would be aware of that, too. So, yeah, that is something that was quite a surprise to me.

I want to move on to the communities of online learning (COOL). Now, we know that it is really important to have really high-quality online learning, and I do acknowledge that there are those who might live in remote places that do need to participate in some form of online learning or correspondence schooling. But I think the risk here, if we went to these, I’ll call them COOLs—and it was raised by several educational professionals—is that we run the risk of having students who have additional learning needs, who perhaps have ended up being pushed out of public schooling or private schooling, ending up having to participate in these COOLs, and depending on their situation, it’s not necessarily the best place for those children.

So I think that by repealing this, it does allow us the time to consider what the future of online learning systems might look like in New Zealand. I think that we need to be really careful in that space and take a good look at it so that we do take a pragmatic approach to ensure that when we do provide these sorts of options for schooling for our children, that actually they are the best and will stand up to any sort of criticism.

I want to talk about the cohort entry for children over five years. By repealing this, again, we’re not—there is no underlying evil here. I think, you know, it goes against best practice, actually, to allow children under the age of five to start school. And I still think that, by the change in this legislation, it does still give schools the ability to have a choice, by allowing cohort entry twice a term. So it’s still allowing choice for parents and schools; it isn’t taking it away. I think it does help those children develop friendships and keep their friendships from early childhood education or prior to schooling, moving through. So it’s not actually taking that choice away, just ensuring that the age stays at five for children to start school. I commend this bill to the House.

NICOLA WILLIS (National): Mr Assistant Speaker, I rise to speak on this, the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). Here we are with another “Back to the Future Education Bill”. This is not about moving the education system forward; this bill is about getting rid of recent innovation, because this is a Government who knows what it is against but not what it is for. The member who has just resumed her seat, Jo Luxton, told us that the Government needs more time, and isn’t that just a theme of the way that this Government is approaching policy in New Zealand—wherever in doubt, form a working group, put a review together, and give it more time. Well, that is not good enough.

So let’s look at what this bill actually does. The first thing it does is it fixes up the problems that the Government created with the last education bill we passed in this House, which was to change the Education Council to the Teaching Council. And what the regulatory impact statement for the bill we are discussing today, the Education Amendment Bill (No 2), says is that: “In making changes to the process for appointing the Board of the Teaching Council, the Education (Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand) Amendment Bill will reduce government’s ability to protect the public interest in the work of the Council through membership of the Board. This increases the risk that the Council could exercise its functions in ways that do not align. Given the breadth of the Council’s functions, this could have implications for the safety of children and young people, teacher supply and diversity, the quality of teaching, and government’s fiscal commitments.”

So what that is, for me to translate, is a very clear statement by Government officials that the legislation we passed in this House but weeks ago put at risk the public safety of children and young people. And it did that because it overturned what currently exists with the Teaching Council—it changed it—out of the Government’s desire to have political utu and change the name of something, and, in doing so, it put at risk the public interest.

So here we’ve got the tidy-up. Here we’ve got the tidy-up bill to tidy up the mistakes that were made recently, and here we have the tidy-up which is to introduce new measures to give the Minister the ability to direct the Teaching Council. So isn’t this an interesting situation? We have members opposite getting up and speaking passionately about how they wanted to give teachers autonomy, they wanted to change the council to give teachers more ability to make their own decisions, and then, two weeks later, here we are discussing a bill which seeks to give the Minister a new power to direct the Teaching Council on matters of Government policy. And it does that for the very serious reason that there would otherwise be risks to the public interest, as defined by officials.

So what I would say to members opposite is that I think it’s time that you went and spoke with the Minister and said, “Look, let’s stop it with the political utu. When we do these bills in the House that are just getting rid of things that National did, what it does is it creates more complications, and we find ourselves back in the House doing other things in the following weeks.”

So what we also see with this Teaching Council decision-making section of the bill is that it allows the Government to direct the Teaching Council in various ways. And we would ask why it is, in particular in this bill, that it is made explicit that these Government policy statements that are now able to be issued will not be disallowable instruments—that is, that they will not be available to Parliament to scrutinise. That is a question that we will be able to address at further readings of the bill.

