Volume 646 Week 72 - Wednesday 9 April 2008 
Volume 646 Week 72 - Wednesday 9 April 2008 
[Volume:646;Page:15477] 
Wednesday 9 April 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Mispronunciation—Maori Language and Members’ Names 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. I rise to seek some clarification from you. Last night during the debate on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill the Speaker sought clarification from Mr Christopher Finlayson as to whether he should be referred to as “Chris” which is what the Speaker at the time had written in front of her or as “Christopher”. Mr Finlayson responded by saying: “I made it very clear when I came in here that out of respect to the House not out of respect to me I thought that I should be called by my full name.” 
The Maori Party has reflected on this matter regarding names in general and I now refer to  
Hansard 
 Volume 633 at page 4654 and a discussion on mispronunciation of Maori language and members’ names. The Assistant Speaker at the time Ann Hartley stated that the presiding officers had made a ruling. The ruling was: “To pronounce a word differently from the way in which another member pronounces that word is not a matter of order. There are many different ways to pronounce English words and I presume that this is true of Maori words too. No member in this House has the monopoly of directing how a word is to be pronounced. But if a member deliberately mispronounces a word—particularly another member’s name—so as to create disorder then that is out of order and the Speaker on the Speaker’s own initiative or on the matter being raised as a point of order will intervene.” 
The point we are raising in terms of names in the House is firstly that mispronunciation of words does cause offence and leads to misunderstandings. Secondly the presumption according to the Speaker’s ruling is that a Speaker in intervening has a level of competency in Maori language pronunciation that would allow that person to intervene appropriately. If this is not the case the Maori Party would respectfully suggest that the Speaker’s ruling of 2 August 2006 needs to be revisited. We request this as our members are continually offended by the mispronunciation of our names and we do not wish to continually cause delays in the House by raising points of order regarding this. We hope members of this House will demonstrate maturity by pronouncing correctly one of the two official languages of the country. 
In closing this I on behalf of the Maori Party like Mr Finlayson out of respect to this House wish to advise members that our names are: Tariana Turia Pita Sharples Hone Harawira and Te Ururoa Flavell. We implore all members of this House to call us by our proper names and pronounce them correctly. Tena koutou katoa. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. I am sure all members have noted what the member said. 
Questions to Ministers 
State-owned Enterprises—Social Responsibility 
1. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is he satisfied that all State enterprises are showing a sense of social responsibility and having regard to their communities as part of being a successful business as required by the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Generally yes. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does he consider that Meridian Energy has properly discharged its social responsibilities to the community of Ohariu Valley with regard to the proposal to develop a wind farm at Mill Creek when that community feels strongly that it has been lied to and misled over the development of the project; if so in which specific ways has Meridian Energy shown a sense of social responsibility to that community? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that the Mill Creek approach has been an unusual one in that there was longer than normal consultation in relationship with the landowners and a shorter period of discussion with others before the resource consent application was lodged. It does however have to go through the process as determined by the Resource Management Act 1991 and I am sure that during that process the people from the area who were very eloquent will have their say. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about State-owned enterprises and their responsibility to the communities they operate in? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have. This Government formalised a framework for corporate social responsibility in November last year. I have however seen a report that would mean those requirements would not apply because Bill English indicated last year that the National Party’s asset sales policy is a policy the party has had for some time now. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can local Ohariu Valley residents conclude from the Minister’s silence in his capacity as both Minister for State Owned Enterprises and Minister for the Environment on this issue that he has full confidence in the way that Meridian Energy is handling the Mill Creek project and that he supports its actions to date; if they cannot draw that conclusion what conclusions can they draw about his and the Government’s attitudes to this project? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think they can conclude that the Minister can understand the difference between an operational matter and one that is not. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With reference to another of the Minister’s State-owned enterprises Landcorp can he tell the House how many tonnes of greenhouse gases will be released by its actions as a contractor in clearing tens of thousands of hectares of forest in the central North Island for conversion to intensive dairying; is that the sort of social responsibility we should expect from a business owned by a Government that wishes to be carbon neutral and the first sustainable nation in the world—or is that just hogwash “greenwash” and spin? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: To the first part of the question I say no I cannot; I do not carry that figure around in my head. To the second part of the question I say that members I think all know that in this case the ownership is not by Landcorp. It is acting as a contractor and if it stops work someone else will do it. 
Mortgage Rates—Increases 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her comment that mortgage rates are “not going through the roof”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes but people’s mortgage rates are being affected by the general credit squeeze that is filtering through from offshore to New Zealand and that in conjunction with the rollover of fixed-rate mortgages is putting some real pressure on some households. 
John Key 
: Is it correct that mortgage rates are now at a 10-year high that someone who purchased a house this time last year would have faced a floating interest rate of about 9.5 percent and today faces a floating interest rate of 10.5 percent and that the Reserve Bank is predicting that interest rates may well go higher; in which case given that interest rates have doubled under her Government’s administration why does she not think they are going through the roof? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Taking the last part first—of course one can remember when a previous National Government tried to regulate interest rates at 11 percent for a mortgage rate and nobody could actually get a mortgage. The mortgage rates have been over 20 percent within recent times. But the member is quite correct: mortgage rates have gone up in the last year. But when the House was asked to consider some alternatives to the current operation of monetary policy Mr English simply said that the Reserve Bank should get on with putting up mortgage rates even faster and further. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that if someone had purchased one of the Government’s so-called affordable homes let us say 2 years ago and was today wandering into his or her local friendly bank to renegotiate that person would be paying approximately $320 a month more in interest rates; in which case can she confirm that her Government’s planned tax cuts will offset that $320 a month? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member will have to wait but he needs to tell himself very clearly that if the tax cuts are too large and put further upward pressure on mortgage rates then the tax cut for those people who have mortgages cannot possibly compensate for the mortgage rate increases. The tax cuts are spread over the entire population not just those who have high mortgages. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen recent media reports that show that the average household now faces an increased cost of $1000 per month for its increased fuel prices food prices and rising interest rates; and although members of her Government sit around feeling sorry for themselves why have they not got off their backsides before now and cut interest rates a lot earlier—or do they not care about the New Zealanders who are paying $1000 a month more? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have sat here for the last couple of weeks feeling sorry for that member not feeling sorry for myself. If that member really believes that international oil prices are set by the New Zealand Government and international food prices are set by the New Zealand Government then I wonder what he was doing at Merrill Lynch for all those years on foreign exchange speculation. When it comes to interest rates of course we have enjoyed the longest strongest economic expansion for some 60 years. It is not surprising that the Reserve Bank has adopted a tighter monetary policy. But that member keeps arguing saying we should completely ignore the impact of fiscal policy on monetary policy. 
John Key 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the statement this morning from the Minister of Finance in which the Minister stated that the debt to GDP target would be at 20 percent in the Budget and that it was likely to rise to that level given that it is coming off a base of about 18 percent at the moment and can the Prime Minister confirm what will cause the increase in the debt to GDP target rising from 18 percent to 20 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As the Prime Minister landed only about 2½ hours ago I have no idea what newspaper reports she has read by this point. What I can tell the member is that the debt to GDP ratio target of 20 percent has been in the Budget for the last few years and it continues to be the Government’s debt anchor. That member Mr Key has said that the target should be raised to 25 percent of GDP. He can never remember what he has said from one day to the next. 
John Key 
: Can I then spell it out for the Acting Prime Minister that it is as simple as this: the reason the debt to GDP target is rising is that the Prime Minister’s Government is to have a tax cut programme and on Budget day her Government will claim it is for spending on infrastructure; and when National argued that it was for infrastructure it was all wrong but under her Government in election year it will be all right? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member clearly has cloth ears if not a cloth cap. The debt to GDP ratio is not rising. The only person in this House who has called for a higher debt to GDP ratio is Mr Key—25 percent; $700 million a year in debt-servicing costs. 
Modern Apprenticeships—Reports 
3.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What reports has he received about the success of the Modern Apprenticeships programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The number of Modern Apprentices who either are in training or have completed their apprenticeship has reached over 15000. Our promise to the country during the last election campaign was to reach 14000 by December 2008. These latest data show that we reached 15000 by December 2007. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Why did the Government decide to set up the Modern Apprenticeships programme? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because the previous Government abandoned apprenticeships in their entirety. 
Hon Members 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: “Rubbish!” they say. That was one of the—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh really? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It might be wise to intervene early in the process with Dr Nick Smith who has uttered a completely unparliamentary statement and we are only on to question No. 3. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would members please respect each other by allowing both questions and answers to be heard and by keeping comments to within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Oh sorry—would Dr Smith please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. It would help if the Minister told the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I say to Dr Smith that I am sorry but he knows what the Standing Orders are. The member is to withdraw and apologise and say nothing else. Otherwise it creates disorder which it just did. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That abandonment was one of the most serious public policy mistakes of that inept National Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well I certainly did not hear that answer; I hope others did. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I see that the Minister of Justice is away—how convenient. I seek leave to put this question off until tomorrow when the Minister will be here. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Question No. 4 the Hon. Bill English. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please stop having a conversation amongst themselves and would the member please ask the question; otherwise it starts to create disorder. 
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
—Distribution 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House yesterday that only one copy of the pamphlet  
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
 had been distributed this year; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes; because that was what the Minister was advised at the time. Since then however other allegations or assertions have arisen. Some of these may or may not be true. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister of Justice explain to the House why the only copy of this pamphlet to be distributed this year just happened to be handed to a National Party supporter at the Waikato University club day; if so does she think that it might be an outrageous coincidence? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I suspect that the reason is that the National Party supporter was becoming anxious about the poor quality of his or her own party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the highly unlikely statement made by the Minister of Justice to the House yesterday that only one copy of this pamphlet had been distributed all year can she explain to the House what investigations she has made since yesterday to establish whether that statement is correct and did those investigations include an instruction to all Labour electorate offices to clear out any pamphlets that might require authorisation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Since yesterday as far as I am aware no action has been taken to ensure that there is no further distribution of the pamphlet. However I think an email was sent some days ago not just to Labour organisations but to National Party ones as well because it is a really good pamphlet and we do not think anyone should be giving it out. 
Hon Bill English 
: We promise not to! Can the Minister of Justice explain the basis on which she decided yesterday that this pamphlet would be counted as an election expense of the Labour Party? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It has been discovered by judgment from the Electoral Commission that it is an electoral advertisement. If it is attributable it will be attributed. We in this party do seek to obey the law. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister of Justice tell the House whether it is likely that the reassurance she has just given is worth as much as the one that Labour gave just before the 2005 election when the secretary of the Labour Party gave an undertaking in writing to the Electoral Commission that the $800000 pledge card would be counted as an election expense for Labour then 2 days after the election withdrew that undertaking and did not include it as an election expense; why should we believe any undertaking that the Labour Party makes about this issue? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The situation that occurred in the 2005 election was that the pledge card was of an exactly similar nature to the 2002 pledge card and in fact the 1999 pledge card. Those pledge cards were regarded by the Auditor-General of the land as being within the rules. However by 2005 the same Auditor-General of the land had decided that they were not within the rules. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister of Justice seen the advertisement from New Zealand First in this morning’s newspapers that has no authorisation and is clearly an election advertisement and would it also meet her test of what should be counted against a party’s election cap? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports about those who hold themselves out to be experts on electoral expenditure where the law is concerned not understanding that if the issue concerns existing politics to be resolved in the term of this Parliament before an election it cannot be caught by the provision that Mr English keeps on misinforming the media it is caught by? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can say that the wires this week last week and the week before have been full of commentators saying that Bill English has not yet got it right on this. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister think the sort of expenditure that would be caught would include the key ring I have here with an MP’s name on it and the slogan—mind you the paint is coming off—“Showing the way” or “Shwing the way”? It may have been made in Taiwan. It was being distributed last weekend in Tauranga by one “Blue Chip” Bob Clarkson. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am reluctant to give a legal opinion to the House and am under no obligation to do so. But I would say in passing that it is not the only part of that nexus that is fading. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You may like to reflect on your own past rulings in relation to the way in which members in this House should be addressed. I think Mr Peters fell well short of the test that you yourself have required the House to apply and the standard that the House uses when making an address to another honourable member in this House. That member should withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I never for a moment thought that the member would object but if he does I apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Again one just withdraws and apologises please. That is all that is required; otherwise disorder is created. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I withdraw and apologise. I seek leave to table this key ring but I advise members not to touch it— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the implement. [ 
Interruption 
] All those in favour—order! It is very very difficult up here to hear what is happening. Is there any objection to the tabling of the key ring? No objection. 
Key ring by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is the Government considering any amendments to the Electoral Finance Act in light of the confusion that MPs now have about how they can and cannot communicate with constituents—an amendment to provide some clarity which certainly is not there now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry but I am unable to give the member a comprehensive answer to that question on behalf of the Minister of Justice. I will say that I am aware that the Hon Bill English has leave of some sort to introduce legislation in respect of a personal address versus a postbox for the financial agent. Whether that comes before the House is in the hands of the member. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us whether it was the intention of Government policy that when the Electoral Commission found that this pamphlet from the Labour Party breached the electoral law it should not refer it to the police for investigation but if New Zealand First is found to have breached the law with its newspaper advertisements it should be referred to the police for investigation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has some leaps of logic that frankly are gymnastic. He could perhaps be accused of having kangaroos in the top paddock. The long and short of it is that the Electoral Commission is its own body and will make its own judgments. It is entitled to do that under the law of the land. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports that set out the requirements in terms of the law if one seeks to have an advertisement dealing with current political issues as opposed to an electoral advertisement for electoral purposes; that there is a distinction and that someone who spends so much time proselytising amongst the media about what he does not know should understand that—at least by now? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can confirm that the legislation the member refers to contains a long elaborate definition not only of what an election advertisement is but of what an election advertisement might not be and of what an election expense is and might not be. 
Free-trade Agreement New Zealand - China—Customs Procedures 
5.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What benefits will New Zealand exporters receive from the agreement on customs procedures that is part of the free-trade agreement with China? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 There will be good news for New Zealand exporters. For a start there will be greater certainty around the time it takes to clear goods through customs—no longer than 48 hours—which is a huge improvement and real time advantage to the current situation. In addition to this tariff benefits can be gained through more consistent transparent processes for exporters when dealing with Chinese customs administration. Overall this historic free-trade agreement leverages a huge first-mover advantage to New Zealand exporters which in time will deliver significant returns to New Zealand. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister therefore tell the House what special arrangements there are to help exporters satisfy Chinese authorities that their goods will meet rules of origin requirements? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: New Zealand is setting up a system that will provide exporters with certificates of origin issued by approved organisations here in New Zealand. These certificates will allow exporters to claim duty-free treatment for their goods in China. These arrangements add to the certainty and transparency of customs procedures that our exporters will enjoy under the agreement. 
Election Spending—Parliamentary Funding 
6.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree with the statement made to the House on her behalf last week “Matters that are properly authorised as being for parliamentary purposes do not count as election advertising for the returns of expenses.”; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I refer the member to section 94(2)(g) of the Electoral Finance Act. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister of Justice tell us last week that material with the Parliamentary Service crest on it cannot count as an expense under the Electoral Finance Act then yesterday—just a week later—tell the House that the booklet paid for by the Parliamentary Service will count against the Labour Party’s election expenses; what are other parties to make of that contradictory policy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Given that I attempted to refer the member to section 94(2)(g) in my answer to his primary question apparently without success let me now refer to section 94(2)(g) myself. Section 94(2) is an exclusion section relating to what an election expense is. Section 94(2)(g) states that “any publications that relate to a member of Parliament in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament.” are so excluded. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister not aware that she could have raised the possibility that this pamphlet  
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
 would count against Labour’s election expenses only if she believed that it was not for parliamentary purposes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The “parliamentary purposes” part of this situation is not what is relevant. What is relevant is whether an election expense exclusion subsection does allow for any publication that relates to a member of Parliament to be excluded. That is still under exploration by the Electoral Commission. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh! Exploration! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am surprised that the member is not aware that the Electoral Commission went to every party last week— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Come on! What’s the point of order? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Fair comment; it is a point of information. I will use it later. The member can get on with his questioning and I will use it later. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that was not a point of order but the explanation could have been incorporated in an answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received reports in respect of the Electoral Finance Act and an advertisement in today’s paper that includes three issues—namely the dairy company Auckland airport and the free-trade agreement with China—all of which it was decided would be resolved before the next election and therefore cannot be an electoral expense unlike the kind of rumour with malice being spread by Mr English amongst the media of this country when he knows full well or should know that what he is saying is simply not true? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is all right but not the second. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have received no reports on either Mr English’s comments or any rebuttal thereof. But if Mr English were wrong that would be a consistent thing. 
Hon Bill English 
: What sort of confidence can any political party any third party or any member of the public have in Labour’s Electoral Finance Act when within 5 days two senior Cabinet Ministers who spent 2 years constructing this legislation have been contradicting each other about the very basic issue of whether this $100000 pamphlet counts towards election expenses? Which one is wrong? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me gently invite the member to restudy the law and in particular to learn about the difference that might exist between—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure it would not have passed you by unnoticed that the House has voluntarily remained silent every time Mr English has chosen to ask a question and he was able to deliver that last question in absolute silence. People gave him the privilege of asking his question and being heard while asking his question. As soon as we had an answer there was a barrage from the National ranks and we could not hear the answer. We ask the same courtesies we extend to Mr English be extended by his entire party to the rest of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. It is not a privilege; it is the right of all members to be heard in this House—a right that I am afraid is not always respected. Would the Hon Pete Hodgson please continue with his answer. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I invite the member to look afresh at the law of the land and in particular to look at definitions as they relate to an election advertisement and a party election expense including the exclusion provisions for those two things. Then the member may understand that the difference he wishes to trump up may not exist at all. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why should the House listen to Labour on electoral finance law when two senior Ministers have contradicted themselves over whether this pamphlet is covered when Labour has had one warning from the Electoral Commission about breaching the law when it has had one decision from the Electoral Commission that it has breached the law when it has had a “get of jail free” card when that breach was not referred to the police and when it is now finding out that its law is paralysing all political parties and third parties now that we are 4 months into an election year? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Not only was that question far far too long but it is in serious danger of putting Mogadon out of business. We are going to sleep back here listening to that rant from Mr English which makes no sense to us and I am certain will not make sense to the Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Unfortunately questions are too long and on occasions one may wonder about their vitality. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will try to address that collection of questions as succinctly as I am able. I refer the member afresh to section 94(2)(g) and I let him know that an interpretation of the words “in his or her capacity as a member of Parliament” is currently being worked on by the commission that the commission wrote to all political parties last Thursday that the commission said specifically “I am happy for you to forward this message to the parliamentary chief of staff of your party” last Thursday and that almost a week later the deputy leader of the National Party appears not to know about it. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: As the representative of the only party that was deemed by the Auditor-General not to have contravened the Electoral Act at the last election I ask the Minister whether he has had any advice as to whether a group of individuals or any organisation can under the Electoral Finance Act conduct a $1.2 million campaign against any individual member or party members of this House without any authorisation whatever and furthermore by giving false addresses and false contact points in the electorate? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The sad fact of the matter is that a year ago they could do that. The good thing to be said is that right now they cannot and we have a better and freer democracy as a result of that. 
Hon Bill English 
: If we have a better and freer democracy then can the Minister tell us whether it is Government policy that the advertisement placed by New Zealand First this morning which could be interpreted as encouraging people to vote for it by reference to policy positions—which is the term used in the legislation—could be an election advertisement even though it is paid for by the taxpayer and that the advertisement— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr English has made the allegation outside this House that we have somehow breached the law of this country and we take that seriously in New Zealand First. We do know what the Electoral Commissioner’s view is of this matter: that if an issue is resolved before the election and it was intended to be resolved—and we know that those three issues will be resolved—then it cannot possibly be an election advertisement. People will already have had not a promise but the reality. Now— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No excuse me; he is saying that we have broken the law. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will be asked to leave the House if he does not sit down. That is not a point of order as the member well knows. It is a point of debate and discussion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect the allegation that someone has broken the law is not a matter of debate; it is a serious allegation and it is unparliamentary. Previous Speakers have found in that way and so do the Standing Orders. So please tell me why you have made the decision to rule out my contention that the member is raising an issue in this House that he is not allowed to raise unless he has some evidence a case or some facts—none of which he has given so far. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr English did not say that New Zealand First had broken the law. He asked the Minister whether in his opinion the advertisement in this morning’s paper which clearly takes policy positions and clearly sets out to persuade people towards New Zealand First’s point of view is in fact an electoral expense in the electoral period which we are now in. That is what was asked and that is not unreasonable. It will be very interesting to see whether this Minister has a different view on that from the Minister who gave all the opinions yesterday. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The videotape and the  
Hansard 
 record will disclose that what the member is saying is precisely wrong. The allegation that has been made very clearly in this House is that a breach of the law has happened. That is the fact. Unfortunately the members have not read the law which is as clear as daylight. If all of these issues are resolved before the election which it is intended they will be how can the advertisement be advertised as an election issue if they have already been fixed up? The China free-trade agreement was signed 3 days ago. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. We have a contribution from Rodney Hide. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No we are still dealing with this point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can you define Madam Speaker what the point of order is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. Does Rodney Hide wish to have his say? 
Rodney Hide 
: It is very simple. The Minister of Foreign Affairs could just say he is prepared to resign if he is wrong. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was an equally unhelpful contribution. May I say from my hearing of the question that it asked the Minister for an opinion; it did not make an assertion. I am happy to look at the record later but in the meantime would the Minister please— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I had not finished asking my question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: OK. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask Mr Hide whether he will resign if I am right. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a completely different issue. What I have noted from that exchange of points of order particularly from the point of order taken by Gerry Brownlee gives me cause for concern. We all know that when our  
Hansard 
 comes around to us we have the opportunity to check it for accuracy and veracity. We have a new element added to Parliament whereby we have video cameras and everything is recorded. It would concern New Zealand First greatly if in the actual recorded written  
Hansard 
 Mr English’s comments were different from what the video showed him saying. I ask you as the Speaker which record stands supreme in recording evidence because Mr Brownlee’s comments would lead some of us to fear that National will doctor the  
Hansard 
 to ensure it reflects what Mr Brownlee said not what Mr English said. We would want—sit down Gerry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Be seated. That is a very disrespectful comment Mr Mark. If you would please just make your point of order very succinctly then we can hear a response to it from Mr Brownlee. 
Ron Mark 
: The point is that that there is the possibility that we will end up with the situation where the video and the DVD show Mr English saying precisely what my leader Winston Peters said he said and the written copy reflects what Gerry Brownlee claims he said which is not accurate. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I do not think that point of order is well raised at all because I do not think you can be asked to speculate on a hypothetical situation that by itself if it occurred would clearly lead to the possibility of a breach of privilege charge being brought. A breach of privilege charge has to be raised in writing with you Madam Speaker. So to ask you to rule hypothetically about something you could not be asked about by way of a point of order if it did occur seems to be a slightly pointless exercise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I quite agree. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You might rightly have asked my colleague Mr Ron Mark to sit down because of his comments. Notwithstanding that he reacted to the fact that whilst he was making out a point of order and you were listening to it Gerry Brownlee decided to jump to his feet. Now which is the most rude of those two actions: the one that got the reaction from Ron Mark or the primary action from Mr Brownlee? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I did note that the point of order went on at some length then there was a pause. It was quite apparent that Mr Brownlee—if I can assume to presume what he was thinking—thought it had finished as had I. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us is it Government policy that an ad published by New Zealand First this morning in the newspaper which might encourage people to vote for New Zealand First by reference to policy positions—which is the terminology used in the legislation—could be an election advertisement if the ad has been paid for by the taxpayer through Parliamentary Service; and could the cost of this advertisement count against New Zealand First’s election expenses cap? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Government policy—and indeed the will of this House—is to be found in the black-letter law of the land. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister received any reports on getting for certain members of Parliament mainly for Mr English a legal interpretation—which is apparently not available to them now—that says very clearly that if an advertisement is to do with present modern politics and matters and those matters are to be resolved within the term of the Parliament before the election that advertisement cannot possibly be caught by the claim that it is an election advertisement simply because the various policies presented in the advertisement are in fact issues already dealt with? That is the legal distinction so could he get a report to Mr English that explains that to him? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I have not been requested to provide such a report but I do agree that more light than heat would be useful. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister of Justice confirm to the House that one of the problems all parties have with this particular issue is that when the Electoral Finance Bill was being debated in this House she came down and gave an explanation of what a parliamentary purpose amounted to—which corresponds with what the Rt Hon Winston Peters claims to be the case—then came down the next day to say she was completely wrong and did not know what that purpose now meant? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret that my memory does not go back quite as far as that but I would make this point: the law has received its third reading; it has been passed into statute. There are agencies that are there to interpret it; they are interpreting it. As understanding grows I am sure the member’s blood pressure may drop. One hopes it will anyway. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the House now to believe that the Labour Cabinet spent 2 years going through this legislation in detail in order to design it to silence Labour’s critics; that the legislation came into force on 1 January; that despite Labour not knowing what it meant it went ahead and used taxpayers’ money to print a whole range of material that is now withdrawn; that it was then caught breaching the law; and that it is now telling us that no one quite knows what the law means—is that an indication of the competence and record of this Government? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That long list of assertions and allegations is substantially imaginary. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the exchange that took place before around points of order Mr Peters was allowed to make a case that the issues raised in his ad are matters of political moment that will be resolved prior to the next election. I wonder whether he might be good enough to give the information to the House that leads him to the view that the Auckland airport issue will be resolved before the election. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is a point of order. 
Viet Nam Veterans—Tribute 08 
7.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Veterans’ Affairs 
: He aha ai kua tono kia utu nga morehu hoia o Whitinamu me o ratau whanau i te iwa tekau ma rima taara kia taea e ratau te haere ki te hui whakanui ara te Hokinga Mai Mo Nga Morehu Hoia o Niu Tireni i Whitinamu?  
[ 
Why are Viet Nam veterans and whanau being asked to pay $95 to attend Tribute 08 the welcome home ceremony for New Zealand Viet Nam veterans 
?] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) 
: 
 Tribute 08 arises out of the commitments this Government made to Viet Nam veterans through the memorandum of understanding signed in 2006. The Government agreed to contribute $1 million towards the cost of this event and will also be subsiding veterans’ travel to the event. All other decisions about this event are made by an organising committee of the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association. The organising committee has advised me that it would be happy to brief the member on all the aspects of Tribute 08. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kei te whakaae ia kia utu nga morehu hoia o Whitinamu i te iwa tekau ma rima taara mo te hui hokinga mai ki te kainga ara ko te whakanoa tera a he aha te putake i whakaritea kia tau tetahi utu a-moni nei ki runga i nga tikanga Maori pera i nga tikanga whakanoa? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Does he agree that Vietnam veterans should be asked to pay $95 for a welcome home ceremony that includes whakanoa—the ritual freeing from restriction 
— 
and what is the rationale behind putting a monetary price on tikanga Maori as encompassed in the whakanoa ritual? 
