Volume 616 Week 52 - Wednesday 24 March 2004 
Volume 616 Week 52 - Wednesday 24 March 2004 
[Volume:616;Page:11907] 
Wednesday 24 March 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the time by which the Primary Production Committee must finally report the 2002-03 financial review of AgriQuality Ltd to be extended to 10 May 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There appears to be none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Rehabilitation Policy 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Is she satisfied with Accident Compensation Corporation’s rehabilitation policy; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 The accident compensation legislation puts heavy emphasis on rehabilitation—the strongest emphasis ever. Rehabilitation is a dynamic process and the Accident Compensation Corporation is constantly working towards improvements for better quality and timely outcomes for claimants. This includes finding better ways to work with those claimants. The corporation’s philosophy is consistent with the legislation and on that basis I am satisfied that its approach is well founded. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister aware that Accident Compensation Corporation rehabilitation programmes such as the work preparation programme provided by Alpha Consultants in the Waikato require accident victims to undertake a nasal enema by pouring water into their noses sit cross-legged on the floor with their thumbs in their ears humming and also being forced to stand in a paddock and laugh at each other; if so how can she have any confidence whatsoever that such seemingly pointless exercises provide any genuine rehabilitative qualities or effect? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is a temptation to say that is quite enough information but it is new information to me. It is information that I find very interesting and I will be following it up with some vigour. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What proportion of accident compensation claimants are successfully rehabilitated within a year of their injury? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am advised that over 90 percent of claimants are successfully rehabilitated measured by a combination of the rate of return to work and positive assessments of claimants gaining maximum independence. By world standards this is a first-class achievement. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What checks are undertaken by the Accident Compensation Corporation to ensure that people who are delivering these rehabilitative programmes are sane and subject to appropriate scrutiny thereby ensuring that accident victims are not captured by PC evangelists intent on preaching their own non-scientific feel-good nonsense theories at the expense of the taxpayer and how would that help a woman with a shoulder injury? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The purpose of the work preparation programme is to ensure that claimants have assistance particularly those claimants who have been away from work for some time and may be having difficulty re-entering the workforce. I am not sure that there is any psychiatric evaluation of the individual providers but I am confident that the contracts the Accident Compensation Corporation issues to those providers have a very high outcome measurement and I will be reporting to that member on the outcome measurements for the particular provider that he raised in the earlier supplementary question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Minister is providing us with this information can she also inform the House as to how many people are forced to attend such rehabilitative programmes and is this an example of the systematic nationwide scheme in action or is it a case of one fruit loop having slipped through her inept quality control systems? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I understand that the work preparation programme is a 6-week course which is being run by a variety of providers nationwide. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister received any reports recently on the satisfaction rates of accident compensation claimants? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I can report to the House that the percentage of claimant satisfaction as used in a measure through an independent survey has increased from 71 percent in September 2001 to 83 percent in June 2003. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a synopsis of the aforementioned treatment delivered to a constituent which included her viewing  
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Genetically Modified Organisms—Community Management 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has she received a copy of the report “Community Management of GMOs” and what advice if any has she received on its contents? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes my office has received a copy of the report. I have been advised that appendix 1 the interim opinion of Dr Roydon Somerville QC does not differ materially from the Crown Law advice to the Government. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When she was quoted by  
Morning Report 
 this morning as warning that councils wanting to use the Resource Management Act to create GE-free zones may face an expensive legal battle was she threatening councils with a legal challenge to their plans and rules by central government agencies or was she merely warning them that the international GE industry has very deep pockets and might bankrupt their ratepayers? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I have never issued a threat. I have never said that local authorities cannot exercise their Resource Management Act powers to regulate GMOs locally. However the legal advice is clear that there are high hurdles for councils doing so which might expose them and their communities to legal expense. 
David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware of any reports indicating local government attitudes to local control of GMOs? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Today  
Morning Report 
 reported that many councils appeared satisfied with leaving central government to make the hard decisions rather than see local authorities take a piecemeal approach. Local Government New Zealand has yet to consider the matter. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why is it straightforward under the Resource Management Act for councils to prohibit the growing of pine trees in certain areas as a land-use control but not GE crops? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: That is interesting because one can take the hypothetical example that should the Environmental Risk Management Authority give approval for a Crown research institute to grow genetically modified pine trees in Northland under certain conditions and the Northland Regional Council attempts to oppose controls under the Resource Management Act the council’s controls will have to be science-based and effects-based just like those of the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Crown research institute will probably take them to task if they are not. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is she aware of a report to the European Parliament last year that stated: “The GMO-free region of upper Austria has become a magnet for seed firms and has attracted foreign investment because strict business rules can be complied with here. In such a situation retaining GMO-free status may represent the most economic and effective measure for co-existence.” and does she support the right of New Zealand councils to exploit such economic potential for their regions? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I am not aware of that Austrian report. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Crown Title and Maori Customary Title 
3.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Will she rule out Maori customary title co-existing with Crown title given her statement yesterday that “confusion has arisen” because of the term customary title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The confusion has arisen because there are two systems to record land titles in New Zealand: the land transfer system and a separate system devised and run by the Maori Land Court. Underlying those two systems of land title there are also common law rules relating to customary title which is also known as aboriginal or native title. The term “title” is often used interchangeably but it does have different legal meanings. As to the specific provisions of the legislation the member will have to wait until the bill is introduced to Parliament. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: If the Government has given away public domain and customary title and is retaining the High Court’s jurisdiction what is actually left of the Government’s 17 December policy? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said the member will have to wait until the bill is introduced in the House to see how those matters have all been addressed. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Will the acknowledgment of an ancestral connection to the foreshore and seabed affect the public’s right of access to the foreshore and seabed? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. 
Dail Jones 
: When will the Minister draw to the attention of the National member Mr Mapp the well-stated principle set out in  
Adams’ Land Transfer Act 
 at page A/1115that a Maori title ordinarily speaking—it quotes land over which the Maori title has not been extinguished—is for “land beneficially owned by Maori in respect of which either by Crown grant or otherwise no estate in fee simple has been created.” That law was simple until the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act was concerned and will she also confirm that that Act was introduced by National? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I agree with the member. I think he has just made the point that this matter is not for amateurs. It is in fact quite complex. The answer is that he is right. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Minister also confirm that if no action is taken to clarify issues relating to customary title customary rights Crown title public domain etc. then the status quo that remains will be the situation as ruled upon by the Court of Appeal in June last year—namely that those matters can in part or in whole be determined by the Maori Land Court—which most New Zealanders expressed themselves to be unsatisfied with and unhappy about at that time? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The member is correct. Of course one of the remedies under the legislation that that court can award would be a fee simple title which would mean an exclusive title. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How will the Government’s new proposals incorporate customary rights and in what way will they differ from existing customary usage of mataitai and taiapure? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The matters are different as the member has indicated. As I have said before he will have to wait until the bill is introduced to see the detail that will address that matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Will the Minister rule out Maori having rights to the foreshore that are not available to other New Zealanders; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Those matters will be addressed in the bill that will be introduced into Parliament in the near future. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Maybe at some time in the future all sorts of things will be addressed. I mean in the end we will get to Judgement Day. But today is question time and I think I asked a perfectly reasonable question. The Minister is prepared to answer questions from members on the Government side of the House and is prepared to answer questions from parties that support the Government. I do not support the Government but I was asking a perfectly reasonable question: will the Government rule out Maori having special rights? That is a pretty simple question so why can she not answer it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a reasonable point and asked a reasonable question. The Minister gave a reasonable answer addressing the question. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What form of co-management will Maori have of the seabed and foreshore in light of her statement yesterday that that idea promoted by the Minister of Maori Affairs will be incorporated in the legislation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: That matter will be addressed in the bill that will be introduced into Parliament in the near future. 
Dail Jones 
: I seek leave of the House to table  
Adams’ Land Transfer Act 
 page A/1115. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kiwibank—Success 
4.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the success of Kiwibank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Kiwibank has met or beaten all its financial and performance targets since it opened for business in February 2002. It can now boast 290 outlets and more than 200000 customers. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What risks if any are there to Kiwibank’s future? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Not indeed competition because Kiwibank faces enormous competition from very much larger-funded Australian-owned banks. The greatest risk would be a change of Government given comments on  
Holmes  
last night that indicate that Dr Brash would definitely want to sell Kiwibank. 
John Key 
: If Kiwibank is so successful why does it need to be propped up with revenue from New Zealand Post’s red ticket arm and bill-paying services to the tune of $35 million a year and does he agree that redirecting this revenue from one arm of New Zealand Post to another is just a snow job to hide much larger losses? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not at all. Indeed Kiwibank is clearly on target for making a profit next year as its business plan indicated. One of the reasons—[ 
Interruption 
] The chairman is a former National Party Prime Minister who having made the same mistakes as Dr Brash and sold a New Zealand-owned bank has since seen the error of his ways and chairs Kiwibank. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can the Minister of Finance advise the House and the country as to whether he knows of any OECD nation where in the last 7 years the trading banks have made the same size of profits as the banks operating in New Zealand and is that his idea of competition—as espoused by Dr Brash on television last night? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is correct that foreign-owned New Zealand banks have made exceptionally large profits in recent years. One of the achievements of Kiwibank has been to lead to quite a reduction in the fees being charged by those overseas banks which means that from the Government’s perspective Kiwibank has succeeded in its first objective. 
John Key 
: Why would the Minister think that a bank with total assets of well under 1 percent of the total assets held in the New Zealand banking system would have any material impact at all on the provision of banking services for New Zealanders and why does he not just admit that the people most happy with New Zealand Kiwibank are the other banks in the New Zealand system which have managed to give that bank the poorest most unprofitable worst accounts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That was certainly a very revealing question. New Zealanders who do not have large wealth and large incomes—according to the National Party’s deputy finance spokesperson—are people not worth having in one’s business. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For some reason there seems to be a little bit too much noise at this moment. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister in no sense even attempted to answer the question Mr Key asked. There was no reference to the question at all in his answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In respect of the Minister’s first answer is it his view that when a spokesperson on finance talks about competition in banking the clear inference is that it is of benefit to the consumer not just to shareholders who may extract massive profits from New Zealand; and would that explain why the “great debater” has not asked a question in the House today? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first question only can be answered. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member is correct to suggest that the purpose of competition is to drive down costs not simply to exist for its own sake. Of course discretion is always the better part of valour. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave for an additional supplementary question to be granted to the National Party today on the basis that the Leader of the Opposition the finance spokesperson use it forthwith. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member knew the Standing Orders he would know that he cannot do that. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will stand withdraw and apologise. I have made a ruling. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that one cannot seek leave on behalf of another member but with the House being the master of its own destiny I think that it is quite possible for someone to seek an opening for one further question to be asked. I so seek leave now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To be asked by the member himself? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No by anyone—hopefully the “great debater”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can seek leave for that. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I seek leave for Mr Peters to ask a further question. I know that he sought leave to go on the  
Holmes 
 show and was ignored and I know that Helen Clark very wisely did not turn up. The reason they are really upset is because Don Brash actually cleaned them up last night. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is an interesting question and I have been given accurate advice. Leave can be sought for an additional question but then anyone can compete for it. I have to make the judgment. Is there any objection? There is not. One additional question can therefore be asked on this topic today. [ 
Interruption 
] I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I want to hear from “Fearless”. Come on! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He is entitled to ask a question if he wishes. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course we will let him ask it but I heard Mr Peters say he wanted the House to hear from “Fearless”. Is he referring to himself? That would be far too humorous a description of himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s attempts at wit are often only half successful. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Minister done a comparison of some of the trading banks’ profit rates at the time when the economy was growing at 1 percent—when National was in charge—and the banks were making between 26 and 32 percent per annum even without the marginal growth rate; and what sort of economic commentator would advocate that as being competition? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member makes a very fair point. It is quite clear that to some extent competition existed more in terms of the number of banks than customers receiving a good deal from the services those banks provided. He also makes a fair point about the size of those profits. The Inland Revenue Department has been discussing with the banks the fact that their tax papers do not seem to reflect the amount of profit they have been making. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am about to send somebody out. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can I ask the Minister why if this— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member but I think I should raise this as a point of order now. We just heard the Minister of Finance give out confidential Inland Revenue Department information. To say that the department is investigating anybody appears to me to be a very serious matter for the member to be mentioning. Maybe I misheard him but I would like him to clarify that because it would appear to me to be a major breach of the security provisions of the Inland Revenue Department and a misuse of the privileges of this House—if that is what I understood the member to be doing. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am certainly debarred from giving taxpayer-specific information. That was not specific to any bank. It was about the banks in general. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that that is not a matter on which I can rule. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I specifically asked for one further question to be opened on this issue and to leave it open and I sought leave. Having given Don Brash the chance to balance— [ 
Interruption 
] No no members should listen and they will learn. You have closed off question time for this question. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes he had and  
Hansard 
 will demonstrate it. I then sought leave for one extra question. Not just me—Mr Prebble did first. I sought it specifically in a way that could be granted and it was granted. That question has been answered and we should pass on to the next question and not give “Deputy Don” the chance to rise now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I just want to say that the member should read the Standing Orders. The extra question was granted. The House can give leave. That is the 61st question and it does not count in the sums. Any member from any party in the House that has not used up its quota can still have supplementary questions to No 4. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Why if Kiwibank has been so successful over the last 2 or 3 years does it still make up a banking system no bigger than Taranaki Savings Bank? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Kiwibank started from scratch with a capital of $83 million. Although that sounded huge to members opposite when it was being proposed it is tiny for setting up a bank. It has captured well over 200000 New Zealand customers in the space of 2 years. 
John Key 
: Given the enormous interest in Kiwibank from Mr Mallard and other members and given our desire to ask questions on this side of the House I seek leave for another question on Kiwibank. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member does not need leave. He can ask a question. [ 
Interruption 
] All right. The member has sought leave for an additional question. This is a 62nd question. Is there any objection? There is but the member is perfectly entitled to have a supplementary question. 
John Key 
: If he is so keen on competition and believes in the success of competition from Kiwibank why has he asked to redirect into Kiwibank $35 million worth of original revenue that was never in the bank’s business plan to prop up what is otherwise a failing institution? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly not a failing institution. It is in effect outperforming on forecast in terms of profitability. The synergies that Kiwibank achieves in terms of the internal business of New Zealand Post is one of the reasons why it has been able to offer reduced fees. For Mr Key reduced fees for people on low incomes with modest cheque accounts may not seem important but they are very important for ordinary New Zealanders—the people that party opposite is not interested in in terms of banking. 
John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know the Minister wants to rant and rave about his position but I would just ask you— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
John Key 
: I asked him a very specific question. The amount of $35 million has been redirected from New Zealand Post into Kiwibank. It was not in the original business plan and I asked the Minister to tell the House why he allowed that redirection to take place if Kiwibank is such a successful organisation. I would like an answer to the question if I may. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did put in a comment about failing banks and the Minister certainly addressed that part of the question. I heard him. 
Contact Energy Ltd—Resource Management Act 
5.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Why did she grant requiring authority status to Contact Energy Ltd in August 2000 as a network utility operator under section 167 of the Resource Management Act 1991 and in so doing what actions did she take to ensure that she complied with her statutory obligations? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I approved Contact Energy Ltd’s application for requiring authority status because it satisfied the criteria in section 167 of the Resource Management Act. I assessed the application against the criteria in the Act and the advice of the Ministry for the Environment. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why did the Minister call for reports from officials to ensure that the interests of tangata whenua were protected when she failed to consult or take any measures to protect the interests of the private landowners who are directly impacted by mile after mile of large above-ground pipelines? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There are two points to that question. In answer to the last one the environmental effects of miles and miles of pipeline are not considered when giving over requiring authority status. Instead that goes before the Environment Court as would any other consent. That is the normal process. I asked about the tangata whenua consultation because 2 weeks prior to granting this I had received correspondence querying the ability of another requiring authority to consult. One of the things I must take into consideration is that a requiring authority must show it can give proper regard to the interests of those affected. 