So what else does this bill do? Well, this bill also takes a totally retrograde step when it comes to communities of online learning, because here we have another innovation that the previous National-led Government put forward. The National-led Government could see that we are in a time of digital revolution, where the ability to create online teaching resources is greatly enhanced and better than it has ever been in our history. We have, for example, the Khan Academy, and if anyone listening hasn’t seen the Khan Academy and the great work that it can do to teach maths to people all over the world, I encourage you to go and have a look on YouTube right now. What we have seen is innovations like that that allow children and young people, via a digital device, to be taught from distance.

Now, of course, this is not ever going to replace the great work that happens face to face in classrooms and that must continue, but there is a place for online learning, particularly in a country where we do have provincial areas that are not served by large schools with vast staffs and subject selection and in a country where often students’ choices are restricted because there isn’t the subject choice and curriculum choice that there would be at a larger school. So what the National Government recognised was that it was time to allow for communities of online learning—to allow for new institutions to grow up and to provide services to schools. And this was a regime that was being embraced.

But no—Labour, in this bill, says, “We’re getting rid of it.” And what’s the reason for getting rid of it? Well, I’ve looked through the bill’s purpose statement. I’ve looked through the bill, and the best explanation I could find is to provide “further time to consider the future”. I would suggest to you that just putting off these things is not good enough. The New Zealand public have a right to expect that that party opposite would have come into this Parliament with a plan for the future. If you’re sitting in the seats of Government, you should already have a plan for the future.

Instead, what we have is, particularly, Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu—the Correspondence School, but also the virtual learning networks which currently exist, now put under incredible pressure by this bill, because they now don’t know what their future looks like. What officials warn us about in the regulatory impact assessments is that, in fact, these virtual learning networks are under pressure to grow but may disband if arrangements become too difficult to manage. So that’s potentially the impact of removing the communities of online learning. Not only does it take away potential for innovation in future; it jeopardises the innovation that already exists.

And why? Oh, because the Government needs more time—and I’d suggest also because the Government is intent on overturning every single innovation that National brought in to try and lift the achievement in our schools. Whether it’s partnership schools, whether it’s communities of online learning, whether it’s the way the Teaching Council functions, this Government is taking us back to the future in education.

What else does the bill do? Well, we’ve had quite a lot of discussion in this debate today about cohort entry for children over five years old. We had an interesting discussion from Jamie Strange about Sweden and children not having to learn till they’re six and the virtue of play-based learning, and all of those things are interesting, but none of them are reflected in this bill, because this bill doesn’t say, “Here’s the innovative new way we’re going to support young people to learn.” This bill doesn’t say, “Here is the new way that we’re going to encourage learning to happen in new entrant classes.” No, it does none of that. All it does is it says that the cohort entry policy that’s currently in place is going to be tipped upside down and changed.

And mark my words: what is going to result for New Zealand parents is confusion. It is incredibly confusing for me to even step you through right now what’s going to happen, but I’m going to give it a great go. Until 1 January 2020, schools’ current cohort entry policies may remain or they may be terminated, but after 2020 they have to have new policies which are enabled by this bill, and that will require more consultation.

What is the impact of this for an everyday mum and dad? The impact is they don’t know when their child’s going to start school, because the Labour Government is so intent on changing things that National put in to give parents choice and to empower schools that, in fact, all we’re left with is a very confusing situation where parents do not have a clear idea about when their child can start school. One thing they can be clear on: they can be very clear that not all children in this country are guaranteed any more to be able to start school at age five. It used to be a guarantee that when you turned five you could start school. Well, that is no longer a guarantee, thanks to the measures in this bill.