] 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The organising and the structure of the event are entirely within the hands of Viet Nam veterans themselves. The Government made a commitment to fund Tribute 08 to the tune of $1 million. All other decisions are theirs and theirs alone. I suggest the member directs his questions to the organising committee. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What else is the Government doing to address the concerns of Viet Nam veterans and their families? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: A register of Viet Nam veterans has been established and to date 4907 registrations have been received 65 ex gratia payments have been made to Viet Nam veterans and their families to date a $7 million Viet Nam Veterans and Their Families Trust has been established a one-off medical check for Viet Nam veterans is about to commence an oral history programme is being commenced and many other aspects of the memorandum of understanding are completed or almost complete. 
Judith Collins 
: Will the Minister be taking a cross-party approach to the opening of the ANZAC Bridge in Australia due to occur on 26 April this year; if not why not? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: That is a matter for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kua kite ia i te panui a Ian Barnes he morehu hoia o Niu Tireni i Whitinamu e ki nei “kei te tino takariri ratau kua tonoa ratou kia utu i tetahi utu kia taea ai e nga Kawanatanga o tenei whenua te whakahonore i a ratau” a ka aha ia hei ngaki i tenei hara? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Has he seen a letter from Ian Barnes a New Zealand Viet Nam veteran from 161 Battery which states that veterans are and I quote “incensed that they are required to pay a fee to be honoured by Governments of this country”; and what actions will he be taking to address the offence incurred? 
] 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have not seen the letter and I suggest the member refer that matter to the organising committee of Tribute 08. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: He aha nga tohutohu a te Maori kua riro mai i a ia mena he tika kia tapiri atu i tetahi utu ki runga i te tikanga whakanoa? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
W 
hat advice has he received from Maori about the appropriateness of charging a fee for the ritual of whakanoa? 
] 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I repeat my answer: all aspects of this event Tribute 08 have been organised and structured by the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association; they have been in control of every aspect of it. All that the Government has done is simply forward to them $1 million to run the event. All decisions are theirs; none are mine. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Ka huri ki te reo Pakeha nei. 
[ 
I turn to English. 
] 
I just ask for some advice on that response. I asked about the advice the Minister had received not for him to go over the information that he had already shared about the appropriateness of this sort of tikanga. I ask whether he could review his answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister has actually addressed the question in all his responses. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Ian Barnes dated 9 March 2008 regarding Tribute 08. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Energy Strategy—Gas-fired Power Station 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he think Genesis Power’s proposed new 480 megawatt gas-fired power station at Rodney is consistent with the Government’s Energy Strategy; if so why? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 A large baseload gas-fired power station would close out renewables it would increase greenhouse gas emissions and it would undermine efforts to achieve New Zealand’s 90 percent renewable energy target. But that is not what Genesis Energy now proposes. As the company itself has stated it will comply with legislation. It has also been reported as confirming that no funding proposal would even go to shareholding Ministers for approval unless it complied. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister seriously asking the House to believe that Genesis Energy a State-owned enterprise would spend the thick end of $500 million building a new thermal power station which is bigger than the last Huntly power station committed simply for it to be used occasionally as back-up—non-baseload—or is he just embarrassed that one of the Government’s own energy companies is very publicly defying the Government’s ban on new thermal energy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not at all embarrassed and I do not think anything is hidden here. Not only is Genesis Energy looking at peaking plants but also Contact Energy has announced proposals for peaking plants. These are good advances. New Zealand does need some peaking plants into the future and I am pleased that these companies are carrying this forward. 
Darien Fenton 
: Can the Minister advise the House of some of the renewable electricity projects now under construction or planned? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Three hundred megawatts of renewable capacity are currently being constructed. Approximately 125 megawatts of this is geothermal 16 megawatts is hydro and 164 megawatts is wind. In addition some 500 megawatts of renewables have resource consents. Of that figure about 130 megawatts is geothermal and over 300 megawatts is wind. On top of that many more renewable electricity projects are in the consent process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister continue to talk about what might happen and continue to say as he did yesterday that we are well on the way to achieving a 90 percent renewable electricity generation capacity when his ministry’s own figures show that under his Government electrical energy from renewable sources has fallen by some 6 percent and 75 percent of all new generation has been thermal—or is that just the rhetoric he gives to keep people happy before he then goes and does something entirely different? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As I have previously said in this House one of the things that has happened over the last decade is that existing thermal has run to higher load factors. That is one of the reasons why the percentage of renewables has decreased. I have also made the point that this year we are building 300 megawatts of renewables. New Zealand needs to build 175 megawatts of renewables each year to meet the 90 percent renewables target and I am confident that as a country we will do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does not the decision by Genesis to proceed with the new plant at Rodney confirm the unnatural distinction between so-called baseload generation and reserve generation because the reality is that all power plants are in use in New Zealand today as we have a scarcity of electrical energy and the Minister’s approach to renewable energy has no show of getting off the ground given the record of his Government? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that despite his rhetoric and that of the Prime Minister—the constant talk about carbon neutrality and sustainability—last year only 66 percent of New Zealand’s electrical energy was generated from renewable sources a 6 percent drop over the case 8 years earlier and that under the watch of his Government rather than its producing more renewable capacity we have seen 75 percent of new generation built with thermal capacity? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The 66 percent figure to which the member refers is the third-highest proportion of renewables in the world. New Zealand can do even better than that; we can get to 90 percent by building 175 megawatts of renewable capacity each year and this year we are building 300. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the electricity spot price has recently climbed to $300 per megawatt hour in the North Island; if so why is the Minister ignoring the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This member is so last week! 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I will start again. Can the Minister confirm— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s so last century. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I can tell members that this guy is obviously late for the anger management class. There he is just swaying on the ropes—“Rope-a-dope” Trevor! 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No that’s not on— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise—all right Harry? You should be the Minister son. To the Minister— 
Dail Jones 
: Point of order. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. We have a point of order. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is all very interesting but if those parties are not interested in question time perhaps we should move on to the next question from the Green member which I am sure will be much more interesting. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I must confess that I would be tempted to call the next question but we will have one more go. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that the electricity spot prices have recently climbed above $300 per megawatt hour in the North Island; if so why is he ignoring the prediction of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research of a dry winter this year with all of the worries of electricity shortages that such a prediction might bring but is prepared to redesign the entire energy system based on a 50-year climate prediction from the same organisation—what is the difference between 2008 and the next 50 years? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not think anyone is denying that inflows into the hydro system have been lower this year than is average. 
Debt Student—Increases 
9.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Has he received any reports that student debt will reach the milestone of $10 billion this week; if so what if anything does he plan to do about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Yes I have. Next month’s Budget will contain some measures to further increase student support just like each of our first eight Budgets have already done. I acknowledge in passing the Green Party’s consistent support for progress in this area and I also acknowledge that the National Party has consistently voted against such progress. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister stand by this statement which he made in January of this year: “Each year under Labour-led governments student support has strengthened”; if so how does he reconcile that comment with the fact that the latest figures show that fewer students received a student allowance in 2006 than when Labour came to power in 1999? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The proportion of eligible students who are receiving the allowance now is well over half—it is about 57 percent—about three-quarters of whom are receiving the full allowance and one-quarter of whom are on the cusp if the member might see what I mean. That is a great many more students than when we first came into office. I cannot express the difference in a percentage however because I do not have the figures with me. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: In the light of the Minister’s response to the primary question does he expect that total student debt will go on to reach $11 billion or even $12 billion; if so why is the total debt still rising? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a very good question. The total debt continues to rise because apart from inflation there are more students and more students are studying to a higher level. That is a good thing. It is a good thing. The question is what is happening in the life of an individual student and what is happening there is that conditions continue to improve. They would say “too slowly” but conditions do improve. The average debt is now rising more slowly than the average wage with the average wage being the way that one pays the debt off. For that reason the average repayment of the debt has reduced from where it was in 2001 at 9½ years to where it is now at less than 6 years. So there is an improvement for students. The Greens have assisted with that improvement. We need to make more improvement. 
Dail Jones 
: Does the Minister accept that the problem associated with student debt with or without interest can be substantially reduced by the introduction of New Zealand First’s policy which for many elections has stated that New Zealand First will introduce a universal student allowance that does not require repayment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Having a universal student allowance is the policy of a number of parties in this House. For my part we are happy in our party to move towards but not to a universal student allowance and this is why: I have other priorities. I need to pay attention to the quality of tertiary education. I need to ensure that the completion rates continue to rise. I need to ensure that the access—especially for Maori and Pacific Islanders which is well below par—must be increased. These things all cost money and I happen to place them above the move to a universal student allowance. On the other hand we make progress towards that universality in most years and I hope we may do so again next month. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister disagree however that his inadequate student support policy which includes interest-free student loans has actually led to a 9 percent decline in the enrolment of students from poor backgrounds; and will he then make a real commitment to fulfilling the policy of the Green Party the New Zealand University Students Association and obviously New Zealand First for having a universal student allowance which would ensure that today’s students are able to have the same opportunity to learn to buy homes to choose when to have families and to take control of their financial destiny as he and most of the Labour Party leadership have also been able to do? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The short answer is no. I have no advice to the effect of a 9 percent reduction in whatever the member suggested might be occurring for New Zealanders who are from more modest backgrounds. On the contrary there is documented evidence of higher access for Maori and Pacific Islanders but not high enough and of higher completion rates at level 7 and above but not high enough. We have had some dramatic outstanding improvements in education amongst Maori and Pacific Islanders in the tertiary sector in this country—especially in the years 2002 to 2006 which is the latest data available—but I would be the first to say along with all of my colleagues that progress is not yet sufficient. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister aware that student debt can begin to be decreased by increasing the current parental income maximum for a student allowance from $71000 before tax if one lives in a parental home to study and just over $77000 before tax if one lives away from a parental home—the current rate—to say $100000 before tax if one lives in a parental home to study and $105000 before tax if one lives away from a parental home which would cost an estimated and I emphasise “estimated” additional expenditure of about $300 million to the Government and surely this would be a good investment in education and in the future of New Zealand and it would encourage qualified people to stay in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of that which is why although the member was not able to be with us this Government shifted parental thresholds three times in each of the last three Budgets—by 20 percent 10 percent and 10 percent—and we do not rule out the possibility in the future of a further shift in the thresholds. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance recently told the TaxAgents’ Institute: “We have real ambition for New Zealand and our economy. And we know that by refusing to burden our children and grandchildren with a legacy of debt we are removing one of the biggest obstacles to realising that ambition.”; if so does it worry him that the Minister of Finance is so ignorant of the $10 billion legacy of student debt left by this and previous Governments which has a proven disproportionate exclusionary impact on women Maori and the least well-off New Zealanders? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Just a couple of comments in response: first the level of participation of say New Zealand Maori in our universities is still below that of say New Zealand Europeans but it is getting better not worse. The member shakes her head—she needs to go back and look at the statistics. Second I did not have the pleasure of being in the room when the Minister of Finance made his quoted remarks which is a shame of course but I would not mind betting he was talking about KiwiSaver and that is a magnificent policy that will change the face of this country. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a chart showing that the numbers of students receiving an allowance in 2006 are 5000 fewer than in 1999. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table an article describing how the under-35s are now effectively shut out permanently from financial security. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table “Freedom from debt freedom to prosper”—the Minister’s speech to the TaxAgents’ Institute of New Zealand given in March this year. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dail Jones 
: I seek leave to table a document to introduce a universal student allowance being New Zealand First’s election policy. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Children’s Commissioner—Confidence 
10.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she have confidence in the Children’s Commissioner? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Yes; although as an independent Crown entity the Government does not necessarily need to agree with everything she has to say. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree with the Children’s Commissioner that “For some people graffiti and tagging are seen as a legitimate art form.”; if so why? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The member refers to the commissioner’s submission to the Law and Order Committee on the anti-tagging legislation that the Government has introduced and I guess the independence of the commissioner allows her to have views that may not always be identical to those of the Government. 
Su’a 
 William Sio 
: What has been the role of the Children’s Commissioner in the Government’s successful action against family violence? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Children’s Commissioner has been an active member of the task force for action on family violence from the outset. The task force has been responsible for the highly regarded It’s Not OK campaign against family violence. This is a long-term campaign to change attitudes and behaviours about family violence in our country and already I can tell the member it is making a difference. The phrase “It’s not OK” has already struck a chord with New Zealanders and people are taking action as a result. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister think the Children’s Commissioner was being responsible and sensible when she said that graffiti and tagging provided “a sense of fellowship” and was an “expression-based culture”; if so why is it not OK in this case? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Obviously the commissioner is entitled to put whatever her view is in her independent submissions to the select committee. That is not the Government’s view; we are listening to what the community is saying when they want a tough line on tagging and that is why the Government has a bill before the select committee which the commissioner in this instance happens to oppose. 
Judith Collins 
: How can it be consistent with the view of the vast majority of New Zealanders and even the Government’s view for the Children’s Commissioner to say that “Graffiti is a much needed voice for both cultural expression and resistance.”; if so why? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: In fairness to the Children’s Commissioner she also acknowledged that people think graffiti is an act of vandalism a serious and expensive social problem and an irritating eyesore. That is the view that the Government takes and that is why it put the bill before the select committee. So far the bill has enjoyed the support of the overwhelming majority of the House. I hope that political parties keep following the Government’s leadership on this matter. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree that the Children’s Commissioner’s outrageous claims on tagging show yet again that she is out of step with ordinary Kiwi families? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I think the important thing is what is in the Government’s legislation and what the Government’s view is which is to get tough on tagging and listen to the community which is saying it has had enough of this antisocial behaviour—the vandalism of a lot of people’s assets around the community. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Children’s Commissioner’s submission on the Summary Offences (Tagging and Graffiti Vandalism) Amendment Bill that contained these outrageous quotes. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Building—Consent Process 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: Has he received any reports on the Government’s initiatives to streamline the building consent process? 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 Yes I have received a number of reports from a host of sources including industry and local government. The feedback has been by and large very positive. 
Dave Hereora 
: What are some of the details of the work the Government is undertaking? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I shall abridge the answer because of the comprehensiveness of the work. We are increasing flexibility and reducing cost in the building sector by streamlining the process for certain buildings reducing the times that a project information memo will be needed enabling work of a building nature obviously to be done without a consent below a certain threshold preparing a package to simplify the design and approval of simple starter homes and providing for group builders to be able to have designs approved once for multi-use consents. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why has this Labour Government spent 9 years increasing the bureaucracy of getting a building consent with the passing of the 2004 Building Act and over 18 sets of regulations that have seen the paperwork required to get a building consent quadrupled and spent 9 years dismissing concerns from builders engineers architects and National and is it not a bit cynical a few months out from an election to do a backward flip and announce changes without any time line without any details or without even a bill as to how the Government will now fix the mess it created? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: From that very discursive attempt at a question I point out that the building and construction sector is a very dynamic one. The refinements that I have advanced build on the fundamental reforms that were put in place by my predecessors to deal with the delinquency that was a consequence of the Government during the 1990s—namely the Opposition. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that the Commerce Committee heard evidence from the Registered Master Builders Federation that although its members need just four or five pages of plans to build a new home they must prepare 12 or 13 pages of plans to obtain a building consent; if so what are his plans to bring this madness to an end? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: For the member’s information I will make available to him a copy of a statement issued by the organisation he refers to. Its members are very keen and enthusiastic to work with me because they agree that the pathway is very very positive. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Further to the Minister’s answer to the primary question could he give further detail as to the reports he has seen from local government? 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Yes. The President of Local Government New Zealand Mr Basil Morrison has dispatched people to work with the officials. They are very positive about the steps that we are taking. That is also reinforced by correspondence and media reports in Nelson where they are finally moving away from an Opposition member’s constant negativity and are congratulating the work programme. They are also echoed in the far north by Stan Semenoff who has lectured Mr Heatley to be more positive. 
Child Youth and Family—Confidence 
12.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she have confidence in Child Youth and Family; if not why not? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Yes because it delivers its difficult role of both care and protection and youth justice matters in a hard-working and conscientious manner. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister have confidence in Child Youth and Family when in my East Coast electorate in the backblocks of Wairoa a family with 13 children is living in the bush with no access to clean water or toilet facilities and it has taken Child Youth and Family 2 months to formally respond to my notification? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: On the face of it from what the member has told the House that does not sound good enough at all. Child Youth and Family works hard to provide the best and safest outcome for children and young people not only in her constituency but across the country and that is the expectation that the Government has of it. Obviously we do not discuss individual cases on the floor of the House but if the member would like to refer the case to the Minister I know she would be only too happy to look into it personally. 
Jill Pettis 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding policies to improve the youth justice and child protection services delivered through Child Youth and Family? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: In January we saw an announcement made with great fanfare that there was a commitment to support improvements to a Children Young Persons and Their Families Amendment Bill. The person called the Government’s bill long-overdue legislation and said that he considered it a “matter of priority” to pass it. However when the bill was before Parliament strangely he voted against it. That is yet another case of John Key telling the public what he thinks they want to hear and then when he thinks no one is paying any attention doing the exact opposite. 
Anne Tolley 
: Does the Minister consider this situation of a family with 13 children ranging in age from 1 to 16 living in a temporary camp for months on a site with no toilet no running water and little adult supervision and cooking over an open fire to be neglect; if it is not neglect then what is? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: As I said before on the face of what the member is telling the House that situation does not sound very acceptable in terms of the care and well-being of those children. If the member has concerns about how the case has been handled the Minister would be very happy to look into it. Raising it in this manner across the floor of the House is probably the least effective option for her constituents. 
Anne Tolley 
: How long will Child Youth and Family stand back and say as it has said to me in writing that “This is not a core business area for CYF.” when these children have been known to Child Youth and Family since mid - last year their living circumstances have been known to the Child Youth and Family office in Wairoa since August last year— 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why don’t you raise it with the Minister? 
Anne Tolley 
: —yes I have written to the Minister—and now it is April and nothing has changed in these children’s lives? They still have no roof no running water no toilet no stability no school and inadequate parental supervision. Just how long do these 13 children have to live like this before Child Youth and Family will consider that their case is its business? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: As the member was asking the question a number of members who are also constituency MPs were asking whether the member has approached housing authorities as well. What we need to do is get all the facts and look at all the information. If the member wants us to help her constituents we should get stuck into the detail of the case. I can only go on what she is telling me right now because that information was not in the primary question. If she approaches the Minister we will look into this matter to make sure that the right help is being given to this family because that is what Child Youth and Family and this Government is committed to doing for children and young people in New Zealand. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister justify Child Youth and Family’s inaction in this case when it has known about this family for over 6 months? All those departments have been involved and have known about the family’s living conditions. If Child Youth and Family will not act who else can these children rely on to ensure that their basic needs are met? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Child Youth and Family’s job is to keep children safe and I repeat the offer to the member that if she would like to approach the Hon Ruth Dyson she will be very happy to look into it for her. 
General Debate 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. A few months ago the Labour Party produced this very glossy brochure  
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
. Taxpayers paid for this document. How do we know that? Because it has the parliamentary crest on it which shows that taxpayers paid for it. The pamphlet is clearly meant to solicit votes. How do we know that? There are two reasons. First nowhere in the document does it tell people how they can go and get any of the services it mentions. It just states what Labour thinks it is doing. The other way we know that it is meant to solicit votes is that the Electoral Commission has told us that. Why is the document in breach of the Electoral Finance Act? Because it does not have the appropriate authorisation on it. Why does it not have that? Because Labour does not want taxpayers to know that it is back at it again fleecing taxpayers of their dollars in order to pay for its electoral advertising. 
Here is the good news. Taxpayers paid for this document. Taxpayers received this document in 2008. Actually I stand corrected; a taxpayer received this document in 2008. A taxpayer gave this document to a member of the National Party. Only one of the booklets was produced in 2008. How spooky is it that the only copy across all of New Zealand was distributed to the National Party! 
Hon Bill English 
: It was destiny. 
JOHN KEY 
: It was destiny as my deputy leader said. The odds of getting this brochure were the same as the odds of winning Lotto Powerball on Saturday night. Actually it cost about as much as Lotto Powerball paid out on Saturday night. 
The document states that Labour is making a difference. Well Labour is making a difference itself in terms of how it can screw the scrum. Labour is not making a huge difference in this document in terms of literacy and numeracy in New Zealand. You see on page 10 of the document it cannot even spell “exemption” correctly. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent and Labour cannot even spell “exemption” correctly. Labour thinks it is exempt. It does not understand the word “exemption”. Actually it thinks it does understand the word “exemption”. On page 9 what do we have? Labour cannot even get the numbers right. 
So what is Labour making a difference in? That is a very interesting question. The answer is in screwing the scrum in favour of Labour. It has a pretty cunning plan. It has $1.5 or so million in its leader’s budget. It never spends it because all the expenditure takes place in Ministerial Services. It is nothing short of a slush fund for Labour to try to buy its re-election. Labour is making a complete and utter mockery of the process. But should any of us be surprised at that? [ 
Interruption 
] He is a good-looking fella that guy in the poster. I will tell members why we should not be surprised: leopards do not change their spots. This might be a pamphlet I have here but 3 years ago it was a pledge card. One would have thought that the Labour members would learn a lesson after stealing $800000 from the taxpayer but they are back at it again. They have not learnt their lesson. 
This is what is interesting. Last year we came down to this House day after day and listened to Annette King lecture this House saying the elections of New Zealand and electoral finance should be transparent with fairness and disclosure. She said there should be transparency fairness and disclosure. When she tottered back up to her office on the 9th floor of the Beehive Labour members were up there plotting this document. We were downstairs here debating with the Labour Government and Labour members were upstairs there plotting to release this document. 
One would think that New Zealanders would understand what is going on. I think they do. New Zealanders are a fair-minded bunch of people. They expect elections to be run on a fair and transparent basis. But when the Government realises that New Zealanders see it has blatantly changed the law in favour of itself and has gone out and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in a way that is in breach of the law for the sole purpose of its own re-election maybe it will understand why New Zealanders are pretty angry with it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Gee the irony of that man impugning this Government on money issues will not be lost on Kiwis. He is the millionaire that Merrill built the son of the “Hollow Man” taking on the Government about transparency. Why does he not tell that to the millionaire brokers of the Waitemata Trust or the millionaire sponsors of the Exclusive Brethren? We believe in one person one vote; not one dollar one vote. We do not believe that elections should be bankrolled by big business which is why the Electoral Finance Act is in place. 
He is a bit peeved about that because he has millions to spend and he just cannot spend it. But he is not as peeved as “Brutus” English. Brutus has been working the issue for weeks and now John has pinched the lines. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member knows that that is out of order. He must address a member by his or her proper name. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer to personal reflections Standing Order 166. The member will desist. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I withdraw. I thought he liked Shakespeare. In recent weeks the contrast between Labour and National could not have been greater. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot allow the member to trifle with the Chair like that. He was required to withdraw and apologise. That is it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I was not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There should be an apology; the man is a walking apology 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee. I am the sole judge. I called the member and asked him to desist. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: While Labour leads National bleeds. The press gallery knows that this Chamber sets the tone in New Zealand politics. One thing that has been clear to the media and to everybody else in the last few weeks is that this side of the House has been energised and positive— 
Hon Members 
: Where are they? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
:—and that that side looks like it has been hit by a truck. [ 
Interruption 
]  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. Members know that the practice of members engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling and is entirely intolerable in a debating chamber. We will have order. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The reason this Government is happy is that we have lots to be happy about—1 April; just think about it. There are the business tax cuts down to 30c KiwiSaver numbers are up and we have introduced a 15 percent research and development tax credit. We have raised the minimum wage to $12 an hour. Superannuation and the Working for Families rates have been adjusted. We are working for ordinary New Zealanders with good positive policy and people are asking: “Where is John Key? What is wrong with John Key? What is going wrong with that bloke?”. Could it be that the press has finally found a definition of “slippery”? Could it be the fact that he cannot take a position and hold it? Could it be that he has had a rough time on the financial markets lately? Who knows? Even Matthew Hooten who is no apologist for this Government says: “He seems not to be able to even answer fairly simple questions.” John Armstong says: “The party seems to have gone into suspended animation.” but even the twitching of Bill English’s fingers on the dagger cannot hide the fact that he is in trouble. He is looking very very down. 
He knows the honeymoon is over. He has been caught being slippery once too often. He said New Zealand was missing in action in Iraq and then he said National would not have sent troops there—just a slight difference. He said that climate change was a hoax and then later said he is a firm believer in it and always was. We know the typical pattern here. As was once said in a pub by a National Party staffer to one of ours he would be a great candidate if he would just learn to shut up. If he would just learn to stop at the briefing notes and not go past his prepared lines he would be a great candidate but he cannot help himself. He cannot stop himself from trying to please all the people all the time going one step too far and having to correct himself. But here is the integrity issue—he will then say he did not. 
At the end of the day that is why the public will not trust this Opposition and why they will keep trusting this Government which is rolling out positive policy as we did on 1 April as we did with splitting Telecom as we did with the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and as we did by solving a lot of industrial relations issues. This Government is committed to ordinary New Zealanders and to making their lives better on a day-to-day basis. We are not even talking about what we have done; we are talking about what we will do. We are talking about the rash of new candidates coming through and the renewal that is going on in the Labour Party. This party is on a roll. The press gallery knows it. The National Party knows it. That is why John Key is looking as he does. He looks like he is depressed. He looks like he is on what others on his front bench are on. [ 
Interruption 
] On no—now he is awake. Maybe he was just exhausted after the last couple of minutes. But it goes on. He said that antinuclear legislation was bad news for economic growth but now National supports it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 The Hon David Cunliffe is no Shakespeare. Here is his poetry. It is called “I am Harvard” and reads: 
For one short year or two 
I suckled you 
with potent milk 
of truth and learning. 
You know my strength 
you know my weakness. 
They are in you 
for I am Harvard 
And I am yours. 
Too right we know his weakness! 
But it is his predecessor as Minister of Health who worries me and that is Annette King. What we have seen with the booklet  
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
 is Labour’s voracious sense of entitlement to public money. Labour members have a voracious sense of entitlement to public money for Labour’s partisan purposes. As John Key said one would think they would have learnt. Absolutely nothing has happened in the last few months in respect of this booklet that is different from what happened before the last election with the same people and the same material. Mike Smith Heather Whatever-her-name-is in the Prime Minister’s office and Mike Williams cooked up the pledge card using $800000 of public money. They worked out how to spend that money in a way that escaped the election cap and this year they have set out the same people to do the same thing all over again—the same thing. Hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money has been spent on Labour’s partisan material. One would think those people would have learnt but they did not. 
But it is worse than their not learning because in between times they wrote the rules to stop it. Is that not hard to believe? Not only did they not learn from having to pay back $800000 they stole from the public for the Labour Party coffers but in the meantime they lectured everyone else about breaking the rules then they wrote the rules to stop it then they went and did it even though they had just spent 2 years writing the rules to stop it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What’s that called? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I cannot think of a name for it. It is absolutely unbelievable—and some other words we cannot use in this House. Here is the question: did they know they were breaking the rules? The answer is yes. How could they not know? How could they not know when this House went over the electoral finance legislation in detail week after week last year? How could Heather Simpson Mike Smith Michael Cullen and Helen Clark not know? They set out to deliberately steal taxpayers’ money again. That is not just hypocrisy and deceit; they deliberately set out to steal taxpayers’ money again and the horrible beauty of it is that they got caught and they got off. When did that happen before? It happened before the last election. They got caught with the $800000 and they got off. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Groundhog Day. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Groundhog Day. And what else has happened again? The Minister of Justice made an undertaking that this pamphlet would be added to Labour’s election expenses. When did they do that before? Five days before the 2005 election they promised the Electoral Commission—not just a media journalist or a politician but an electoral official—that the $800000 would be added to their electoral expenses because the Electoral Commission had been tracking them for weeks to make them do it. Two days after the election they withdrew that promise and they did not put that sum on the election return. What do we call that coming from a Government that is meant to be upholding the rule of law in this country? 