Dave Hereora 
: As a requiring authority would Contact Energy still have to apply for regional council consents for work on a designated site? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. That would apply to the pipelines going across the land. Resource consents are still needed for all matters that fall within the control of a relevant regional council such as approval for any discharges that might be required. Those consents would go through the normal assessment processes including public notification hearings and rights to appeal. 
Heather Roy 
: How can the Minister claim that she gave proper regard to the interests of those affected and the interests of the environment as required by the Act when the proposal involves a network of large above-ground pipes that cross private property injecting large volumes of polluting waste water directly into the ground in a manner likely to damage the geothermal field—what was she thinking? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: In considering an application for requiring authority status the Minister does not assess the environmental affects of any proposal. The proposal to inject steam back into the ground has to go through a consent process in the normal manner. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On reflection does the Minister still consider it appropriate to have granted this requiring authority status to a private company when the criteria in the Act for consideration of that deliberately require the Minister to gauge the impact on landowners and on the environment and clearly there is an adverse impact in both those instances? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I have to consider that the applicant is likely to satisfactorily carry out all the responsibilities of a requiring authority and will give proper regard to the interests of those affected and to the interests of the environment. I have to show that applicants will give proper regard; then they apply as normal to the consenting authority to get consents for the environment activities they will undertake. 
Rates—GST Removal 
6.  
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday that “the removal of GST would not lead to a significant fall in rating bills because local authorities would have to recoup their lost revenue in other ways.”; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I stand by my statement that the removal of GST would not lead to a significant fall in rating bills. Exempting rates from GST would mean that the cost incurred by councils in providing goods and services to their communities would increase as they would no longer be able to recover the GST they paid on goods and services. This cost increase would have to be recouped by collecting additional revenue through rates. This answer clarifies I think my reference to revenue yesterday. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We find ourselves in a degree of difficulty with the answer to this question because for the second day in a row the Minister of Local Government has seriously misled the House in stating that the removal of GST would not actually affect the revenue of local bodies. It is a technicality but that is achieved by zero rating— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member tell me what the point of order is. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I think the point of order is bound up with the convention that ignorance of the law is no excuse and we are getting an incorrect answer for the second consecutive day and in a way that is misleading the House on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member does not like the answer I presume from the comment he is making. The Minister was asked specifically whether he stood by his statement and I heard him say that he did. I could not have thought of a clearer answer to the question. Whether it is the answer the member wants is another issue. 
Paul Adams 
: I ask again does the Minister concede that he was embarrassingly wrong to assert yesterday that removing GST from rates would have little effect on rates bills when every small-business man in the country knows that by zero rating GST on rates local authorities could still receive GST refunds on expenses; and if he does not know that may I offer the Minister a briefing on this following question time? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No and I inform the House that I invited this member this morning to come to my office to talk about it and I am happy still to do that. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Why has the Government not removed GST from rates? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: GST is designed to apply to the widest range of goods and services supplied in New Zealand. This ensures that the tax is as fair and equitable as possible. The GST regime works best with few exemptions as they can create distortions and extra compliance costs. 
Paul Adams 
: Will the Minister reconsider his policy regarding GST being removed from rates after we have our meeting after question time as it would provide a big saving to ordinary residential ratepayers because I fail to see any reason why he could not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Clearly I am happy to talk about this further with the member on another occasion. 
Corrections Department—Iwi Consultation 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What is the total cost over the past 4 years for iwi expenditure for each of the Northland Spring Hill Auckland women’s and Otago regional corrections facilities including payments for cultural advisory services tikanga advice iwi communication and other cultural assessment or management activities? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The total cost of iwi expenditure over the past 4 years is Northland $467985; Auckland women’s facility $133747; Spring Hill $1313000.01; and Otago $49668. I am advised these payments are not broken down according to the categories the member has described. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What limits will he place on this public largesse and how do we know that anything will change when the Minister says the spending is excessive but his department denies that and says the costs were appropriate? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly it is still my view that the spending is excessive. That is the reason why I have called for the report. The second thing I will say is that as the member knows I have asked for future commitments to be brought to me for justification. I think as far as largesse is concerned it has to be said that approximately $277000 was spent by the previous National Government on consultation over the Northland prison between 1997 and 1999 before any concrete was actually poured. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Can the Minister outline to this House why we are building four new prisons? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes. My colleague the Minister of Justice has recently released new prison forecasts that show a 20 percent increase in the prison population in the next decade to 7400 inmates. This is in part due to the Government being tough on crime by changing the Bail Act the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. This has resulted in longer sentences for the worst offenders and fewer offenders being granted bail. This means that four new prisons are needed. 
Rodney Hide 
: When investigating this excessive spending by his department will he include an investigation of the Department of Corrections payments to the company Jagcon over 4 years of $1860514—a company owned by John Hamilton the project manager for the prisons—or is he just worried about excessive Maori spending? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I will be looking at that matter but I can say that Mr Hamilton is an engineer and a former Department of Corrections person so he is well qualified to look across the four sites as part of his brief. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does the Minister agree with the guarantee that the Hon Matt Robson gave this House on 15 May 2002 that the $245000 annual contract offered to the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust to consult over the Spring Hill Corrections Facility would be “used wisely” and in the light of recent revelations does he now have a different view? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have never said that some of this consultation is not justified. In fact consultation as the member will know is required under the Resource Management Act. I am looking into some of the individual figures that as I have said before I consider to be excessive. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague Dr Hutchison asked a very specific question as to a ministerial undertaking given by the Minister’s predecessor. The Minister did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I thought he did address that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does it concern the Minister that over $1 million has been paid out to Mr John Hamilton in just 4 years without a tender process and with no accountability measures in place or does he not know about that either? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: There are most certainly accountability measures. The member has to realise that these four prisons are the biggest expenditure on corrections facilities that New Zealand has seen for a long period of time. They are complicated projects and it is important that they get up and under way as quickly as possible. From what I have seen Mr Hamilton has done a good job. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Does he regard it as wise standard practice to pay a Tom Moana $131000 for consultation services which includes $120 an hour plus mileage for driving to Waitangi and back and $120 an hour for reading and research given that he was the same man who in the same year as he was collecting the money was convicted of 53 counts of fraud? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I am aware of the things that member has said and that is one of the things I will be looking into extremely closely. 
Drugs—Antidepressants 
8.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: When was he first advised that some antidepressant drugs can trigger dangerous side effects such as suicidal thoughts in adolescents? 
Rodney Hide 
: That was 2 years ago! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is Mr Hide’s final warning. The member had started the question. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Neither I as Associate Minister nor the Minister of Health has been briefed although there is nothing unusual in that. But I am advised that Medsafe’s expert advisory committee on medicine safety—the Medicines Adverse Reactions Committee—has been reviewing data on the safety of antidepressants in particular the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor known as SSRI antidepressants since June 2003. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Government be following the example of the British Government now that it has this information in stopping general practitioners from prescribing most of these SSRI antidepressants for adolescents and children because these drugs have been shown to have few if any beneficial effects and considerable risks; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I can advise the member and the House that the UK has not banned these drugs. Rather it has contra-indicated or in normal language strongly warned against the use of them in children under 18 with major depressive disorders. The products are still on the market and doctors can still use them at their own discretion. Contra-indication is a warning not a ban. Doctors here are being warned against the use of SSRIs without specialist advice. Similarly the United States and Australia have also issued statements and a warning to doctors but no attempt has been made to ban continued prescribing. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What action has been taken in relation to advising prescribers of these drugs? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As information on particular SSRIs showed in 2003 that they should not be used in the treatment of children with major depressive disorder—that is those under 18—letters were sent to doctors at that time. When the UK Committee on Safety of Medicines strongly warned against the use of all but one SSRI in children under 18 in December 2003 the Medicines Adverse Reactions Committee in New Zealand reviewed the UK reports. Based on that review Medsafe issued advice this month to doctors that the risk was in its view still unclear and further data was being sought but that doctors should only consider using the products for adolescents on the advice of psychiatric specialists. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: As these drugs have become more widely available in the last 4 years why do we not have updated data on suicide rates—the last data being available for 1999-2000—to compare whether New Zealand still has the second-highest rate of suicide for males and the fourth-highest rate for females in the OECD? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There are two separate issues really—one is the reporting of suicides. This is a complex issue because our suicide statistics are among the most accurate in the world and depend on reports from coroners’ inquiries inquests and so on. The latest reports will be released next month which will take us up to 2001. That is far too long and this Government has taken steps to improve the coroner’s position in New Zealand and to professionalise it further and to improve through a variety of electronic means data records and the way in which we report. 
 The second issue really is about the impact of these drugs on suicide and as the member almost certainly knows suicide is a very complex issue and cannot be pinned on one or other cause. If it could be most of us would be very happy to see that solution followed. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does he believe that rather than focusing solely on the drugs themselves those who have the authority to prescribe these drugs also need to be scrutinised with a move towards limiting this authority to mental health experts rather than local general practitioners who are currently freely able to prescribe such drugs? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions. One of the reasons that drug use in this area has increased is that there has been an improved diagnosis of depression in adolescents. Most of us of a vintage age can recall when this was probably not recognised by anybody. Now that it is recognised there are modern drugs available—and these drugs that we are talking about are modern drugs. They are better than the drugs of say 10 years ago. Counselling and one-on-one discussion is still the front-line treatment for this kind of illness in adolescents but drug therapy is there and on advice—in the case of these particular drugs it is suggested to general practitioners that it be on advice of specialists—it is a back-up treatment that is obviously being more used by general practitioners now because of the nature of the new drugs that are available. 
Judy Turner 
: When was he first advised of dangerous side effects such as harm to the central nervous system neurotoxicity cognitive decline psychosis exacerbation of schizophrenia in vulnerable individuals and damage to the respiratory immune and cardiovascular systems from cannabis use by adolescents and is he surprised that the Greens do not support the banning of this drug? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I do not unless I request specific advice get that kind of advice from committees quasi-Government committees that are set up with professionals to examine these kinds of issues. That is why Ministers do not normally get briefings or advice—because these committees act on the information and professional advice that comes through the literature and through the experience of doctors and they act independently of the Government. It would be only on request or if a change of policy were indicated that Ministers would be informed or involved. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does it concern the Minister that recent evidence shows that Glaxo Smith Kline the manufacturer of the antidepressant Aropax knew as long ago as 1998 that Aropax had no beneficial effect on children with depression but held back its data in order to “minimise any negative commercial impact” and would the Government have acted earlier if it had had access to that data? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government sets up these specialist committees so that the best information and the best advice can be followed in the use of these drugs and in the advice to doctors and clinicians and so on. I can say that I regret reading the press release of the Green Party on this matter where there is some suggestion that the Government or its advisers is following this course of action only because it wants to protect drug companies. That is outrageously wrong and I suggest that the facts should actually be checked out a lot more clearly by the Greens before they issue such releases. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Associate Minister agree that consumers as well as doctors have a right to know the side effects of these drugs and will the Government therefore be warning the thousands of unsuspecting New Zealand parents whose children are taking these drugs unaware of the potentially serious side effects of them? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes of course I do agree that patients ordinary New Zealanders and others need to know and have a right to know the side effects. They are usually quite complex—and there are side effects from everything. I suggest to the member that this applies both to chemical drugs and natural remedies as well. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister consider that an acceptable way to treat depressed children in New Zealand is for Glaxo Smith Kline to suppress the information about the lack of beneficial effects of Aropax on children while general practitioners were prescribing Aropax to children presumably in complete ignorance of the true data? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Politicians are well advised to rely on specialist advice in those areas; they are complex. If anyone wants to stand up in this House or anywhere else in New Zealand to propose themselves as experts on depression and suicide they should take a 7-year course in it before they even begin. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table an internal document from Glaxo Smith Kline that shows that the company was not intending to table negative data. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Corrections Bill—Management and Rehabilitation Plans 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has he received any advice regarding the liability risks posed by legislating within the Corrections Bill that the Department of Corrections must devise individual management plans and rehabilitation programmes for prisoners; if so what information has he received? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am advised that some liability risk was identified in the early stages of the development of the Corrections Bill. However those risks have been addressed by the inclusion in the bill of a requirement for the department to provide rehabilitative programmes “when reasonable and practicable in the circumstances and within the resources available”. 
Ron Mark 
: Is he aware that clauses 49 50 and 51 of the Corrections Bill have increased the risk to the Department of Corrections of litigation from not only a released offender but potentially from any ensuing victim of a released offender; if so what is he doing to alleviate those identified risks? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot be asked to give a legal opinion but he may comment on the issue if he wishes. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I shall not be offering a legal opinion. However I can say that those matters were addressed as part of the development of the bill. The inclusion of the words I have read out substantially addresses those risks. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why is the new corrections legislation required? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The current Penal Institutions Act is now 50 years old and does not reflect modern policies and practices—in particular that rehabilitation and reintegration have a place alongside containment and security. It also needs to be compatible with other criminal justice reforms passed recently—for example the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Victims Rights Act. The current Penal Institutions Act has been frequently amended and is now in need of major revision. 
Marc Alexander 
: What evidence can the Minister provide to back up his claim in Parliament yesterday during question time that “… the reality is that the integrated offender management system is proving to be very successful” when reoffending rates have shown little signs of movement from an 87 percent recidivism rate within 5 years and increased use of home detention is obscuring the real rate of reoffending? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: One of the sources of information is page 36 of the department’s annual report. If the member would care to look at that it would tell him that allowing for a 1-year follow-up period after release from prison reconviction rates have declined from 43.5 percent of all offenders in 2000-01 to 39.7 percent in 2001-02. I think the Department of Corrections is doing a fabulous job in very difficult circumstances. 
Ron Mark 
: Does he realise that the Corrections Bill in its current form potentially creates a liability risk that could be described as “notoriously uncertain” and that the bill lacks predictability in its application of broadly framed rules to particular cases and therefore “materially increases the chances of successful claims against the Crown”; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I do not accept that. I have already advised the member that those issues were looked at in the development of the bill. It has been through the select committee process which the member might have been a part of. Wording has been added and we now have legislation that should stand the test of time. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister advise the House whether given the implied legislative right of prison inmates under clauses 49 50 and 51 of his Corrections Bill to receive prompt assessment individualised management plans and rehabilitative programmes he would consider returning the bill to the Law and Order Committee to reassess these liabilities; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No. The select committee had a long period of time looking into this and I am satisfied with the work that has been done. I hope the member will support the fact that a lot of work goes into rehabilitating offenders when they are in prison in order to be able to reduce their reoffending when they come out. I hope the member will support that. After all it is one of the things he has been calling for. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a legal opinion from Chapman Tripp on the Corrections Bill—specifically on assessment management plans and rehabilitative programmes. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Literacy—Assessment Tool 
10. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is it the Government’s intention to expand the use of the asTTle assessment tool beyond years 5 to 7; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. The assessment tool for teaching and learning (asTTle) allows teachers to assess students’ ability in core skill areas like literacy and numeracy and to compare those results with national standards. It lets parents and teachers know learning strengths and gaps. The Government has just begun the development of version 3 of asTTle. It will include numeracy for students in years 8 to 10 and will be trialled in 55 secondary schools across the country this year. Version 4 will include literacy tests for years 8 to 10 and will be available from the beginning of 2005. This is part of this Government’s commitment to achievable high standards. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What advice has he received on the value of the asTTle assessment tool? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am advised that asTTle is now becoming firmly embedded as a valuable resource for principals and teachers in New Zealand schools. It is also beginning to be used to evaluate professional development programmes and to calculate achievement gains for various teaching and learning programmes. For example asTTle will be used to gather analyse and evaluate project-wide data on student achievement in the literacy professional development project this year. It is a key part of improving standards and has gained international recognition. 