So we have those three measures, and then we have the measure around private schools’ registration criteria. I want to be very clear that schools providing a safe physical and emotional place for students is important. It is essential. But forgive me for asking whether or not giving the Minister of Education the broad discretion to close a private school is a good idea when we have seen that very same Minister of Education prepared to show callous disregard to the students in partnership schools whose lives have been transformed by those schools, whose well-being has been enhanced, and whose learning has been enhanced. That Minister was prepared to close those schools, and so I question whether he is the kind of Minister that should be getting expanded discretion for the future. This bill is, simply, a step back to the future. Where are the new ideas? You have none. Have some vision for education instead of—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. It’s a pleasure to be the final speaker for this first reading on the Education Amendment Bill (No 2). However, it does probably come to mind that it must be about 5 o’clock on Thursday of the fourth sitting week, because I’m sitting here and I’m wanting to engage with the Opposition’s position on what is actually a fundamental reform of our education system. It has grown out of, I guess, a collective movement by educationalists, young people engaged in the education system, experts, and all and sundry particularly engaged with the education conversation—that they’ve wanted to see some fundamental changes. And this bill is a part of doing just that.

So, when we’re listening to the great things that will occur as a consequence of this bill—for example, ensuring that private schools are required to ensure that they are providing a safe place for all students and their staff—I think for most ordinary New Zealanders who sit back and reflect, if you have your child enrolled at a private school, they should be entitled to a safe and secure environment like every single other student is that is enrolled at a public school. Again, this Government—this side of the House—is merely fixing up absolute anomalies and, in some parts, some atrocious, I guess, misalignment of values. And this bill goes towards that.

As we have been sitting here—and I’ve been sitting here for the last, well, few hours listening to the Opposition—it doesn’t matter what we put up. It doesn’t matter. Even where it fundamentally makes sense—like ensuring that all schools in New Zealand are safe places for all students—the Opposition is calling doom and gloom and that this is the end to everything that’s positive about New Zealand.

The last speaker spoke about political utu. Political utu, I guess, I would say, may just be awaiting a party that sits here and negatively espouses rhetoric day in and day out without actually putting up a vision for Aotearoa New Zealand—sits here and plays politics with our kids, sits here and plays politics with our schools, sits here and plays politics with our communities, and won’t even have the gumption to come to the party and say, “Actually, guys, all right. Yep, we are in Opposition, but that makes sense. It makes sense to ensure that all kids, regardless of the school that they’re enrolled in, deserve to be in a safe and warm environment.” So, without taking up too much of this House’s time, it’s an absolute pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.

Ayes 63

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

Noes 57

New Zealand National 56; ACT New Zealand 1.

Bill read a first time.

Bill referred to the Education and Workforce Committee.

Bills

Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): I move, That the Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

The Government is committed to protecting consumers and honest business from serious cartel conduct, and, while most businesses operate fairly and comply with competition law, there are some in New Zealand who, unfortunately, engage in cartel conduct. This hampers competition in our markets and results in higher costs for New Zealanders, reduced choice, and lower quality goods and services for ordinary New Zealanders. Cartels are the most egregious form of anti-competitive conduct and undermine the efforts of honest business. Criminalising cartel conduct sends a clear message that we as a Government and we as a country will not tolerate unjustified interferences in our markets. Importantly, it will serve as a strong deterrent to deliberately engaging in cartel conduct and will make firms better consider the competitive impacts of their actions and operations.

The Economic Development, Science and Innovation (EDSI) Committee received 20 written submissions and 11 oral submissions from interested stakeholders and parties on the bill. I would like to thank all of those that took time to submit on the bill. I also want to take the opportunity to thank members of the committee for their work on this bill. It is regrettable that the committee was not able to agree on changes to enhance the robustness of this proposed criminalisation regime.

The submissions on the bill mainly focused on the targeting of the new criminal offence, the impact on businesses, and the exceptions and defences available. The voices and perspectives of the business community and experts are important to this Government and help to ensure that New Zealand has an honest business environment which is conducive to encouraging competition and innovation.