The person responsible for it all is Helen Clark. She oversaw it last time and she is overseeing it this time. That is a disgrace to this Parliament. It is a disgrace to this country that our Prime Minister is stealing taxpayers’ money. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I think we have had two speeches from National now. Although the last one was louder rather than more logical at least it had a bit of style and a wee bit of substance to it which contrasted with John Key’s speech. I must congratulate John Key though. This was the first time I have seen him stay in the House past 3 o’clock this year. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased that John Key was here for the entire question time today. It is something I have not seen from him for quite a long time. He appears to be able to work until about a quarter to three and then he has to run off and have a break. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know it is a stressful job. I know he is finding it hard— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member knows the Standing Order about referring to a member’s absence. I think he has now referred to it three times and you have not stopped him. It is actually out of order. That means it should not occur and you are allowing it to occur. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Can I say Mr Assistant Speaker that I am sure you heard me refer to the member’s presence. I did say that it was an unusual thing but I was referring to his presence and not to his absence. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I also say that I called for order several times as an indication. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Today I celebrate John Key’s presence in the House for the entire question time. It is something that I welcome. It is a wonderful thing. He normally runs away because he cannot take it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you how long you will allow this member to defy the Standing Orders. You brought his attention to it then I raised a point of order you ruled on it—quite appropriately—and now he has got up and done it again. I do not think you can allow him to consistently defy the Standing Orders and to now defy you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Assistant Speaker as I am sure you are aware there is no such Standing Order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say for the benefit of all members that they should refer to Speaker’s ruling 23/8 which states: “It is a convention that we do not make reference to the fact that a member is away or is not in the member’s seat.” I think that is quite clear. I ask the member to come to order and to continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am pleased that John Key was here for the entire question time today. It is such an unusual event. It is something that I want to celebrate. I commiserate with him for the pressure that he is under and for the fact that the bags under his eyes are looking more like mine and will approach Mike Moore’s as he goes on but it is clear that John Key has not been enjoying his job recently. 
We are wondering what flop will follow the flip that John Key is heading towards now. We are listening really carefully. We heard him go on about asset sales—it took only a day between 5 March and 6 March this year for him to flip-flop on asset sales. It took him a lot longer when he flipped on Iraq. On climate change it took a year and 5 months for him to change his view from “It is a complete and utter hoax.” to “I have always firmly believed in climate change.” It took him a year and 5 months to make that decision. 
We are wondering what John Key is wrestling with at the moment in trying to make a decision. You know I wonder whether it is that he should seek out Tame Iti and hongi him again. Is that what he is trying to work out? Well he did not have the bottle to say no. He did not have the backbone to say no. He could not stand up to Tame Iti and say: “I will not hongi you because I do not think it is appropriate.” He could not do that. He is not strong enough and if one is not strong enough to do that then one is not strong enough to be a leader of a political party in New Zealand. I look around the Chamber. I look at Rodney Hide; I know that Rodney Hide would not do something as unprincipled as that. I know that Winston Peters would not do something as unprincipled as that. I know that even Jeanette Fitzsimons would not hongi Tame Iti in those circumstances. 
I would say that the National Party is clearly looking at its leadership. It is looking at Bill English and it has heard a relatively strong if not that logical speech from that member compared with a weak comic performance from John Key—the sort of weak comic sort of performance that even Gerry Brownlee can do better. If John Key is to demean himself by doing Gerry Brownlee imitations in the House then that is a very very sad place for him to be. 
This debate of course is mainly about 1 April and the changes that occurred then. The adult minimum wage is up to $12 an hour. Nine increases have been made by this Government and every single one of them was opposed by National members. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How much did they increase the minimum wage? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Tell me; I do not have it in my head. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: By 87c. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: National increased it by 87c in 9 years and for young people it has gone up $7.80 in the entire time that Labour has been in Government. 
New Zealand First members were helpful in that matter and I thank those members. They helped focus the issue and kept us going and I know that they want to do that again and keep it going in the future. We know that the only way they could do that would be through having a similar arrangement with Labour as they have now. 
John Key wants wages to drop. He told a northern newspaper that he wanted wages to drop. He then said that he did not mean it that he did not say it that he had not finished his sentence yet and that it was the sort of thing one says in a cafe. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposed to New Zealand’s preferential trade agreement with China signed in Beijing this week. It makes little sense to reduce our tariffs to zero for products from the country we are least able to compete with. China is a very low-cost producer. Its factory owners spend very little on health and safety or good environmental practices. Wages are kept low by the absence of genuine trade unions. Our manufacturing sector and some of our service providers will find it difficult to survive such competition. 
The Greens are not against trade with China but we should recognise that we already have a big trade deficit with that country which is a major contributor to our overall trade deficit. If the consequences of the free-trade agreements we have signed with Singapore and Thailand are anything to go by the China free-trade agreement will only increase our trade deficit. Yes exports to those countries increased after the signing but there was more damage in the other direction—the trade gaps widened. 
It is true that New Zealand might sell more agricultural produce in China although it must be said that Fonterra is more interested in joint ventures with China rather than dairy sales for which there are already plenty of markets worldwide. But the gain in agricultural exports is likely to be greatly outweighed by increased imports here from China a further hollowing out of our manufacturing sector—reducing New Zealand’s overall export capacity—and growing capital outflows as Chinese firms take over more and more of the New Zealand economy. China has huge currency reserves that it can pour into taking over New Zealand firms and under this agreement any future New Zealand Government will have fewer lines of defence than we have now. 
Rather than the Government trying to decide for itself about a takeover as it is currently trying to do in relation to the bid by the Canada Pension Plan for Auckland International Airport New Zealand under this agreement will have to place its faith in the hands of some international arbitrators who usually come down on the side of the foreign investor. As we have seen with some other international arbitration under World Trade Organization rules environmental protections are often overridden as being protectionist. 
Human rights hardly get a look in in this agreement. It is bad enough that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade were in Beijing signing the agreement against the backdrop of Tibetan monks being shot in the streets which has seriously tarnished New Zealand’s image as a human rights advocate. 
The free-trade agreement’s memorandum of understanding on labour and environmental issues is little more than a joke. Those memoranda have no teeth. Occasionally officials from the two countries will have a chat about the issues. The labour issues memorandum is worse than that attached to the New Zealand - Thai free-trade agreement on which it is modelled. For example point 1.2 in the Thai memorandum which states that labour laws should be in harmony with internationally recognised labour rights has been replaced by a clause reinforcing China’s—and New Zealand’s—sovereign rights to set its own labour laws. The labour situation in China is pretty atrocious. It is not just that workers do not have the right to form genuine unions; there is also forced prison labour and child labour and a lack of political rights in the whole society which makes it very difficult for Chinese workers. 
The Greens are worried that the free-trade agreement quota for 1000 Chinese skilled workers to come here every year will undermine our wages and working conditions. There is a provision that in certain circumstances Chinese workers can come in with a lower qualification than do those of other nationalities currently getting work visas in that area. For example we do not want less qualified lower paid Chinese nurses coming here for up to 3 years. We do rightly have special Pacific access quotas for immigration from Polynesian nations but beyond that those coming in on work visas to help in areas of skill shortage should be non-racially selected. What is allowed in the China free-trade agreement is a bad precedent that has been rightly condemned in a press release by the Maritime Union. 
It certainly does not help Chinese workers struggling for more rights to see our Government from a liberal democracy cosying up to their rulers and being the first Western Government to give the Chinese Government a comprehensive preferential agreement. Our efforts should surely be to put the spotlight on human rights in China particularly Tibet in the lead-up to the Olympic Games. I think we have failed New Zealanders in signing this agreement. Thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 It is particularly galling to hear this afternoon successive Labour speakers talk about principle. They suggest that Labour is a principled Government somehow better than everybody else on the political horizon and better than everybody else in this House. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Labour Party is the biggest burglar of taxpayer funds—which have been applied for its own electoral benefit—that this country has ever seen. The burglary is far worse than any of the old pork-barrel politics of the old first-past-the-post days. The spectacular burglary of taxpayer funds by the Labour Party in 2005—and it admitted today in 2002 and 1999—and now again in 2008 should have every New Zealander utterly disgusted and completely cynical about anything this Government claims. 
I have in front of me a quote from the great poet Sir Walter Scott: O what a tangled web we weave when first we set out to deceive! That is exactly what Labour has done with the Electoral Finance Act. It is a two-faced approach to a law such as has never been seen by this country before. As my colleague Bill English so well put it Labour has spent 2 years telling the nation it would get rid of corruption from the political process and all of that time it was planning how it could rort its own laws. Now Labour is caught in the most tangled web of a mess that anybody could possibly imagine. Not only is Labour’s own material found to be breaching the current electoral law on a number of counts but it has also got its coalition colleague New Zealand First in a very very deep mess. 
The Rt Hon Winston Peters can say what he likes in the House today; the reality is that the Fonterra issue will not be resolved before the election the Auckland airport issue is unlikely to be resolved before the election and if he keeps holding out on the free-trade agreement that also may not be resolved before the next election. So every single defence—thin as it is—he mounts against the proposal that he has broken the law is wrong. He will be caught because he stuck his hand up and said: “I think Helen Clark is really smart. I think she has worked out a cunning way to rort the people of New Zealand and I am going along with it.” I hope that when the Electoral Commission considers this matter in the days ahead it brings down a judgment that will see New Zealand First paying the price for getting tied up with such a deceptive character as Helen Clark. 
We heard today the Government members after they had got over their little groans at the start of their speeches trying desperately to talk about some of the things they say were good for New Zealand from 1 April this year. I heard Trevor Mallard say how wonderful it was that the minimum wage in this country has now gone to $12 an hour. Yesterday the Minister of Finance stood in the House and told us that under Labour’s watch we have had the longest period of economic growth ever in New Zealand’s history. The members over there nod their heads. If the New Zealand economy has grown so big why have the pay packets of hard-working New Zealanders not grown? Why have the pay packets of hard-working New Zealanders not grown along with the rest of the economy? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They have! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that member should go through the supermarket with an average family on an average wage and see what it costs just to buy food. That member should go out with an average family to the service station and see what it costs to fill the car to take the kids to school to take the kids to their sport on a Saturday afternoon and to get to work during the week. That member should go to the homes of New Zealanders during the coming cold winter and tell them they are lucky to be paying an extra 48 percent for their electricity under this current Government. This is what economic growth under Labour is all about. Economic growth under Labour is about economic impoverishment of average workers and that is why Labour will lose the next election. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I have found it fascinating this afternoon listening to the priorities for the Government and for the Opposition. Never could two parties be more poles apart than Labour and National. For the Government the priority is the signing of a historic free-trade agreement with China amongst a wide range of initiatives that have taken effect in the last week. 
I find it a bit rich that Gerry Brownlee could mention electricity without mentioning Max Bradford and the wonderful contribution he made to this country. The priority for National members today has been to vent in their aggrieved state that their mates are not able to spend $1.2 million surreptitiously to discredit other parties in an election year and to hide their true identities behind fake addresses which is what happened during the last election campaign. 
National told the public last year that free speech would be denied by the Electoral Finance Act but that has been proved to be absolutely completely and utterly untrue. It is paid speech electoral advertising that is now subject to the spending limits that have been put in place by this Parliament. The spending limits were completely ignored by the previous Government. Now we have financial limits of $120000 in place for third parties and a ban on anonymity—a ban on hiding behind fake addresses as happened last time. 
The National Party could be accused of treating the public with contempt. The bottom line is that National wants to buy its way into Government essentially by spending beyond the limits that are set by Parliament. National tried to do so last time and it wants to do so this time which is why it is so upset that it cannot. Money cannot buy votes. I think we will have to rewrite the lyrics of “Can’t Buy me Love” from “money can’t buy me love” to “money can’t buy me votes”. 
We know that certain National MPs are in the caucus today because they were guaranteed Cabinet posts after the last election. I can name the names. They were told that National was going to win the last election; it was stage-managed down to the last non-attributable dollar. That is what those members were promised. But the National Party made promises it could not keep. It made promises to its secret funders. It intends to deliver on those promises this time. 
I have a message for the hollow men on the other side of the House: it is a slippery slope a slippery slope indeed when one plays fast and loose with the New Zealand voting public. That is essentially what National is doing. Members on that side of the House can play “Mr Angry” all they like; they are not focusing on the real issues that concern New Zealanders today. The real issues are that this Labour-led Government is working apace delivering on commitments we made. We said what we were going to do before the election and we delivered on what we promised. And we are developing new policies to build on what we have delivered because we believe in New Zealand and we believe in taking New Zealand forward. 
But what about National? Has National got a policy on anything? Actually National’s strongest supporters are running around saying that National has not got a policy. One of National’s strongest mouthpieces said that National is showing precious little evidence of having any agenda hidden or otherwise. I actually believe that National has a hidden agenda. It has a lot of promises it must deliver on. There are more promises than the one to the insurance industry on privatising accident compensation. National has made a lot of promises to a lot of people and asset sales and privatisation of accident compensation are only a small part of them. 
I think National is just pretending it does not have any policy at the moment. It is just downplaying its intentions ahead of an election so that it can say “Surprise!” like it did last time with the Employment Contracts Act which nobody had anticipated. Would anyone have thought that the promise of the freedom to negotiate directly with one’s employer and the promise not to remove penal rates would not be kept? Does National think that people would have expected that from an Employment Contracts Bill? No that bill was written well before the 1990 election. The people of New Zealand were misled by a National Party that would say anything and do anything to take the Government benches. 
The Employment Contracts Act was one of the main reasons for the large differential in wage rates between Australia and New Zealand. National was responsible for that situation but Gerry Brownlee stood up in this Chamber earlier and argued the opposite. My goodness! 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is a bit rich to be lectured about honesty from the member Lianne Dalziel who has just sat down. She is the member who had to resign as a Cabinet Minister because she could not tell the truth to the media. She is the member who went around and bullied a poor little 16-year-old girl. She then stands up in the House and tries to lecture the National Party. 
All that the Labour members have done today is to hurl personal insults at every single member of the National Party who stood up to speak. I represent a South Auckland electorate and I represent the real Kiwis of this country. I can tell members that real Kiwis do not care about all the nonsense they are hearing from the Labour Party. These are the people who have mortgages for Africa—mortgages everywhere. They are the people in many cases who have seen the equity in their homes just disappear under this Government. What do we hear about that? Labour members do not want to talk about that. Real Kiwis are the people who go out to the supermarket with their couple of hundred dollars and find suddenly they have to start putting things back on the shelves because there is not enough money to pay for the groceries. What has happened under this Government? What has happened is that grocery prices have gone right through the roof. What has happened to petrol prices? Well they have just gone up and up. 
Labour members do not have an answer. The only thing they can do is try to screw the scrum as they have done with the Electoral Finance Act. That is all that legislation is about. Labour members have talked today about buying elections. Actually one of the most appalling instances of buying an election was Labour’s pledge card. Labour took $800000 of taxpayers’ money illegally to pay for the pledge card. What happened and who paid it back? Did Mr Owen Glenn pay it back for Labour or did somebody else? Labour members opposite have gone all quiet. They have gone quiet because what I say is true. 
Another thing that people in South Auckland care about is truth. They want an end to the cynicism shown by this Government. One of the things this Government did 2 weeks before the last election was to send out letters to State house tenants. Labour had got names and addresses from the Housing New Zealand Corporation—absolutely illegally— 
Hon Members 
: Not true; that’s a lie. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh yes it did. Labour sent out letters— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I would like to refer the members on my right to Speakers’ ruling 57/3 and to remind members that interjections are out of order unless they are rare reasonable relevant and restrained and that a running commentary is out of order. Members can take a call if they wish to keep interjecting all the time. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Labour members do not like the truth and just want to shout it down. As I was saying Labour sent out letters to State tenants and as I recall those letters were signed by David Benson-Pope. Well we know what happened to him. The letters said that tenants should be very worried about a National Government because tenants would be kicked out of their houses. That is what that party used taxpayers’ money to do. What an utter lie. That is what it was. It was nothing short of a complete untruth. 
Labour tried to scare people into voting against National and that is the sort of dirty-tricks campaign that Labour will use again. Those members will stop at nothing. They do not care about ordinary Kiwi people. They care more about politically correct nonsense. They trot themselves around the stage telling people they should be grateful because they get to pay more money for their mortgages and their groceries. All that Labour wants to do is to set up quangos Government departments telling people how they should be so pleased and grateful. 
Labour has lost touch with ordinary Kiwis. Ordinary Kiwis want their kids to go to schools get a decent education and come out with a qualification that means something. Do we ever hear from the Government these days about the great efforts and results of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement? Why do we not hear about that? We do not because there are still problems with it. 
National wants to know that we do not have intergenerational welfare dependency yet this Government has got rid of all the records of welfare-dependent people from 1996 and earlier. Why is that? The Government does not want to answer my questions about how many people have been on benefits for 30 or 40 years. The Government actually does not want to know. 
Labour members are also going around telling people that National would do something terrible to New Zealand superannuation. Well let me just tell the House that National will not do anything stupid. In fact I really dislike the fact that Labour goes around telling lies. It goes around telling people anything that people want to hear because Labour is trying to spread fear. Labour tried to spread fear in Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants and it will do the same to national superannuitants. Labour will try to spread fear in anybody it can find—students or anyone. It will do anything to stay in office. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 One of the headlines in the papers in the last week was “Labour can take heart”. This is reflected in the fact that Labour is doing relatively well in the polls and National is going backwards. National until about a month ago was 18 percent ahead in the polls. The most recent poll has seen a remarkable turn-round: Labour has advanced in the polls by 8 percent while National’s lead has dropped from 18 percent to 10 percent. Labour is on the way up; National is on the way down. 
What is behind this trend? It is a combination of good Government performance and poor Opposition performance. Under the heading of “good Government performance” we have things like 4 weeks’ annual leave which was initially opposed by National but now it says it supports that. We also have KiwiSaver with over 500000 enrolled. That is very important to people who are trying to save for their first homes. They not only get $1000 when they join the scheme; they also get $1000 per annum plus a tax credit plus what they save themselves. So a couple after 10 years will have a $10000 contribution from the Government plus their own savings plus their tax credit and they will be on the way to acquiring their first home. 
What did John Key say about KiwiSaver just a couple of years ago? He said it was “fundamentally flawed” and a “glorified Christmas club”. Of course we do not hear those sorts of statements from National now about such a popular policy. KiwiSaver will be important for New Zealand’s savings record for years to come. We have restored the baseline for superannuation; the previous National Government cut it. With the support of New Zealand First we have increased superannuation again. That makes a weekly difference to every superannuitant in New Zealand. 
National spins the myth that there have been no tax cuts under this Government. This Government has lifted so many families—and the children of those families—out of poverty. When we came into Government a shameful 30 percent of all children were living in families with an income so low that according to the standard international measure of poverty they were living in poverty. We have reduced that figure by 70 percent through the Working for Families tax policy which has conferred real income increases on those families. 
But we do not want just those families to go well; we want the economy to go well so we have cut corporate taxes as well. We have cut corporate taxes from 1 April 2008 from 33 percent to 30 percent. That move was opposed by National. The last Government to cut taxes was actually a Labour Government which cut them from 45 percent to 33 percent. National pretends that it knows how to run an economy. National knows how to run an economy into the ground but not how to grow it. 
As a consequence of the popularity of these policies we had a period earlier this year when National members were running “Labour-lite”. They were pretending that we could have a change of Government without a change of settings. They were pretending that nothing would change except the name of the Government and that it was time for a change. But of course the people started to wake up to that—it is obviously rubbish. National was also annoying its own supporters who were starting to describe it as “Labour-lite”. National members did not like it so they chose to differentiate but again they misjudged so they are being criticised and are suffering in the polls. What did they differentiate on? Investment in research and development in agriculture! That is a heartland area for National one would have thought but having called for more research and development in this fundamentally important part of our economy it opposed this. National was criticised roundly up and down the country by people who were absolutely amazed that it had made such an incomprehensible decision. 
That poor judgment has been reflected in other poor judgments. One of the key issues in this election will be whether there should be borrowing for tax cuts. Labour says no; National says yes. National says that it should increase debt from 20 percent of GDP to 25 percent of GDP. The interest bill of the country would go up by $700 million per annum. That would be a $700 million per annum increase in the interest bill. Which was the last Government that got New Zealand into dire financial straits? It was a National Government. It increased debt to 60 percent of GDP—$1 out of every $4 of tax was being spent on interest. We have got that figure down to 20 percent of GDP. That is a prudent level of debt particularly in these days when we have financial markets in turmoil internationally. National would put that at risk. It would borrow for tax cuts. That is why Labour is going up in the polls while National is dropping. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 “We are making a difference for everyone.” Labour says. That is what this Labour-led Government claims. Actually it is making a difference—but for the wrong reasons. This Labour-led Government tells everyone else to obey the law but that it does not have to. This Labour-led Government passes a law that allows taxpayer money to be used for all but the most blatant election advertising. It passes a law that exempts the same material from the electoral spending caps then it spends hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money on a pamphlet that is blatant election advertising. There is one rule for Labour and another rule for everyone else. In this country at least under a National-led Government no one should be above the law—not even Labour. Yes this Labour Government is making a difference for everyone. 
One would have thought Labour would go out of its way to ensure that in regard to the Electoral Finance Act it operated well above the law. But no the arrogance of this Labour-led Government is absolutely astounding. This Government has been criticised for cynically manipulating the loopholes of a system it set up in the first place and that is exactly what it has been doing. Yes this Labour-led Government is making a difference. It is setting a precedent that says it is OK for it to breach the law not once not twice nor even thrice—it goes on and on and on. It is OK for it to breach the law but not for anybody else to do so. 
Labour has the dubious distinction of being the first Government to breach its own law and then it tries to justify that. The Minister said even today that Labour seeks to obey the law. I say that is absolute rubbish. There was an $800000 pledge card. It was illegal; it broke the law. Labour passed retrospective law to try to fix that up. It rushed through an incompetent law and now it is the first to break it. Labour seeks to obey the law? Yeah right! The Minister in the press today was quoted as denying that the law was unclear. Actually that makes it worse. If she thinks this law is not as clear as mud then not only is she misguided but worse it suggests that the breach of the law—the inaugural breach of the Electoral Finance Act—was blatant. It was not a mistake at all. It was a deliberate flagrant arrogant breach of the law which can be regarded only with some considerable cynicism if not with absolute disbelief. Yes this Labour Government is making a difference all right. It has taken its own disdain for the law its own disregard for the law to levels not often seen before. 
Can we really be expected to believe that only one of Labour’s taxpayer-funded booklets  
We’re Making a Difference for Everyone 
 was handed out—only one; just one? And can members guess what? This unique collectable pamphlet fell coincidentally into the hands of National. No one else in the country has one. There is only one copy and National has it. 
This is an arrogant disdain for the law. It is a law that this Government wrote. This is an arrogant disregard for the law that this Government wrote. It is an absolute disgrace. It was bad enough that the Electoral Finance Bill was rushed through without any thought being given to the proper democratic process. That was bad enough. Now this Government—this Labour-led Government—has the absolute arrogance to think it is above the law. It is the first to breach that law. This is a law not for Labour but for every other New Zealander to comply with. I say again that no one is above the law—not the Labour-led Government; not the Minister—and it is time this Labour-led Government realised that. 
Labour members talk about the Government having a good record. They talk about good governance and they talk about making a difference. But the headlines state: “Criminal justice system in crisis”; “Court delays a national disgrace”. Yes this Labour-led Government is making a difference—“Court delays a national disgrace”. There are delays of up to 4 years; cases are being delayed for 4 years. That is what is happening in our courts today. We have a bill of rights that says people are entitled to be tried without undue delay yet some people have to wait 4 years. Two men in their 20s in Christchurch who were accused of assault were given a stay of proceedings 114 weeks after they were charged—a delay of 114 weeks. The average time for a trial committal date is 283 days and it is 305 days in the High Court. The number of delayed cases is getting worse and worse. That headline is right; the court delays in New Zealand are a national disgrace. 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 On 1 April 2008 we marked the 30th anniversary of the commencement of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. In that 30-year period approximately 360000 abortions have been performed in New Zealand. No words can express how distressing I find that figure. 
For that reason I want to talk today about my member’s bill the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment Bill. Before I do so however I need to make my personal position in relation to this matter clear. It was in 1974—around 4 years before the current abortion law was enacted—that following a time of reflection and extensive reading on the subject I came to the simple and irrefutable conclusion that abortion ends a human life. In my 60s I am Gordon Copeland. I was Gordon Copeland in my 20s when I started school the day I was born and during the time in my mother’s womb. The inescapable fact is that had my life been ended by any means at any time after conception then I would not be standing here today. The same is true for each one of us. 
Having said that however I need to make it clear that my bill does not attempt to ban abortion but rather to update and modernise the existing law in two ways. Firstly it introduces the concept of informed consent. The present abortion legislation pre-dates by many years the Cartwright inquiry and therefore the principle of informed consent as a prerequisite to patients agreeing to a medical procedure. To the best of my knowledge this is now standard practice throughout the whole field of medical practice in New Zealand with abortion being the sole exception. Secondly my bill stipulates that in line with the situation in European countries such as the Netherlands a decision to proceed with an abortion made by a woman with child must be certified as having been made on a completely free-will basis. 
I believe that these two principles will have majority support both in Parliament and in New Zealand. I have reached that conclusion for three reasons. Firstly people who adopt a pro-choice position in relation to abortion would nevertheless I think agree that informed choice is always better than uninformed choice. The same rationale applies to free will. A woman who is forced to make the decision to abort her child under duress—from the child’s father her family or her friends—-is in truth making no choice at all. Yet that was precisely the situation faced by Angela Thompson a pseudonym in her moving story published in the  
Dominion Post  
on 21 January 2006. Angela is just one of the thousands of women who were placed in exactly that position. Thirdly many people from both sides of the debate whether pro-choice or pro-life are now agreed that New Zealand’s abortion rate is too high. Women in New Zealand are 2½ times more likely to get an abortion than in Germany or Holland. Likewise our abortion rate is high. The number of abortions per 1000 live births was calculated to be 312—that is the average for the years 2003 to 2006 inclusive. That compares with the USA rate in 2001 of 246 which I am told has dropped further since. 
New Zealand now has the highest abortion rate in the developed world. The downward trend in the USA is attributed both to a growing awareness that abortion harms women and to a trend to pass bills such as that I am advocating today at the State level. Similar legislation is being talked about in the UK. The Christchurch health and development study which has been following the progress of 1265 New Zealanders born in 1997 has found that women who have had abortions subsequently have significantly more mental health problems. The same conclusion has been reached by the Royal College of Physicians in the UK which recently released a statement on women’s mental health in relation to abortion. It recommends that women who want to have an abortion undergo counselling before that decision is made—exactly as my bill proposes. 