Community Employment Group—Hip-hop Study Grant 
11.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What were the reasons that the Community Employment Group gave $26000 to a woman to “do a whole lot of travelling for hip hop” when she admitted that she was “green” on her knowledge of hip hop “Nothing major came of the trip apart from seeing it all happen.” and that the Hawaii and Fiji leg of the trip was “basically to chill out.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The grant was given because the selection panel was satisfied that the application met the fund’s criteria including the applicant having a proven track record as a social entrepreneur and the worth of the application to the community. As a result of recent statements on aspects of how the grant was used I have asked the Community Employment Group to undertake a full review of the circumstances of the approval of this grant of what it was spent on and of the results that were achieved. I can also advise the House that the Social Entrepreneur Fund has been frozen since November last year. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister tell the House whether any taxpayers’ money went towards any aspect of the couple of days in Paris that was undisclosed to the Community Employment Group or towards the “chill out” in Fiji and Hawaii? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That information will be provided to me in the report that I have asked for as referred to in the answer to the primary question. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is she satisfied that the objectives of the social entrepreneur scheme are being met; if not what changes is the Government proposing to make? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Minister for Social Development and Employment has had a concern that grants made from that fund were not sufficiently directed to its purpose which is to improve the social and economic well-being of disadvantaged communities by supporting key people who are working to make a positive difference in their areas. In August of last year he asked officials to undertake a review of the scheme. That review has been completed and has recommended revised grants criteria. Those recommendations are due to be considered by Ministers shortly. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister believe that taxpayers got more value for money from spending $40000 to create a bibliography of the spiritual make-up of Maori or from giving $15000 to Robert Reid the failed Alliance candidate for Wellington Central to complete a first-year course for a graduate diploma in economic development; and is that an indication that social entrepreneur grants are being given as a payback to political cronies and mates? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The irony of the example used is tragically wasted on that member frankly. But I can confirm as I did in the answer to the previous supplementary question that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has had a concern about the application of grants made from that fund. That is why he asked for a complete review in August of last year and that is why the fund was frozen in November. 
Judy Turner 
: Is the Minister concerned about the value of such a trip when the applicant herself has stated that: “I asked them for the money told them what I wanted to do and if the people wanted to buy into that then that’s fine.”? In light of that can she confirm that the actual number of jobs resulting from this junket is likely to be not many if any? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can confirm that I share the member’s concerns. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister agree with Charlie Moore the head of the Community Employment Group who after being asked on National Radio whether the hip-hop grant money was well spent replied: “I certainly think it is. Yes I do.”; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Not on first information no. 
Prisoners—Forecast Trends 
12.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What trends are shown in recent Ministry of Justice forecasts of the prison population and what reasons are given for these trends by the Ministry of Justice? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Ministry of Justice’s annual update of forecasts of prison population predicts a rise of about 20 percent in the prison population by 2010 up to 7400. The main reasons given for the increase are tougher sentencing legislation for serious crimes and other policy initiatives that crack down on crime including more police and higher rates of crime resolution. 
Tim Barnett 
: What legislative initiatives are referred to in research as being responsible for serious offenders serving longer in prison? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Three pieces of legislation have resulted in tougher action against serious offenders. The research shows that the Sentencing Act of 2002 has resulted in longer sentences being imposed for serious crimes. At the same time the research predicts that the Parole Act of 2002 will increase the proportion of sentences that inmates actually spend in gaol and under the Bail Act of 2000 it found that more high-risk recidivist defendants were being denied bail. All of those Acts are good legislation. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister discussed the predicted increases of up to 20 percent with the Minister of Corrections in particular with regard to the demands that will be placed on the Department of Corrections’ much-vaunted integrated offender management system which it is currently failing to keep up and over which it is likely to be exposed to undue fiscal risk? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have discussed the projected increases with the Minister of Corrections and he would advise the House that the four new prisons under construction or planned will cost over $600 million for capital expenditure with operating costs of about $120 million a year. That is a huge investment. Most of us would rather spend that on health or education but at the moment and in the short term the only way to keep offenders and recidivists off the streets is longer sentences. That is what we have done. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance. I specifically asked not about capital development bricks and mortar or new prisons but about the impact on the integrated offender management system. The Minister did not once mention those words in his answer. I ask him through you to answer my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to make a brief comment on that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I did mention the extra expenditure on operating costs including the integrated offender management system. All of the material I have read on that indicates that it is a huge advance on what went before it. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: How many more non-violent offenders does the Minister expect to lock up over the next 7 years and does he really think that locking non-violent offenders in jail is the best way to rehabilitate them or keep them from a life of crime? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Prison is not good as a rehabilitative measure. I will acknowledge the point made by the member immediately. But I think he should realise that 60 percent of the inmates in prison are there for violent offences—in particular homicide sexual violation grievous assault and robbery. The property offenders there are not there because they have committed their first second third fourth or even fifth burglary; they are people who every time they are let out of jail are back breaking into your house and my house and other people’s houses in the community. The only thing that can be done with those sorts of people unfortunately is to take them out of circulation and we are doing it. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While I appreciate the comments the Minister made my question was how many more non-violent offenders does he expect to lock up over the next 7 years? I am genuinely interested to know what those projections are. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not sure what the projections will be. The property offenders currently in prison make up about 20 percent of the prison population. What the new legislation will do is ensure that people who are the most serious property offenders will spend longer in prison—as recent burglars did getting 12 and 13½ years’ imprisonment after their 182nd offence. 
General Debates 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. For over 2 years the Prime Minister the Minister of Corrections and local MP Nanaia Mahuta have known of the problems occurring in the Waikato and the concerns raised by local Maori as they spent $1.3 million. I want to illustrate how serious those concerns are by reading out a letter I received today: “Kia ora My name is Irene Kereama-Royal and I currently reside in Hamilton. I am a qualified lawyer and was admitted to the High Court in Auckland as a Barrister and Solicitor in 1995. I am completing my Masters in Environmental Law at the University of Auckland and have previously worked for the Ministry for the Environment as a national senior policy analyst providing advice to the then Minister for the Environment on national policy for environmental issues which affect Maori … 
In 2002 I was employed by the Waikato Raupatu Lands Trust as the Environmental and Treaty Claims Manager. I was responsible among other things for undertaking consultation obligations on behalf of the Lands Trust as part of the requirements within the Resource Management Act and resource consent applications. … I was the only employee of the Lands Trust with this responsibility for the entire 2002 year.” 
This is how the letter concludes: “In all of my years of working in this area I have never seen such manipulation of the resource consent process nor had I seen before the blatant corruption for pecuniary gain that went on with some of the Waikato corrections employees. I know of the tribal embarrassment that this situation has caused and while I no longer work for the Lands Trust I give testimony here to my experiences with this application during the period when consultation should have taken place with Iwi during 2002.” 
The chief executive officer and the barrister recommended against a contract being signed because they believed that it was contractually unsound and against the interests of the trust. Let me explain what happened. 
I read again from the letter: “I understood that the contract was to employ several of Waikato’s unemployed people at the time it was signed. This included Hadyn Solomon Tahi Ngakete Shane Solomon and Norman Hill. These people moved into empty offices at the Lands Trust and were given Staff status as they had access to Trust cars laptops meetings rooms and came to Staff meetings. The new CEO of the Lands Trust was a personal friend and relative of all of these people and they were often seen around the Lands Trust buildings laughing and talking together. They enjoyed priorities around the Lands Trust office that weren’t accorded to all Lands Trust Staff such as priority over the cars to get to their meetings with the maraes. Environment Waikato Staff came out to have meetings with this group at the Lands Trust. I was never invited to these meetings. I understood through this contract that the Lands Trust received a substantial amount of money. I also understood that the people who were employed by Corrections under this contract were also recipients of other corrections payouts such as Kaumatua fees writers of the cultural assessment report and Resource Management Act advisors. All of these people benefited financially from the corrections contracts and salaries. 
I knew the marae people were extremely opposed to the application and had in no uncertain terms publicly denounced their distaste of their own people deriving financial rewards from the establishment of a prison in their region. I knew that the opposition against the application from all the affected Waikato maraes was unanimous. Representatives of those maraes spoke with me at every opportunity they had to express their concerns with what they called the consultation corruption of corrections staff. Ngati Naho Horahora Marae Taniwha Marae and Te Kauwhata residents that I spoke to were all frustrated with the entire process and with the embarrassment they felt over being misrepresented by the corrections staff in their consultation hui. … 
I knew personally of the corruption they spoke of because I had experienced it in my position at the Lands Trust and my dealings with those corrections employees.” 
That was a fake consultation in a corrupt process where the support was bought with taxpayers’ money. We learnt yesterday that there were 48 meetings on marae at a cost of 438000 taxpayer dollars. Let me describe one of those meetings. At that meeting there were 14 departmental staff and officials and four members of the public. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Last night on television we saw the soft-sell extremist Dr Brash in action and not just on issues like the Treaty of Waitangi which he now regards as a historical document of no contemporary relevance at all. In one short interview he managed to indicate how extremely uncomfortable he is with the position of most New Zealanders on at least four issues. “I am extremely uncomfortable” is one of his favourite phrases and when we hear it be alerted that there is bad news coming for most Kiwis. Throughout the interview he blinked like a kind of narcoleptic owl in the hope that the significance of what he was saying would get lost as a consequence. Firstly he said that he was not at all sure Kiwibank was making a major impact and if that was the case then yes we should sell it. 
So what is the policy? The policy absolutely is to sell Kiwibank. That is the National Party’s policy. It has not learnt a thing in Opposition. It has not eaten anything of any use during its 4½ years in Opposition. In 2005 National will again run on the policies that got it chucked out in 1999. It is not surprising. Dr Brash said that New Zealand Post should be flogged off. That is what he said when he was Governor of the Reserve Bank. Who benefits from flogging off Kiwibank? The Aussie banks. Who loses from flogging off Kiwibank? Ordinary New Zealanders—those who are with the bank and those whose fees have come down as a consequence of the bank’s operations. The election next year will be about a lot of issues not just about the one that Dr Brash wants to talk about. One issue will be the sale of State assets. 
Secondly Dr Brash told us what he thought about Iraq. He said: “I feel very uncomfortable with where we are currently.” I do not think he meant our engineers in Basra. I am not sure who the “we” is when he refers to “we” in relation to Iraq because the context was whether New Zealand would have gone to war against Iraq. When pushed he answered that yes he would have gone to war with Iraq. Why? He did not know why except that somehow or other that would have improved relations with the United States. In other words we would send our young men and women off to war in the hope—no more than that—that by 2010 or 2012 or 2015 we might get three more lamb chops on American tables. It is what is called “one war for all” as far as Dr Brash is concerned. 
Then we learnt about dumping the nuclear-free status. What did Dr Brash say about that? He said: I frankly am uncomfortable with where we are currently.” Yet again he was uncomfortable. He wants the nuclear-free ban repealed. National has a report coming from Wyatt Creech. We know what it will say. We know what National wants to do. We learnt from Dr Brash that in order to make himself comfortable—apparently the purpose of politics—the rest of us in New Zealand have to be made uncomfortable. That is what he said. 
On superannuation Dr Brash said to be assured that the age of retirement would not be raised for people aged over 50. In other words for people aged under 50 it would be raised. In that debate he did not touch at all upon the issue of the level of the pension under a National Government whatever the age of retirement. Remember what the National Government did? National froze the pension for 2 years and then in 1999 cut the relativity. That is what it did. An awful lot of people will be uncomfortable if National gets the chance to take on the pension in the way it did during the 1990s. 
I put a challenge to Dr Brash. He is the new leader of the National Party. I wrote to Mr English and asked whether he would sign up to 65 percent for a married couple at the age of 65. Mr Dunne said yes Mr Donald said yes Mr Anderton said yes and we said yes. Mr Hide said no because ACT does not believe anybody should get a pension at all. Mr English said: “We won’t tell you but we won’t sign up.” I ask Dr Brash whether he will sign up to that. It is very easy to do. He might feel uncomfortable doing it but he can write me a letter. It is not hard. He can write me a letter saying yes the National Party will sign up to supporting 65 percent at age 65. Will he do it or will he not? No he will not. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 We know how successful Don Brash has been when we get a nasty speech like that from Dr Michael Cullen. This afternoon I want to comment on the judgment made by the High Court in respect of the contempt of court issue that was delivered in respect of myself this afternoon. I have to say I am bitterly disappointed and I believe this is a sad day for Parliament and for the role that members of this House have in advocating for their constituents. 
I also say it is a sad day for free speech. The comment was made to me that had this happened in the United States or in other countries that have a stronger value for free speech there would not have been a chance of me being convicted. I worry that this judgment will have a chilling effect on the role MPs play in their communities and also on the role the media play in that TV3 and Radio New Zealand have also been convicted. It is extraordinary in a free and democratic country that one can be convicted for saying that a boy should be with his mum and dad. It is a victory for political correctness and it is a defeat for common sense. 
I have no regrets about the actions I took last year in support of the family in my Nelson electorate. This conviction that I bear pales into insignificance compared to the loss that has been incurred by that family—the loss of their son. The headlines in the newspaper will grow old the conviction will fade away but every day those parents will wake up without their son. 
I find it ironic that when I raised this case three particular issues were of concern to me. The first of those was the way in which ex parte orders are given in the Family Court—unnecessarily on occasion and without any time limit on them. I raised the issue of delays which are causing so much pain for families out there in New Zealand and I also raised concerns about the level of secrecy in the Family Court. I find it extraordinary that 14 months later on all those three issues there is a growing consensus about the need for reform and I find it particularly ironic that the Principal Family Court Judge who laid the original complaint with the Solicitor-General has conceded at a hearing before the Justice and Electoral Committee that change is needed on all those issues. I feel like I have been shot as the messenger but I take some comfort from the fact that the message has taken some effect. 
There are some very special people whom I wish to thank over the very trying last 9 months. I particularly want to thank my wife Cyndy; I want to thank my caucus colleagues who have been undying in their support of me through this period; and I particularly want to thank the people of Nelson who have also been extremely supportive through these trials and tribulations. I also want to acknowledge the 450 people all over New Zealand who have contributed to my defence costs and I want to give to them my heartfelt thanks. 
I want Parliament to know and I want the Government to know that this issue will not go away. The need for reform in the Family Court is absolutely critical in getting families better supported in this country. It is wrong that competent parents should have to fight for custody of their own children. There is an overwhelming need for an opening up of the Family Court. Secret justice in my view is dangerous justice. 