Some submitters believe that the offence is not sufficiently targeted to serious cartel conduct. However, the bill distinguishes criminal liability by reference to the actual intention of the defendant so that the person must have intentionally engaged in price fixing, restricting output, or allocating markets and no exemption applies to the conduct. In this way, the bill only criminalises cartel conduct where the person intended to interfere and distort the market. The offence is designed to ensure the necessary level of culpability by the defendant so that merely entering into an arrangement that contains cartel provision is not automatically construed as intention.

There was also some concern over the impacts of criminalisation on pro-competitive business activity. However, as I mentioned previously, honest business should have no concerns in relation to this bill. It will not chill legitimate business conduct, and I will ask the Commerce Commission to assist by preparing good guidance from business as well as supporting collaborations by providing businesses with clearances on arrangements.

The bill provides for a defence to the criminal offence where the defendant believes that their conduct was reasonably necessary for the purposes of collaborative activity. There are also exceptions to the offence for joint-buying agreements, vertical supply contracts, and international vessel-sharing agreements. Between now and the committee of the whole House, I will look at whether the defence should be expanded to other exemptions in the Commerce Act and whether it should be based on reasonable grounds. I also intend to look at the setting up of a specialised panel to prosecute these offences, the categorisation of the offence, and other minor changes to ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness of the proposed criminal regime.

To ensure that businesses have time to become familiar with the proposed changes, the bill provides for a transitional period of two years from enactment until the criminal offence comes into force. This will provide businesses the opportunity to use this time to familiarise themselves with the new offence and ensure that current activities are legally sound. They already should be doing this, and the conduct to be criminalised is already unlawful under the Commerce Act’s civil regime. Businesses are already able to voluntarily apply to the Commerce Commission for clearance of their proposed collaborative activity that, if granted, would provide immunity from the civil and criminal regimes. The two-year lead-in gives them time to do so if they wish.

As the Minister leading off the debate, I don’t have the opportunity to rebut some of the comments that I anticipate from the other side of the House, but I would say that this piece of legislation extends a criminal regime over a civil regime that already exists. The criminal regime that we are implementing through this bill was part of an earlier piece of legislation, which, I believe, passed through on the last day of the previous Government. So what I’m saying is that the previous Government enacted the bill with a criminal regime but saw fit to take that out. And I’m assuming that we will hear about the possible chilling effect of this for business. As I have said, there is nothing to fear for good, honest businesses—the majority of New Zealand businesses. But, in anticipation that there will be speakers following me who will talk about the dread that will fall upon the markets if this piece of legislation is enacted, I just want to remind the other side of the House of some of their own words when criminalisation was part of the earlier legislation.

I’d like to point to the former Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs, Jacqui Dean, who said the introduction of criminal sanctions against cartels via this bill “will bring New Zealand into line with many of its trading partners, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. This will allow New Zealand to play a more active role in the global fight against hard-core cartels.”

I think it’s the current commerce spokesperson for the Opposition, Brett Hudson, who said, “I am delighted with this bill.”—when it included the criminal regime—“It is clearly taking on the evils, the worries, and the concerns around hard-core cartel behaviour, … it does address the negatives of cartel behaviour, and it is important that it does so, because if it did not, we could end up with that terrible situation where the tiny minority—the nameless and the faceless—are controlling outcomes, delivering things that … many [people] do not want.”

So my question for the anticipated criticism of this piece of legislation from the other side of the House is: what’s changed? What happened from when you first introduced that bill to when you lost your bottle and removed the criminalisation from the piece of legislation? What happened? Because you were talking tough at the first and the second readings, and then something happened. Something happened along the way and they lost their nerve and, oops, the criminal part of the regime disappeared. If it wasn’t for the help of this party on the last day of the previous Parliament, they wouldn’t have even got the civil process through this House, because it was passed on 17 August 2017—the last day that this House sat.

It’s not the committee stage, but my question to the other side of the House is: what happened? Why did you lose your nerve and remove this? As I say, honest business has got nothing to fear here. If you were so committed to making sure that you were going to crack down on hard-core cartel behaviour, and criminalisation was the way to achieve that, why did you stop it? We are committed to making sure, as we said on 17 August 2017, that if there is cartel behaviour, we discourage it, and, if it happens, that we bring it into the criminal regime. I think it would probably be the chair of the EDSI Committee who will go first, so maybe he’s the one that wants to answer for the former commerce Minister as to why the previous Government lost their nerve and decided to take it soft—to go soft on hard-core criminal behaviour. I want to know the answer to that question.