The trend internationally is to place the woman with child at the very centre of the abortion decision process—in other words to treat these women as human beings with the ability to consider carefully all their options including adoption before making what is perhaps the most important decision any human being could ever make: namely whether to abort a child. That is the proposition I bring to this debate today and I believe that the people of New Zealand think it is timely for our Parliament to have a proper debate and a proper bill on this very very important issue 30 years after the original Act was passed. 
I seek leave to introduce the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Informed Consent) Amendment Bill in my name despite Standing Orders 276 and 277 and for the bill to be set down for its first reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is seeking leave to introduce the bill. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. It is my great pleasure to engage in a general debate for the first time. It is an honour for me to be part of a Labour team that has a plan for the future and we have the policies and people to prove it. On 1 April many of our policies came to fruition and it is worth noting that National voted against every one. So what happened on 1 April? The business tax rate was cut to 30c in the dollar; National voted against it. KiwiSaver employer contributions and employer tax credits began—and I note that over 500000 hard-working New Zealanders have joined KiwiSaver—but National members voted against it. They did not vote against it just once—oh no they voted against it 40 times. 
Hon Members 
: Forty? 
LOUISA WALL 
: Yes 40 times and now through their slippery behaviour Mr Key has said that he—and I presume his party given he is the leader—was always in support of KiwiSaver. Yeah right! The 15 percent research and development tax credit began; National voted against it. The minimum wage rose to $12 an hour effectively ending youth rates. This means a great deal to working New Zealanders and I note that when we became Government in 1999 the minimum wage was $7 for adults and $4.20 for under-20s. Today it is $12 and that amount will not end here. But National voted against it. The amount of superannuation has been increased; National voted against it. There is now an automatic consumer price index annual adjustment to Working for Families benefits and student allowances but surprise surprise—National voted against it. 
I note that right-wing commentator Matt Hooton said recently that National seemed to not be able to answer fairly simple questions—not just about the detail of policy but even about the general direction of policy. Does National think that New Zealanders do not care about policy? 
So what is National’s plan for the future under the leadership of John Key? I will let him speak for himself. About student loans Mr Key said in November 2005: “an unaffordable and irresponsible cost to the country!”; and in January 2008 Mr Key said: “We will keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students.” That is great Labour policy. About being nuclear-free Mr Key in October 2003 said: “bad news for economic growth and for our job market”. Mr Key in September 2007 said: “we’re going to stick with the anti-nuclear legislation.” What great Labour policy! Mr Key in February 2006 said that KiwiSaver was “fundamentally flawed” and “a glorified Christmas club”. Mr Key in August 2007 said that KiwiSaver “was probably gonna be successful and not too bad”. Again that is more great Labour policy. 
As John Armstrong recently wrote: “Forget about National sleepwalking to victory. The party seems to have gone into suspended animation.” The country is well served by this Labour-led Government. I am proud to belong to it. Our leadership is sound and it has been fantastic watching our Prime Minister perform on the international stage yet again. Our policy is substantial as I have outlined this afternoon and future-focused which is very important. And by Mr Key’s own words it is clear that he agrees with our policy. So why do we need change? The reality is that we do not and more and more Kiwis are realising that. 
I now want to talk about my electorate. I am standing in the wonderful electorate of Tamaki Makaurau and I am looking forward to working with the people of South Auckland west Auckland north Auckland and east Auckland and ensuring that this Labour-led Government continues to build on the fantastic policies that we have had since we became the Government in 1999. 
I want to highlight the difference between Labour and National yet again in our Maori policy. We will not be getting rid of the Maori seats. That is a huge difference between our Labour-led Government and the Opposition. Kia ora. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for consideration that the committee report the bill by 22 July 2008 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day when there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week when there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). I have been given an assurance that the members of the select committee have been supportive of that approach. 
The Labour-led Government seeks to boost protections for vulnerable workers and breastfeeding mothers by legislating for minimum meal and rest breaks and the protection of employees who wish to breastfeed their babies at work. The bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to require employers to provide facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed or express breast milk either at work or during work time. The bill also amends the Act to provide employees with rest and meal breaks. 
These amendments will create minimum standards for a modern workforce in respect of the protection and promotion of infant feeding and I might say in respect of what many of us had thought had been the case for 100 years as far as the provision of rest and meal breaks is concerned. The amendments also support Government policy concerning the choices of employees particularly when it comes to work-life balance and parenting responsibilities. 
I acknowledge the hard work of Sue Moroney whose member’s bill formed the basis for the rest and meal break provisions that are contained in this bill and also Steve Chadwick whose member’s bill on breastfeeding was the basis for the infant feeding provisions of the bill. 
I think it would surprise many people that no statutory requirement for meal and rest breaks exists but minimum entitlements to rest breaks and meal breaks during a working day are already in the vast majority of collective agreements. However anecdotal evidence has suggested that some sectors—service and manufacturing sectors in particular and sectors where there are vulnerable workers—may be providing less than the breaks specified in this bill. Most New Zealanders would have thought like me that these sorts of minimum entitlements are already part of the law and although many workers do enjoy these protections the Government is making sure that there is absolutely no doubt that these basic entitlements must be provided for. 
Breastfeeding is critical to providing the best start for New Zealand infants and it is important in both infant and maternal health. It also helps employers in their staff recruitment and retention by helping mothers return to paid work at a time of their choosing. Employees’ current access to breastfeeding breaks and facilities in the workplace is however mixed. This bill amends the Employment Relations Act to require that all employers provide appropriate facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed or express breast milk either at work or during work time where it is reasonable and practicable. In deciding what is reasonable and practicable employers will be able to take into account their operational environment and resources and clearly the size of the workplace will be a factor. The breaks are unpaid unless the employee and the employer agree otherwise and they are to be provided in addition to the rest and meal breaks. The rest and meal breaks can be used as breastfeeding breaks however where an employer and employee agree. 
There will be a code of employment practice approved as soon as possible after the enactment of the legislation. This code will provide employers with guidance on how to uphold their obligations for the provision of breastfeeding breaks and facilities and employers may be liable to penalties imposed by the Employment Relations Authority if they do not comply with these requirements. The authority will also have the power to order employers to comply with their obligations. 
The bill also amends the Employment Relations Act to require employers to provide employees with paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks. Employees will be entitled to one 10-minute rest break if they have worked 4 hours or less to one 10-minute rest break and one 30-minute break if they have worked between 4 and 6 hours and to two 10-minute rest breaks and one 30-minute meal break if they have worked between 6 and 8 hours. These requirements will begin over again if an employee works more than 8 hours. 
The rest and meal breaks must be provided in the middle of the work period where reasonable and practicable. However employees and employers may agree to vary the timing of the breaks. Employers and employees will also be able to enhance or to have additional entitlements to rest and meal breaks. These entitlements will not apply to employees who are already provided with them by other legislative or regulatory provisions or by their employment agreements where those other enactments are enhanced or additional to the entitlements in the bill. Again employers may be liable to a penalty under the Employment Relations Act if they do not comply and there will be an ability for the authority to have the power to order compliance on employers. 
This bill reflects the Government’s commitment to the protection of our country’s more vulnerable workers it reflects this Government’s commitment to the children of New Zealand and it recognises that breastfeeding is critical to providing the best start in life for babies. I commend the bill to the House. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 As the Minister in charge of the bill the Hon Trevor Mallard has just outlined this Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill has two main parts to it. Firstly it requires employers to provide facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed and the second part relates to rest breaks and meal breaks. 
In the media releases following the announcement of this bill—which incidentally was on Easter Sunday—we note comments such as: “ ‘This is a very uncontroversial matter—in thousands of workplaces across the country employers and employees make sensible agreements in their mutual interests without having written rules’ … Inflexible rules advantaged unions not employees or workplaces … The Government should do research to see if a problem existed … [We have] not seen any evidence that required a new law.” I was also interested to read the press release from the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which stated: “The old Factories and Commercial Premises Act used to provide for breaks during the working day but that went in 1992 … and there was nothing put in its place. The proposed new law marks another win by union members for every working New Zealander.” I would like to know why if it is such an issue of fundamental fairness and healthy work practices as the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union states it has taken 9 years for such legislation to be introduced into the House. There have been ample opportunities with all the various amendments to the Employment Relations Act under the watch of this Labour and union - led Government yet there has not been one mention of meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities. How much effort have unions really made to get meal breaks and breastfeeding facilities enshrined in law or is this perhaps more opportunistic election-year posturing?  
The Minister has said categorically that new laws are needed and “We wouldn’t be doing it if there wasn’t an issue” and I would have to say that we are very interested in getting some evidence that there is an issue and that new laws are needed. Even the union acknowledges that nearly all unionised workers already have paid breaks and lunch hours written into their agreements. In fact the explanatory note itself acknowledges that little is known about whether break provisions are included in the individual employment agreements that cover a majority of the workforce. One would have thought that some research would be done before the Government introduced this bill to the House to corroborate any need for the bill in the first place. This bill seems to have been drafted in the anticipation that there may be an issue but there may not be an issue. Is there a problem or is this merely a solution looking for a problem? National will be looking forward to seeing some objective research on this matter to ascertain whether there is a problem.  
National will cautiously support this bill going to a select committee for scrutiny. By and large it codifies what is already happening in most workplaces. We need to be satisfied that there is a problem and that new laws are needed. We also need to be very careful that the bill does not impose additional costs on employers and another set of processes and procedures to navigate through that it does not restrict the freedom of employees without giving them appreciable benefits and that it does not have unintended consequences such as putting up a barrier to employing women. The bill uses the phrase “reasonable and practicable”—employers must ensure that “so far as reasonable and practicable in the circumstances” appropriate facilities are provided in the workplace for breastfeeding and appropriate breaks—and we will want to examine what that phrase actually and practically means for both the employer and the employee. I would ask what would be considered to be an appropriate breastfeeding break and what reasonable and practicable facilities are—for example what breastfeeding facilities would be required for a breastfeeding travelling saleswoman? We support efforts to encourage New Zealand women to breastfeed. We appreciate that sensible workplaces should be making all reasonable attempts to attract and retain valuable female employees but we also want to ensure that we are not creating a culture where breastfeeding mothers feel under pressure to return to work too quickly.  
National will be looking at these newly announced provisions very carefully and very cautiously. Employers can work out the issues they address for themselves without having another set of prescriptive and inflexible processes and procedures to navigate through. If there is a problem then we should be looking for a solution but if there is a solution should we be looking for the problem? We need to be prudent as to unintended consequences—as to what burden is being imposed on both employers and employees when perhaps common sense should prevail. We support choice but we must be mindful that legislation attempting to support choice may indeed hinder that choice. National will be expecting the select committee officials and the ministry to show us why this law is needed what the problem is and the extent of the problem that this legislation is attempting to address. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. I wish to thank the Minister of Labour for his unconditional support when approached by me and Sue Moroney to seek his support for the logic of the need for statutory protection for rests and meal breaks in the workplace. This Labour-led Government is committed to ensuring that mothers are given a real choice to return to work when they and their family are ready to do so. That choice must therefore be achievable in practice. We are also committed to seeing that children get the best possible start in life and this bill supports our ongoing efforts in that regard. I like the reserved position of the Opposition and I think the women of the country will notice that with some pleasure really. 
As an Associate Minister of Health and the Minister of Women’s Affairs I believe that 
this bill marks an incredibly important step in the ongoing effort to protect and promote infant feeding choices for New Zealand families. This is not a cynical election-year bribe; this work goes back to the year 2000 when the United Nations special agency the International Labour Organization updated its Maternity Protection Convention. Article 10 included the right for working mothers to be given time to breastfeed their children—a United Nations convention. We took note of that and began our work. 
Our work was also strengthened by the courage of Elizabeth Weatherly who between 2002 and 2003 before the Opposition spokesperson’s time in the House presented a petition to Parliament with 9000 signatures from women calling for greater protection of breastfeeding women and their children. It was seen as a fundamental human rights issue for children to be fed when they required nutrition. The petition was considered by the Health Committee which I chaired at that time. In 2005 the committee reported back to Parliament with a raft of recommendations on that petition. Those included support for a Department of Labour code of practice designed to help employers to accommodate breastfeeding in the workplace. 
So we began that work not this year as the Opposition has said but in 2005. We began to develop the code of practice and we hoped to see employers take it up as a natural work provision to provide family-friendly work environments. Then in 2007 I developed a member’s bill that required a code of practice to be developed under the Employment Relations Act of 2000 to provide guidelines on what was needed to facilitate breastfeeding in the workplace. We did not define in the guidelines how that should be done; we left that up to workplaces. That bill languished in the ballot as is the fate of many fine members’ bills. 
Today this bill builds on that work. It requires all employers to provide appropriate facilities and breaks for workers who wish to breastfeed or express milk and for it to be stored safely in the workplace—probably not in the staff lunch fridge with all the rest of the clobber that sits in those fridges but in a little fridge so it is kept nice and clean which is reasonably practical. We are taking an entirely practical approach. 
As a midwife and a mother I have been a long-time advocate of the importance of breastfeeding for mothers and their children; as the saying goes “Breast is best”. We know that breastfeeding is really important for babies’ growth development and health. It provides optimum nutrition and assists physical development and emotional attachment. We are worried about family violence so we have to do everything we can as members of this House to make sure we support mothers to be able to feed their babies for as long as possible. Breastfeeding also protects against infectious disease and it can reduce the risk of chronic diseases such as obesity—a very practical not nanny State approach to addressing obesity. Breastfeeding is also incredibly important for mothers’ health. 
This bill builds on a range of initiatives that we have led as a Government that support breastfeeding: the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action plan which supports breastfeeding for at least 6 months and puts those supports beside women and their families in order to achieve that; and the baby-friendly hospital initiative which aims to increase awareness and understanding of the benefits of breastfeeding amongst health workers in hospitals. Forty primary hospitals 18 secondary hospitals and four tertiary units in the country have now achieved baby-friendly accreditation. We have introduced paid parental leave which reduces the pressure on women to have to return to work immediately after giving birth; and we have introduced a plan of action for breastfeeding that aims to improve breastfeeding rates at a really well-coordinated local community and national level with a well-trained and an effective workforce. 
A mother’s ability to continue to breastfeed her child will add to her ability to remain at work and contribute to productivity if that is her choice. Some critics will say this bill is unnecessary but it does protect vulnerable workers and indirectly their children. This bill will make a huge difference for many women. The Human Rights Commission has previously investigated many claims of discrimination against breastfeeding mothers under the Human Rights Act as we learnt from considering the petition of Elizabeth Weatherly. In one instance the commission heard of a working mother—a registered nurse in a public hospital—who had great difficulty in being able to express her milk while on the job. She ended up feeling exhausted after her long shifts because other than having to stop and express milk three to four times daily she could not take any time for any other breaks. She had to express milk while sitting on a toilet seat lid because there was no other suitable place provided for her in that hospital. 
This House of Parliament actually was no different from that hospital. When we investigated the situation here we found many parliamentary staff had to go into a toilet cubicle to express milk and had to just save it in a staff refrigerator. That was appalling and the Labour women of our caucus set up a breastfeeding space where women could attend to their needs while they were at work if they wanted to continue breastfeeding their babies. 
The passage of this bill means that such indignities will become a thing of the past. I commend it to the House. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 It is great to be here and have the opportunity to talk about the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. I take the opportunity to particularly speak about women their maternity issues breastfeeding and what that certainly means for them. 
Breastfeeding and that time after having a baby is without a doubt often a traumatic time for women. It can also be the best time of their lives and they certainly deserve every bit of support that we can give them. So many issues impact on one’s ability to breastfeed that I suppose I take some caution when I hear people extolling the virtues of breastfeeding which we certainly do not disagree with because I have sympathy for those women who for whatever reason cannot breastfeed. I know that as well as suffering from everything else that happens after having a new baby feeling that guilt of actually not being able to breastfeed can have an effect on women. I just wanted to comment slightly on that; I know it is a little off the subject but it is important for those women. 
If one asked women who have had their babies and are looking for some sort of assistance what they actually want they would say that post-maternity care is what is absolutely important to them. They would talk about the opportunity to stay more than just one night in hospital to have that ongoing care. They would talk about having more regular visits from their initial primary carers—usually their midwives—who in every case that I know of do the best job they possibly can but are often stretched to such an extent that they cannot visit mothers and new babies in homes to help them with breastfeeding as much as they would like. Those women would talk about their visits from Plunket how often they happen and the effects that has on them raising their babies particularly in the first 3 months. In those early times those women certainly do not raise work issues although we can understand that once they return to work and wish to continue breastfeeding there needs to be some acknowledgment for that. 
If this Labour Government was truly serious about helping those very women who find themselves with new babies it would be addressing some of those issues that are so important. Through mothers repeatedly coming to us in our offices and through speaking daily with people we know what is most important. 
At this stage I take my hat off to the malls. I do not know whether many people in this House have had new babies in the last couple of years but—being a woman who likes to shop myself—I can tell members that the malls have stepped up and are providing some pretty impressive facilities for mothers with newborn babies. Not only workplaces but other areas that women often frequent are catching up. At least they have come up with private spaces—and I heard the member talking previously about women sitting on toilet seats and trying to express milk or breastfeed their babies. I think that society is catching up. That is where I would like to press it and say that since society and workplaces are catching up do we need to legislate? Should we not be saying educate do not legislate? 
It seems that if it moves this Government needs to legislate for it. I reckon that Heather Simpson was sitting in her office with Helen Clark and said: “Oh my goodness! The polls are bad we’re not making it and we’re losing the women’s vote to National. What we’d better do is look back at some of the legislation that we looked at 8 years ago which we dismissed because we thought it would be a waste of Parliament’s time. We had better start thinking of something that we can announce in an election year because we’re looking tired and like we have no new ideas. We had better come up with something.” So Labour members ruffled around in those dusty old boxes—because goodness knows it has been nearly 9 long long years—and in there somewhere they found a piece of paper on which someone had written that he or she had met a couple of people who did not get their tea breaks and those members thought that maybe they could do something about breastfeeding women as well because that’s always good and cuddly and no one can disagree with it. 
Then they wondered how they would get this legislation out there. Goodness knows it is not that important but it will cost a lot of money to put through a select committee with officials reports and all that sort of stuff. Labour decided to do it on Easter Sunday when everyone is desperate for some sort of news and its members announced it like it was the biggest announcement of the year. Labour thought it needed to bring in babies women and the most vulnerable workers and it thought that this is perfect legislation for that. Those members thought: “If those nasty Nats start speaking against this we’ve got them! We’ll be able to stand up and say that they don’t care about women and babies and that they don’t support this legislation. We’ve got the nasty Nats by the shorts.” I tell members that that is ridiculous. We should educate not legislate. Labour is clutching in desperation to find some legislation to bring out this year. Goodness knows select committees have not got enough work. The Education and Science Committee did not even sit today because there is not enough legislation going through. 
Yet again we say that of course we support infant feeding. It is without a doubt that we support women breastfeeding. My colleagues spoke earlier of our societal concerns and about a culture of women going back to work and at times feeling that pressure to go back too early. We talk to women these days who are embarrassed of being stay-at-home mums. They should raise their heads proudly because there is no job that could be more worthwhile for anyone. In support of women I say “Good on you.” To Labour I say “Desperate times desperate decisions and I suppose you had to give it a go.” 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I was interested in that speech made by Paula Bennett. I thought she started off quite well but then she said we should educate not legislate. If that is the official stance of the National Party then I ask those members why they are supporting the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. Why do they not stand by their own convictions and say “Let’s educate and not legislate. We will support the bill because what it states makes sense to us.”? 
Maybe the member should read the bill. Under the subheading “Infant feeding” of the explanatory note it states “This Bill amends the Employment Relations Act to require employers to provide appropriate facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed (including expressing breast milk) as far as is reasonable and practicable.” What is wrong with that? It is quite fair-minded. 
The bill tells us why it is necessary to give this consideration. Later in the bill under the subheading “Infant feeding” it states “Breastfeeding is key to providing the best start for New Zealand infants and important for both infant and maternal health. This was most recently reiterated in the Government Response to the Inquiry into Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes.” It goes on to state “Breastfeeding is a key indicator for Health Target 8 of the Health Targets 2007/08 to improve nutrition increase physical activity and reduce obesity. A number of government initiatives are underway to protect promote and support breastfeeding.” 
The bill then lists six areas of concern. I will read the following paragraph because I think it is important: “The main barriers to maintaining breastfeeding for New Zealand women are lack of community support and acceptance of breastfeeding in public and women returning to work.” That is why we are getting this legislation. That is why New Zealand First is supporting it. We do not believe that we can educate and guarantee to solve the problem. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: You don’t believe in education? 
Paula Bennett 
: You don’t believe in educating? 
PETER BROWN 
: I tell those two ladies over there to be strong in their own convictions. If they want to oppose this bill then they should do the decent thing and say that they oppose it and that it is not necessary. They should not give all the waffle and say that they will support it but really they do not believe in it just so they do not look like “nasty Nats” as Paula Bennett referred to. 
The second part of the bill—and I am not going to take too long—deals with meal breaks and what I call and probably what most of us call smoko breaks. We are talking about the same thing are we not? [ 
Interruption 
] Oh are we not allowed to call them smoko breaks? I am politically incorrect again. 
To be honest I did not know that those breaks were not in the law. I always thought that people were entitled to a 10-minute break. I suggest that in many contracts the breaks are longer than 10 minutes. This is sensible legislation. I know that some small employers are concerned about the 10-minute breaks which are paid for. It is true that they have been in contact with at least some of my colleagues. We think that the bill is quite reasonable because there is a lot of flexibility on when breaks can and cannot be taken. The bill states “Employees and employers however may agree to vary the timing of the breaks.” 
This bill is simply the vehicle to providing a law so that people will get 10-minute breaks in a 4-hour work period plus a 30-minute non-paid meal break. That is eminently sensible and fair. New Zealand First will support the bill going to select committee. We would like to hear what New Zealanders have to say about this matter and we will make up our minds on whether we support the bill’s proceeding after that. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I do not think it will come as a surprise to anyone here that the Green Party is delighted to be supporting this latest amendment to the Employment Relations Act. I was present at the Blackball Workingmen’s Club a couple of weeks ago along with some other MPs when the Hon Maryan Street announced these changes. It was very appropriately the occasion of the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the 1908 miners’ strike which was in part about achieving the right to a half-hour rather than 15 minutes crib-time or lunch break. It is quite ironic that 100 years later in what one would usually imagine is the much more enlightened year of 2008 the Government feels obliged to put forward a law that aims to achieve exactly the same thing. 
This bill before us today amends the Employment Relations Act to make sure that all employees who work 4 hours or less get a 10-minute rest break employees who work between 4 and 6 hours get a 10-minute rest break and a half-hour meal break and if they are on the job for between 6 and 8 hours they are entitled to two 10-minute rest breaks and one 30-minute meal break. After 8 hours on the job it appears that the whole process starts again. 
I know that there are some people around this country who will question why on earth this law change is needed. There is a reasonably common perception out there that this is just common sense and that all employers are of course allowing their staff to take at least this minimum level of rest and meal breaks. However sadly this is not the case. Although 93 percent of collective agreements allow for such breaks there is actually nothing in law that makes it mandatory for them to be provided. A large percentage of the New Zealand workforce sadly remains non-unionised particularly in the private sector. Of course a lot of these non-unionised workers are not covered by collective agreements. Although I am sure the majority of employers including those whose workers have only individual contracts do in fact let their staff take at least these minimum break times some do not which is why this law is unfortunately necessary. 
The Green Party believes that when it comes to industrial relations matters it is the role of Government to prioritise above all the needs of those who are most vulnerable. We want to see minimum conditions applied to all workers including those who face the biggest disadvantages on the job—people like migrant part-time casual low-skilled and low-educated workers who are least able to bargain for themselves or perhaps to have ready access to union coverage. We are therefore pleased that this bill will provide these minimum breaks by law and see this as a long-overdue measure whose time has finally come. 
As Andrew Little from the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union pointed out when the bill was first announced at the moment around 350000 workers are covered by collective agreements and about 1.7 million workers are not. It is those among the 1.7 million who are missing out on a fair go in the workplace who will benefit from the protection that this new law will provide—and it is about time too. 
The second major purpose of this bill is the requirement that employers provide appropriate facilities and breaks for staff who wish to breastfeed or express breast milk as far as is reasonable and practicable in the particular circumstances pertaining to that workplace. I am really pleased to hear parties like National and New Zealand First supporting this provision—or at least tentatively supporting in National’s case. Again the Green Party welcomes this proposal as part of its overall commitment to furthering breastfeeding as a key component of best health outcomes both for babies and for their mothers. With so many mothers now part of our regular workforce it is critical that we do everything we can to support their ability to keep breastfeeding once they are back at work after having a baby or babies. I say “babies” because there are a lot of mothers these days who have twins. As a mother of twins myself I can say that trying to breastfeed twins and go back to work is even more difficult than going back to work after having one baby. 
The World Health Organization advocates support for breastfeeding including encouraging Governments to put in place laws that safeguard the rights of working mothers to breastfeed. This is backed by ILO Convention 183 on maternity protection which states that women should have the right not only to take one or more breaks during the working day to feed their infant but also that these breaks should count as time worked. Although the bill allows for paid breastfeeding breaks if employer and employee agree the bill itself does not provide a right to this. I imagine that submissions in favour of the latter will be heard during the select committee process. The Green Party will certainly support any amendment or improvement that can be achieved in this area. 
The other part of the bill that relates to breastfeeding in effect requires employers where they reasonably can to make sure that appropriate facilities are available for breastfeeding mothers. This may sound ridiculously onerous to some but in fact the evaluation of parental leave carried out in 2005-06 found that space for breastfeeding was actually offered by 69 percent of small employers—remarkably—and 41 percent of large employers. Given that there is already such substantial practical implementation and support for this and that our larger employers are in fact those surely most able to afford to supply even a small space for affected employees I cannot see that there should be too much opposition to this provision even from the most traditionally hard-hearted of employer organisations. 
There has been some comment in the media that at a time when the economy is slowing and we begin to face up to the possibility of a recession at some point in the nearish future the Government should not be further regulating the workplace in regard to things like the requirement for minimum breaks and access to breastfeeding facilities where practicable. This is the old argument that in hard times we need greater labour market flexibility and fewer universal protections. Well in fact the Green Party argues the reverse. This time of comparative prosperity in which we are also all I think recognising the possibility of a looming downturn is exactly the time when we should be maximising protections like those before us today. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. I know that the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill is not just about breastfeeding as such but having five children myself I think I am quite a good authority on some of these issues at least at an observer level. 
I have always held the quiet belief that tangata whenua are at the cutting edge of some of the most innovative and enterprising initiatives in our world. I think that this bill provides a pretty good opportunity for us to recognise that. Almost a century ago as a 1909 publication put forward by Dr Maui Pomare reveals Maori were suggesting that the longer a baby could be breastfed the better.  