The last point I want to make is that justice delayed is justice denied. In a commercial law matter if things are delayed one can compensate with interest. In the criminal court if matters are not heard within 18 months they are thrown out. But how can we compensate for delays in the Family Court—delays of years and years? In this particular case it was a delay of 3½ years. I will be carefully considering the judgment that the High Court has set down today. I will consider whether I should appeal and I will consider my future as a member of this House. But I say one thing: I will not stop talking about the need for this country to respect and to value families. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 On  
Holmes 
 last night National’s leader refused to stand by Kiwibank when he was asked whether it was really true that a National Government would sell it off. But that is not all he has refused to stand by. He has indicated clearly that he will not stand by the nuclear-free policy. In fact to a visiting group of United States senators recently he said that if it were up to him we would be free of the nuclear policy before lunchtime. If that is the entrée—a dish of weapons of mass destruction—I shudder to think what the main meal will be but I think we have some idea. 
The main meal will include going into military adventures based on lies like the war in Iraq. It will also mean telling all those under 50 that he has no confidence in the economic performance under National and that those under 50 will not have a guaranteed superannuation scheme. That is the main meal; let us hope we never get anywhere near it. It is certainly not served by a restaurant that I think New Zealanders want to go to—overseas-owned or New Zealand - owned. 
Dr Brash has indicated that he personally cannot see the value of Kiwibank but that his caucus has not made a decision. I think it has. He said: “I regard the banking sector in New Zealand as very very competitive. I’m not at all sure the Kiwibank is making a major impact on that and if that’s the case we should sell it.” That is what he said last night. They are not the words one would expect from a straight talker; they are the weasel words we got from Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson in the 1980s and 1990s as they sold off everything from Telecom and Air New Zealand to the Bank of New Zealand and all the other strategic assets. That sell-off is back on the menu under Don Brash. 
We are being asked to believe that the former central bank governor who registered Kiwibank as a bank is not sure what he would do about the problem of Kiwibank. It is a problem for National because Kiwibank is so much more successful than envisaged in the business plan. It is a problem because it is owned by all New Zealanders—not just a select bunch of foreign investors. It is a big problem for National because it wants to sell the bank to Australian financiers—and I have nothing against Australians—despite the bank’s tremendous success in the regions where it is a lifeline to communities that were ignored and abandoned by the big Australian banks until Kiwibank’s arrival. The quarter of a million New Zealanders who rushed to join Kiwibank deserve a straight answer to a simple question put to the National leader: will he sell? Yes he will. 
Late last year the Opposition feigned to be up in arms about the sale of the National Bank to one of the four Australian banks that dominate our banking system. It was an outrage they said that our banking system was now totally dominated by banks from Australia and they demanded Government action. They were right to say at the time that no other developed country has so much of its financial system owned off shore and so much of its banking system exposed to the fate of the financial system of one foreign nation. Yet National members expect everyone to believe they do not know what they will do about Kiwibank because they have not yet thought about it. If National is serious about leading the country it had better start thinking about issues that confront Governments every minute and every second of the day. 
I do not particularly want to be unkind but Dr Brash would have to have lost all his senses to believe that Kiwibank has not improved competition in the banking system. It is now a perceived electoral gain for National to disenfranchise Maori by abolishing the MMP system and Maori electorate seats. As a similar example of its narrow ideology National is putting ahead of reason the issue of the sale of Kiwibank and further asset sales. That is the beginning. 
The reality is that Kiwibank has had overwhelming support from the public. It has 220000 customers close to a billion dollars worth of home loans and 290 branches around the country. It is well ahead of target.  
Consumer 
 magazine rated Kiwibank the clear best choice for mortgage holders last year. Before Kiwibank New Zealanders were disillusioned with the banking system because it closed down branches and raised their fees. Now the opposite occurs. Foreign-owned banks were taking millions of dollars in banking profits out of the country every year. Kiwibank has kept its money in New Zealand for New Zealanders. The excellent competition provided to New Zealand by Kiwibank benefits everybody—not just Kiwibank customers. It benefits all bank customers who receive lower fees and improved services and it benefits New Zealanders who are keen to see a bank that acts in their interests. 
I challenge Don Brash to debate the benefits of Kiwibank with our Progressive party if he likes in public either in a church— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Who? 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: It is known as “Jim’s Bank”; it is not known as “Gerry’s Bank”—I can tell the member that. We can debate in a church a mosque a temple or a secular hall—wherever Don Brash feels comfortable. Jim Anderton will debate “Don’s Bank” versus Kiwibank and we will see whether “Don’s Bank” or “Jim’s Bank” is the winner. 
Kiwibank has made a huge positive impact for all banking customers and Dr Brash’s assertions are simply unsupportable. National’s agenda is to sell Kiwibank. It is not even a secret agenda now; it is an open agenda. National’s agenda is also to have us back under the nuclear umbrella. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise today to speak on the Department of Corrections once again. I have to ask: how long will it take? When will this Minister get it? When will he understand that his department is out of control and needs a thorough going-over from top to bottom? When will the Minister take a calm quiet look at the debacle now unfolding with the scenario at Waikato’s prison which has been so carefully dissected by Rodney Hide? When will he look at the exorbitant budget blowout at the prison at Ngawha or at the appalling antics of the emergency response unit and the shonky in-house cover-up that went on for years which a series of incompetent Ministers failed to see through? 
Looking at the Corrections Bill and hearing about the Department of Corrections’ much-vaunted integrated offender management system we once again see examples of more shonky advice. We are increasingly hearing allegations of corruption and the wasting of public money. In this case I believe that the advice given to the Minister to essentially incorporate the integrated offender management system into clauses 49 to 51 of the legislation is going to expose the Crown and the taxpaying public to legal action by offenders who are released from prison and who then unfortunately because they were not given an integrated offender management plan and were not rehabilitated found themselves in the unfortunate position of reoffending. The world’s heart will go out to them—yeah right. 
Regretfully unless this Minister gets a hold on his department and pulls garbage like this out of his bill we will see victims of crimes that are committed by offenders whose integrated offender management plan failed them suing the Government as well. This Minister had better get off his horse and have a look at what is down the back end of it because there is a pile of it there. Everybody in the country can see what is going on inside the Department of Corrections but he does nothing. His name will go alongside other Ministers before him who likewise did nothing such as Mark Gosche Margaret Wilson Matt Robson and Paul East. All these Ministers sat with their hands over their eyes and gave answers to members in this House that everything was OK in the Department of Corrections. It is not it was not and if he does not do something about it the payer will again be the taxpayer. 
This Minister needs to know that the evidence and information that I have increasingly says that the integrated offender management system has not been implemented and that the figures and facts the Minister is receiving are not actual. There are prisoners being released today who never had an integrated offender management plan prepared for them and in the case of one man who bashed an immigrant to death in Latimer Square and who has just been released from jail who never had a Straight Thinking course or a course to deal with his anger management. 
The danger is that when people like this get back out on the street and reoffend who will they blame? Under the legislation it is the responsibility of the Department of Corrections to put in place corrective plans to help them overcome their problems. The problem with that is this little weasely clause that says “resources providing”. The resources will never be always available and it clearly opens up the litigious path. 
I have tabled in the House today an opinion from Chapman Tripp and it clearly signals that there is a problem. The question I ask the Minister is when will he start taking sane sensible advice analysing what we in the Opposition are saying and accepting it and stop listening to some of those people in his own department who gave us the debacle at Ngawha and at Waikato? There is good advice tabled in the House for him and I am signalling here today that New Zealand First will be watching this integrated offender management system. The lottery-number figures that I am hearing for its implementation should be a serious cause for concern to the Minister. It is to me. He need only speak to his union members around this country who are card-carrying members of the Labour Party—good competent prison officers—and hear what they have to say. It is there. He should listen and take some action. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It is not too often in this country that we get as clear a revelation as we had on a television programme last night when the leader of the National Party was questioned on a range of issues and disclosed viewpoints that most New Zealanders did not know about. They did not know that the Leader of the Opposition had a needs-based foreign policy or that a needs-based foreign policy on Iraq was one where he felt the need to cuddle up to those nations that chose to invade—a “guns-for-butter” foreign policy. We must make no mistake about it; if we push the smartly dressed mild-mannered softly spoken man a little further we reveal warmongering. That is what happened. He was questioned about Iraq and he said: “I guess in hindsight it is easy to see what might have been done differently. We are not yet through this Iraq situation”—I thank Dr Don Brash for the revelation—“It looks more and more messy by the month.” 
 What amazing prescience this man has! He said: “I feel very uncomfortable about where we currently are.” And then the presenter said: “Yes but would you have gone in with John Howard? That’s the question.” He said: “I think the answer to that is yes.” This guy notwithstanding 12 months of experience with Iraq and whether or not we got that decision right would still say that he would have gone in. That is remarkable. 
He has a needs-based nuclear policy. The needs-based nuclear policy in this case is to cuddle up shall we say to the nuclear military complex. He says: “I’m uncomfortable with where we are currently.” What can that be code for? No nuclear ships or nuclear weapons are allowed in this country. We have been nuclear-free for well over a decade—very close to two decades but just the same the Leader of the Opposition says that he is uncomfortable with where we are currently. 
Then the long-awaited report which was due to arrive in the middle of March and now nearing the end of March it still has not apparently arrived is going to be how the National Party sorts it out. I say: “Be very careful.” This country does not want nuclear weapons it does not want to be part of the nuclear military complex but if there is a needs-based nuclear policy to get alongside the nuclear military complex then it seems the National Party is again going to contemplate that. We have a needs-based asset sales policy. In this case the need is to put State assets up on the block for the mates just like in the 1990s—that is “If it’s there hock it off.” 
Remarkably Dr Brash seems unaware that in just 2 years 200000 new Kiwibank accounts have been opened. That is 400 new accounts for each working-day. So 200000 people have chosen to shift to another bank. It is not easy to do that yet he is going to hock it off. Does he not understand that people have gone over to Kiwibank in order to put pressure on the foreign-owned banks in order to put competitive pressure on the system and to ensure that they can access the good services of that bank and know that it is New Zealand - owned? That is why 400 people have joined that bank each working-day for the last 2 years. Dr Brash is going to sell it. 
He has a needs-based superannuation policy and on television last night he got lucky. A questioner came in and said: “I’m 56 my spouse is 51 are we safe?”. Dr Brash said: “Yes.” Had they been 46 and 41 he would have said: “I’m uncomfortable with the current settings for superannuation policy. We have a needs-based superannuation policy”. The need in this instance is to cut taxes. But one cannot cut taxes without cutting superannuation. So the needs-based superannuation policy will be OK for a 51-year-old or a 56-year-old or for me aged 53. I say to those aged 41 43 46: “Don’t put a ring around that.” Anyone under 50 is in trouble. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Wrong. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The deputy leader of the National Party now disagrees. Would he like to talk with his leader and sort out their differences because they are singing different songs. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I want to—[ 
Interruption 
] When are we going to start Madam Speaker? I am not starting with that nonsense. I will start again. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No it is not a point of order. I am going to speak. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. There has been considerable interruption. The member will start his speech. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to start my comments this afternoon by recording my admiration for Dr Nick Smith— 
Government Members 
: Ah! [ 
Interruption 
] 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be silence during points of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I ask that the first comments in my speech this afternoon be heard in silence. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes the member is entitled to ask for that. Please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Am I starting again or do I take a penalty for the disruption that has been caused by the Labour Party? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How much time off my speaking slot has the Labour Party cost me this afternoon? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It has not cost the member anything. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member has asked to be heard in silence. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: And it is now my time that you are taking Madam Speaker. Is Mr Mallardto be allowed to stay or should he go? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have called for order. Please continue. This is the general debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I begin my comments this afternoon by expressing my admiration for Dr Nick Smith and for the way in which he has shown himself to be a courageous politician—[ 
Interruption 
]—a politician driven by conviction— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just ask for one law for all. We have been asked to be quiet. Surely the National Party has to be as well. [ 
Interruption 
] If a speech is to be heard in silence it must be heard in silence from both sides of the House not just one. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I did give a warning about points of order being heard in silence. The member was called for a point of order but Mr Brownlee continued to speak while that point of order was being heard. I give him one final warning. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have not yet ruled on my point of order which was whether the ruling on the member’s speech being heard in silence applied to National Party MPs or only to members of the Government. 
John Carter 
: I suspect that Trevor Mallard may be referring to me. As the senior Opposition whip I interjected by saying: “Hear hear!”. If we are going to be as silly pathetic and stupid as that on these sorts of matters then I have to say the Government is really in serious disarray. The interjection was nothing more than giving support to the member by a “Hear hear!”. Surely to goodness we are not going to become as petty and stupid as that over it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The rules on this issue have been quite clear over a period of time—that is that speeches are either heard in silence or not. If that member is allowed to say “Hear hear!” then members on the Government side of the House could equally say: “Tripe!” or “Rubbish!” which would be a more accurate reflection on the member’s comments. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member does have a point. The member did ask to be heard in silence so therefore there should be silence. Please continue Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Madam Speaker do I still have my 5-minute slot or am I now part-way into it? Has the Labour Party been successful? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is part-way into his speech. Please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I want to record my admiration for Dr Nick Smith and for the way in which he went into bat for his constituents and then faced up to the consequence of doing so. He is a politician who is courageous compassionate and driven by conviction and he has the full support of the National Party behind him. It is a great sadness to us that there appears to be quite an unholy linking between the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General in this matter. 
I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That concludes the part of my speech that I wished to have heard in silence. 
Hon Margaret Wilson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that there has been no contact at all between the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General on this matter—and the member knows that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: While I was hearing the member’s point of order Mr Brownlee interrupted. I had earlier given him a final warning about silence during points of order. He interrupted the member after his final warning. He will now leave the Chamber. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will withdraw and apologise. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I cannot. I have been asked to leave the Chamber. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Concerning the point of order raised by the Hon Margaret Wilson I rule that that was a debatable point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sure you heard as all members heard that you were abused by the deputy leader of the National Party as he left the Chamber after you had ruled he should leave. I submit to you that he should be recalled to the Chamber to apologise for the abuse he gave as he left. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. As Mr Brownlee left the Chamber he made a comment about an action that he intends to take and it is his right to take that action. He is entitled to lay down a notice of motion if he wishes to and the House will deal with it in one way or another. That is for the House to decide. It is certainly not in any way to be considered as a threat or as has been suggested as an issue or a statement the member should be asked to withdraw and apologise for. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It was quite clear that it was a threat. The precedent in this area—I think it concerned Winston Peters but I cannot remember exactly which member it was—in the past was that the member was named. That is the standard procedure for threatening a Speaker once the member concerned has been asked to leave the Chamber. Although the approach you take is of course your decision I submit to you that that is the appropriate approach. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister for his comments. When the member returns to the Chamber he will be asked whether he made a disparaging remark to the Speaker. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This is a fresh point of order arising not in relation to the matter we have just discussed but from the circumstances we have just dealt with. With regard to Margaret Wilson’s statement you ruled that it was not a point of order. Having ruled that you then evicted Gerry Brownlee on the basis that he interjected during a point of order when it was not a point of order. We now have a very serious situation that— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. That is absolutely irrelevant. The Minister called for a point of order. The rule is very clear that there is to be silence during points of order but that is when Mr Brownlee spoke. Therefore your point is not a point of order. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a new point of order? I have ruled on that matter. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Yes you have. I now seek a point of clarification. How do we get through the issue then of members raising points of order that are not points of order? We get ourselves into all sorts of difficulties. Indeed I think it is a matter we may well have to deal with at the Standing Orders Committee. We are starting to see a practice of members raising points of order that have no substance and in this particular case you ruled that the point of order had no substance and was a debating point. The Minister has been here in the House long enough to know that it was a debating point and should not have been raised. The consequence of doing that is that it tends to incite people to make comments even though you quite correctly ruled—and it has been ruled on many times—that members should not interject during points of order. Nevertheless raising such points of order tends to incite people to make comments because they know themselves that the matters being raised are not points of order. We have a difficulty. I accept that you will rule in one way but I believe that it may be a matter you may want to consider and refer to the Standing Orders Committee for further consideration. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I remind the member again that I ruled that the Attorney-General did not raise a valid point of order. However Mr Brownlee interrupted her while she was raising it. That is the point and he had been previously warned. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that point of order. Is this a new point of order? 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Yes it is. I have asked you to consider whether given that we now have points of order being raised quite repeatedly in this House—quite often and more than is necessary on points that members know are not points of order—there is a matter that needs to be brought to the attention of the Standing Orders Committee. I wonder whether you could give a view on that or go away and give a view on it. I think there is an issue arising from that and if you are not prepared to raise it then maybe I will raise it myself with the Standing Orders Committee in my capacity as a member of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I think the member does have a point although I have experienced a remedy that is available to the Speaker if the Speaker thinks that a point of order has been made in a way that is not appropriate. If the Speaker thinks that the person has pushed it too far the Speaker has on occasion required members to apologise and in extreme cases has required members to leave the Chamber. I have some experience in this area and it is my submission that the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings already take care of this area if a Speaker wants to use them. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sure the member is aware that many points of orders that are raised are not points of order. I also point out that any member can raise that matter with the Standing Orders Committee. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 One of the interesting developments in recent months in New Zealand politics has been the disappearance of the ACT party. While most voters in this country clearly consider that a highly desirable state of affairs I would like to dwell on the reason for it. It is because most people did not support ACT because of its extremism and the extraordinary extremism of its policies. So why has the ACT party disappeared in the current environment? It is because the leader of the National Party is regarded by the ACT party and voters as the ninth ACT MP. ACT has proudly made that very boast. 