I’m proud to bring this piece of legislation to back up what the previous National Government lost its nerve and couldn’t do, and we’re going to make sure that we support honest business and competition, because, at the end of the day, it means better services and better prices for New Zealanders, and I want to know what the previous Government had a problem with.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. And all of that coming from the party that say too many people are in prison. If I can say, it was good to hear the Minister saying that he’s having a fresh look at elements of this bill prior to it coming before the committee of the whole House.

If I were to respond to some of his questions, I would simply come to some elements of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee report which we placed it in, and that is to say that submitters who opposed the bill stated there is no evidence of a problem with the current regime. The current regime is working very strongly, very well, and has very strong deterrents to the cartel behaviour. I think all of us in this House, this side included, want to see cartel behaviour eradicated from the New Zealand economy and from business. There’s nothing worse than cartel behaviour that undermines good, open, competitive business.

We all understand that competitive business is very important not only for ensuring that prices are well set and products are of high quality, but the intention is that through the process of competition between firms, which drives those firms to lower costs, improve quality, and develop better products in the competitive market, those benefits are passed through to consumers. We want to have an economy where consumers can receive those good prices, good products, new products, and innovation, in a very good and timely way. We do not approve of or support or go soft anywhere, in our view, on cartel behaviour where those rival firms agree not to compete with each other by fixing prices or restricting output or allocating markets between themselves. Cartels, what they basically do allow is firms to raise their prices above the competitive level without fear of losing customers to rivals, and it’s not good.

We also understand that New Zealand is a relatively small economy, and there are appropriate times and places where there is collaboration. I guess this is our point. Our point is that those collaborations—and many of them have clearances from the Commerce Commission—are essential. For example, when it comes to building motorways, there’s probably not one firm that can do it all, and they have to collaborate with one another in order to supply to the Crown or to regional councils or district councils the ability to offer that service and deliver that product. There are those nuances of decision making around what is appropriate and what is not.

Our concern, essentially, is that the criminalisation of cartel behaviour—when many submitters said they cannot identify a problem, and where, in over a decade, in Australia there’s only been one prosecution, in an economy quite significantly larger than New Zealand’s—what it does is it creates a concern and hesitation around whether companies can cooperate together. And, of course, to go to the Commerce Commission for a clearance is not a cheap exercise. So what our concern has been is that directors of those companies would prefer to withdraw, would prefer not to work together, and that would start to stifle economic activity and opportunity in our country. So it’s a matter of, actually, just getting the balance right. It’s a matter of recognising that our current regime has sufficient deterrence, where, if there is the conviction of a cartel activity or behaviour, those fines can run into the tens of millions of dollars for companies, and $500,000 for an individual. We consider those deterrents to be strong enough.

Some submitters raised concerns that the definition of “cartel conduct” amended in August 2017 is untested in its application. They were concerned that this would mean a lack of clarity in the new criminal offence, which parallels the civil defence. So even though this committee looked at this bill and, in good faith, we worked together with our colleagues across the House to improve it, our basic position is that we don’t support it. And, no doubt, when it comes to the committee stage, the Minister will introduce his thoughts and perhaps some amendments to it.

Criminal sanctions have the potential to undermine the economy by having what the Minister identified, from our point of view, as a chilling effect on pro-competitive collaboration. That’s, essentially, the position that we take, and the international evidence that criminalisation reduces the incidence of cartel conduct is actually weak. There is no clear case to support the introduction of criminalisation to cartels. That is our view. Some actions which are not criminal in nature might be caught within the criminal sanctions. Criminal sanctions could result in this ultra-cautious decision-making at the board’s table, as I said before. And so, as I reiterated, we believe the current criminal regime for cartel conduct provides sufficient deterrents and sufficient sanctions to protect businesses and consumers.