Nga Kohungahunga Me Nga Kai Ma Ratou 
 was written by Dr Maui Pomare when he was a native health officer and was initially published by Te Aute Society. The booklet recommended that babies ought to be breastfed as it was both beneficial to the child and health-giving to the mother. Maui Pomare explained: “Ko te u o te whaea te mea tika a ko te Atua hoki tena i homai ai hei ngote ma nga pepi.” The mother’s breast which was given by God for babies to suck on is so right. 
So here we are a century later finally requiring facilities and breaks to be provided for employees who wish to breastfeed in the workplace or during work periods as well as requiring employees to be provided with rest breaks and meal breaks. Dr Pomare may well have wondered why it took so long particularly when we consider that around three-quarters of mothers with children under 1 year of age are now in paid employment. I think it is all to do with attitude. I recall the late Irihapeti Ramsden presented research that revealed that while Sir Maui was writing his guidelines there was evidence of social attitudes that actually frowned on breastfeeding in public. That attitude seemingly is still prevalent as reported in the 2006 study 
 Infant Feeding and Work 
 developed by Dr Debbie Payne a director of the Auckland University of Technology Centre for Midwifery and Women’s Health Research. The study—New Zealand’s first qualitative study of breastfeeding mothers at work—identified that many women were put off breastfeeding in the workplace after observing the treatment of other employees trying to feed their babies. Some of the women had to feed in a shower cubicle. Some of the members tonight have referred to some of these particular issues. Other women received feedback from their peers that implied mothers feeding were simply slacking off at work. 
This bill today attempts to directly impact on those concerns. It responds to the problems reported in the study that women who breastfeed in the workplace are often discouraged by a lack of facilities and the attitude of their employers and colleagues. One of the issues that wahine Maori have commented on in the past from what I have heard is the acute discomfort they have experienced in being led to spaces to breastfeed that may be linked to a toilet. We all understand breast milk is kai and the question that inevitably arises is whether anyone in the House would be happy to have their lunch in the toilet—hopefully not. As such we hope the bill will ensure that appropriate facilities are to be provided for breastfeeding and expressing breast milk as well as for storage of expressed breast milk. 
Breastfeeding has often been a stumbling point for mothers with babies returning to work; they are faced with the choice of stopping breastfeeding or not being in paid work. We hope that through the leadership demonstrated by this bill that difficulty can be somewhat alleviated. The issue of breastfeeding and paid work also raises the question of whether we should consider extending paid parental leave to a period of 12 months. Although this bill seeks to provide for some very significant rights and health benefits the reality is that many women will just not be able to arrange for their babies to be brought into the workplace or for milk to be collected at times when the baby really needs it. The ability of women to have a real choice about whether to stay at home with their babies while breastfeeding is hugely dependent on the kind of financial support that paid parental leave can offer. The current choice along with the negative attitudes to breastfeeding in public are significant barriers and as such act directly against the Government’s intention to protect promote and support breastfeeding as a key health target. 
We in the Maori Party have also thought that the strategy to promote and protect breastfeeding through the creation of minimum standards should at the very least consider some ways of communicating the message that employers and workplaces are being required to become more family-friendly and that the wellness of children and mothers is an employment priority. A recent study of Maori women’s decision-making around breastfeeding by Marewa Glover Harangai Manaena-Biddle and John Waldon revealed that whanau are central and that whanau should be mobilised to support healthy choices. The women’s partners mothers sisters and aunties were cited most often as having a role in the decision to breastfeed and in supporting breastfeeding. For workers then we see the developments in this bill as a real gain for whanau well-being. 
The other key amendments in this bill require employers to provide employees with paid rest breaks and unpaid meal breaks. As a result of this legislation rest and meal breaks are required to be provided at 2-hourly intervals where reasonable and practical. As the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has pointed out I believe these changes are long overdue. People have taken it for granted that rest and meal breaks are already provided for in law. We have taken it for granted because before the Employment Contracts Act 1991 breaks had been provided for. Yet some 17 years later we are now informed that the question of breaks is a frequently raised issue in the collective bargaining in newly unionised workplaces even though more rightly they should be guaranteed by law. Rest and meal breaks are not included in the minimum codes in the present legislation which provide for minimum wages paid parental leave holidays and health and safety. Yet one would surely assume that having breaks is critical for health and safety and well-being. 
Although it seems bizarre for these times and conditions it is apparent that there is no explicit legal requirement for employees to have rest and meal breaks. Although almost 93 percent of active collective agreements provide for them there are some sectors where the provision of breaks is inadequate and it is hoped that this bill will do much to bring in the changes necessary to enhance the overall workplace environment. The Service and Food Workers Union for example reported that the largest number of calls and queries they field are from employees asking about their rest and meal break entitlements. Most of these employees are in small workplaces across the hospitality sector which are not covered by collective agreements. These rights are human rights. They are health and safety rights. They are basic employment provisions and the Maori Party is happy to support them as is consistent with our position that workplace environments be worker-friendly. 
We believe also that this bill is entirely consistent with Maori Party policies on health and with the well-being of tamariki and whanau. We are therefore very pleased to be able to support this bill and we look forward to the subsequent stages of the bill and to hearing the voices and views of all the parties involved. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am delighted that the Green member Sue Bradford mentioned the Blackball Workingmen’s Club because on Easter Sunday I was there with Mr Auchinvole for the seminar that was held as part of the weekend commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Blackball strike. What happened was that Mr Auchinvole asked me whether I would like to attend and being open-minded liberal in spirit and a student of history I accepted with alacrity. It helps that Blackball is one of my favourite towns and the coast is my favourite part of New Zealand. 
I am sure Ms Bradford would confirm that it was a most enjoyable day. Indeed Mr Auchinvole and I were made very welcome by the good people of Blackball by the trade unionists and by most of the other attendees including I am pleased to say Sue Bradford who is always pleasant and the Hon Lianne Dalziel. However a couple of Labour MPs were typically rude and unfriendly! 
Just before lunch we were told that the Hon Maryan Street would make an announcement. I have to say she was very pleasant too. She acknowledged her colleagues and Sue Bradford by their parties. She mentioned Mr Auchinvole and me but she could not bring herself to say the dreaded word “National”. Anyway she made an announcement about breaks and breastfeeding and she announced the introduction of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. As Ms Wilkinson said we will support the bill’s referral to the select committee so the committee can have a good look at it. It is interesting that this legislation was announced at Blackball where Chris Trotter said the Labour Party did not belong because it was formed about 13 years after the Blackball incident. 
I became very interested in the issue of meal breaks given the lecture that had been given before lunch by an excellent Dunedin historian and by Chief Judge Graeme Colgan of the Employment Court. I think it is worth recounting what happened and what gave rise to the Blackball strike which of course has culminated in this legislation today. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What did happen? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Well there was a fellow called Pat Hickey. As the name suggests he was a good Irishman. He was born I think on the outskirts of Nelson in the Waimea Plains and he went overseas and joined the Wobblies. I am sure that the member for Christchurch Central would not know what a Wobbly was but those of us who are interested in industrial history do know these things—it was an American union. Pat came back to New Zealand and he had been radicalised. 
After spending some time in Denniston he decided—I think everyone in Denniston decided as well—that it would be in the interests of all concerned if he went off to Blackball. That is what he did and he was employed in one of the mines in Blackball. It seems that the manager of one of the mines was a Mr Leach and I have to say that he did not sound to me to be a particularly pleasant man. One day he stood over Mr Hickey and demanded that Mr Hickey get back to work. Pat said he wanted to finish his pie and the said Mr Leach stood over him—it could have been with a stopwatch or a watch—and ordered him back to work saying that his 15-minute crib-time was over. That gave rise to the strike because Pat thought he was entitled to proper crib-time. So it was a very antagonistic setting. I think I said to Mr Auchinvole on that day that if I had been Pat Hickey and had been spoken to like that by Mr Leach Mr Leach would have received my pie in a certain part of his face. 
It seems however that an important fact had been overlooked. The unions had had 30 minutes’ crib-time made available to them as a result of negotiations with the company but had voluntarily given up that crib-time and reduced it to 15 minutes because they wanted to get out of the mines 15 minutes earlier—and who can blame them? So it seems that notwithstanding my immediate sympathy for Pat Hickey the unionists got the wrong end of the stick. The strike occurred because poor old Pat Hickey got his facts wrong and it seems to me that that often happens with trade unionists. So those were the facts— 
Sue Moroney 
: No no. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —and if the member had been there—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh was the member there? Then she should have been listening. Judge Colgan was asked what he would have done if he had been the judge dealing with those matters on the basis of the facts as were shown to be the case and he said he would have applied the law accordingly. 
So they are important facts and it is worth saying that this matter which so excited the Labour MPs and Mr Auchinvole and me that we went to Blackball on Easter Sunday concerns a strike that proceeded on the basis of an error of fact. It is important to recount this interesting history for the benefit of the House. I certainly found it interesting. 
I was interested in the Minister’s announcement and I hope the select committee has a good look at the legislation because it raises some important issues. I am particularly interested in the purpose clause which talks about time being provided to employees for rest breaks and meal breaks. It seems to me that it is very much a classic case of Labour saying one thing and doing another. Last Thursday in Auckland for example members of the Justice and Electoral Committee were suffering under the chairmanship of Lynne Pillay who perhaps is Labour’s answer to Mr Leach. We went for 8 hours without a break notwithstanding my numerous requests for crib-time. Pat Hickey got 15 minutes of crib-time but how much time did we get? We got nothing. Lynne Pillay is a tough customer. I just hope that the Justice and Electoral Committee will take a good look at crib-time for members of Parliament when Lynne Pillay is chair of that select committee. Jokes aside this legislation raises important issues. I was delighted to be at Blackball to hear the announcement and I will be delighted to see the progress of the bill in the coming weeks. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my very great pleasure to rise and speak to the first reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill which seeks to amend the Employment Relations Act. It sure beats depending on the ballot for a member’s bill to be drawn. I say that because one part of this legislation was the subject of a member’s bill that I put into the ballot towards the end of last year. 
I am very pleased to have gained the support of my colleagues and I thank my colleagues and the Minister of Labour in particular for taking up the issue in a Government bill which has come into the House today for its first reading. I also congratulate Steve Chadwick on the infant feeding part of this bill because that was the subject of a member’s bill that she lodged and we all know that this particular issue is dear to her heart. I also thank my colleague Charles Chauvel who when this was a lowly ranked member’s bill actually helped me with its drafting to ensure that it did come within the legal context—so my thank you to Charles. 
It was appropriate that the announcement was made by the Minister Maryan Street during the Easter weekend centenary commemoration of the 1908 crib-time dispute at Blackball. As some members have alluded to the miners took industrial action to ensure they could get adequate time for rest and sustenance before undertaking their jobs. We all know how dangerous the job of mining is how physically demanding it is and the importance of those miners undertaking collective action to bring the matter to the attention of their employers—which leads us to be addressing this issue in law a century later. Many members have asked how come it is not in the law already. I have a potted history here to inform the members of the House and any listeners as to how that occurred. 
In 1908 and thereabouts the right for meal breaks was put into law for various sectors of the workforce. Of course in those days the legislation was done industry by industry and that remained so for quite a period of time. However in 1981 under a National Government all these various industrial parts of the law were collapsed into one piece of legislation called the Factories and Commercial Premises Act. In 1981 the parts of those various pieces of legislation that were dropped out by that amalgamated Act of Parliament were the legal entitlements to meal breaks and rest periods. In 1981 that did not trouble anyone too much because all working people in New Zealand were covered by national awards which prescribed the meal breaks and the rest periods. So when the Factories and Commercial Premises Act was brought in and it did not include those breaks and rest periods it did not have an impact on anyone because everyone was covered by a national award. 
However in 1991 when the Employment Contracts Act was enacted—again by a National Government—a lot of workers were exposed to no longer having their legal entitlement to meal breaks and rest breaks because that legislation demolished the national award system. That meant that a whole range of workers did not have an automatic legal entitlement to meal breaks and rest periods. So that is the history; that is how we got to the point where we are now addressing this issue and bringing it back into the law so that it is the entitlement of all working people in New Zealand—and so it should be. 
Last year when I submitted my member’s bill on this subject into the member’s ballot I had a launch of the subject at the University of Waikato. I thank the Centre for Labour and Trade Union Studies at the University of Waikato for participating in the launch of the bill at the time. They were very interested in it from the perspective of an issue that they called “donated time”. Many people in that department are concerned about what they call the ongoing creep of time that belongs to employees actually being taken over by employers with no further compensation. However I come to this legislation from a slightly different perspective. I come at it from the perspective that it is a basic human right for people to have regular and proper breaks at work from a health and safety perspective and from the perspective that this is good for work-life balance. It is about how we are able to operate at work how refreshed we are when we get home and how we are able to interact with our families.  
I want to refer just briefly to the health and safety aspects of this bill so that people are very clear about how meal breaks and rest periods at work fit into the health and safety category. In 2007 the Department of Labour did some research into the causative factors associated with summertime workplace fatalities. I was very pleased to work with the then Minister of Labour Ruth Dyson on the terms of reference for the research to be undertaken. It was carried out primarily to look at the blip that we seem to have every year in this country in relation to summertime holiday fatalities in the workplace. 
However the research inadvertently discovered that there are two peak times when work-related fatal incidents are most likely to occur. One is late morning between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. and the other is mid-afternoon between 2.30 p.m. and 3.30 p.m. which is roughly about the time when people ought to be taking breaks. So although some further research needs to be undertaken the researchers suspect that when they delve further into this they may well find that these accidents and fatalities occurred because people had not had proper breaks throughout the day they were fatigued and they may have become dehydrated and not been able to focus on their jobs as well as they may have if they had had proper sustenance and rest breaks. So perhaps that is a major contributing cause to many of these fatalities. 
During the course of this debate some questions were raised as to whether legislation is necessary or whether there is just a need for a little bit of education. One of the reasons I saw fit to prepare a member’s bill on this issue was the examples I had brought to me about workers who were not getting access to meal breaks and rest periods in their workplace. I want to share a few of those examples with the House. 
Probably the example that shocked me the most was one that occurred last year in Hamilton to a young 17-year-old woman in her first job. She was working for a very large retail company in Hamilton. She was new to the workplace and did not know the rules very well but she decided to go and have morning tea at about the same time as her colleagues did. She was rather surprised when she was called into the office disciplined and given an employment warning for daring to take a morning-tea break. When she asked how it was that other people in the workplace were taking their meal breaks and were not getting disciplined for it her employer said to her: “That’s because it’s in their collective employment agreement. It is not in your individual employment agreement.” Sure enough when she looked at the individual employment agreement she had signed it was silent on the issue of rest periods and meal breaks. The moral to this story is that she very quickly joined the union and became party to the collective employment agreement. 
That story from just last year demonstrates that sadly this issue is alive and kicking in our workplaces and it is not just in small workplaces or in places where perhaps under Paula Bennett’s analogy employers might not know about health and safety. Such employers may not have access to health and human resources but this company was a large employer that ought to have known better yet that is what was occurring. I have also had examples from people working in the petrol service station industry who have come to me saying that they cannot get meal breaks. I have had bus drivers coming to me to say that they are trying to negotiate into their collective employment agreements—literally as we speak—decent rest breaks at work and they are getting a solid no from their employers. So this issue is very much alive this year. 
This is an issue that people right across the political spectrum respond to. People think it is unfair that all workers do not have the rights to these breaks. I know that because in the 3 weeks leading up to the announcement I collected a petition in support of getting these breaks put into law and people readily signed that petition. They were quite shocked to discover that that right was not in the law and they readily agreed that it ought to be. 
I conclude by saying I wish the select committee luck in listening to the submissions on this bill. I hope to come to the committee and listen to some of those submissions myself. I feel I am grieving a little bit for not being on that select committee at the moment. I commend the bill to the House. 
I seek leave to table the petition of the people who support the meal breaks and rest periods going into law. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of ACT New Zealand to the first reading of the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill. The bill is about two things. It is about making legislative provision first of all for the promotion and protection of infant feeding through breastfeeding and second of all for rest and meal breaks. ACT will be opposing this bill and I will come to the reasons for that shortly. 
As a mother who breastfed each and every one of her five children I think I have some authority on this subject. [ 
Interruption 
] Actually there are three of us sitting in very close proximity who have five children. 
Peter Brown 
: Is that all? 
HEATHER ROY 
: This is a great thing because it is important that we have proper representation of parents in this House. I am not sure how many children Mr Brown has. I do not think he has five children but maybe he has fifteen—I do not know. 
Large parts of the background information provided in the explanatory note of this bill make a good deal of sense. I am looking as I say that at page 6 where there is a section about infant feeding. It makes a good deal of sense and I agree with all of the statements there. It states: “Breastfeeding is key to providing the best start for New Zealand infants and important for both infant and maternal health.” Certainly there is no argument there. Page 6 also refers to the recent select committee inquiry into obesity and type 2 diabetes and the advantages for both mothers and children of breastfeeding. Certainly as the bill says “Breastfeeding is a key indicator for Health Target 8 of the Health Targets 2007/08 to improve nutrition increase physical activity and reduce obesity.” I wholeheartedly support that. 
ACT is also supporting Sue Bradford’s member’s bill to allow mothers in prison to have their children with them for longer primarily because breastfeeding is very important and the bonds that are established in those first weeks and months of life are very important. We will continue to support Sue’s bill; I commend her for putting it forward. However I do not think that this bill will actually change anything and that is the reason ACT is opposing it. 
As I say there are two parts to the bill: the breastfeeding provisions and the provisions for rest and meal breaks. I think the Government has put this bill forward very quickly. I will come to the quite clear reason why that happened. I suggest—and this is just an indication—that as we are in election year yet again this Labour Government worried about where its votes will come from has had to put forward its sop to the unions and this is it. The suggestion that this bill is necessary to provide all these extra provisions is based on the premise that employers are selfish and extraordinarily evil. It is sad that all the former trade unionists sitting on the other side of the House have had such terrible experiences. Despite undertaking a large number of different roles in the workforce both in the private and public sector what I have experienced is very different from that. Here we have yet another bill to tackle the evil employer because employers and employees of course are totally incapable of getting together and sorting out provisions for themselves. The best solutions occur when employers and employees are left to determine optimal circumstances that suit both parties. Given that most people are reasonable when people go with reasonable requests and expectations to their employers very often better outcomes are reached because they are able to put forward their own case rather than having to rely on cases that are put forward just in general. 
Here we have another bill forcing extra compliance on employers. I suggest that this bill probably not only will achieve nothing but will be counter-productive. The history that we heard from the Labour member Sue Moroney was all very well and interesting but in fact things have moved on. We are in 2008 and things are very different from those days that she was describing. Thank goodness things are very different. They are very different and we cannot be making legislation based on what might or might not have happened a very long time ago. 
The breastfeeding provisions in this bill are particularly interesting. I suggest that these provisions have been written perhaps by a man—who is obviously not able to breastfeed—or a woman who has not breastfed because they allow two lots of 10 minutes. If we are talking about expressing milk those who actually know something about this and have some practical experience will know that 10 minutes is neither here nor there and in that time one is likely to achieve very little in the way of what is meant to be achieved. But that is by the way and given that this bill will go through to select committee I suppose there will be submissions in this regard. We will have all sorts of people coming forward saying that to express milk effectively—and I suggest they would be right—probably something like 30 minutes is a more adequate time. Are we going to extend the provision to 30 minutes? What obligations and red tape will then be forced on employers in that regard? It is much better to leave the negotiating between an employee and an employer for the short period of time that we are talking about here. 
I want to raise a very different issue but one that should be taken very seriously in respect of this bill. I refer to page 5 of the explanatory note around the regulatory impact statement and the adequacy statement. I read from the adequacy statement: “A regulatory impact statement (RIS) was not submitted at the time approval for the policy relating to the Bill was sought from Cabinet due to the time frame allowed for the preparation of that paper. The Regulatory Impact Analysis Unit has therefore not reviewed the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) or RIS for adequacy as required for proposals that meet the economically significant criteria as decisions have already been made.” I come back to the fact that here we have guidelines for legislation that the Hon Lianne Dalziel stands up and defends rigidly in this Parliament—and I agree with her; she should—saying that these are important so that we know that the financial considerations have been taken into account as have all the other considerations that rightly should be. 
This bill has been introduced very quickly because it is election year. It has come before the House without having the adequate background work done. We have no idea what the cost of this bill will be either to employers or to other groups yet we are forcing it through Parliament before the background work can be done. This is just wrong quite honestly and should not be happening. If this is such important legislation a few more weeks should have been taken before it was introduced into the House. The background work should have been done thoroughly so that the select committee when it is looking at this bill is able to make proper decisions with the proper background information. 
Not everybody in this House is in favour of legislation being rushed through. ACT is not. In that very vein we have before the Commerce Committee at the moment the Regulatory Responsibility Bill in the name of Rodney Hide. It talks explicitly— 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Where is he? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Oh did Mr Gosche miss the member’s very important question at question time? Perhaps he was asleep. The Regulatory Responsibility Bill is currently before the Commerce Committee and it looks at all sorts of very important questions. It would take a very dim view of this situation. Most of the members on that committee including the Labour members—although Mr Gosche is not one of them so he probably would not have any knowledge of this—know that it is extraordinarily important that the right questions are asked before legislation comes before Parliament. They could be questions about what this bill will do what it will achieve what might the side effects be and what the unintended consequences are. This House has often rushed legislation through only to see unintended consequences emerge as had been predicted. Before we know it we have an amendment bill back in the House and we are going over the issue yet again. 
Are there any alternatives? What makes this bill the best option? When I look further into the explanatory note at page 9 I see under the heading “Alternative options” a pretty bold statement: “No alternative options were considered.” They were not considered because this Labour Government knows best and trade unionists know best. They think they know what is best for the public and the private sector in all of these things and that nothing else needs to be looked at. In medicine the area I come from there is a thing called “differential diagnosis”. We look at all the options so that we can get to the right diagnosis and then formulate the best treatment. The option of an alternative is being run over roughshod in this bill. I ask whether the regulation follows the principles of responsible regulatory management. That is one of the questions that would have to be asked of all legislation in terms of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill. That is the basis on which our lawmaking should be founded on. When will the regulation next be reviewed? There is no mention of that in this bill. 
ACT will oppose this bill for those reasons. The bill will go to a select committee and we will follow its progress with interest but I suggest that this bill will achieve nothing. It ignores the principles that good lawmaking is founded upon. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is interesting to follow Heather Roy’s speech. I suggest that the ACT party will vote one for one against the bill because the so-called leader of that party has been on a rest break for most of the last year or two and hardly ever attends Parliament. I think he is confused. He thinks we work for 30 minutes and have the rest of the day off. That is not what the bill proposes but I suppose the previous speaker at least appears in the House and in select committee from time to time so she would have to vote against the bill in due conscience. 
The bill is interesting because it follows on from some important moves by this Government last week—the increase in the minimum adult wage to $12 an hour and the change in the youth rates so that we now have a new entrant rate whereby after 200 hours young people will move on to the minimum adult wage of $12. The bill comes also the week after the contribution to KiwiSaver for employees by their employer. It comes about a year after people received the extra week’s leave. 
Also the bill follows other important changes to industrial law like the vulnerable workers legislation that we put through as an amendment to the Employment Relations Act which fortunately is there at a time when some of those people out there—not imaginary people as the ACT party would have it but real employers—are doing terrible things to workers in our hospitals. Spotless Healthcare Services is the company I am talking about on this occasion. It cannot honour a deal to pay workers $14.25 an hour to work in our hospitals to clean cook and do orderlies’ duties. Although that ACT member down the back of the Chamber speaks with some honesty in saying she is against unions and workers having rights that is the sort of thing that is happening out there and it is not imaginary. Those workers were locked out by their employer for 9 days last year. They are due a pay increase that has been funded by the Government but their employer is still to pay up. Their employer is still refusing to give those workers what they are due and the ACT party wonders why we have to have legislation that would give minimum rights to workers to have a break during their working day for a meal and a break in-between to have a cup of tea or a rest. It is just common sense. It is just sensible to have minimum codes within employment to make sure that those bad employers—and sadly there are some of which Spotless would be one of the worst out there—actually know there is a law and if they break it there will be some penalties for breaking it. 
My colleague Sue Moroney talked of such matters and I congratulate her and the Hon Steve Chadwick on the work they put in to make sure that this type of legislation comes into place. There are examples out there every day of the week coming to the attention of MPs and unions which represent a percentage of the workforce but certainly not the majority of it where employers either knowingly or unknowingly refuse to allow people to take a break. Those breaks are necessary for health and safety purposes. Also as we have a shortage of labour in this country it is necessary that employers offer proper working conditions to members of the workforce if they want to retain them. 
We are very familiar with the arguments that some industries have about workers having a break of this sort. The bus industry as an example has argued long and hard not only against this type of legislation but against driving hours legislation which was put into place in transport legislation to ensure the safety of the person who is driving and the other people on the road. It is not an imagined problem. It is not something that occurs just because it is election year as members opposite have said it does. This bill has been thought about and put together over a very long period of time. It actually became a Government bill because it had not made it through the ballot process of members’ bills. It is also a manifesto promise made by the Labour Party and we deliver on them. We do not break those promises. We do not ignore them; we take them seriously. 
In terms of the bill providing facilities and breaks for employees who wish to breastfeed or express milk I recall before I came into Parliament if my memory serves me right in Samoa in the mid-1990s the Samoan Government had a very large overseas company coming in to set up manufacturing and it saw fit to say that one of the conditions the company would have to comply with was the ability for employees to have proper facilities and time for breastfeeding. A country like Samoa which in terms of development is a long way down the track before it catches up to New Zealand saw fit to do that. It was not that there was a shortage of labour and therefore it had to do this to make sure that people would work; far from it. Its health Minister at the time told me he saw this as a hugely important aspect for the health of babies in Samoa. So if it is good enough for Samoans certainly it is good enough for New Zealand workers for New Zealand babies and for New Zealand families. 
Again this bill is about this Government looking to the future for our families. We are now very much a country that relies on both parents working. Once upon a time in my days of growing up in New Zealand one could almost guarantee that dad was out at work mum was at home and the question of breastfeeding babies was irrelevant in that respect. Nowadays in the community that I represent there is a huge number of women who have their babies and very shortly afterwards go back to work—for all sorts of reasons. For many of them in low-paid work it is economic reality economic necessity. If we want to have those women’s children and families brought up properly with the best possible outcomes in terms of health it just makes sense that these types of minimum requirements are placed in the law. 
I am looking forward to the ACT party putting forward an amendment that says that 10 minutes is not long enough. We will see whether ACT actually is serious with its words because it has the opportunity to do that; if not on the select committee it could get one of its mates to make a submission along those lines. If its members cannot even be bothered doing that then when the bill is reported back and also in the Committee of the whole House they can get up and make an impassioned speech to say that 10 minutes is not long enough and that it should be 30 minutes because that is what I heard the ACT member say. 
This bill is about making sure that the gaps in the law that were created by the previous National Government back in those days in 1981 and 1991 when it ripped out the legislation that put these things in place are being restored. There has been ample time for employers to say they would take a voluntarist approach to this issue. Nobody has stopped them putting it into their individual contracts which the vast majority of New Zealand workers are employed under. Who said they could not? Why have they not done that? Education and voluntarism are things that I know we will hear a lot about on the select committee from employer organisations and no doubt from Opposition members. My question is this. If in 1991 the law was changed and people have been able to have these things in their collective or employment agreements ever since then why have they not done that? If it is good common sense why have they not done it? 