The ACT party has lost its position of extremism because those policies of extremism have been taken over by what was once a middle-of-the-road party the National Party. People are now starting to realise as Dr Brash’s exposes his underbelly that he cannot hide his extremist agenda. Clearly the sale of Kiwibank and other assets such as Radio New Zealand and TVNZ are on the agenda were this country to ever be unfortunate enough to have National in power again. The sending of our young men and women—troops—to Iraq is on the agenda. And clearly that cosying up to the Americans that seems so important to Dr Brash—the internal imperatives for that have not been revealed to the rest of us—is very much the way that that party wishes to proceed. 
Clearly the dumping of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status a status so overwhelmingly supported by voters in this country is on the National Party’s agenda. While we know what Dr Brash has said about superannuation last night he said: “If you’re 50 it might be all right but if you’re 49 you’re in trouble and if you’re 29 then you don’t need to worry because no Government I will be involved in will change superannuation for you.” I do not think that Dr Brash is likely to be involved in any Government in the near future at all and certainly not in 35 years’ time. 
What do we have in contrast? We have a Labour Party in Government that with its Progressive supporters and support from United Future and the Greens is working with New Zealanders for good outcomes for people in this country—not a party like the National Party that if it ever were to return to power would repeat the attacks that it previously mounted on the most vulnerable: the young the old and the sick. 
What are we on about? We are on about opportunity for all. We are working with New Zealanders. We are lifting their literacy and thousands more students have benefited. We are also lifting standards and we have doubled the number of resource teachers in literacy since 1998-99. We are a Government that is focused on growth and innovation. Everyone in this country knows that our industry training strategy is working. We are making the effort to ensure that this country has the skilled workforce that it needs for the future of all New Zealanders. There is huge growth in training. Record numbers of people are participating in industry training. We are getting young people into trades and we are building those crucial links between schools and the workplace. Unemployment is at a 16-year low. 
Under Dr Brash we would have gone to war in Iraq. What did he say? He said: “I think I would have done what President Bush did. We are still in the middle of the Iraq situation. We may not know for 5 years whether this invasion was a good idea.” At the moment Dr Brash thinks that it probably was but it is not finished yet. 
 Well Dr Brash needs to have a look at the views of the community in New Zealand on such interventions and he will once again change his policy because he knows what people in this country want. We have a proud record and we will not send our young men and women to the war for the sake of a few extra chops or steaks on American dinner tables. Dr Brash would. He and his morally corrupt colleagues believe in a swap of guns for butter and never mind the morality. Is it not so ironic that the young men and women he would so happily commit to conflict are so overwhelmingly over-representing the Maori community? 
I would like to finish with a quote from Brian Easton the economist who said recently: “Look it depends on your political perspective. If you think the main aim in life is to reduce taxes on the rich and to reduce spending on the poor there is some logic in the Brash position. If you take the traditional New Zealand position that by spending money on the young and the sick we can enhance the performance of the economy then a National Party position makes no sense.” 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I have no particular regard for Dr Nick Smith but I am very concerned at the implications of the decision handed down by the court today. One of the great virtues of New Zealand democracy has been the historic right of members of Parliament to speak fearlessly without fear of being limited in their statements when the interests of their constituents are concerned. I believe that the court judgment today has the potential to alter that situation quite radically. Whatever our political view of Dr Smith’s actions or his future I believe that it behoves all of us to consider very carefully the implications for our democracy and our freedom—the privileges that the Speaker claims on our behalf at the start of each session—in the light of today’s judgment. 
The issue I want to address in the time available to me this afternoon is one I first raised—ironically in my first speech after leaving the Labour caucus in October 1994—when I spoke to the Wellington South Rotary Club about the need for constitutional reform in New Zealand. In that speech I outlined a programme by which in my view the New Zealand constitution the Treaty of Waitangi the relationship between the two and our future could be considered. I proposed in that speech the bringing together of a public information programme to invite New Zealanders to state their views leading then to the establishment of a royal commission where the distillation of those views could be thoroughly and professionally considered and ultimately any decisions arising therefrom could be put before New Zealand voters in a referendum. 
On many occasions in the intervening 10 years I have repeated that call often in a vacuum and frequently to very unlistening audiences. In fact in the wake of last year’s debate about the Supreme Court I made a number of speeches along those lines and they fell on deaf ears for many in this House from the Prime Minister downwards. But in recent weeks I have been encouraged by the extent to which this has now proven to be an idea whose time has come. In the light of all the controversy that surrounds Dr Brash’s speech one of the clear messages coming from New Zealanders is that we do not want to continue wallowing in a tide of mutual abuse. We actually want to start to move through and deal with some of these issues that go to the core of our identity as New Zealanders and certainly reflect very strongly upon the future shape and direction of our nation. 
Therefore those calls that I have been making solely and alone for the last decade suddenly become relevant and I am absolutely delighted at the progress that that is taking. This is the right time for New Zealanders to begin to consider their constitutional future. This is the right time to consider where our instrumentalities such as the Treaty of Waitangi lie in relation to that and how they should be moved forward in today’s context. This is the right time to start to focus upon the shape of the country as we want it 10 15 or 20 years from now and start the process of making those big decisions that will lead to that. 
At the core of all these issues is in my view a frustration among contemporary New Zealanders about our sense of national identity. Massive change of an economic and social nature of the last two decades has left many people feeling uncertain about what it is to be a New Zealander today and many of us feeling that those hitherto traditional anchors in our community have been cast adrift. What we need in terms of some national cohesion some sense of direction and some sense of purpose that all of us who live in these isles ought to possess is a clear and coherent debate about our future and how we achieve it. The processes now being considered of an education programme to bring New Zealanders together in a national conversation about our future to be followed by a royal commission or its equivalent then leading ultimately perhaps to any major decisions being the subject of a national referendum are I think timely and certainly a mark of our emerging national maturity. New Zealanders are remarkably “can-do” people. We do not wallow in the mire of introspection bitterness and debate unnecessarily. We like to get on take action move to solutions and then implement them. The process that I believe we are now on the verge of embarking upon will give us that capacity. It is long overdue and very welcome. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 Today I want to talk about Mr Brash the banker not a politician held in high regard. A contemporary politician fronts the House has the hard debate in the House not on the  
Holmes  
show and has rigour behind policy. This is a man who is intent on selling the family silver. Where I come from the silver tarnishes when it is exposed to the air. Mr Brash’s extreme and still-hidden agenda will also tarnish over time as fair-minded New Zealanders chew the fat over the rhetoric and the lack of substance in policy that is emerging from the real mean agenda of the Opposition. 
We have heard about the selling off of Kiwibank—200000 New Zealanders will object to that. As well National will flick off Television New Zealand and Radio New Zealand—a perfect venue and medium for us to tell our story and proudly talk about who we are as New Zealanders. He will send troops to Iraq—we have already heard about the agendas changing in the United States and Australia as people rise up to see that real agenda for what it is. He will dump our proud New Zealand nuclear-free status—it will be gone before lunchtime he has already told a visiting delegation to New Zealand. 
There is a threat of no superannuation for those under 50. My kids are facing huge student debts from a mean Opposition that brought in the student loan scheme in the 1990s. They cannot save for their superannuation; they have hardly even hit the threshold of having any savings in their bank while they pay off their interest from the mean policies of the 1990s. 
Do not bank on generosity and inclusion with National. It will sell off the assets. Do not bank on peace; it will go to war. Do not bank on democracy in district health boards; National knows best. It will privatise the easy bits take away community elected members and force district health board mergers on our communities. We will become progressively less secure. Opportunities will be reduced social mobility for the less privileged will be harder and social solidarity will be eroded. 
The agenda is mean race-based and divisive. It is elitist and favours the privileged with tax cuts for the rich. It takes us where average fair-minded New Zealanders never ever want to return to and they need to be reminded again and again that that is where they will go if they listen to the Opposition. 
We want opportunity for all. We are focusing on literacy. We are lifting the standards for all New Zealanders. We have doubled resources in schools. We have got over 35000 kids now starting to learn how to read and to write. Teachers are now getting access to professional development such as never before and the Minister opened a programme in my community—Te Korowai Whakaora—last week where we are looking at kids aged 9 to 11 who are about to opt out of the school system. Those are the sorts of programmes this Government supports. 
We have record numbers in industry training. Last Friday I met middle-aged men who told me: “I’m learning. I am undertaking a skill. I am having a wonderful time.” Why did the Opposition ever drop apprenticeships in 1992? We have 450 people in apprenticeships in Rotorua and they are absolutely loving it. We are building links between schools and the workplaces. We have five local colleges in the Gateway programme and those kids will never leave school without knowing what skill sets they need to put into their basket of knowledge to be able to secure a job in the future. We are putting over $25 million every year into apprenticeships. We are pouring it in and that will build a better society for us all in New Zealand. 
In conclusion I acknowledge the passing of Noel Pachoud in my community. He was a stalwart Labour pacifist and a humble man. Noel I could not be at your funeral; you inspire us as a Labour Party to continue in our work to make New Zealand a fair place for all New Zealanders. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 A headline in yesterday’s  
Dominion Post 
 said: “Get used to wild weather”. The article quoted climate expert Jim Salinger as saying that we should expect more extreme weather events similar to last month’s severe storms. The effect of those storms has been catastrophic for many lower North Island farmers. While I applaud the Government’s initiative in helping farmers recover from the immediate trauma of the floods I say that it is also time to look at preventing future floods of that magnitude. So what can we do to mitigate the effects of large future storms that apparently will come? 
The recent floods had two main destructive elements as I see it. The first was the floodwaters themselves which swept away livestock houses cars and fences. The second effect was the silt burden that was deposited on top of the pasture. What I propose is a partial solution to both of those problems and that is to look at sustainable land-use patterns. What farmers have previously thought of as being sustainable land-use may no longer be sustainable because of the changeable weather patterns. One of the lessons we learnt from Cyclone Bola for instance was that mature indigenous forests and pine plantations of less than 8 years old reduced landslips to less than one-sixteenth of those occurring on pasture. 
In the lower North Island 60 percent of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council area is hill country and 50 percent of the region is susceptible to erosion. Some 400000 hectares are susceptible to severe erosion. Although land clearance is now rarely done only 10 percent of the Manawatu region is native bush and 9 percent is plantation forestry. Clearly what the Government and regional councils must do is encourage the planting of trees particularly in the headwaters of streams and along riparian margins. In fact it should be within the powers of the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council to require the reforestation of those areas. 
If farmers are concerned about the cost of such an activity it is worth their bearing in mind that in 1992 when there were also big floods repairing and plantings at that time reduced the cost of repairs to fences and tracks from $76 a hectare to just $28 a hectare. The main point of reforestation is to prevent erosion and hence sedimentation over pastures during floods. But another value of reforestation especially in the headwaters of streams is to physically slow down the speed of runoff during rainfall. This has the effect of helping rainwater seep gradually into the soil and lessen the amount of water running off into streams. Obviously if the soil is already saturated all excess water will run off anyway and it will have a less significant impact on major floods but it should have a mitigating effect on the frequency of minor flooding events. 
A large number of trees and shrubs are suitable for planting in headwaters and riparian margins. I will not mention all of them but a lot of native species eucalypts wattles and quite a number of exotic softwoods and hardwoods are suitable. I encourage the Government to fund the reforestation of critical areas of the lower North Island. This can be done by funding individual farmers to change their land-use patterns. The Government needs to support these farmers and foresters in the same way it is doing now for pastoral farmers—in other words by paying 90 percent of the cost of re-establishment. At the moment they are doing it for pasture; I am suggesting they do so for reforestation. 
I agree that this is not an urgent priority right now. That certainly lies with getting farmers back up to speed in terms of their productivity. They need to repair fences get their livestock producing again repair their houses and so on. But I do think that now is the time for the Government to start putting in place the insurance policy of selective reforestation. It will not solve the entire problem but it will mitigate the effects of future storms and as I said at the beginning of my speech the weather experts say that we have to get used to wild weather. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 One of the questions I have been asking myself recently is “Why has ACT’s poll rating collapsed to 1 or 2 percent?”. It is down from 3 or 4 times that amount and is now 25 percent of what it was. ACT has shrunk to having a mere 1 percent or 2 percent in the popularity ratings among the general public. Why is that? It is because people know that Dr Brash is ACT. When they hear Dr Brash speak they should think of Rodney Hide and Richard Prebble—Dr Brash means ACT. This is a mean and divisive picture—Dr Jekyll and Mr Hide. Dr Brash means ACT and that is why ACT’s vote has collapsed to 1 percent. 
Dr Brash talks about one standard of citizenship for all. Well does he mean building one fair and inclusive nation? I ask you! The kind and inclusive faces of Dr Brash and Mr Hide! Who are they trying to kid? A leopard does not change its spots and neither has Dr Brash done so. “One standard of citizenship” is his jingle but let us put a few more realistic suffixes on that. One standard of citizenship is tax cuts for the rich but no superannuation for those who are currently under 50. One standard of citizenship means the privatisation of publicly owned assets. We already knew that Dr Brash would flog off New Zealand Post. He would sell off Television New Zealand. He would sell off Radio New Zealand. He would finish off what Max Bradford started flogging off the electricity assets. He would sell Air New Zealand. 
But in the last day we have heard something extra. He would also sell Kiwibank.That successful business that was started up by New Zealand Post has more than 200000 customers. One standard of citizenship means “Flog off State assets.” One standard of citizenship—but abolish or freeze the minimum wage and abolish the pre-funding of superannuation to make it less likely that future Governments can fund superannuation payments to the elderly. That is Dr Brash’s agenda. It is no wonder he does not debate anything in this Parliament. It is no wonder he fails to talk about policy. He knows and we know that his policies would bring misery to millions. 