The Commerce Commission may also apply for banning orders of individuals from holding management positions for up to five years. That’s one of the sanctions that are currently available. In fact, there was an award of $7.5 million against a body corporate and of $100,000 against an individual for the five-year prohibition against management. So I would argue that the civil sanctions are, in fact, a very strong deterrent.

I have to say that we oppose this bill. We believe that the measures in play and in place are sufficient, and we also believe in the good work of the Commerce Commission to enforce those. Thank you.

FLETCHER TABUTEAU (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Thanks, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this Commerce (Criminalisation of Cartels) Amendment Bill. Look, it’s an interesting time in the House when the Opposition speaks to legislation they created and, in supposed good conscience, cannot support it now, simply because this side of the House is progressing legislation they wrote.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: I think you got the wrong end of the stick, old boy!

FLETCHER TABUTEAU: Oh, no, I am not going to apologise. I remember spending months with the members in select committee in the previous term. For months, we were, literally, on the same page in terms of progressing this piece of legislation, because, for such a long period of time, the criminalisation element of this legislation as presented to the House now was in the draft of that bill during that process. And so there was great, and quite unanimous, conversation from both sides of the House, as it were, in the select committee process during that process, and it was constructive.

Mr Young spoke about—what did he say? Something about dampening cooperation between firms. Actually, in this legislation, and I think credit is due to Mr Goldsmith, there is specific reference to enabling and encouraging cooperation where it is for the benefit of the end consumer, because it is collaboration for that benefit rather than the good old-fashioned cartel collusion and coming together, where businesses are seeking to break down market equilibrium, create that dead-weight loss in it, and to undermine the benefit to the consumer. So there is a difference. This legislation recognises that, and so Mr Young is drawing on excerpts that do not apply.

In fact, I’d take the opportunity to quote some of the previous contributions from the National Opposition. I quote Simon O’Connor: “This [criminalisation of cartels] is ultimately a bill at the heart of what the National Party believes is a way forward for our economy.” That is probably true, so I’m not sure why it’s such a problem for the National Party today. Brett Hudson: “I am delighted with this bill. It is clearly taking on the evils, the worries, and the concerns around hard-core cartel behaviour.” And yet the contributions from the other side, dare I say it—I’m not one to use bad language in the House, but “flip-flop” comes to mind.

Actually, there’s no need to go into defining “cartel behaviour” and what this bill achieves, because this House knows full well that those quotes confirm exactly the merit of this legislation. It’s unfortunate to hear the contributions from the members opposite. This is actually logical and needed legislation. It will not dampen cooperation and good behaviour of corporates in New Zealand. We do need that. We have seen evidence of it in the New Zealand market, but we need to make sure that where there is cartel behaviour, we are able to act not only in a civil but in a criminal pathway.

So, Mr Assistant Speaker, this is a short contribution, but it’s pretty important to voice our approval of the legislation. Thank you, sir.

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Fletcher Tabuteau, the previous speaker from New Zealand First, was a little bit confused about this, saying that we’d introduced this bill. This is a new bill introduced by this Government in order to undo what a previous bill that came through the House did—which was update the competition regime in regard to cartel behaviour and bring in an authorisation programme and a way to better manage and, effectively, deal with cartels—which had not taken the step of criminalising cartels, and this Government is determined to it.

There’s lots of arguments. There’s different countries around the world. Some criminalise cartel behaviour; some don’t. For the history of New Zealand commerce, we haven’t criminalised cartel behaviour, but what we’ve done is treated it as a very serious civil matter. So what we’re talking about here is different companies secretly price-fixing or arranging their affairs so as to collude together in order to rip off consumers. Everybody agrees that it’s a bad thing, but throughout New Zealand history, we’ve regarded it as a matter which should, if caught, be punished severely with fines, and we’ve seen some very large fines, of up to $7.5 million.