I have seen far too many young people come to me and show me their contracts of employment. I have looked through those contracts and there is no mention of rest breaks or meal breaks. Employers have been given 8 9 or in this case many more years than that because it is 2008 and it is a long time since 1991 or 1981 when the laws were changed the award system was taken away and the Factories and Commercial Premises Act which previously allowed for breaks was taken away. It is a very long time for the voluntarist approach to have worked. It has not worked in many many cases so we have put into law a minimum code that will give workers a condition that most New Zealanders would say is proper and very few people would be against. I see no harm at all in having those provisions in a law as this bill proposes. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak to the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill today. It is interesting that we have two mothers of five children in this House. Being the competitive person I am I thought I was up there but I myself have breastfed only three children. We have the winners at one end—those with five children—and I am not quite as experienced with three children. But maybe I make up for it in that I am the second-most-recent person in Parliament to have breastfed I believe—in the not too distant past. I looked at this legislation with a lot of interest because it is quite relevant to where I have been and where I could be again come to think about it—not that I am! [ 
Interruption 
] No fear I say to the whip. 
The first thing that came to mind when I looked at this legislation was to ask what current evidence there is that the existing provision is not working in the workplace. What evidence is there that employers are not allowing women to breastfeed in the workplace? As an MP I have not had one woman come to me to say that she had an issue with it. As a woman with many friends still breastfeeding and working I can say that none of them have an issue with breastfeeding or expressing milk in the workplace. On looking into this bill a bit more I think the select committee has a lot of work to do in proving that we need it. 
Not only that; it also has a lot of work to do on the detail of the legislation. As a mother who has breastfed three children I can tell members right now that a period of 10 minutes does not cut the mustard at all and neither does the proposed number of breaks. A mother’s milk does not come in in a break; it can come in at any time depending on how much the mother has had to drink how tired she is how stressed she is and when she last fed her baby. Babies change routines all the time so just because a mother breastfeeds at 9 one morning does not mean she will breastfeed at 9 the next morning. A mother is not on a strict timetable. Her employer cannot tell her that her breastfeeding break is at 10.30 because she may not have enough milk then or she may have way too much milk at 9 o’clock. 
If women will have to wait until 10.30 to breastfeed many of them will ask whether their employers are going to supply them with cabbage leaves. We were talking about this before and wondering whether employers would be asked to provide ordinary cabbage leaves or frozen cabbage leaves for women who have to wait for their break. 
Heather Roy 
: You need frozen. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: The mother of five children agrees that the cabbage leaves should be frozen. Employers would need to provide frozen cabbage leaves in case a mother’s milk supply comes in too early or too late. How do we actually legislate for something as personal to a woman as breastfeeding and get it to work and have conformity across the workplace? I think the select committee has a lot of work to do on how it will actually— 
Darien Fenton 
: Chester is supporting it. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I am sorry but I am actually talking to the bill here and I have a really important issue. This provision is all about babies and mothers and milk; that is what it is about. I tell members that if we do not get it right before mothers get back to the workplace if we do not ensure that women are breastfeeding properly when they leave hospital and go home there will not be an issue. If women are being pushed out of hospital within 6 hours of the birth as the Capital and Coast District Health Board does how are they going to learn to breastfeed? They will be going back to work not having breastfed their children. They need support at the beginning in hospital and when they get home but they are not getting it. 
We need lactation consultants. We need midwives who can give mothers the full visits that under section 88 they deserve but are not getting now. In some district health boards midwives are handing over mothers to Well Child 2 weeks after the birth. If they are doing that how can the mothers get support from the midwives to ensure that they are breastfeeding properly? In fact if we do not get it right at the very beginning when women are coming out of hospital with new babies this legislation is irrelevant; they will not be breastfeeding their babies in the workplace because they will not be breastfeeding their babies. 
We need to fix the matter up front and this current Government has absolutely no answers for that. There is a crisis in midwifery there is a crisis in maternity services right now and women need support at the front end but this Government has not been able to deliver it to them. If members ask any women out there what is most likely to keep them in hospital the answer will be the ability to breastfeed. That is what keeps them there; they want to learn to breastfeed. But they are not getting the support they need. This legislation may be totally irrelevant because we already know that 6 weeks after the birth there is a huge drop-off in the number of women who are breastfeeding. Women who are at home for the first 3 months are not breastfeeding when they go back into the workforce. 
We have major issues to address. I am taking just a short call today and will end on the note that I think the select committee has a huge amount of work to do particularly on how practical this legislation is. When legislation like this is being rushed through especially in election year I think we have to consider how valid it is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 119 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: I move  
That the Employment Relations (Breaks and Infant Feeding) Amendment Bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
 for consideration that the committee report the bill by 22 July and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson— 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: This bill has an interesting title: the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill but one has to wonder whether the bill is true to its label. If we reflect back on the introduction we had from the Minister David Parker on the bill I think he said himself that it would not be expected to achieve a great deal and that it is principally regulation. It is hardly a surprise to members on this side of the Chamber that the Minister is introducing more regulations; the Government seemingly has a fixation with them. Someone was telling me the other day down on the West Coast that when he was in the army they had a saying: “If it moves salute it; if it doesn’t paint it.” The present Government has a different solution which seems to be to regulate it. 
This is a time of unprecedented wealth none of which is Government-created. This Government over the last 8 years has overseen a complete cycle of wealth that was generated by the Nats’ policies of the 1990s— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Oh yes it was the Nats’ policies; that is where the money came from. The money was seized by the ever-grasping hands of Labour which spent it in establishing big Government. Labour largely distributed the money without regard for infrastructure productivity or future wealth development. 
Now the cycle is back into increased mortgages increased fuel costs increased food costs and hugely increased electricity costs. I have some figures here. Residential power prices have risen 48 percent in the last 5 years—48 percent compared with 25 percent for industrial and commercial users. 
Phil Heatley 
: How much? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is 48 percent for residential users and 25 percent for industrial and commercial users. The big problem in New Zealand with regard to electricity prices is that we have a scarcity of supply—and we will be speaking about that in other parts of the debate on this bill—which has driven up power prices. Power stations just have not been built fast enough in the last few years to cope with the growing population and growing economy and the subsequent increase in demand. 
Peter Brown 
: What’s that got to do with this bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well we are talking about the title of the bill and we are talking about electricity disconnection and low fixed charges so charges are in there I tell Mr Brown. Charges are in there. 
This winter will be particularly interesting. At the moment lake levels and inflows are approaching 1992 levels. The Taranaki Combined Cycle Power Station at Stratford is still out of action. The system is at its limits at the moment; demand always goes up in winter. 
We will be speaking as I say on other parts of this bill but I would just like to remember the tragic and untimely death of Mrs Muliaga last May. This death occurred in a situation that should have been avoided; it should not have come about. I mention it as a reminder to all of us of the genesis of this particular piece of legislation. We all went into shock because the circumstances were needless and it should not have occurred in New Zealand. Much was made of the communication disconnect that occurred. The really hard-hitting bit though was that Mrs Muliaga’s death lifted the lid on an aspect of New Zealand life that most people would not want to know about—an aspect of an unfeeling cold corporate countenance. That this matter was addressed promptly was as much a tribute to public dismay as it was to media attention. The corporates addressed the situation and although I am not a betting man I would be prepared to wager that most of the energy companies have protocols in place to cover the distressing circumstances of last May to prevent them from ever occurring again. If that is the case why do we have this legislation and why is it coming so long after the event? Thank you. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 Mr Chairman—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not stand up and rush the Committee and yell and carry on. I take a sensible call and I take my time and explain to the Committee my position. 
The commencement clause which states: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” is something that we in the National Party do support. Members will recall that we had some reservations initially when the bill was brought to the House. But we were thoughtful we had done our homework and we were confident that the bill should go to the Commerce Committee and that we would make the improvements necessary to be able to support the bill at this stage—and of course we do. So we will be supporting the commencement date which is “on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” We originally had some— 
Peter Brown 
: Sure? Say it with some conviction. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: The New Zealand First immigrant from I think Britain is chipping. He is the last guy off the boat. The last guy off the boat is chipping. 
National members do support the commencement date. We did have some reservations when the bill was introduced because members will recall that Mrs Muliaga went through that quite stressful time when she was disconnected and that drove this whole legislation. Helen Clark said that the answer to the problem was to regulate. That is what the Labour Government does. Essentially if there is a problem it regulates and if there is a bigger problem it taxes. If there is an even bigger problem it does a U-turn and changes its mind. 
In this case the Government did not tax and it did not do a U-turn. It decided to regulate and we had some reservations at that time. But we were happy to support the bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee and I know that Labour members have been quietly thanking us in the corridors and lobbies for the changes we instigated at the select committee. 
So National members are in a position where we will support this bill and we will support the commencement date which we are talking about now. We will round in beside the Minister of Energy David Parker because the Labour members are not. They are all quietly turning away I guess from supporting Mr Parker. But National members will support him. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We’ll be there. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: We will be there and we will support the commencement date. I wanted to make sure that the Committee was aware of that. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. 
The bill has two unrelated purposes. Clause 4 amends the definition of “low-use consumer” in the Electricity Act 1992 so that regulations can be made to enable an increased number of low-use electricity consumers to benefit from the low fixed-charge tariff option for domestic consumers. There is also the matter of the commencement date. So we are very very thrilled with this issue. 
I thank all my colleagues for doing the good work on this bill and I especially thank the Minister of Energy the Hon David Parker. I thank him for his vision and for bringing leadership on this bill to the House. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Clause 4 Low fixed charge tariff option for domestic consumers 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call on this one—the low fixed charges and the tariff option for domestic consumers. Let us look at the eligibility threshold for the low fixed charge. Coming from the West Coast of the South Island I have to say that the telephones have been running hot in my little blue office with questions about why the coast has not been included in this particular strategy. Having looked at it and having put the ruler across it I guess that the West Coast should be delighted that it has not been included because the strategy will not work at the present rate. Indeed I think the Minister is on record as saying he would speak to power companies and others to explain how it should work. 
There is rather a nice aspect to this in terms of the way in which economists think and express themselves. It would appear from the spin of the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker that the scheme will address inequality but let us remember that it does not talk about discounts or amounts; it talks about margins. Yet although lower-use consumers who have not yet signed up to the low fixed-charge scheme might get a slightly lower power bill—perhaps by $20 a year—everyone else including people who are already on the scheme will probably pay more as the power companies simply raise tariffs across the board to make up the lost revenue. I understand that economists call this the waterbed effect which is rather a nice economic expression and is one that even without being an economist I can understand—if we push down in one part of the bed something else lifts up to compensate. 
Meanwhile residential power prices are up compared with industrial ones. I gave those figures a little earlier. 
Phil Heatley 
: What were they? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I shudder to read them out again. But seriously in the last 5 years residential power prices have risen by 48 percent compared with a 25 percent price rise for industrial and commercial users so people should be entitled to wonder what the hang is going on. Increasing the threshold for the lower South Island may not be needed. Given this Government’s inaction over climate change its mismanagement of deforestation and the amount of carbon dioxide currently being pumped out I ask whether there will be enough power. 
When I travel throughout the West Coast - Tasman electorate I normally at some stage pass through Reefton if I am going from north to south. Reefton was the first town in New Zealand to have electricity. Its residents are proud of that and they have signs up saying it. Its residents generated it themselves. They have done a lot of work re-establishing their historic streetlights and that sort of thing. I think it is sad that Reefton could well be one of the first towns in the southern hemisphere not to have regular power unless it gets one of the handy-dandy generators that I understand the Minister is bringing in in groups of 100 to supplement power when our current power supply is not capable of keeping up in the way that it should. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Mr Auchinvole has said two things recently that I think need to be corrected. The first is the suggestion that we are not building enough additional generation capacity. New Zealand’s need for additional generation capacity increases by around 150 to 170 megawatts per annum. Last year a capacity of more than 500 megawatts was built which is substantially more than 1 year’s growth in capacity. 
Phil Heatley 
: How much wind was that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There was not much wind power in that and the effect of wind load factors is taken into account in that 150 to 175 megawatt range. This year we are building over 300 megawatts of capacity. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Was this to catch up from previous years? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Some of it was to catch up on previous years; that is correct. Of course the member’s party I believe is supportive of the market in the electricity sector—and if he wants to take a call to say that National is no longer in support of an electricity market he may. The effect of the market is that one lets the market determine when it is necessary to build more capacity rather than building it before it is necessary. But maybe the National Party is changing its policy on that like it has on so many other things recently. 
The second point I would make is that it is true that electricity prices have gone up. The main reason they have gone up is that gas prices have gone up. Gas prices have not gone up as much as petrol and diesel prices but they have gone up substantially and they have gone up substantially as a consequence of the Maui gasfields running out and of our other gasfields being more expensive essentially. That has been the main determinant of the increases in gas prices. 
In terms of some of the things that have been said in respect of this bill by National members one would think that they were going to oppose this bill and my understanding from their votes earlier is that they have voted for it. They have indicated they are likely to vote for this legislation because they think it is necessary. 
Clause 4 deals with low fixed-charge tariffs for domestic consumers. I have never oversold the benefits that the low fixed-charge tariff gives to low-use consumers. It gives them a benefit but it is not an enormous benefit for most of the people who qualify. None the less the benefit that does arise ought to be fair throughout the country and at the moment it is not because the entitlement relies upon a threshold that is currently the same for Auckland as it is for Invercargill. Plainly if people live in Auckland which is a warmer city than Invercargill then they do not have to use as much electricity to heat their houses. Accordingly a lower quantity of electricity on average is used in Auckland and more people qualify for the low fixed-charge option in Auckland proportionately than do in Invercargill notwithstanding the fact that if anything the need is greater in Invercargill. That is why we are fixing this—it is plainly unfair. 
The low fixed-charge option eligibility should be based upon regional use patterns rather than on one New Zealand - wide average. This change to the Act changes the regulation-making power under the Act to enable that anomaly to be fixed. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on clause 4 “Low fixed charge tariff option for domestic consumers” and to pick up where the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker left off with regard to the prices of Maui gas and their impact on that low fixed charge. I would like the Minister to listen to two points that I have heard in my constituency around low fixed charges. I had a meeting funnily enough on Friday with a constituent Mr Ralph McKenzie who wanted me to go to the Unison lines company with him to question Ken Sutherland from Unison about the low fixed-charge rate. His concern was about the way that pricing is disclosed in the low fixed-charge tariff. The Minister will appreciate that both a fixed and a daily charge appear on everyone’s bill. Well my constituent’s concern was that in the 2006-07 year his entire power bill went up by 7 percent which was quite a bit above the rate of inflation. But when he started to get down to brass tacks and tried to uncover whether the rise was due to the fixed portion or the daily charge portion he contacted Unison because he figured that the fixed portion of the low fixed-price charge was to do with lines companies and the distribution of power. 
In fact he found that the fixed portion had gone up. Overall it had gone up by 24 percent but Unison claimed that its daily rate had gone up only a couple of percentage points from that and that overall the increase of the fixed charge was due to Contact Energy and to the increase in prices for gas from the Maui field. I am not sure how the average consumer is supposed to get to the bottom of that because it is not disclosed very clearly. When my constituent got in touch with Contact Energy the company wrote him a letter stating that the price rise was due to the Maui gas field running out and the explanation the company gave him was that the costs were increasingly becoming a fixed cost and not a daily use charge. So I would like the Minister to explain that to me because I am still not sure how that was not part of the daily rate but became part of the fixed cost. So that is something for the Minister to answer and I would be interested in knowing that. 
The second thing around the daily use charge which impacts low-use users is something that happens particularly with a lot of my constituents in Hawke’s Bay. Although Hawke’s Bay presents a go-ahead sort of image we have an underbelly of people who are struggling. I have constituents in Maraenui. I was at a meeting with members of the Maori Women’s Welfare League the other day and their biggest concern about this low fixed-charge tariff industry with regard to Housing New Zealand Corporation properties is the double energy use they have. People have a gas line plus an electricity line into the house and they have fixed daily charges on both those units. The problem is that all the appliances in Housing New Zealand Corporation homes are geared to both gas and electricity. It is a situation where people who are not making a lot of money who are on benefits or low wages are having to pay a double fixed-use charge. Right now the Housing New Zealand Corporation is not looking to do anything to mitigate that situation but it is another issue that I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on. It presents issues under clause 4 to do with the low fixed-charge tariffs. 
Those are the two things I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on. How does a company like Contact Energy justify those price increases and make that a part of the fixed cost as opposed to the variable daily charge—I would be really interested in the Minister’s comments on that—and how do we enforce better disclosure of that information to consumers? Secondly I would like him to comment on the charges that poor underprivileged people are having to deal with in Housing New Zealand Corporation homes with regard to the two sources of energy going into those homes—the reason for which for the life of me I cannot understand. Thank you. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 5 Electricity governance regulations 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 This clause addresses the issue of governance regulations where retailers are looking at a customer who cannot pay the bills. It looks at billing options or payment options over time—spreading the load through the year rather than having big winter electricity charges and low summer electricity charges—and what happens when a retailer goes through the process of a disconnect because someone is not paying the bill. That is what this is all about. 
The deal is quite simply this. What is happening in a typical New Zealand household? The first thing that is happening is that taxes are going up. Personal taxes are going up petrol taxes are going up accident compensation levies are going up—if one is out there working— 
Chris Tremain 
: Working to clear the mortgage! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well I am going to get on to interest rates but I will just talk about taxes. The Government is introducing health taxes and it nearly introduced the “fart tax”—so one told one’s wife to stop buying onions. All those taxes are going up. That is one side of the balance sheet—expenses are going up and taxes are going up. 
Interest rates are also going up; they have been going up every year for the last 10 years—about half a percent each year—so they have risen from about 5.5 percent to about 10.5 percent. So taxes are going up and interest rates are going up. We jump into the car in the morning because the bike has a flat tyre and we discover that petrol prices have gone up yet again. They have gone up every month for the last year or two. We are dealing with petrol prices interest rates and taxes. We are upset so we think about going home for lunch because we cannot afford to go down to the local cafe. We pop into the local supermarket to buy some cheese milk eggs and bread and what do we find? A 25 percent increase. Cheese is 17 bucks a kilo and we are paying $3 for 2 litres of milk. 
Everything is going up. Food is going up petrol is going up interest rates are going up taxes are going up and what does one do? A father walks into the house and the family says: “Dad you’ve got some mail.” He thinks: “Thank God someone loves me.” What is it? It is an electricity bill. They say: “Dad you’ve got some mail.” He thinks: “Somebody loves me.” The petrol station does not the supermarket does not the bank with its interest rates does not and the Inland Revenue Department certainly does not but someone loves him. The family hands over the mail and it is the electricity bill. An average New Zealander—an average Kiwi—cannot afford to pay it. 
What the Minister of Energy David Parker has done for people under this sort of pressure is pass regulations that will not help them with their interest rates will not help them with their tax bills and will not help them with their block of cheese or tank of gas. What they will help them do is pay their electricity bill over 12 months instead of having to pay it outright. The Minister is dead right that it does not help very much. He is right that it helps a little bit but it does not actually help where it really matters and that is what I say to the Minister tonight. On behalf of New Zealanders I say “Thanks for your help.” It is not much. It is not really what they need. They want the increases in interest rates groceries petrol and taxes to be addressed. But they thank him for giving them the opportunity to pay their electricity bill over 12 months instead of paying it this month. They appreciate the small help that he has offered. 
Perhaps if everybody in the Labour Party team contributed and did something little like this measure it might add up to something. That is what clause 5 is all about. It is all about being able to pay one’s big electricity bill over the course of the year. It has one extra bonus. The electricity companies say that if people cannot pay they will cut them off but they are going to give them a few extra weeks’ notice before they do. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Winston Peters’ card gives you 10 percent on your funeral. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Oh there we go. Winston Peters’ card gives 10 percent off the cost of a funeral. 
So that is what clause 5 is about. The electricity companies are still going to bill people but they will let them pay it over a period of a year not a month. They are going to cut them off but they will give 2 extra weeks’ notice. Thanks very much to Labour. We wish it could look after interest rates petrol prices grocery prices and our tax bill but thanks for not cutting off our electricity for an extra 2 weeks. That is what this clause is all about and National will be supporting it because at least it is something. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I suppose that there is one answer to a lot of the irrelevant statements made in the previous speech. It is of course that real wages—wages adjusted for inflation—have increased very substantially under this Government. In addition there has been substantial tax relief for families with children— 
Bob Clarkson 
: What about my tradesmen? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: That member’s tradesmen have actually been doing very well over the last few years during the building boom. The ability of people to pay their bills has been enhanced under this Government. 
Clause 5 which is in debate at the moment does not say anything about giving people 6 months to pay their electricity bill. It is a response to the tragic circumstances last year when a lady’s electricity was cut off despite the fact that she needed it for running the electrical equipment that her life depended upon. It was cut off by the electricity company’s contractor. I am sure the company deeply regrets that action but the mistake happened and it had tragic consequences. 
When the Government looked at what its response was—because Governments have a responsibility to pass regulations to protect the public when that is appropriate; National members might scoff at all regulation but some regulation is necessary—it found that the Electricity Act was deficient and that notwithstanding that it was a terrible thing that should never have happened we did not have the right to stop it happening again. In the meantime we have developed voluntary guidelines and it looks like those voluntary guidelines are being adhered to by the electricity companies. But if that were not the case then it is proper that the Government should have the means to protect consumers from this sort of thing happening again. 
This bill creates a regulation-making power. It does not create regulations; it creates a regulation-making power. In the event of something like this happening again the Government in its role of protecting people from adverse consequences has the ability to regulate and to make sure that electricity companies have to do by law what they should really be doing anyway. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of the bill and thank the Minister for that clarification because as we heard from the Opposition speaker previously I did think that National was losing the plot on the intention of this bill. But clause 5 “Electricity governance regulations” inserts section 172D(1)(22A) which states: “providing for the terms and conditions on which electricity retailers must provide domestic consumers with billing and payment options …”. Now I think that drives at the very heart—the very essence—of the intention of this bill. Because we have heard of what obviously very tragically happened with the Muliaga family but I recently fielded a call from a constituent a solo mother with three children at 5 o’clock in the evening who had her power cut off. Obviously during that time of the day when one has children one has to cook and the children have to be cleaned. There was no way she had the opportunity to continue with those services because her power was cut off. What does one do? At the end of the day one can imagine how that solo mother felt. She was literally left in the dark. That can be isolating. 
The question I pose to the Opposition is who has that social responsibility to ensure that people are looked after. I believe that clause 5 represents the very essence of this bill. It also acknowledges the moral issues surrounding the reason why we are regulating in this case. I thought I would contribute that and I thank the Minister for his clarification. 
Clause 5 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 General matters and key provisions relating to New Zealand Geographic Board Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The fact that Parliament is even debating the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill speaks volumes about how weak the Government’s programme is. I ask the members opposite what the problem is. Parliament is sitting fewer days this year than in any year in recent history. An Order Paper that is so light on a programme shows a bereft Government that has run out of ideas. It will not be long before it joins the history books. In this bill we have a Government desperately trying to fix something that is not broken. I do not know how many of my colleagues have received desperate letters from their constituents saying: “Please reform the New Zealand Geographic Board.” 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Not a one! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not a one. I challenge members opposite: have they been inundated? I have certainly had letters from constituents concerned about their interest rates going through the roof concerning the Government putting up taxes and concerning the bureaucracy of the Building Act and the Resource Management Act. I have not had a single letter expressing concern about the New Zealand Geographic Board. 
I note that the bill takes away the current right of the public to be notified when the Government proposes to change the name of a particular place or community. In clause 24 we see a sneaky wee provision to lock the public out. I want to know where the Government’s mandate is for that change. People get very attached to the names of the communities they live in whether it is the Brightwaters the Nelsons the Wellingtons— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The St Arnauds. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague Chris Auchinvole will soon be the elected representative for the community of St Arnaud where there has been a very vigorous debate about whether that place should be called Rotoiti or St Arnaud. This sneaky little provision in clause 24 changes the existing law so that a change can be made by the Geographic Board to the name of a community without any public process at all. We think that is wrong. What is even more bizarre is that when this process began the Government said it would give a greater role to our local councils. That makes pretty good sense. They know their local communities. None of that is in the bill and National asks why not. If we are going to have a reform bill for the New Zealand Geographic Board— 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I clarify what exactly we are doing? I thought we were debating Part 1 including schedule 1 not clause 24 which is in Part 2. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. I leave it to the Hon Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I draw the member’s attention to what is referred to in the purpose clause. It is all about the public having a role. How can those members say in Part 1 that they are going to give the public a role in decision making about names then further down the track take it away? We are simply arguing that that is improper and that is why National is saying that this is just another desperate bill from a Government that is in trouble on the way out and trying to do something that will make it look busy even though it has run out of ideas. It is time for a new Government. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 The member who just took his seat might wish that was so but I am afraid that the reality is more prosaic. The current legislation is over 60 years old. Legislation has to be updated periodically to take account of changes. 
The big change—and I am very surprised that the members of the National Party have not yet become alert to this issue—is that New Zealand’s territorial waters have been extended to include the continental shelf. The area that is under the jurisdiction of New Zealand—that New Zealand has sovereign rights over—extends well beyond our land area to include an area undersea that I think is about 24 times the area of our land area. At the moment the Geographic Board has no power to name features in that area. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: My constituents are really worried about that! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is an important issue here I say to Dr Smith even though he makes light of it. There is considerable potential wealth in our sea area not only in terms of the fisheries but also in terms of the mineral wealth. I am sure that Mr Brown—as a person who has experience of our maritime area—understands this. Our maritime area is of considerable economic potential for us not only in terms of petrocarbons but also in terms of minerals and fisheries. If we want other people to respect our rights to areas over which we want to exercise dominion we have to do the things that Governments do in respect of areas that they assert rights to. We have to exercise our rights of governance and sovereignty. That is what this bill takes a small step towards. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What are you scared of? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not scared of anything. I am explaining the need for this legislation which extends the rights of the Geographic Board to include naming features in that area. That is one of the things a country does to assert rights in respect of areas of the continental shelf. It is given effect in Part 1 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and it is an important advance. 
The National Party may make light of the issue but the reality is that it is important. For that reason the Government is very pleased to support this bill. The other functions of the board are largely unchanged. This legislation will not cause undue costs to taxpayers but it will help New Zealand assert its sovereign rights in respect of an area 24 times the size of our land area that lies underwater on the continental shelf. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Naming of geographic features and Crown protected areas 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Try as I might to find in Part 2 the socialist wrongdoing that we can normally uncover as the Queen’s honourable and loyal Opposition it has been difficult to uncover. I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper. By and large the Minister is correct in what he states: the bill does extend the jurisdiction in the New Zealand Geographic Board into the continental shelf and also the Ross Dependency. I guess that is a significant legislative change. But having said that no one could uncover—and it was certainly not uncovered in the select committee process—what is the mischief that needs to be fixed. The naming in these areas has been going on now for 62 years under the current legislation which was passed in 1946. There is no evidence—and certainly no evidence was presented to the select committee—that at any stage that has created a problem. The decision in particular in regard to the continental shelf is an international decision a multiparty decision whereby New Zealand has always had a major and significant role to play. To the best of my knowledge—and I chaired the select committee through the process—no one brought evidence to the contrary. 