He would sell out New Zealand’s assets but what else would he sell out on? He would sell out our foreign policy—that is what. What does that mean? He would take his lead from President Bush. As far as our nuclear-free ships policy is concerned he has already said that it would be “gone before lunchtime”. It would be gone before lunchtime if he gets his way. Who did he say that to? He did not have the courage to say that in this Parliament— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That phrase is out of order and it will be withdrawn. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I withdraw and apologise. He did not say that to this Parliament. No—he did not even say it on television and to the audience there. Who did he say that to? He said that to a visiting United States delegation. He said that the nuclear-free ships policy would be gone before lunchtime. Cosying up to the US would typify his response on foreign policy. 
What about the biggie since we have been in Parliament this triennium? I have been here for 18 months the same time as Dr Brash. The big issue since I have been here was whether we should go to war against Iraq and whether we should send our young women and men to be killed or put at risk in Iraq in an unjustified war that was not backed by a United Nations mandate. What does Dr Brash say about that? He is unequivocal as the National Party was then unequivocal and as ACT was unequivocal—because National means ACT. What did they say? They said that the Government should send New Zealand troops to Iraq. 
 Even with the wisdom of hindsight that most wonderful of gifts that people sometimes try to use he still says that the National Government should have and would have backed the United States in the war against Iraq. Dr Brash believes and always will in the righteousness of his own austere and selfish ideology. ACT’s vote has collapsed because National means ACT—that is one standard of citizenship tax cuts for the rich flog off publicly owned assets and finish off what Max Bradford already started. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Privilege 
Consideration of Report of Privileges Committee 
Policing Functions—Parliamentary Precincts  
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Privileges Committee on the draft agreement on policing functions within the parliamentary precincts.  
I move this on behalf of Matt Robson the chairman of the Privileges Committee. My comments will be very short because basically the report speaks for itself. The purpose of the report is to ensure that police and parliamentary staff are given clear guidance with regard to the roles and powers of the police within the parliamentary precincts.  
One comment in the report that is worthwhile repeating is that when parliamentary business is being transacted the buildings take on a unique constitutional status and parliamentary privilege applies to the transaction of that business and that is important. This arose because of an earlier incident that involved Shane Ardern and the view was that we needed to ensure that everybody understood the way in which the protocols worked. I believe that the Privileges Committee has set down a good report. The recommendations are for you Mr Speaker to decide finally on how they are to be implemented. However I would recommend that you take the recommendations seriously. They are very good and were made unanimously. I thoroughly commend them to the House. 
Motion agreed to. 
Companies Amendment Bill 
Insolvency Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. Initially I want to point out what the bills do not do. The bills do not say to employers that they have to have a redundancy agreement. The bills do not require 80 percent of New Zealand employers who have fewer than 15 staff members working in their workplace to have a redundancy agreement. The legislation does not say to employers who do not have a redundancy agreement that they must have a redundancy agreement. 
What has been extraordinary during this debate as the legislation has progressed is the misinformation that has come from the other side of the House about what the legislation does. If there is one thing I want to do for the employers of this nation it is give them one simple message—this legislation imposes nothing upon them that they have not already agreed to. 
I shall spend a moment at the commencement of my speech thanking Mr Peter Brown for the way in which he has conducted himself during the course of this debate and for the way in which he has attempted to educate the National Party and the ACT party in particular on what the legislation does. The best defence the National Party has put up against these bills as they have progressed through the House is that employers do not have the strength to stand up to the might of the unions. Prior to coming into this place I was a union official for 17 years. One of the things I know is that employers never gave anything away lightly at all. Mr Brown said on numerous occasions during the debate that if the employing class of this country has lost so much gumption that it no longer has a backbone then he when he retires from this place will be quite happy go back and steel it again. 
I want to tell the House what the legislation actually does. I thank my colleague Rick Barker who drafted the original bill in the first place as a result of the way in which workers were treated after the closure of the Tomoana Freezing Works in the Hawke’s Bay. Those workers got not a cent of the redundancy payments that had been agreed between the employer and that particular workforce—not a cent. The only group of people who got anything out of the closure of Tomoana were the banks. The farmers missed out on their stock and the workers missed out on getting the redundancy payments they were entitled to. The effect on the Hawke’s Bay economy was $35 million. When I first moved the legislation the wife of a former freezing worker came to my office to thank me. Her husband out of desperation as a result of the loss of his job and income had committed suicide. Nothing would bring him back. Nothing could bring him back. That was the effect of the loss of that man’s job security and of his inability to provide for himself and his family. The stress got so much for him that he was unable to deal with the issues that we would normally deal with on a day-to-day basis. That woman was delighted that at last somebody was doing something to recognise that particular problem. 
What else does the legislation do? It does not attempt to do a lot of the work that the Government is still working on through its reviews of insolvency law. Indeed in working this matter through with my colleague Lianne Dalziel the Minister at the time it was made very clear to me that there were areas we could work within such as the idea of raising the cap to $15000 to bring it to a more realistic level. The particular level of wages and holiday pay and we now add in the issue of redundancy payment that had been protected in the case of an insolvency had not been amended for a number of years. Fifteen thousand dollars the level at which the cap is now set simply recognises the fact that there has been inflation over time and that things have moved on as far as that is concerned for workers. There is nothing magic or new about that. Most certainly it will not provide those workers who lose their jobs with a pot of gold. However it is a little bit of recognition of the fact that they were employed in an industry they had negotiated a redundancy agreement with their employer and by doing so in the consideration of that they had probably given up a percentage or so along the way in their pay increase so that the employer could make provision for that particular evil day. 
Something else we need to be aware of is that those provisions in these bills kick in only in the case of a company that has negotiated a redundancy agreement becoming insolvent. Nobody wants to see that. Nobody wants to see companies becoming insolvent but whether or not we like it there are industries within New Zealand that will in the course of time become sunset industries. We have seen it with the introduction of new technologies and new work methods and the classic example of the meat industry is quite clear. There are no longer the numbers of chains processing that there were in the 1980s and the 1990s. We no longer need those numbers of chains. Now at the Alliance freezing works in my electorate there are two 12-hour shifts operating. Southland has the shortest season it has had in generations. People have had a 10-week season this year; they have now got through the lambkill in Southland. We know that those industries are not seeking protection—far from it. The meat industry is one of the most competitive industries in the country. It is not seeking protection. The workers are entitled to a level of dignity and consideration as their industries do restructure. Therefore we are raising the cap. 
The second thing we are doing in this situation is saying that redundancy payments should be treated like wages and holiday pay. I come back to that—by including them as wages and holiday pay those particular amounts of payments get the same consideration as wages and holiday pay. There is nothing new about that. It simply means that the way to work out the employee entitlement now includes a new component the redundancy entitlement at the time of an insolvency—I come back to that; at the time of an insolvency—so that the workers get something and the banks do not get everything and so that there is a little bit of consideration for those workers and their families as they struggle to put their lives back together and try to get into some form of gainful employment in the future. 
The legislation does one final thing which I think is important as well. It will future-proof the figure. We will not sit back and wait another decade or so before we revisit the figure of $15000. This figure will be reviewed on a 3-yearly basis and it will be increased in line with cost of living adjustments. I come back to the things the legislation will do. It will provide a cap at $15000 it will ensure that that cap is regularly reviewed and it will raise the priority status. When others stand up in this House and say this will be an impost on all employers—as they will do; they will say that banks will no longer lend for employers to get set up—people will understand that for what it is—just so much cant. This is a modest bit of reform to give a level of decency to workers. I say to the workers of Tomoana and others who missed out on their redundancy payments as a result of restructuring that this should have been done decades ago so that as they tried to put their families’ lives back into some order there was at least something to help them—not a grand sum of money but a small nest egg that could be used to pay a bit of the mortgage perhaps or pay a few of the bills or help with their job search. These are two good pieces of legislation and I commend them to the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have heard some self-righteous drivel since I have been in this House but that lot from Mr Peck would have to take the cake. That is the worst drivel I think I have heard since I have been here. Let us be clear. These bills that Mr Peck is taking the initiative for are simply union bills. He wants to take the credit for them so he can big-note himself. He is fooling nobody. We over here know that they are union bills and nothing he can say or do will disguise that. The bills have had a change of name but the issues are exactly the same. Mr Peck is the errand boy for the unions. We established that in the last debate. How do I know this? Because no one in this House other than the crazies on the other side really wants this legislation—not the thinking workers of this country and in particular not the hard working Kiwis who risk everything to start a business just so that this Government can come along and bash them up. 
This legislation will have a huge and negative impact on business confidence right across New Zealand. Just when the hard times are starting to really bite just when people in this country want this Government to take its foot from their throats what does it do? Mr Peck comes in with a sledgehammer. That is how he treats people in this country. Insolvency practitioners in this country have lined up with business people to oppose this bill. But were their concerns listened to? Of course they were not. Throughout the course of this debate we have been told that lots of submitters supported this legislation. That is not strictly true. These bills were opposed by Business New Zealand Financial Services Federation New Zealand Business Roundtable and the Joint Insolvency Committee of the New Zealand Law Society and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I put it to members of this House that that is a pretty broad cross-section of taxpayers in this country. I ask members to compare that with the people who favoured the legislation: the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions—there is not much science in that—the Rail and Maritime Transport Union the New Zealand Nurses Organisation the National Distribution Union and the Service and Food Workers Union. In other words the union movement favours the bill—the very party that will be employing Mr Peck next because after this election there will not be a role for him here in this House. 
These bills will radically impact on the pecking order of creditors when a business goes belly up. I do not think Mr Peck and his union buddies have thought this through. The big losers will be secured creditors business suppliers contractors and—here is a novel concept for members on the other side—shareholders. Employee redundancy claims will take precedence over people who have provided labour unpaid suppliers and contractors people who have in good faith provided services for a particular business. What are Mr Peck and the Labour Government telling them? They are saying: “Naff off we don’t care about you. We do not care that you have worked hard that you have risked your money. The only things we stand for in this country are unions.” My good friend Mr Mark knows that with an absolute passion despite what Mr Brown will say next. 
Let us be clear about this—employees have rights. No one is arguing that they should not have rights and entitlements to holiday pay and wages. But let us be clear about redundancy—it is for money they have not yet earned. The definition of redundancy is for lost wages and these people will not be in that position. Within 1 or 2 weeks they will be re-employed or on the dole but the point is that they will not be disadvantaged in any way. Employees will be given preference over customers who have already prepaid for services and put things on deposit but this Government just does not care. It just says that it is too bad. The message for mainstream Kiwis is this: “The Government cares only about unions and to hell with the rest of you.” 
Auckland insolvency practitioner Bernie Montgomerie sounded a warning that banks and other secured creditors would simply pass the risk on to unsecured creditors. He said: “This will just be another rod for the unsecured creditors particularly contractors who get ripped off every time.” Does this Government care about that? No it does not. Do members know why the Government does not care about it? Government members have been ticket clippers all their lives. They have never been in business and they do not understand. The implications are significant. The implications for business development and expansion particularly in areas where that growth is needed most means that credit will not be available. It will simply dry up and areas that would have had active employment opportunities development opportunities in business will not have them. But Mr Peck and his mates are so myopic that they just simply cannot see that. 
The cost of credit will increase. I know my colleague Mr Key will take a call next. He will talk about the cost of credit because he understands this very well. The cost of credit will simply increase because banks price for risk. Where there is good security the cost of credit is less. Interest rates will be lower. Of course the converse applies. Where there is low or poor security offered then the risk is greater and banks will price for it. I fear that banks and lending institutions will simply say: “We are not going to lend—full stop.” They will become risk-averse. That will be an absolute tragedy for this country. Typically only those organisations with good balance sheets will get the money—and that is not the mums and dads who run most of the businesses in this country. They will be the great losers. 
It might interest members of this House to learn that 92.5 percent of companies in this country employ 10 or fewer people. They are the mums and dad of this country who have risked everything to run a business but this Government simply does not understand that. They are the people whose homes will be sold up when their businesses go belly up. They have mortgaged their properties and they cannot now meet Mr Peck’s new payments regime so they will be out on the street. They will be left with nothing but a sour taste in their mouths and that will dramatically change the landscape for development and for putting money into the economy. 
 Finally this bill goes against the recommendations of the discussion documents released by the Government in 2001 entitled  
Insolvency Law Review Tier 1 Discussion Document 
—and I quote it—“After wide consultation the review did not recommend any increase in the $6000 or $1500 limit for entitlements. Nor did it recommend that redundancy payments should be afforded priority over other unsecured creditors.” So why is it being done? That is the question. Why is it being done when the Government’s own advisers said: “Don’t do it.” The answer is it is payback time. It is payback time for the unions—that is the answer. Mr Peck and his buddies really do not care about the productive sector of this country. 
National does not support this legislation. We never would; we never could. The New Zealand public has sounded the warning to this Government. The poll results should be putting it on notice that if it continues with this anti-business type of legislation then it will be out on the street. I say to Mr Peck and his colleagues that they should keep doing it—they should keep passing this type of legislation because the next poll result will have the National Party sitting on 60 percent my good friends in the ACT party will be on 10 percent and the Government will be languishing on about 20 percent. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s very kind of you. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Well I thought I would give the members a bouquet. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Listening to that member’s contribution I have to say that he is better at a Peter Sellers type of imitation than Peter Sellers was himself. Peter Sellers issued a record some years ago now and spoke for 4 minutes saying nothing. This guy spoke for 10 minutes and effectively said nothing. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What about the workers? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not think the honourable member would know one even if he fell over one. 
A few years back there was a system of awards which meant that every plumber in the country was paid effectively the same. It was a minimum wage for plumbers carpenters watersiders or whoever. There were local agreements and there was some difference between areas but basically it was structured around a national award. Now there are employment contracts either collective or individual. There is a good argument and I am amazed that Government members have not picked this up to have the priority for the contract—not for part of it but the whole contract—in other words for the total redundancy package. 
So this is just a middle step in many ways because if one buys a house and there is something wrong with the kitchen one wants the carpenters or whoever to come back to fix it. If there is something wrong with the kitchen and the dining room it is not acceptable to just come back and fix the kitchen and leave the dining room ahead of someone else. So there is a good argument in contractual law to have the employment contract raised to a higher priority. But this bill provides for people who are made redundant when a company keels over in insolvency to receive a maximum of $15000. That sum is to embrace wages holiday pay and any redundancy payment the person is owed. 
I am absolutely appalled at the National Party after listening to those members’ speeches. Lindsay Tisch referred in the Committee to people being made redundant in the flood-stricken area. Does the member recall saying that? Mr Tisch argued that because a business went under as a result of the flood a person working in perhaps a local workshop who lost his or her job and maybe even his or her home should be a lower priority than a creditor supplying that workshop—possibly from Auckland or Wellington. That is what they in the National Party think is fairness. That is not the National Party I was once a member of. The National Party I was once a member of had a fair attitude to individuals—including working individuals. 
I am surprised at Paul Adams. He is prepared to support this bill and will go to his people— 
Paul Adams 
: We are not supporting this bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Sorry—my correction. He is prepared to oppose this bill and go to the people who work in his car yard or whatever he has and say: “If there is an earthquake in Auckland and I have to make you all redundant I will pay the creditors before I pay you the redundancy agreement I have negotiated with you.” 
Paul Adams 
: You don’t understand workers. 