Now, what is being proposed by this bill is that those fines are not enough of a deterrent and that we should, potentially, throw the directors of companies and executives into jail as well. There are arguments both ways. My view, as Minister of Commerce when this legislation was coming through the House earlier, was that, on balance, I don’t think it is a useful thing to add yet one more way for public company directors to go to jail if they get their business judgments wrong.

So what you’re balancing here is two competing desires. One is that it’s obviously so important for this country and for consumers in this country to have a robust and effective competition framework so that New Zealand consumers get the best deal that they can and so that companies can’t work together secretively to undermine the benefits of free trade and good commerce. But, on the other hand, what we need to also consider is a basic philosophy around regulatory restraint.

If a Government doesn’t think twice about, as I say, finding a new way to send directors of companies to jail if they get their judgments wrong, then it all adds up over time, because every year, there’s another five or six different ways that you can go to jail if you get things wrong, and, as a result of that, there is a cost. That cost is that directors of public companies move from being very cautious about how they do things to becoming ultra-cautious about how they do things, and they take fewer risks.

In this area, what you’re dealing with is a whole lot of collaborative arrangements that companies can quite legitimately go into, such as the classic example—being international shipping—where it doesn’t necessarily make sense to send five ships from China to New Zealand one-fifth full. It makes more sense for those five competitors to work together and send one full ship. So it is much more efficient for the whole market and for everybody if those different owners collaborate together in order to work out what’s the most efficient way of getting stuff between China and New Zealand.

So there are pro-competitive collaborative arrangements that people go into, but there is a line that can be crossed where they become anti-competitive. That depends on the nature of the market and what’s going on, and arrangements that may have been pro-competitive one year can suddenly become anti-competitive the next year if conditions have changed. So it’s not quite as straightforward and clear-cut as people might seem to think. So it does lead inevitably to the level of risk that company directors are prepared to take and the consequences of being ultra-cautious, as I said, as opposed to being very cautious.

So New Zealand has avoided the criminal regime until now. Some of the much larger economies in the world have criminal regimes, and I do think it is relevant that New Zealand—a place where more than 90 percent of businesses are small businesses and don’t have the ability to avail themselves of the authorisation procedures and so forth that we have established, which are highly expensive. To go along to the Commerce Commission to get an authorisation on a pro-competitive arrangement is a very expensive procedure. It might work quite effectively for a huge economy such as the United States’; not necessarily so practical here in New Zealand.

So, anyway, another element of all this is the way in which this Government operates. Just before giving the speech I thought to myself: well, this is an important bit of legislation which has quite a significant regulatory effect on the way that New Zealanders conduct business in New Zealand, so I wonder what the regulatory impact statement has to say on all this. So I asked for the regulatory impact statement—it’s not on the Table. Lo and behold I find it here. Here it is: regulatory impact statement: “Criminalisation of Cartels”—oh, dated 26 August 2011. So that was some work done by the predecessor to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE), whoever it was, back in August 2011—and I’m reading it. It’s—I wouldn’t say—pathetic but it’s a very cursory summary of the details in this regulation.

Dr Duncan Webb: Who was the Minister?

Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Oh, this was back in the first term of the previous National Government. So this Government, this Government here today in 2018, has introduced this bill, making no effort whatsoever to get their officials to look at what the issues are today. Since this happened, we’ve had seven or eight years of experience of what actually has happened with the criminalisation regime in Australia; you know, not very much. There’s a huge amount of work that’s been done in this area, and this Government hasn’t availed themselves of any of that. They haven’t asked MBIE to update their regulatory impact statement or to seriously consider it. Of course, that should come as no surprise to anyone in this House, because that’s how they operated with the very significant oil and gas decision that we’ve been debating this week—possibly $8 billion. The decision was made before any Cabinet consideration, before any analysis had been done by officials. And that’s the cavalier way in which this Government seems to be operating.