I say to the Minister that it sounds good to tidy up 1946 legislation but we were unable to find a mischief. One has to wonder as my colleague the Hon Nick Smith stated earlier why this is the most urgent legislation to occupy the last dying hours of a desperate Government by having to do this tonight in Parliament. I ask the Minister when he takes his next call which I am sure he will or other colleagues of his on the Labour side of the Chamber to describe to me what significant changes will come about as a result of this enormous piece of parliamentary work that we are engaged in here tonight because we were unable to find them. 
The additional concerns that were raised and which are well stated in the select committee’s report by National members were that there is a potential to layer a further bureaucratic obstacle in the way of those who may want to go about their legitimate business and use names that may now get caught up in clauses 32 and 33. There are also those that are tied up in clause 24 where there is a requirement to consult those amendments that the Minister speaks of that do not bring about the desirable changes that one would have thought might have been a positive outcome of this process. 
So I ask the Minister to please take a call. I would be interested in the detail of that. I would certainly be interested in the genesis of the idea that this legislation needed reform. I guess there are three or four tidy-minded bureaucrats somewhere in the place who go through our dusty halls and find bits of legislation that are now 62 years old and say we should therefore have a look at them in the House. But nothing was presented to the National members of the select committee that would indicate that this was an urgent matter of importance. I would really like to hear from the Minister why this is such an important matter for us to be debating in the Committee tonight. It may well be that the Minister has nothing else to do of course but that said I am sure the Minister will address those questions. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak on Part 2 “Naming of geographic features and Crown protected areas”. In doing so I acknowledge the contribution this afternoon from the Maori Party member Te Ururoa Flavell on the importance of correct pronunciation. I apologise for my poor attempts at Maori. Unlike other members I have not been brought up bilingual and I do my best. 
I understand the importance of naming and having names pronounced correctly. Just for the information of the Committee I say that my name is pronounced “Dar-rien” not “Darry-en”. If people could make the effort to get that right I would appreciate it. For years and years people have mispronounced my name. I understand exactly what the Maori Party is saying about that. It has got to a point where I hardly bother about it now but I would appreciate it if a bit of respect were showed in this House. My name is pronounced “Dar-rien”. 
I want to talk about the importance of naming rights and also about some of the rubbish that has been talked about them by the members on the opposite side of the Chamber. I also want to talk about the scare stories about what can happen under this bill. It is very interesting when one looks into this bill and sees how people have used the Geographic Board the importance of proposals to the board and who actually sees these things as important. I was interested to read about a certain Mr Holmes— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Explain clause 24. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: If Ms Goudie would just listen she might learn something once more. 
Mr Holmes is known as “the detective” and he has had 60 corrected place names accepted by the New Zealand Geographic Board since 1997 with more in the pipeline. The corrected place names include mountain ranges mountains glaciers peaks localities small hills bits of hills a lot of streams and creeks and a few coastal features on points and bays. He has presented these out of a passion for the large number of misspelt names let alone mispronounced names. He has reminded the Geographic Board that one of its functions—and one of the reasons one would submit a proposal to the board under Part 2—is to examine cases of doubtful spelling of place names and also to determine the spelling to be adopted on official maps. 
Mr Holmes put a couple of interesting submissions to the board. One of his longest submissions to date was a change of name from Rewiti to Reweti. I apologise for the pronunciation. That submission ran to 40 pages. Chief Reweti Tamahiki was one of the chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi. An area was named after him when he gifted the land that finished the railway line through to Helensville. [ 
Interruption 
] I would have thought the member John Key would be interested in what is happening in Helensville but probably not—we do not see him in the Chamber very often these days. 
These examples illustrate that the proposals that can be submitted to the board under the provisions in Part 2—I have many more examples and I am happy to take many more calls on the proposals that can be submitted to the board—are very very important. They are important to ordinary people in New Zealand. This side of the Chamber takes that extremely seriously but members on that side of the Chamber have derided this bill. They have been disgusting in their derision of the board and disgusting in their comments about this bill and quite frankly I am appalled. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I will respond to a comment that was made by Dr Nick Smith. He said—and I think Mr Ardern raised concerns about it too—that somehow clause 24 would do the public out of their right to be involved in processes that involve proposed changes to names. Members will note if they read clause 24(2) that that provision occurs in a very limited situation where the New Zealand Geographic Board finds it is being asked to approve a recorded name. So this would be in the case of something that has had a recorded name for some historical reason and there are no alternative recorded names for that geographic feature. So rather than adding to bureaucracy which I thought was one of the concerns that the National Party had this provision says that in such a case if it is obviously not controversial the board does not have to go through a fully public objection process because that process would be a waste of time and money. The other exception to the normal rule of giving public notice is recorded in clause 24(2)(b) which states that the board does not have to give public notice to discontinue the use of an official geographic name for a geographic feature. 
Both of these are very limited examples and I do not think there is any serious concern. In fact I do not know that this provision was an issue. I do not think it was raised by people as being of concern at the select committee— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Absolutely it was. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Sandra Goudie said it is an issue that was raised at the select committee. Well it is a real shame that the select committee could not agree to a report back to Parliament to advise Parliament of that concern. I understand that that was because the National members were not cooperating in that regard. So they get what they deserve. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Mr Deputy Speaker— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How are the real estate agents at the moment? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I can report to Mr Finlayson that the real estate agents are in great heart. Despite the squawking from the bantam hens on the other side of the Chamber I take a call to support the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
The report of the Government Administration Committee in respect of Part 2 is interesting when it comes to the views of National members—which ones we do not quite know. The C-team is here tonight and they have all pumped themselves up. It must be audition time again in the National Party because they have all pumped themselves up. The eminent barrister is here the “orange roughy” from Coromandel and Mr Ardern whom I pay my respects to. He is an excellent chair. I have been on a number of select committees with Mr Ardern and I think he is a fine chair. 
National members have pumped themselves up to come down to the Chamber for a big audition to oppose I am told the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. What an absolute ripper that is for the National Party to get all that testosterone burnt off on a bill and come down to the Chamber to oppose it. How could National members oppose it? They have worked out a way to try to do that. Under the heading “Views of National members” the report states: “National members recognise the role of the New Zealand Geographic Board under the existing legislation. There appears nothing wrong with the way the current legislation is operating and accordingly National members see no need for change.” That is interesting. 
Mr Key is on the record on this issue. The slippery Leader of the Opposition has had the axle grease out around this. First he attacked clause 24 because he claimed it was too bureaucratic. Then “Old Slippery” got the axle grease out and the grease gun pumped away and he put it around the bill. Then he attacked it because it was not bureaucratic enough. The bill streamlines some of the decision-making processes and allows the board to get involved and accordingly take care of a number of the naming processes. I would have thought that that would actually cut down some of the bureaucracy but oh no all the heavy hitters of the National Party are down here tonight all steamed up and full of vim and vigour. The morale is high over there because they have all come to the Chamber to try to defeat with all the energy and might they have the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
This is Sandra Goudie’s moment in the sun in her political career. This is what she lived for got elected for and has been briefed for—judging by the amount of paper on her desk. She has led the charge of the Opposition and spent an inordinate amount of taxpayers’ money here tonight to defeat the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. I am sure she will go back to her constituents and say she has spent a lot of time defeating this bill. She will say: “I do not know how much it costs the taxpayers to run Parliament per hour but I’ve spent an inordinate amount of energy and time and my wages working for you the people with my National Party colleagues to defeat this major piece of legislation the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.” 
As we debate Part 2 it will be interesting to see those wonderful— 
Chris Tremain 
: Oh that’s right. It’s Part 2 we’re on isn’t it? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That is right. For those who are asleep on the other side of the Chamber I say that we are debating Part 2. It will be interesting to hear the wonderful and eloquent arguments as we debate Part 2. I do take my hat off to Mr Finlayson. I know he has led the charge of briefing his members— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Oh no. I had nothing to do with it! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: A wise man is Mr Finlayson! As an eminent barrister he knows deep down that this is not a bad bill. This is something we should do. We should reform and change this. He is not leading the charge. He has probably provided the intellectual grunt behind the debating notes of many of his colleagues but he knows we should not be spending a lot of time trying to pump this one up. The National Party members have come down here to attack the bill and defeat it. [ 
Interruption 
] I can hear them over there. They are really excited about this bill. 
This is a streamlining bill. It has been around for a long time. It is part of a series of reforms that allows us to cut through a lot of the bureaucracy. National members say there is too much bureaucracy in our public sector but when we come to address a number of these issues what do we see that they do? They attack the legislation as “Mr Slippery Key” did and say it is not bureaucratic enough. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Several times during that speech the member did not identify various members of the National caucus by their proper titles. In fact some of the terms have been quite derogatory. I would like you to point out to him that that is not allowed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. Yes the member did go down that track particularly in respect of the member for Coromandel. I do not think that is necessary. As far as the use of the word “slippery” is concerned it is something the member should bring up with Madam Speaker. I think it has been allowed. I am quite comfortable with it although the member had it round the wrong way. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am indebted to you for your advice Mr Chair and I will endeavour to use the term “slippery” in its correct fashion when referring to the Leader of the Opposition—“Slippery John Key”. I am indebted to you for your fine ruling and I would like to thank Mr Henare for his usual late-night intellectual contribution to the debate—it usually happens at about half-past 9 or 20 to 10. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Like the member for the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell and like the member in the Labour Party Darien Fenton I like my surname to be pronounced correctly. It is “Henare” and not what that member tried to pronounce. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that Mr Henare. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Henare has a very valid point. I think it was drawn to our attention by Mr Flavell before question time today. Mr Henare’s point would carry more weight if he had not ridiculed Robert Reich’s name in the House during a previous incarnation of Parliament and made references to that Jewish name that he refused to take advice on at that time. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That was before he was a proper Tory. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: The member is going to interrupt on a point of order is she? That is all right. She might be able to get away with it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is not all right. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Again Darren Hughes like the member for somewhere in the South Island—I cannot remember where— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He can’t pronounce it! 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Well there we go again. And it is “Waimakariri”. I bet my bottom dollar that that member would not be able to pronounce the name of his own electorate but that is neither here nor there. Mr Hughes does not pronounce my name properly either. My name is “Henare”. That is what it is. So if those members are going to pinprick all night about this as Mr Hughes did then we will too. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think we all understand what is required and we can only try our best. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I again thank Mr Henare for his great intellectual contribution at 9.30 p.m. The member normally picks his moment. It is a wonderful contribution. He did not make much of a contribution— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s only half-past 8 mate! Daylight saving finished last week. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Hang on he is reverting to type now. He is reverting to type which is this Porirua public bar sort of boofhead-type sport box that we have over there. He would actually do well as a bouncer in the Porirua public— 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think it is about time that we stuck to the scope of the bill. It is getting just a bit wide of the mark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to speak on Part 2. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: On Part 2 absolutely. I was talking about naming just at that point but we will leave it there. Maybe the Geographic Board referred to in Part 2 will find an interesting historic or technical name for Mr Henare. I could think of a number but it would not be appropriate to use those names in the Chamber. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I can think of one for you. It starts with “w” and ends with “r”. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I will yield to the member if he likes. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Away you go. Do you want to yield? He’s a big man now! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am not half as big as the member. 
What this bill does is streamline bureaucratic process and I conclude on the point that National members purport to be the sort of bureaucratic busters who want to rip the insides out of the Public Service to get rid of what they term as bureaucracy which is code for front-line services yet they stand here— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Whatever pussy! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member is interjecting on me with the sort of vim and vigour and energy that we have not seen from that side or from that member for many moons— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He’s a real policy man! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh yes that intellectual giant of the National Party has been in more parties than we have had hot dinners. I think he wrote to our party and asked whether he could join it. That member’s contribution—apart from the sort of silliness that we have seen in the last 5 minutes—has been to attack the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. 
I conclude by saying that I look forward to hearing other contributions from the C-team members over there as it is the height of their careers to come down and do an audition for the front bench and oppose attack and try to defeat which they will not Part 2 Part 1 Part 3 and Part 4 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. What a great moment. I pay credit to Mr Finlayson because he is the only member opposite who has used his judgment tonight. He knows that it is good legislation and he has decided to do some real work get on with it and do something productive rather than try to attack this very good bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I call the Hon “Dar-mien” O’Connor. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 I am not as sensitive as some in this House over how people pronounce my name Mr Chairperson. It was still very polite and I think that if politicians worry about things like that then they should move on to another career. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am really disappointed that people would make fun of the issue of mispronunciation of names because it is not funny. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you for raising that. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I am not making fun of that. It is the reality that not everyone has been to elocution lessons not everyone has been to te reo lessons and some of us struggle particularly in the South Island to pronounce Maori names. For that I apologise but that is the reality of the challenge that each and every one of us faces. Mr Henare for example—I am not sure whether I pronounced that name right or wrong. I apologise. I do my best. I think we have to move on to more important issues in this Chamber. 
I am taking the opportunity to speak on this bill because I am absolutely astounded that National members would want to oppose this bill—for a couple of reasons. Firstly we are replacing a 1946 Act. I would have thought that even National members would want us to make progress across the country. I guess that if there is one thing National members are stuck in then it is a time warp. If they are prepared to be linked and locked into a 1946 Act then God help the country if they were to ever get their hands on the levers of Treasury again. This Government is prepared to review such Acts and to get on and make the changes that might seem insignificant to members opposite and that might seem unimportant but none the less they are part of being a responsible Government. 
The other thing that absolutely astounds me about the Tories and their opposition to this bill is that I have never known a true Tory who does not want to extend his or her power and authority. There is one thing about a good Tory—Tories know what the value of power is and how to abuse it. This bill extends the territorial power to name areas in the Ross Dependency. I would have thought that a good old-fashioned Tory would seize the opportunity to name such places and to have more authority because that is what has happened in the past. 
If we go back and look at the genesis of this legislation it goes back to the Royal Geographic Society of London which had the right to name places in this country. That is right—the Tories back in London made the decisions about place names in this land Aotearoa. And that in my view was wrong back then. Then it moved on to a newer Act the Designation of Districts Act 1894. Unfortunately the country was run by a bunch of Tories then too. They then named places in this country. What we are doing is moving on to rightful authority and the ability to name places in the Ross Dependency and the continental shelf and we think that is progress. It is moving us on from 1946. 
Mr Ardern agrees so I presume he will be supporting this bill in its passage through this Parliament as any sensible Tory would do. I know that he is a decent Tory and there are a few. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: There’s no such thing! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Some of my colleagues think that there is no such thing—that it is an oxymoron—but there are a few. Mr Ardern knows how to earn a decent day’s living out on the farm. 
The passage of this bill is a sensible use of parliamentary time. The National Party should just get on with it support the passage of the bill and move on and change an Act that has governed place names and the authority to make them since 1946. 
Shane Ardern 
: You used to be better at filibustering than this. What’s happened in the last 8 years? 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: I say to Mr Ardern that that is what we call progress. He will never know about it because he will not get the opportunity to make the changes. Kia ora. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Part 3 includes debate on schedule 2. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 3 I say it is pretty amazing that the impact of this bill will not be understood until it is passed in this House and becomes an Act. A large majority of New Zealanders—if not all of them—would not understand what this bill means in reality. 
Clause 32 is headed “Official geographic names must be used”. I wonder whether the New Zealand public knows that this bill provides that any person can submit a name to be used as an official geographic name. One of the functions of the New Zealand Geographic Board is to collect original Maori place names to be used as official geographic names. In adopting those official geographic names the board can be exempt under clause 24 from going through a public consultation process. New Zealanders need to understand the implications of that. This Government has failed to explain them clearly to the public. 
Entities in the private sector do not understand the implications of the bill. They do not understand the obligations in clause 32 regarding publications for tourism or travel purposes that use place names. Entities are required to use official geographic place names. If they do not they have to have a statement in their brochure that says a name is not an official place name. So they either have to use the official place name or if they use a local colloquial name they have to have a little statement that it is not an official geographic name. I do not think there is a tourism venture or operation throughout this country that understands that. Has there been any direct consultation with tourism groups about the impacts of this legislation? 
I am talking about clause 32 in Part 3. Can members imagine the cost to all of those tourist ventures and operations from having to change all of their brochures because one place name has changed and an official geographic name has been adopted for it by the board—possibly without public consultation because under clause 24 the board is not required to necessarily undergo it? The board has the discretion not to go through a public consultation process. It is to have that discretion now and this Government has failed to explain why it thinks that is a good idea. 
We have never had a problem before with the New Zealand Geographic Board but now the Government has decided it wants to change the playing field. The playing field was level but the Government wants to tilt it. We have now a completely different playing field where consultation is discretionary and where tourism ventures have no idea of the impacts on their bottom line from having to record official place names in their documentation. Of course the board can take entities to the High Court if they fail to observe the requirements of the Act. Perhaps the Minister in the chair David Parker may like to take a call to explain clauses 24 and 32 and tell us exactly what will happen with regard to tourist ventures and operations. 
I am very proud to be standing here as part of National saying that we oppose this bill for very good reasons. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 I am very happy to respond to that last contribution which suggested that some new provision was being sneaked in against the interests of New Zealanders that required proper names to be used. Of course this clause merely carries forward on this occasion a provision that has been in the law since 1946. It has been in the law since 1946 for a good reason. If for example someone was producing a map that tourists were to use it would be quite unhelpful if people started to call Auckland “Dunedin” and Dunedin “Auckland” because people might go to the wrong place. It is quite a sensible provision for those providing information for tourists and if a place has an official name such as “Auckland” it is quite sensible that that place is actually labelled as Auckland on a map. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This is a bill that on the face of it is relatively minor but I think it needs a little more discussion from the Minister for Land Information David Parker and there are some questions I would like to ask him. 
I particularly go to clause 35 “Validation of certain names” and ask whether this bill is an appropriate vehicle for the validation of particular decisions that have been made. In particular I ask whether the provision in relation to the geographical features of the Ross Dependency is appropriate for the bill. What does the Minister mean by “Crown protected area under an enactment”? Which particular type of Crown protected area is he referring to? 
I also ask the Minister to go to schedule 2 which relates to consequential amendments which come in through Part 3—and I am sure that Mr Connell having been on the Government Administration Committee that wrote the commentary on the bill is well aware of that. I ask whether the Minister is satisfied that the amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 particularly those amendments to section 260(1) are in fact appropriate for this bill. I ask about consultation on the repeal of section 270 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act. Has there been proper consultation with Ngai Tahu on that question? Consultation is something that I think most Ministers have taken seriously and I want to ensure that officials have had a discussion with Ngai Tahu. 
I do not want to be accused as a Mallard of any self-interest but in respect of the insertion into the Ombudsmen Act 1975 of “New Zealand Geographic Board Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa” after “The New Zealand Game Bird Habitat Trust Board” I want to make sure given my surname that there are no implications as far as the Game Bird Habitat Trust Board is concerned. As a Mallard I would be concerned if there were any denigration or unfair reference around that particular question. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: That’s a very valid concern. Don’t duck the issue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I think there is not much ducking of the issue as far as I am concerned although possibly once or twice it could have been better if I did. 
In respect of the consequential amendment to the National Parks Act I want to check whether it is the Minister of Conservation who is referred to. It is a little unclear on the face of it whether it refers to the Minister for Land Information or the Minister of Conservation. I presume it is the Minister of Conservation because it is a consequential amendment to the National Parks Act but I think it is important that we have that clarified. Similarly with the amendment to the Conservation Act 1987 I think it is almost certainly the Minister of Conservation who has to refer the proposed name to the board but I ask what the role of the Minister for Land Information is in that particular case. Thank you Madam Chairperson. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 In responding to two of the issues that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised with great interest I agree with the member that Ministers are concerned to protect the integrity of Treaty settlements. One of the provisions in the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu was to give them an official involvement in the naming of geographic features in the South Island. The Minister is quite proper in checking that in updating this legislation we are not undermining the intent of that Treaty settlement. Official involvement in naming is an important part of the Treaty settlement with Ngai Tahu. They would obviously be upset if we were undermining the integrity of their Treaty settlement by unwinding the benefit that was conferred upon them in respect of naming places in the South Island. 
Mr Mallard raises a consequential amendment listed in schedule 2 of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill which refers to the repeal of section 270 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998. I assure the member that that does not derogate from the rights of Ngai Tahu to participate in the naming of South Island geographic features. I am advised by officials that the representative that Ngai Tahu has on the New Zealand Geographic Board is Sir Tipene O’Regan who is obviously well versed in the detail of the Ngai Tahu settlement because he was so involved in the negotiation of it. I am informed that he is comfortable with the repeal of this particular section which does not derogate from Ngai Tahu’s rights to be involved in the naming of these features in the South Island but rather repeals a provision in the old Act that has become out of date because of changes in circumstances since it was put in. I hope that explanation deals with the concern the Hon Trevor Mallard had. 
In respect of the role of the Minister for Land Information in naming features there are various parts of the Act providing that proposed decisions are proffered by the New Zealand Geographic Board to the Minister having gone through various procedures before the board comes to making a recommendation. The Minister to whom it generally makes a recommendation in respect of most features is the Minister for Land Information and then in accordance with the terms of the Act I—or whoever is the Minister for the time being—have rights to either approve or decline the name proposal that is proffered. I think that addresses the other concern the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 35 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 5 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 My contribution on this I think will be relatively brief. If at all possible I want to ask the Minister the Hon David Parker about clause 2 first and that is whether he thinks it is appropriate for this bill to come in on a particular date or whether this is the sort of bill that should come in on a date to be decided by the Governor-General as part of the Executive Council. It is a discussion that we have often. Often it is a question of whether—and this is a relatively minor bill and therefore having a fixed date is probably OK— 
Shane Ardern 
: This is a critical point! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member might one day learn something about it— 
Hon Member 
: I doubt that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I doubt it too with Mr Ardern whether he ever will. Questions of principle are involved in the type of clause that is used for the commencement date and I would be interested in the Minister’s views as to why this is a fixed-date bill as opposed to one that comes into force by way of Order in Council. 
But the more substantive question- I would like to ask—and I would be particularly interested in the contribution from members of the Maori Party and even from my Maori colleagues from the National Party as well as Louisa Wall—is about the style of the title. This bill in fact looks like it was styled on an approach taken by my former colleague the Hon Koro Wetere in I think about 1986 or 1987 when he made a decision on the naming of Taranaki. He said it could be Egmont - Taranaki Taranaki - Egmont or Egmont or Taranaki which provided a fair range of choice for people to adopt the name they thought appropriate for the mountain. I find it slightly interesting in respect of the member for Taranaki - King Country that people have taken a different approach in this. I think the vast majority of younger people from outside Taranaki call the mountain Taranaki but it seems to be that the closer people get to the snow and the closer they get to the mountain the more likely it is to be called Egmont. The approach taken by New Zealanders just in that area is a fascinating thing. 
However putting that to one side it is clear that the title of this bill in the way it is shaped is quite unusual in that it has picked up that style. It is called the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and it may also be cited as either the New Zealand Geographic Board Bill or Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Bill. I want to ask colleagues the Minister Georgina Tau Tariana and Mr Flavell who are in the Chamber today as well as Louisa Wall whether they think that this style of approach is one that could be more generally used for the titling of bills in New Zealand. This is an interesting approach; it has not only bracketed Maori but also uses Maori as an alternative in the title of the bill. It seems to me to be an interesting and useful approach. But one of the things I am wondering is whether it should be applied only when it is so close to naming things or whether it is a more general style that could be applied around other legislation as well. It is an interesting question. 
Shane Ardern 
: You used to be a good filibusterer Trevor! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would be very tempted to say if I were filibustering that there is quite a nice guy who actually lives in Wellington but is running for Parliament in Hutt South—a guy called Paul Quinn. I was interested to hear John Key on the radio say that Paul Quinn could go in the top 20 on the National Party list. If I were Tau Henare or Georgina or even Pita Sharples and there was a discussion about who might be Minister of Maori Affairs in the long term—if the National Party ever got to Government—and I heard that Paul Quinn was going to be parachuted over the top I would be a little bit annoyed. I am not sure when we translate Paul Quinn what we actually get but it is— 
Brian Connell 
: Madam Chair— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a case of the member being just too slow in seeking the call which is not particularly surprising as far as the member is concerned. He is too slow they all say he is too slow and he is even too slow to run away from television reporters on occasions. 
Getting back to the bill I am actually trying to stimulate some interest on the part of the Maori Party in the titling of this bill and to get a reaction as to whether this is the sort of form that they think we should adopt more generally. To me it seems logical but there is a choice. The choice is whether we include the Maori translation in the title or have it as an alternative citation—to have either the English title or the Maori title or a combined title that has both. There is a real question about whether that is the right approach. It is one that I have not seen. I have been here for a number of years and I have not seen a title in quite this format before. I introduced a bill this afternoon and it was titled only in English. [ 
Interruption 
] The member might say that is disgraceful; I do not think it is. It is the normal form when introducing a bill. We do not normally have this sort of approach when a bill is introduced. 
I ask the Minister David Parker whether he consulted the Minister of Maori Affairs or any other person on this matter whether parliamentary counsel are using this bill as an experiment and whether it is an approach they are likely to take in the future in the drafting of legislation of a more general type that does not go into naming. I think this is an important bill but as part of an important bill there are some principles involved around the style of the titling. My inclination is to say the style of titling could be more generally extended to other legislation if there was support around the Chamber for that sort of approach but it would not be something that I would want to impose on members without broad discussion. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Generally when a bill is before a select committee we look at the title to get some indication of what the bill is about and what it is trying to capture. This title is so nebulous that I went to the purpose clause. I thought it might be interesting for members to understand what the purpose is. Clause 3 states that one of the purposes is to: “(a) provide for—(i) the continuation of the New Zealand Geographic Board as the same body as that established under the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946”. Interestingly its primary responsibility is “naming geographic features and Crown protected areas;”. So we have to ask what the purpose of changing the bill is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I might have been mistaken but I have just made about an 8-minute contribution on what I thought were clauses 1 and 2 rather than Part 1. The member has just started to talk on clause 3 which is in Part 1. If the member wanted I am sure members will give him leave to go back to Part 1 if he thought it was important to debate clause 3 further. But I thought that we had passed it earlier in the evening. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I prefaced my remarks by saying that I looked at the title and in order to understand the title I referred members to the purpose clause—so that we could better understand what was intended by the title of the bill. Now had the Minister not spent 10 minutes boring members to death we might have all been awake and heard that. Obviously he did not hear the distinction but I am sure Madam Chair that you did hear it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes I did hear that distinction. Can I say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that any debate on clauses 1 and 2 is normally a fairly wide-ranging debate. It is not the old style of debate when members concentrated on just the title and on the date. So I ask the member to go ahead. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Thank you Madam Chair. My point was that nothing is changing very much at all with the exception of course—as the Minister in the chair pointed out—that the Crown now wants the ability to rename the Ross Dependency. I noticed when he was taking a call that he could not find that name. If that is the principal purpose then the bill could have been simply amended and the name could have been the “Ross Dependency Amendment Bill” rather than members being taken through the charade we have been subjected to this evening. 