PETER BROWN 
: I bet that member does not have a redundancy agreement with his staff. Does he have a redundancy agreement with his staff? Will the member tell me whether he has a redundancy— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No that’s an improper question. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is an improper question the honourable member says. I would like to hear it when he makes his contribution because there is no compulsion in this bill for any employer to have a redundancy agreement with his or her people and folk over on this side of the Chamber have lost sight of that. I say to employers that if they are fearful of having to make a redundancy payout then they should not sign up to the agreement. But I also remind employers and indeed the National Party that there is no extra money from this; it is just the priority of where it is being paid out and to whom it is being paid out. 
New Zealand First if members have not concluded that already will support this bill. We believe that working people who are employees—and before the honourable Paul Adams corrects me I recognise the point I know he will challenge me on which is that self-employed people are also working people—have had a raw deal in some circumstances. So we are supportive of the priority for redundancy to a maximum level coming into legislation. 
If the National Party were so strong on it though why did it sign up to this sort of clause in the commentary to the bill that came back to the House? It states: “We recommend that redundancy entitlements be included within the employee priority.” “We” includes the National Party. This is the party that is going out on the hustings now and saying that when it comes to superannuation and social things it can keep its word. Those members cannot keep their word between a select committee and coming back to the House. Their deputy leader Gerry Brownlee was on the Commerce Committee and I am waiting for his contribution to this House to explain why he has changed his mind. I think Parliament and the public at large are entitled to know why the National Party changed its mind between the select committee process and coming back to the House. 
Indeed I welcome the chance to learn from the Hon Richard Prebble who will no doubt tell the House why Rodney Hide changed his mind. Rodney Hide supported this bill when it was in the select committee. He does not have a reputation for being slow in echoing what he believes or in sounding off on what he believes. 
Ron Mark 
: He’s a good Rangiora boy. 
PETER BROWN 
: He is a good Rangiora boy and he knows what he believes. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We think it has been a long time coming. It came before this House some years ago we opposed it and I would like to record that fact. We now know a lot more about the effects of the type of situation this bill is meant to address so in effect we have changed our minds and are supporting this bill. 
I have spoken to several small employers many of whom employ fewer than 10 people many of whom are not union members and have no redundancy agreements. There is nothing in this bill that affects them and they are not showing any concern. I have spoken to employers who employ more than 10 people and who do have union members in their workforces and they are not showing the least bit of concern. In fact the words used to me were that it is fair to raise it up the scale of priority. 
In fairness to them perhaps they would have preferred the legislation to remain as it was but when I mentioned that this move was likely to take effect they said: “It’s one of fairness Peter.”They are the words they used. So I invite Paul Adams to reflect on that because I know he is a man who likes to be fair. In this country if one does not put people first then the country will go backwards. This bill is aimed at looking after people who are quite often in dire circumstances to give them some sort of carry-over until they get their next job. 
The final point I want to make is that it is my understanding that a person who gets a redundancy package such as he or she might receive under this bill cannot get the dole until part of that payment is exhausted. In many ways this relieves the taxpayer of some financial burden albeit small. 
Paul Adams 
: Rubbish! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member shakes his head and says: “Rubbish rubbish” but if the dole is not being paid out then it is saving the taxpayer some money that can go into others areas of social concern. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We know it will be passed and we congratulate the member for bringing it to the House. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I want to start by congratulating Peter Brown. What a passionate well-informed speech! He displayed common sense and integrity. That contrasts with the National Party. I am appalled. This is yet another case of that party not letting the facts get in the way of a good story—just like its leader follow the leader—by claiming that Maori get more bereavement leave than anyone else. That is absolutely untrue but do not let the facts get in the way of a good story. 
The National Party makes “union” a dirty word. I have news for you—it is not. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will not bring me into the debate. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I have news for the National Party—“union” is not a dirty word. That party indulges in dirty politics to the max. Unions are on that party’s hit list along with Maori and anybody else who does not fit its mould. I am proud of unions. I am proud of workers in New Zealand who advocated many of the good improvements that this Government has delivered. I am talking about things like increases to the minimum wage paid parental leave improved health and safety 4 weeks’ holiday and fairness at work—all those things that the National Party would dump if it could. 
Returning to the bill I want to make it clear again to the slow learners that itrefers to an insolvency situation. It imposes no more cost—read my lips no more cost—on employers. It is simply about making creditor status fairer for workers by making them preferred creditors. That was another example of misinformation. I am pleased to stand in support of this bill and I commend my colleague Mark Peck for his work on it. I commend him for producing this bill because he has seen—as I have—the heartache of redundancy for workers and their families and for employers and their families. 
It is devastating for anybody to be deprived of their livelihood through no fault of their own. The stress both financial and emotional is far-reaching. For some workers the security of redundancy compensation goes some way to assist them and their families at the difficult time of the loss of their job and income the loss of their self-esteem and the loss of their dreams for the future. That redundancy compensation I stress has been negotiated in good faith by employers and unions. It can provide hope whether to tide things over until another job is found whether for financial support while training or studying or whether restarting a work career through a small business—which this Government is happy to support. 
Imagine the double whammy if a worker learns that redundancy compensation is at best at risk but more likely worthless and simply not worth the paper it is written on. I have seen this situation most recently with Qantas New Zealand employees. The uncertainty for those skilled professional employees who were looking toward a career that would basically be their job for life was devastating. They were now in a job market that had severely diminished and they had the challenge of finding employment in their chosen field. Added to that was the harsh reality that their long-standing negotiated redundancy deal was worthless. It was an extremely difficult time for those employees and their families. It was unjust and unfair. 
This bill goes a long way to address those injustices in that it gives employee redundancy claims priority over other unsecured claims and gives some claims preference in an insolvency situation. It removes the current limit of $6000 paid to a worker by an employer in a corporate insolvency and raises the cap to $15000 and I think that too is good and fair to workers. A new priority is to provide an incentive to creditors to financially assist a liquidator to recover or preserve business assets. That is one way to help the overall return to creditors. 
This bill is about common sense fairness and balance and builds on Labour’s election policy to improve the protection of workers’ conditions when businesses are transferred and sold—as will be addressed in the Employment Relations Act amendments. Labour will continue to reform laws relating to redundant workers. If we look at the impetus for this bill the Weddel Crown collapse we see that workers had to line up with other unsecured creditors for their redundancy pay—compensation that had been negotiated in good faith between workers their union and their employer. They were collectively owed $35 million but they had to line up with other unsecured creditors for their money. It is unlikely that any of those creditors will ever see a cent of what is owed to them. This Government looks forward to workers not being in that situation again. Although there is no guarantee of full redundancy there is considerable comfort for workers in having a fairer position in the queue. 
I say “shame on you” to those on the other side of the House who oppose this legislation. It is the same sad group that revels in opposing anything relating to fair pay whether it is to do with workers’ rights women’s rights students’ rights or superannuitants’ rights and so on. It is consistent with their support for the Employment Contracts Act and their opposition to the Employment Relations Act the improved Health and Safety in Employment Act and the improved Holidays Act. It is consistent with their inability to accept or even comprehend the idea of work/life balance or to comprehend the win-win situation of investing in employees by providing healthy and safe working conditions by family-friendly approaches to employment by the principle of a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay and by ensuring a degree of certainty with fair compensation in redundancy situations. 
I repeat that this will not add any cost whatsoever to the employer. I am tired of sitting in the House and hearing or reading in the newspaper outlandish claims about what is happening. Those things are simply not true. It is simply not credible. We cannot make allowances even for stupidity for those outlandish claims in this House. 
Again I commend my colleague Mark Peck. He had the foresight the compassion the sense of justice and the intelligence to bring this bill to the House and to build on this Government’s delivery of fairness and justice so that we as a nation can hold our heads high on the world stage and can look people in the eye and say that we are committed to being fair and do not want to see good working people ripped off. 
The Government is also committed to saying to employers that it wants to be fair to them in supporting their businesses but it insists that it is fair that in insolvency situations workers have a fair place in the queue. I say to the National Party that this bill is supported not only by Labour supporters workers and unions but also by fair-minded business people in New Zealand. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Speaking on behalf of the ACT party which probably represents far more fair-minded business people than the honourable member’s party ever has I want to say that this bill is unjust bad economics and bad for the country. Let me explain. The bill is now broken into two halves but basically what is being proposed is that in the event of insolvency when it follows that there is not enough money the law sets out who should get what money there is when a company goes bankrupt. The bill proposes that the people who work for the company should get it. It follows—though the member did not mention it—that some other people who up till the passing of this bill would have received some money will now lose out. 
Who are the people who will lose out? Why do we not just take the case of Weddel Crown that was mentioned? We are told that workers there should have got whatever money was available and other unsecured creditors should have lost. Who were the unsecured creditors? They were farmers who had supplied stock to the freezing works. They had not actually been paid for that stock which had been slaughtered and sold. As a result of this bill the money that would otherwise have gone to those farmers or small businesses will now go to workers—not as compensation for work they have done but as redundancy. 
Redundancy of course is by definition not payment for work done. Redundancy is a compensation payment not payment for work done and that is a very big shift proposed by the bill. When there is not enough money we are now going to say to a small business which has done the work and supplied the goods that it should not be paid so that workers can be paid. It is a bit of class legislation. The notion is put up that workers should always get the money. I say to members that yes I have seen cases where companies have gone into liquidation through no fault of any of the employees and management but those cases are the exception. 
The reports made by the Society of Accountants point out that the vast majority of insolvencies are the result of errors and sometimes of foolishness of the people who work for the company. So this bill is saying that the people who actually had an opportunity to change the situation should have their rights prioritised ahead of the people who had no opportunity of saving the company—those small businessmen who supplied it. 
So I ask the Government where the support is for that. I ask that for a very good reason because we all know that the Government asked the civil service to do a review of this law. It did and it did a review of the protection given to workers because workers actually are protected under present insolvency laws. The civil servants confident after having done a review came back and said there should be no alteration to the $6000 figure. Why did they say that? They pointed out that $6000 was a reasonable amount of money to be given which for the average worker is at least 3 months’ work. 
They would also have realised that workers unlike small businesses can get payments from Work and Income if they are out of work. If people try going along and saying: “I am an owner-operator plumber and the business I have been supplying for the last 6 months hasn’t paid me. I’m not going to get paid because the workers are going to get payment ahead of me.” they should see how they get on when they put that forward in front of Work and Income. I suppose they might try a bit of social enterprise or whatever those hip-hop people got their money for but I suspect that an ordinary small business would get short shrift from this Government. In this bill the interests of small businesses are being put behind that of workers. 
But then if we look at the bill—and if members read it they will see it is very badly drafted—we see that the definition of “workers” includes the manager. Providing a manager is not a director he or she gets that $15000. So a manager could realise that a business was to be put into liquidation the next day. Under this bill the manager could write himself or herself a redundancy agreement for $15000 and the next day be a priority creditor. That is what the bill says. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Rubbish! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It most certainly is rubbish. It is in his bill. He drafted it and that is what it shows. I raised it at the select committee. I pointed out to the member the very clauses where that was possible—and it most certainly is. 
That brings me to another point. I say to the House that this is a member’s bill—on a day that is really for the Opposition and other parties to put forward bills. What we have here is a Government bill that Ministers themselves know is a piece of class legislation so that someone like Lynne Pillay who was speaking previously and who used to be an organiser for the Engineers Union can give the sort of class hate speech she gave in the House today so she can claim that a Labour Government is somehow “for” the workers. I point out that the bill is actually going to help managers—managers who have been so incompetent they have driven their businesses into liquidation and who are probably going to bankrupt other small businesses. Under this bill they will then be able to write themselves a protected cheque for $15000—and the Labour Party tells us that that is fairness. 
But Lynne Pillay told us something else. She asked why we were objecting because there was no cost to this matter. Of course there is a cost. As Mr Rick Barker wanted to point out—apparently this is an advantage from his point of view—banks are one of those that will lose out. He pointed out to us that they are all overseas owned so why did we care. The reason we care is that banks are in business. They are not giving money away and they are going to have to load these provisions into their costs. Who will the cost fall on? It is not going to fall on the bad businesses; it will fall on every business. So the costs of doing business for people who were never going to go bankrupt—who were always going to be prudent and who always looked after their workers—will rise. Admittedly they will rise marginally but they will rise as a result of this bill. 
I say to Lynne Pillay that yes there is a cost in this bill. It will fall upon the 250000 small businesses in New Zealand who need to borrow money and who are prepared to go into business and hire their fellow citizens with their own money. They have to make wages each week. They mortgage their own homes to do it and this Labour Government against the advice of its own officials—for pure class politics—has introduced a bill to let “the workers” get priority over small business. And the Government tells us that that is electorally popular. Perhaps it is but it is still wrong. It is unfair it is unsound economics and this House should vote against this bill. The ACT party will. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future which is also not supporting this legislation. This is bad legislation and it is a bad-news bill as far as I can see. I will pick up on a point made by Peter Brown that concerned me. It was that there seems to be only one type of worker in this world and that is a worker who is on wages. That is so sad because in United Future’s book everybody who puts a hand to the plough to earn a dollar in this country is a worker. I respect the workers who want to work for a wage because there are many types of natures and personalities and some people are adverse to risk. I do not have a problem with that. I am someone who was a failure in the school system because I was not interested in study but I was interested in working with my hands. What I have discovered over these many years is that in many ways those people with an academic background have a disadvantage because they are taught that life is either pass or fail and they therefore tend to avoid failure whereas many who leave school earlier such as myself are probably too silly to recognise that life can be a great risk so we press on anyway. We take chances and we learn by our mistakes. 
What concerns me about bad legislation is that if it is brought in to deal with a problem that is not fair and just we have another more serious problem. Peter Brown also picked up on whether I have staff and whether I have a redundancy agreement. Yes I do have staff and no I do not have a redundancy agreement. But in the motor industry where I have been working for many years of my life I have seen much bad legislation come through. Let us look at road safety and at all the laws that were brought in whereby we had to replace seat belt after seat belt that worked fine in many countries of the world where there were absolutely thousands of cars on the road. Yet somehow the cars come to this country and the seatbelts have to be replaced. The question I ask is: how many people have died on New Zealand roads because the cars failed? It would be very few but there would be many instances where the drivers failed. 
We are talking about legislation that deals with when a business fails. It has been brought up that people do not have to choose to have a redundancy agreement and I concede that point. But what people fail to recognise is that employers not only have to compete for the jobs they are tendering for—and let us look at the number of small businesses in this country which everybody in this House acknowledges are the backbone of this country—but likewise they also have to compete for the workers who will do those jobs. If many of the large companies choose to put in redundancy agreements it will not be too long before those same small businesses if they want to attract staff will be forced to put in those same redundancy agreements. But if these large companies go belly up and they have been so wise as to put in a redundancy agreement I would wonder about that wisdom when they can easily go into redundancy. 
The main reason we are voting against this legislation is that I heard somebody ask—and I forget which speaker it was—if members had ever spoken to the wife of somebody who has been made redundant. I would ask whether they have ever spoken to the wife of a small-business owner who has put her signature on the form for the bank and her home on the line because she has an entrepreneurial husband who chose to take a risk. What many people do not recognise is that most of these small-business owners have a heart and real compassion for their staff as I do. There are many times in the week when a small contractor is looking at those businesses that have not paid for services and the contractor knows it is a Wednesday and there are five or six families that are relying on that little business to pay money so that the workers can feed their families. 