The problem with all that is that collectively this kind of attitude to regulation and business legislation, a cavalier attitude, an ideological attitude—one that announces decisions before the analysis has been done. That kind of decision making all contributes to an undermining of confidence in the way that decisions are made in this Government, contributing to the falling business confidence that we see across this country generally, which, of course, this Government regards as junk. They regard the falling business confidence survey as junk and that is because they don’t have much sympathy or understanding of just how hard it is for New Zealand businesses—competing internationally in a tough old world against all kinds of headwinds—to stay in business. Every day, it’s a highly competitive attitude, and this Government is quite happy each day, each week since they’ve been in Government, to add costs to businesses, such as petrol, such as minimum wages—you name it—assuming that it will make no difference to their international competitiveness.

Secondly, without any thought or full consideration, it’s quite happy to amend competition law to make the consequences of incorrect decisions much worse. Like I say, I’m not saying it’s the end of the world to bring in this legislation, because there are plenty of countries that have criminalised cartels, but the conclusion that we came to as a Government in the last term was that on balance we think the long-established, very substantial civil regime with very significant financial fines for cartel behaviour was just as effective and—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! The member’s time has expired.

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Well, thank you for that penetrating analysis, Mr Goldsmith—the future MP for Epsom. He did use the words “on balance” on several occasions, and I think, actually, that was good, because this is a question of balance, because cartels are something of a conundrum. At one end of the spectrum, we know that if there is a cabal of businessmen in a smoke-filled room doing deals about how to raise prices together, that’s wrong—deeply wrong. At that end of the spectrum, it should clearly be criminal. But at the other end of the spectrum, we may have a group of perfectly decent business people who are putting their heads together as to how they can lower their costs to make a more efficient business. At that end of the spectrum, life gets a lot more difficult.

Here the balance is well struck, because this is not blanket criminalisation. If we do see an agreement between businesses to knowingly move up prices, or to divide up the country so they don’t compete with each other, it’s a serious wrong. It’s not just some cheeky business shenanigans; it’s actually defrauding ordinary folk of their wealth. It may only be a penny at a time, but, actually, millions of dollars are involved, and that’s serious.

Where the collusion—and it is collusion—doesn’t have that same moral taint, then it’s quite right that it shouldn’t be criminal, and that’s what the civil penalties are for. It may well be that the arrangements are seriously wrong—they’ve been put in place; they are cartel arrangements; they are agreements that lessen competition—but they don’t have the underlying intent, that there is a genuine error. In those kinds of cases, those arrangements won’t fall foul. There is a clear recognition in this legislation that collaborative arrangements are permitted. Collaboration that lowers the input costs of a product is permitted. They are, in fact, to be encouraged. So that’s an expressed carve-out. As the future member for Epsom Mr Goldsmith noted, the line between those two is not always clear to see.

One of the other things is there’s been a lot of talk about economics here, and how it will have a chilling effect and so on and so forth, but, at the end of the day, there is a sociological, a criminological, and a moral question to be asked here. That question is: what do we do about serious moral transgressions, the intentional stripping of wealth? We can’t just say, “It’s tricky. The line’s hard to draw, so we won’t draw a line at all.” We’ve got to stand up to that. And when we do have a serious cartel arrangement, it is deeply dishonest. It is moving wealth away from consumers and towards dishonest businesses, and I know the members on the other side of the House don’t want to be seen as supporting dishonest businesses. We all want to be seen to be supporting honest, competitive businesses who do the right thing.

So, in this situation, even if it was not going to change the economics of it, there is a moral reason to step in here and say, “We will not tolerate the wrongful taking of wealth—the wrongful and knowing taking of wealth—from one party to another.” Having said that, we know here that if there is a collaborative arrangement that breaches these rules but the wrongdoer had a reasonable belief that that wasn’t the case, then there is no criminal offence. For that reason, I commend this bill to the House.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to take a very short call, as the bells are about to actually ring, but I shall try and make some headway into my 10 minutes, which will obviously continue in the next sitting period. As a member of the Economic Development, Science and Innovation Committee, which deliberated on this bill, I’d like to acknowledge—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m sorry to interrupt the member. This debate is interrupted and is set down for resumption next sitting day. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 16 October 2018. Tēnā tātou katoa.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.