I find it incredible that the “bantam from Waimak” came down to the Chamber stood up—and he proved to us that he will not go much further in this House judging by his stature—and said that National has the C team in the Chamber tonight. I did a count of the number of Ministers who had been on their feet taking calls. It was not one; the number comes after five and is before seven. We have had six Ministers in the Committee filibustering. Do members know what is happening when they filibuster about the title of a bill? Do members know what they are doing? They are showing the status of this administration—the height of this administration—when they dust off their filibustering skills. They know that in a very short time that is what they will be doing day after day and night after night. 
I have to say that if that is the best that Trevor Mallard can do around the title debate of a bill of this importance then oh boy he is in for a very slow ride in this House. The Minister when he was talking about the bill also dismissed the concerns that my colleagues raised about clause 24 in particular by saying that a change to a name without consultation would be very— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I feel a compulsion to respond to that member. I am addressing his comments in respect of clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement”. That member berated members on this side of the Chamber for doing their job in speaking to a bill. In doing our job by debating the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill and going over it in great detail as Mr Mallard did—I think Mr Mallard talked at length about the meaning and nature of clause 1 “Title”—we were berated by the “ghost that walks”. We were berated by a man who is not going to be here much longer; he has done so well in his career that he is heading out of the back door because his party has given him the bullet. 
Coming back to the title I challenge that member. That member challenged us for debating clauses doing our job working the bill over and working the arguments through. Yet as I said before his party is spending all its time debating that and trying to convince Parliament that not only will it vote against the bill in toto but also—I bet—it will vote against the title and against something very small called the commencement date. National members have all got up all pumped up and all full of enthusiasm. The greatest moment in the annals of this House for that member’s career as he exits this place will be his attempts to stymie to attack and to defeat clause 1 and clause 2 of this bill. I know that his constituents will look back on his eminent career—from Ashburton down the Waitaki and around there—and he will be known. They will put up statues they will put up monuments and they will put up silver plates on walls as they open Returned and Services Association premises and schools to remember that he spent his time attacking this bill. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member while he is on his feet and demonstrating his ignorance around this but since it is a discussion around names I thought I should correct the member. The constituency of Rakaia does not go as far as South Canterbury. The Minister in the chair David Parker will know that that is correct. So the member is misleading the House. I do not think it is intentional; I just think it is ignorance and a touch of arrogance. But maybe he could just put that right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I think that that is really— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think this is a classic case of a point of order that is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. No Standing Order has been referred to. Members do occasionally get things wrong. The member may or may not— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I did get it wrong. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well he probably did get it wrong. But the member—at the peak of his career or as he moves out—should understand that he takes a call to debate that rather than a point of order. 
Brian Connell 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: This is the last call I am taking on this because I am going to judge it. 
Brian Connell 
: Certainly. I know the member is used to fighting talk but this is an issue of accuracy and we are talking about a bill that is dealing with naming places. I think it is germane to the argument to say that the member is incorrect and he should be asked to get it right. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you very much Mr Connell. It may be germane to the argument but it is not a point of order. It was a point of debate and a point of information. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I apologise to the member. I acknowledge that the name of his electorate is Rakaia and as I was saying I know that the people of Rakaia will remember him as they are riveted to the spot listening to him on their radios tonight. They know that his major contribution probably his most significant contribution in his political career was a last-ditch stand—sort of Custer’s last stand—to try to defeat clause 1 “Title” and clause 2 “Commencement” of this bill. As I said and Madam Chair knows history better than I—and I am sure Gerry Brownlee would agree with me—they will put up monuments and statues to this learned member. This day will go down and be recorded in the annals of Rakaia’s history as the day Mr Connell—and I do hope I pronounced that name correctly—the member for Rakaia attempted to defeat clauses 1 and 2 of a bill. 
In essence what is this bill about? It is about streamlining a very very old piece of legislation an exceptional piece— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Then why are you filling the Chamber with so much hot air? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: When it comes to hot air that member is a human blunderbuss. The billows over there in the front row blow pretty regularly for that member to make a wonderful contribution. 
It amazes me that the National Party the anti-bureaucratic party would spend all its energy— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why is the member so upset? What is the member disappointed about? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Now it has brought the big hitter from Ilam the member for Ilam Gerry Brownlee—the big bazooka—who has come down here to put a bit of energy into the team because its members are flailing a bit and to have a crack at attacking clause 1. 
What does clause 2 say? It simply says that this Act will come into force on 1 July 2008. How on earth could one disagree with that? How on earth could one disagree with a bill that seeks to reform and renew a very old Act and that seeks to strip away some of the bureaucratic stuff that was around in respect of the naming of the continental shelf and other areas to assert our sovereignty over those areas? Who on earth could disagree with that? I am sure the punters the real people who sit outside this place listening tonight are scratching their heads asking firstly who is Brian Connell and secondly why is he wasting our time trying to attack and defeat what is a pretty logical bill. Normally we have to say—and I am sure others may agree—that this is a sort of bipartisan bill. There is not a lot of politics in it. But maybe it is audition time—maybe they want the member for Ilam’s job. I do not know. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I noticed that during the course of that commentary by Clayton Cosgrove he mentioned clause 1 clause 2 and some other such—I cannot remember—and loosely that would relate to any old bill whatsoever. But he made no substantive comments about the bill itself. That raises the prospect as my colleague Brian Connell put so well before of the Government either filibustering this bill or perhaps the Chair herself being distracted by some other antics in the Chamber which means she has not been able to keep an eye on what these members have been saying. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I do not actually take kindly to that sort of comment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do apologise to you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I was fully aware— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is the end of the point of order. Madam Chairperson I seek the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Thank you. I call Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I have ended the point of order and I have called Gerry Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member spoke before you interrupted. He cannot speak and then move the closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I accept that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I took a point of order and then you gave me the call Madam Chairperson. Then I moved that the question be now put. It was perfectly in order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: OK. I do not accept the motion for closure. I am calling Rodney Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek that the vote now be taken. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is the wrong wording I am sorry Mr Hide. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Madam Chair— 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I apologise about getting the words wrong. But it is very difficult because being in Opposition we are not used to having a Government filibustering its own bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: That is a frivolous point of order. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I would like to respond to a number of the points that the Hon Trevor Mallard made. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yeah; Cabinet doesn’t talk to itself. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Mallard raised what is a serious issue and he raised it as is his right. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I know there has been a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing and a little bit of humour—some good some bad—but I think the Minister is prepared to take a call and speak to the issue. I think the shouting and boorish behaviour we have on the other side of the Chamber has gone a wee bit too far. I think those members should taihoa. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I do accept that. I would ask members on the benches right around the Chamber to take a little bit of order in what they are doing. Calling for points of order and being disorderly in the calling for them does not make much sense so if we could have less of the barrage please and let us hear the contribution from the Minister. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson. The first point I will make is in respect of the commencement date. There is a Supplementary Order Paper that changes the commencement date from what it was in the bill that went to the select committee which was 1 July 2008 to a date to be appointed by Order in Council. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry but I cannot hear the answers the Minister is giving and I am really interested in them. Madam Chairperson could you ask the members opposite to let us hear them please? 
Brian Connell 
: I think the difficulty here is that the Minister is not speaking into his microphone and that he is speaking to his own party rather than addressing the Committee. Madam Chairperson if you could direct the Minister to do that then I think we would all hear what is being said. I am sure it is riveting. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I will ask the Minister to do that. Before he resumes could I also remind the member immediately to my left Sandra Goudie that the interjections should be minimal short and brief and not a barrage of noise. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Thank you Madam Chair. The Supplementary Order Paper changes the commencement date so that the legislation if passed comes into force on a date appointed by Order in Council. 
The other more substantial point was the issue raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard as to the way in which the legislation can be referred to either by its Maori name Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Act or by its New Zealand equivalent the New Zealand Geographic Board Act—with the year 2008 in both cases. One of the things that has changed since the previous legislation was passed back in 1946 is that we now have two official languages in New Zealand. We have Maori and English being used as alternatives plus New Zealand Sign Language— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: English is not an official language. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Oh I am sorry. Well we have Maori as well as English being languages that can be used for official purposes in New Zealand and that is particularly important to both those who favour Maori and those who favour English in terms of geographic features. Indeed the increasing importance of the Treaty of Waitangi—which is also recognised in this legislation; it was not in the previous Act—is also one of the changes that has taken place since the previous legislation was passed in 1946. 
In terms of giving recognition to those two languages in some legislation it is important that we go that extra step and give both the Maori and English alternatives to titles in Acts and that we enable either to be used. I think this is respectful to the interests of those who are interested in Maori geographic place names that we give that recognition in this legislation. It reflects the earlier steps that were made by the previous National Government when bringing in the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act in order to acknowledge the importance of Maori place names to Ngai Tahu. So it surprises me that National having conceded in the 1990s the importance of that to Ngai Tahu in respect of their claims settlement—and it was very important; it remains very important to them in respect of the naming of geographic names—is choosing tonight to oppose this legislation and the entrenchment of the principle of giving due regard to Maori place names in the naming of geographic features. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s a Maori place name? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: A Maori place name can be different from the English word. If the member wants an example then he is obviously not as well informed as I thought he was. Mount Egmont and Taranaki is one of the more common ones that seems to be known to most members but there are lots of other examples if the member wishes to learn about them. 
As the Minister with responsibility for this legislation I am certainly happy to have both the Maori and English translations of the name of the bill incorporated into the legislation. I think it is a step forward and that it goes towards improving relationships between Maori and non-Maori. It gives due recognition to the importance of both Maori and English. I hope that answers Mr Mallard’s question. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It does go to the precedents for calling in the House. We have had a party I think that has taken three or four calls on this clause we have had a party that has taken none and you have called again the party that has had a number of calls. My question is whether you did not hear the call from the Maori Party this time or whether there was a particular reason for not calling its members on this clause. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 The Opposition has had five calls on this part of the bill. We have requested two calls on this side and there has been no request made from members at the end of the Chamber for a call to be taken. As a result of that I moved that the question be now put. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I think this is the second or third time the Maori Party member has attempted to get the call on this clause and for Mr Tremain to say that there has been no request made from members at that end of the Chamber is just incorrect. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I agree with Mr Mallard actually but having called Mr Chris Tremain the Chairperson cannot un-call him. What the Chairperson can do however is realise that Mr Tremain’s moving that the vote be now taken will not be agreed to and then the member from the Maori Party—Mr Flavell; I am almost too scared to say his name—but the Chairperson certainly cannot now drop off Mr Tremain and I am sure Mr Mallard would agree with me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I thank the member. I heard Mr Tremain I am declining his call to end the debate and I am now calling the member Te Ururoa Flavell—and I am practising my pronunciation. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Chairperson. The pronunciation of that call was a very good effort indeed; thank you very much. Today as members know we put out a statement in the House and I thank members this evening who listened to that discussion today. If there has been one benefit already then it is that members have taken stock of their pronunciation in general and they have taken a little bit more care. That is very much appreciated. So ka nui te mihi ki a koutou katoa. 
[ 
Much appreciation to you all. 
] 
There was a lot of discussion around the issues the Hon Trevor Mallard raised. I thought that I would take a brief call—anxious as members are to pass this legislation I suppose—just to set the record straight about a couple of things that some members may not know. They are raised in the light of clauses 1 and 2 and the issues that Trevor Mallard raised earlier. The first thing is the matter raised by the Minister in the chair the Hon David Parker which is that Maori is an official language of New Zealand—of Aotearoa—and that New Zealand Sign Language is the other official language. I am told that even in terms of the statement we made today English exists as a lingua franca. What is a lingua franca? It is a language used as a common language between speakers whose native languages are different. 
Hon Member 
: Is that so? 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Yes; I learnt that today which is pretty good. 
Rodney Hide 
: Your Latin ear’s good. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Ha ha—I thank Mr Hide. The second thing which is another important notion that I think is good to put in front of the Committee is that New Zealand’s citizens can request to be addressed in Maori in a court of law and the court is expected to provide a translator. But oddly enough the proceedings are recorded only in English. So that might give us a lead as to where we are heading in terms of response to Mr Mallard’s comments. 
The third thing I want to put in front of the Committee that might be of interest is that most public services are available only in English and the fourth thing is that some Government departments will provide translations or Maori-speaking public servants on request. Key Government documents such as the census and other documents of concern to Maori are usually translated into Maori. 
So what is the point of some of those key points of information? I suppose it is to come back to the matter that Mr Mallard raised. He talked about the fact that the title of this particular bill starts off in English “New Zealand Geographic Board” and then in brackets it has “Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa”. Clause 1 states: “and may also be cited as—(a) the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 2007; or (b) Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Act 2007.” I cannot remember the term that Mr Mallard used in terms of how it is set out— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Style. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Style! So I suppose we might throw back that challenge and say that if Maori is the official language of Aotearoa and not English as Mr Mallard acknowledged a little bit earlier—and there is also New Zealand Sign Language—then perhaps the easy answer is to put the Maori title there as the official language and follow it up with the English title. In terms of let us say the official language notion the proposition of putting the Maori version in front is I hope a response to Mr Mallard’s call around this particular issue. I suppose that in raising the issue we are put in a position to be able to open up that debate to a number of bills—in fact if not to all bills in this Parliament—on the basis that Maori and New Zealand Sign Language are the official languages of this country. Therefore one might suggest that they go at the front of the title and not at the back and certainly not in brackets. That might be able to help the Minister in terms of future developments or in fact help the whole Government or any Government about how they might set out bills from here on in. It would certainly create an awesome precedent and in particular line up with some of the discussion that was placed in front of the Committee today. Kia ora. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I thank the member Te Ururoa Flavell for his contribution. He raised an issue that I had not got to which is the relative positioning of the Maori and the English within the title of the bill. I think there is a question to be asked because clearly English has been the dominate language of legislation. There is a natural inclination to start in English and then to translate but I do not know whether there is a good reason for that especially when there is a bill that is looking at alternatives. A better example could be by turning the title around and having the “Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa (New Zealand Geographic Board) Act 2007”.  
I am not sure even on the question of the translation of “Act” because of the party. I have never seen a translation of its name—probably the type of party that ACT is means it is less likely to have a translated version available. But there is a question of whether the word “Act” could also be in Maori as well.  
I think this has raised an important issue. Style has developed. I am absolutely certain that at the time of Koro Wetere’s decision to change “Mount Egmont” to “Mount Taranaki” he would have contemplated—[ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the member. I have climbed it but I probably cannot pronounce it. He is welcome to climb it. He can pronounce it but probably could not climb it. But going back to the time of the Hon Koro Wetere he probably would have contemplated having something like this bill but getting the widespread support of the Parliament at that time would have been unlikely.  
I think we have made some progress to get to this point but the question is raised as to whether the Minister has got it right with the first line of the title the precedents and what is in the brackets. I think probably with deference to the Maori Party Mr Henare and others who have made a contribution on this bill that we will probably have to put it through in the form it is in now and accept that as progress as far as legislation is concerned. But we should look at two issues: at the question of the order of the English and Maori in the title and also at whether in fact the style is something that is more generally applicable.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Ka tono au  
Kia takoto te patai. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I move 
 That the question be now put.] 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 196 in the name of the Hon David Parker to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill without amendment and the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships  Registration Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 8 April. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 As we were discussing last time the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Bill was being debated I was getting to the end of my presentation and it had the Opposition riveted. Those members were very interested in the section that I was talking about which related to both parents being required to sign the birth certificate. This is currently not a requirement and it was quite surprising to me as to why the department recommended this. It is because often there were genuine debates over the naming of the child. The parents would ostensibly agree on what the name was and one parent would register the name then some time later he or she would find out that the details were different. For example instead of it being Mary Jane it could be Jane Mary or some other name could have been slipped in. We will now require both parents to sign their signature. 
There are cases where both parents are not able to sign the form and I have outlined most of those. The last one I got to before the interruption of the debate was in the case of only one parent at law—for example where the child had been conceived as a result of an assistive reproductive procedure and born to a mother who does not have a partner. Only the mother’s details would then be registered. It is worthwhile noting that under the registration regime in the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act which was passed by this House in 2004 children in those cases would be able to find out about their genetic heritage and other genetically related siblings who were born as a result of donations made by the same donor. That sorted that issue out. 
The interesting thing about this bill is that is has generated quite an amount of debate. I think people have on occasion missed the purpose of the bill. For hundreds of years our records for births deaths and marriages have been paper-based; they have been in registries. When anybody wanted to know about that information he or she had to present themselves in person and the registrar—often the court registrar—would know exactly who the individual was who fronted up and would know all the details about that person; there was knowledge of each other. We were an intimate society but we have changed. Society has become less intimate. The information will be held in a digital form and therefore people will be able to access these records from anywhere. For that purpose it is more important to protect this information because it is more liable to be used for bad purposes where people might want to steal an identity and do some other things with it. 
The balance of this legislation is to protect the identity of the individuals whose information the State holds whilst giving people open access to court records. The bill will enhance and modernise the functions of Birth Deaths and Marriages and it will ensure the registrar continues to be trusted with the stewardship of life events recorded in it. I commend the bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and I do so with a little bit more confidence than I did on the bill we previously debated. It is at times difficult in Opposition to find the socialist wrongdoing in every piece of legislation that comes before this House. In this particular case thanks to the Minister the Hon Rick Barker who just left the House he has given us plenty of opportunity tonight— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. This afternoon one of your colleagues in the Chair took some exception to some discussions around the fact that I had indicated that the Leader of the Opposition was present for question time. I am sorry but I do not have the particular Speaker’s ruling in front of me but it is convention that one does not draw attention to people leaving the House. This afternoon I was not; I was saying he was present. In this particular case that member has just drawn attention to the fact that a member has left the House. My view on this is that seeing as it is a convention it is a matter of good behaviour and not a matter for the member to be drawn up over and he should be allowed to continue. In the interests of consistency it would be right for him to withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Yes I would ask you to. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am sure the Minister Rick Barker is listening to the proceedings in the House nearby tonight and he has given us plenty of opportunity to debate this. 
For a start we have a Supplementary Order Paper that has been introduced in the late stages of this bill which is almost as big as the bill itself. There are 20 pages in this Supplementary Order Paper. If that does not speak volumes about the convoluted process that the Government has gone through after having sent this bill to the select committee then I do not know what does. 
In regards to this legislation we have to ask the question: what was the wrongdoing the mischief that was trying to be fixed up? As we looked through the detail of it we found that yes on one side there was a feeble attempt—which I think may have been enhanced by the Supplementary Order Paper when we get a chance to get a closer look at that—to modernise the way that we record our births deaths and marriages and bring into the equation some of the new family configurations that now exist and have legislative support for them such as civil unions and the like. So I suspect that there may be some plus side to it there. 
But when we look at the other side of the equation we see the fact that over the years people like genealogists and autobiographers have had an enormous interest in trawling through our Births Deaths and Marriages register. The media also claimed that they needed access to it for accuracy in reporting. Then one has to ask what the wrong is that needs to be fixed. It is on that point that National could not agree with the process or proposal that is before us now. The select committee put a lot of time into this bill. A huge number of people were interested in it. There was multi-party participation in the debate in that select committee and I thank the members of the select committee for giving their time and energy to this particular legislation. 
The Births Deaths and Marriages register is something that is important to people when they need it. I know that when I got married I had to sign the marriage certificate and it was registered. I know that if I go to the Births Deaths and Marriages register it will have not only my own name and address etc. but also my wife’s name her maiden name and her family name. To that end it is something that has had a tradition that goes right back to the English beginnings of the Births Deaths and Marriages register which was recorded in those days by the churches. One can go back to England—certainly to Great Britain—and find a lot of the names that exist in this House. “Cosgrove” I am sure would be found for example. One would have to go to Ireland for “Connell” I imagine but it would certainly be one of those names that one would find if one went and searched the old church registers and suchlike of the British Isles. 
Registers have a long and proud history in that regard but to come to Parliament with a proposal that actually restricts people’s access to them on a range of grounds where there is no evidence to prove that in fact any wrongdoing is taking place or any potential future wrongdoing may take place is just one step too far. On that note I say that the National Party cannot support this legislation. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill. As the deputy chair of the Government Administration Committee I am pleased that Labour was able to reach a suitable accommodation with other parties during the select committee process although I regret to say that does not include the members of the National Party. 
This bill was a genuine effort by Labour to place appropriate limits on public access to the statutory registers maintained by the registrar-general because those registers contain personal information about almost every New Zealand citizen and some of the information is particularly sensitive. The purpose of the bill was also to update and enhance the previous law by taking into account the changing nature of relationships in New Zealand today. 
Interestingly despite the outcry we saw in some quarters in New Zealand about the bill restricting completely open access to the registers held by the Government many other countries including all of the Australian states and territories 10 of the 13 Canadian provinces and territories and the great majority of the states of the USA have imposed restrictions on access to their births deaths and marriages registers. It is not true to say that access is currently unlimited in New Zealand. Some of the information held by the registrar-general has always been inaccessible to the public and some has been accessible only in limited ways. For example there is no open access to the original birth certificates of adoptees and sexual reassignees or to information linked to protected identities and illegitimacy notations on birth entries. During the first reading stage I talked about my own experience of that last example. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the speaker but the barrage of noise from the people who are not speaking is actually quite rude to the person who is speaking. Can they just desist from that. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. A large amount of personal information is also held outside the registers particularly information contained in source documents and those are not normally accessible to the public. 
As the Minister has said the births and deaths registers in New Zealand date back to 1848 and when they were created little thought was given to the privacy risks. But that is perhaps because the risks were low. One of the interesting things we learnt at the select committee is that when births were originally registered in churches in England it was done around the collection of taxes. The issue was not so much about keeping a public record. As the Minister also said the registers were usually in paper form not easily available and often held in one central location. Technological developments of course have altered that quite radically and as the Privacy Commissioner said in her submission which I listened to very carefully personal information has become a valuable commodity to be bought sold combined sorted profiled and mined which means that the opportunities for the misuse of information held on public registers have multiplied. 
Given the lack of scrutiny of what are essentially disclosures of personal information and given the threat and reality of identity theft the original bill was aimed at restricting the access of strangers to information about any person on the register that could then be used in a way that ultimately causes harm to that person. I believe that Parliament would be failing in its duty if it did not recognise the threat of identity fraud and neglected to recognise the potential for the widespread abuse of personal information. Overseas trends and in some cases trends in New Zealand have given sufficient cause for alarm for the Government to take action. It is true that personal information can be obtained from many sources for fraudulent use but the intent of this bill was to make it more difficult for fraudsters to obtain information from the Registrar-General of Births Deaths and Marriages and to use that information for illegal purposes.  
The challenge was for this legislation to preserve the benefits of the public registers including easy access for those who require it in the public interest while minimising the risk to individuals. I believe that we have struck an appropriate balance with the amendments proposed by the Minister in his Supplementary Order Papers.  
During the select committee process genuine concerns emerged from submitters such as genealogists historians and journalists about the consequences of restricting access to registry information. We in Labour took those submissions seriously and we worked with other parties like the Greens to find that important balance. I recall that during the first reading debate one of National’s objections to the bill from those esteemed parliamentarians over there was that the public would no longer have ready access to information on the Births Deaths and Marriages register. I am here tonight to tell those members that I have very good news: the select committee process enabled genealogists historians and the media to put forward their views and be heard along with other organisations that had concerns about further restricting access to those records. In true MMP style and with the collaborative effort of parties other than National we have dealt with the issue of access to information which is in the Supplementary Order Paper while at the same time ensuring that there is a degree of greater protection for people’s personal records.  
But what did National do? The National members had the chance to be part of the process of finding a solution to the concerns they expressed in the first reading debate but instead they chose to persist in their blind opposition to the bill regardless of the changes proposed by the Minister and worked through by Labour the Greens United Future and New Zealand First. That is their call but no one should have any illusions about it. National’s opposition to this bill must be seen as pure political spite.  
The process of working with other parties particularly the Greens was a very good experience for me of what is possible under MMP. I want to thank the member Keith Locke for his practical and collegial approach to finding solutions to what we all felt were genuine concerns. I also want to thank the Minister Rick Barker who was absolutely open and solutions-driven on the concerns we were presented with at the select committee. Unfortunately because the committee could not reach agreement the key changes to the bill will be presented by way of a Supplementary Order Paper and we have already heard some whingeing about that from members on the other side of the House. However the Supplementary Order Paper will address concerns raised in most public submissions that the proposed access provisions would unduly restrict the ability of genealogists historians and other researchers to access information about other people.  
The Supplementary Order Paper retains the current ability of any member of the public to access any named person’s registered information but applicants for certificates printouts copies of documents and the inspection of records will be required to present reasonable identification. That adds a meaningful step and ensures that those who may seek to access registry information for fraudulent purposes will think twice before doing so. In addition an access register will be created so that people can apply to find out who has accessed their records if they so wish. This adds another layer of protection so that if a person is unfortunate enough to have his or her personal information acquired and then used fraudulently that person can at least find out who accessed that information.  
In some circumstances a person may request that his or her records not be disclosed to the public for a certain period of time. We had a lot of discussion in the select committee about examples of that. I am sure that we can all think of horrific situations where people may not want to have details made available to the public and that proposition seemed to be fair enough. The grounds for non-disclosure directions will be prescribed by regulations but a review of the operation of these new access provisions will take place 5 years after their commencement.  
Those amendments are a very good balance between protecting personal information from those who wish to obtain and abuse that information and maintaining freedom of information and the right of public access.  
I am pleased to support this bill. I thank the members of the parties who are supporting the bill at the second reading. Again I thank them for their collaboration and I look forward to the bill progressing to its next stage. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I am very proud to rise on behalf of National in opposition to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill and for very good reason. Yet again members on the Government benches are misleading the New Zealand public about the reason for this bill because the only reason they could give—and this was canvassed exhaustively with the officials—was the opportunity for fraud. No evidence was provided of where this was in actual fact happening to any degree whatsoever. So the justification for this particular bill was spurious in the extreme. There was no correlation between fraud and access to information from the Births Deaths and Marriages records.  
I point out that the National Party tried to explain to the Government members what the real issue was. There is no problem with the information supplied to the public from the Births Deaths and Marriages register. There is no problem with their having access to that information. The problem lies in the fact that any member of the public can go and get an authorised document. It is one of the few Government departments that provides an authorised document without any identification whatsoever and the provisions in the Supplementary Order Papers that the Government will put through will not necessarily change that.  
The Minister has said to me in response to a parliamentary question about a fraud case that there is nothing to stop any member of the public from getting a properly authorised document in relation to anybody else. That is absolutely wrong. All that needed to be changed is for people to be told that sorry they have to provide some form of identification in order to get an authorised document. I make it clear that it is a properly authorised document. Instead of just doing that the Government is going to the extreme and saying that people cannot have information from the register which is patently dumb. It is a situation of a sledgehammer being used to crack a nut and Government members still do not get it. This is the very reason why National continues to oppose this Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill.  
At no point did the Minister give any relevant evidence in relation to fraud and access to information from the Births Deaths and Marriages register. For all of those genealogists’ groups lawyers and banks there is more justification for having access to that information than for not having it.  
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.