Yet this legislation is standing against the risk-takers in this nation by saying that we will pay workers who have chosen to work for wages and not to take the same risk in life—which I do not have a problem with. However this legislation states it will pay workers for work that has not yet been done before the small contractor gets paid for work that has been done. I cannot vote for legislation like that. I cannot stand with a clear conscience in front of men and women who have laid everything on the line to take a risk build a business and to contract out for a job then through no fault of their own when the work is complete and has been done according to plans and specifications they will not be paid because the money will be taken from them and given to somebody who has the inconvenience of having to find another job. 
As I understand it—and it has been said during this third reading debate—because the workers will have been paid a redundancy they will now have to stand down and wait for the unemployment benefit. If they did not have a redundancy agreement they would be able to apply for the unemployment benefit. But if a self-employed contractor goes bankrupt let me assure the House the process before the contractor sees his or her next payday is considerably longer than for anybody who is working on a PAYE basis. 
For these reasons United Future believes that this bill is discriminatory. As I said in my earlier speeches it discriminates between workers which we would not support. Because someone has chosen to be one type of worker rather than another this bill discriminates against that. Therefore United Future is voting against this very unfair legislation. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 The first point I will make is that these bills do not create an entitlement to redundancy. Whether a person has a right to redundancy under his or her employment agreement depends upon the terms of that agreement as negotiated between the employer and the employee. We do not have compulsory redundancy in New Zealand and this law does not create it. Neither does it affect the owner of a business directly as Mr Adams referred to. If the business has an obligation to pay redundancy because by contract the owner of the business has agreed to pay redundancy then it is that agreement that creates the liability for redundancy and this bill does not affect it. 
What this bill does is give priority to redundancy payments which together with wages and holiday pay due can total $15000. That amount is given preference over secured creditors. Secured creditors are normally banks which secure their indebtedness by way of a debenture or mortgage over a company’s assets. We heard Mr Prebble say that the $15000 was equivalent to 6 months’ earnings. It may have been— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I said $6000. 
DAVID PARKER 
: The member said the $6000 was equivalent to 6 months’ earnings? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Three months. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Three months’ earnings. So 6 months’ earnings on the member’s figures would be $12000. I think Mr Prebble just corrected— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Four sixes are 24. 
DAVID PARKER 
: That would be a year. Four sixes are 24 but two sixes are 12. On Mr Prebble’s figures he says that the average wage is equivalent to $24000 per annum. It may have been when he was last in Government but because of the economic prosperity of the nation under the wise stewardship of this Government it is a lot more than that now. It is $39600 per annum. So one can discount the figures that Mr Prebble has given to us in this debate—as often happens. It does not directly affect the owner of the business. It does not create a liability for redundancy payment but it does give preference to it ahead of secured creditors. 
We have heard claims that this legislation is unfair to other creditors—other than secured creditors—who wait in line. Members opposite shed crocodile tears because during their period of stewardship they changed the laws relating to securities and wiped completely the ability of small businesses to protect their own interests against secured creditors by wiping the effectiveness of retention of title clauses—also called Romalpa clauses. Those members who shed crocodile tears now try to say that this is unfair to other unsecured—not secured—creditors. 
In respect of those other unsecured creditors—with whom we all have sympathy if they lose in the event of an insolvency—it is interesting to compare the position of normal business creditors and the waged or salaried worker. The normal trade supplier or deliverer of goods or services to the business has a number of customers. Their risk is spread. If one of their buying customers goes broke before it pays the supplier the supplier loses money. However it is unusual for someone to lose a large percentage of the total business because it would be unusual for the majority of debtors to be any one particular debtor. Those suppliers spread their risk. 
It is different for an employee. An employee generally has a duty to work full-time for the employer and not to moonlight for others. Employees do not have other sources of income or redundancy payments or wages due from other employers. They have only the one employer to rely upon. That is why redundancy payments and wages are a bit different from the debts that are owed to suppliers of goods and services. They can spread their risk. 
I would like to make one other point. The $15000 increase from $6000 in large part relates to inflation since the figure was introduced in the 1980s. There has been inflation since that period that would require considerable upward adjustment of the $6000 figure probably close to $10000. So $4000 the difference from $6000 to $10000 is due just by virtue of inflation anyway. We are now in this harsh world that we live in acutely aware that when people are made redundant there is a considerable dislocation to their lives. The individuals who we all want to stay with their shoulder to the wheel as long as possible to make their great efforts in order to avoid the insolvency of a business should be encouraged. If I were an employee of a business that was looking a bit shaky and I was aware that my redundancy provisions were not going to be worth the paper they were written on I would dive out of that business sooner than I would if I knew that my redundancy entitlements which were giving me some insurance against the consequences of that business going broke would be paid in priority to secured creditors. That is not in the interests of the bank it is not in the interests of the business owner and it is not in the interests of the economy. We do want to encourage employees to feel secure that their contractual entitlements will be met. 
In respect of the suggestion that the day before a business goes broke someone might write himself or herself a very generous redundancy contract I am told by my colleague Mr Peck that he responded to that issue during the Committee stage and sought advice from officials who said it was unlikely that would be sustainable. I did not hear the reason but I suspect it would be that it would be a voidable preference negotiated at the eleventh hour which could be set aside by the receiver acting for the bank. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: So it’s OK. Just do it 3 months before? 
DAVID PARKER 
: I hear the 3-month figure again but I tell Mr Prebble we have already been through that and we worked out that his maths was wrong on that occasion too. Without further ado I recommend this bill to the House. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (National) 
: 
 The National Party totally opposes this Insolvency Amendment Bill—a bill that Labour members would have New Zealanders believe is a relevant little bill that will protect workers by giving them redundancy payouts when businesses they have been working for are made bankrupt. Labour members conveniently ignore that paying for redundancies out of a business that has become insolvent means that a whole lot of other small businesses will not get paid. The small electrician the small plumbing business the guy who owns the digger doing the earthworks—all miss out when a large firm goes bung. The workers in that large firm get redundancy payments but the small-business guy gets nothing and his staff get nothing. That is the tragedy of this bill. 
Labour members just sit there with their mouths open wide and say that that is OK. They do not give a toss about small business—not a jot. John Tamihere the Minister for Small Business has not said a thing on this bill. I expect he will come into the House and say he has let small business down—just like he did on the Holidays Bill. Once that was passed he came down to the Chamber and said: “I guess I should have said something on it. I’ve let them down.” Where is he on this bill? We have not heard a word from him. Where is the new business friendly we are told Minister of Labour on this bill? Where is Paul Swain? Why is he not standing up and saying to the business community that this bill is good? He has not said a word about this bill. In fact when he is challenged on it by business he says: “Oh it’s a member’s bill not a Government bill.” He is voting for it but he will not speak on it. Where is the Prime Minister on this bill? “Bring it on!” says Helen Clark. Where is she? What is she saying about this bill to business around the country? She says nothing about it at all. 
I say to Labour members that when a big business gets into trouble and is made insolvent it will be no good any Labour member prancing around the town saying: “I’m here to look after people. Don’t worry I’m here to watch out for them.” because now there will be a whole lot of small creditors who used to get their money or a portion of it having to line up behind the redundancy payments. So the workers not only will get their holiday pay and any wages they are due—and they should get those—but will now get a redundancy payment over and above payments due to someone who has supplied goods and services. That supplier is left to go under. The small businesses are left to go under. The fact they have done the work and supplied the materials counts for not a jot in the minds of these Labour members. 
I bet by the time we reach Christmas that there will be Labour members out in their electorates saying they are very concerned and worried about a business that is going into receivership and that they will do all they can. I tell those members that we will be saying to those businesses that suffer and lose out under this bill that the Labour Government has passed legislation to make sure they miss out. How many Labour members have been to the small - business love fests Labour has been running around the country? They have not talked about this. I have talked to business people who have fronted up at those meetings and they say that Labour members tell them: “We’re really interested in your views. Yes we understand the Holidays Act is an imposition on you but you know it had to be changed. It was a long time coming. We had old legislation.” When they are challenged about the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill they tell them to make a submission. Just this afternoon I had in my office some people from a business that has a staff of 9000 nationwide. 
Darren Hughes 
: Who was it? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: It was Spotless Cleaning. Does the House know how long the Labour Party has given that business to make a submission? It has given it 5 minutes—and that business has a staff of 9000. That is outrageous. Quite frankly that business should not bother to come and make a submission. 
Hon Member 
: That’s an insult. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I am glad New Zealand First members are outraged by it because they voted for the bill—and I hope we can change their minds about it. They will not talk to their Labour members who are telling them: “Make a submission and we’ll look at it afterwards. We’re too busy to see you now.” What arrogance! If a firm that Spotless Cleaning is doing any cleaning for goes into receivership staff members of that firm will get their redundancy payments and Spotless Cleaning will get zilch. Spotless Cleaning will have to stand in line behind the redundancy payouts. So who will miss out? The staff of Spotless Cleaning will miss out. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Not true! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I ask Mr Barker how they get paid. He does not know. Those staff do not get paid. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Will the member yield? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Has the Minister taken a call? No he has not. He should take a call. Those people will not be paid. Redundancy payments will be made before the cleaning staff who work for a contractor get anything. That will not help the cleaning staff at all. 
So how can this bill help any of the people the Labour Party purports it will help? I bet that the first time this is pointed out to Labour members in the community they will say: “Well Parliament voted for it.” Everything is always in the third person with the Prime Minister and with Labour members. It is always other people who have done things and they just happen to be swept along. New Zealanders can see through that. They are sick of the arrogance. They are sick and tired of being told: “9000 staff 5 minutes to make your case—but we really care about you.” 
People are sick of the fact that the Minister for Small Business never talks about small business and they are sick of the fact that the Prime Minister is too busy ever to come out to justify the Government’s programme. She never speaks in favour of Government bills in this House. She never comes down here to say a word about them. It is all a bit beneath her. She is so regal. She never has the time to come down to this Chamber to debate issues. That is outrageous; it is arrogance from this Government and it is arrogance from this Prime Minister and the public can see through it. She will take a poll on it not guided by principles but by a couple of public relations opinion polls. This legislation is even worse. I agree with what Richard Prebble said. This is Government legislation that it is too gutless to bring in. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is a longstanding member. He knows that he cannot use that phrase. Would he please withdraw and apologise? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I withdraw and apologise. The Government is too weak to bring in this legislation under its own steam; instead it has a member’s bill to bring in its programme so that its Ministers can say they did not do it. They are voting for it and that is outrageous. We oppose it. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak after the three-time loser from a little bit north of Wellington—or should I say four-time loser? It is obvious from that speech why that member no longer plays a leading light in the National Party. The speech was all whinge whinge and grizzle grizzle. The member was short on facts poor on analysis and incorrect with regard to deductions. He said that where people work for their wages and are owed wages they should get them in a redundancy situation. He also said that when they were due to be paid holiday pay they should get it in a redundancy situation. That is exactly one of the issues that this legislation will fix. In the previous legislation passed by National the maximum amount that was claimable in the case of the closure of a business was $6000. National had reduced it to just $6000. In the closure of Tomoana Freezing Works many workers were owed more than $6000 in outstanding wages and holiday pay and they never got it. If Mr Roger Sowry says that he agrees that workers should receive all of their outstanding wages and holiday pay he should support this bill because to say that he supports people getting their entitlements to due wages and holiday pay and does not support this bill is contradictory. 
The second important thing about this bill is that to have a redundancy agreement is not a right. It is not an entitlement as of right; it is the result of a negotiation. I would have thought the National Party would have stood up for the sanctity of contracts. If an employer argues for and agrees to a contractual arrangement that in the event of a redundancy occurring the persons made redundant will be paid a redundancy pay then National should support that contract being fulfilled. Are the National Party and United Future now saying that they do not support the sanctity of a contract? To vote against this legislation is to say that members do not support the sanctity of a contract. That is what they are saying. Let the United Future members take a call and try to argue to the contrary. They are saying that they oppose this legislation and that when someone has willingly freely and by agreement signed up to a redundancy agreement that person should be able to wriggle out of it if he or she feels so desirous. I say to the United Future members that that is double-dealing and we will have none of it. 
Mr Richard Prebble raised another issue when he said that this legislation would enable managers to write themselves a redundancy agreement on the eve of a company collapse to ensure that they got the maximum $15000 payout. Theoretically that is possible but it is extraordinarily unlikely. This information has been made known to Mr Prebble on other occasions but for the record let us make it clear yet again so there can be no mistake. It is unlikely that the manager or chief executive of a company would be able to convince a liquidator that he or she had had a negotiation to reach a redundancy agreement. Mr Prebble may be able to negotiate with himself if he has two personalities; I do not know about that. But most of us have only one personality and if we are to have a negotiation we cannot negotiate with ourselves. For Mr Prebble that may be possible but it is certainly not possible for the average person. I doubt whether he would be able to convince anybody other than himself I guess that it is possible to have a negotiation with oneself. That is the first failure in Mr Prebble’s argument. The second failure is that that would be quite easily seen as a device to get around the law. And on that point it is quite clear that this tactic raised by Mr Prebble as one way of casting aspersions upon this bill is a very dubious claim. 
Now let us get back to the reason for this bill which was initiated by myself. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Do you support it? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Yes I tell Mr Sowry that I am quite happy to say that I support this legislation. This legislation came into being because of the gross unfairness I saw following the closure of the Tomoana Freezing Works. The workers at Weddel Tomoana lost approximately $35 million in outstanding wages holiday pay and redundancy. The first point I would make about the redundancy agreement is that the workers had paid for the redundancy agreement out of their own wages. They paid for it in this way. Some time prior to the closure the workers went to the company and asked whether they could get a redundancy agreement. The company said that it was interested in negotiating a redundancy agreement but would not agree to a pay increase and a redundancy agreement. The workers had the choice between the two and in lieu of a wage increase they took a redundancy agreement. They paid for that redundancy agreement year after year after year. I tell Mr Prebble Mr Sowry and Mr Adams that those people were in a completely different circumstance to that of a casual creditor who turned up to do some plumbing or a bit of wiring or to put some bread into the kitchen out the back. That redundancy agreement was paid for by years of work. The workers wanted to have an agreement that in the event that Weddel Tomoana went under they would be paid redundancy to tide them over. The company agreed to that. 
Weddel Tomoana had also entered into a Stg£100 million guarantee for its outstanding loans. That was a substantial guarantee. At the particular time that Weddel Tomoana went under every freezing company in New Zealand was heavily into debt to the banking industry. The banks could have turned over any company in New Zealand by stopping its credit. They chose one company because they needed to reduce the exposure they had. The banks needed to reduce the number of freezing works operating in New Zealand and they deliberately chose one company to turn over. Several freezing companies in New Zealand were in a far worse state than Weddel but they were not chosen because Weddel had a Stg£100 million guarantee. The banks knew that if they turned Weddel over they would get all their money out which they did. The people who lost $35 million were the workers. They lost it in wages in holiday pay and in a redundancy agreement that they had paid for. They lost it simply because a former Tory Government—National—had reduced the amount of money that workers were entitled to claim from whatever it was down to $6000. 
This bill lifts that figure up—[ 
Interruption 
] The figure is not limitless; the bill lifts it up to $15000. That is a modest increase. Mr Prebble may wish to cast and portray Labour’s speeches as class-conscious speeches or whatever. But I tell him that in retrospect his speeches are all about the interests of the banking industry. The banks got all their money out of Weddel Tomoana. Without a shadow of a doubt they lost nothing. The other interesting thing is that if Mr Prebble is correct that protecting the banks from these sorts of things will give ordinary customers in New Zealand—because this is what his argument was—a benefit then we should look at the practice. Mr Prebble argued that if the banks have to pick up the cost of redundancy or their share of it because they are not able to claw as much money out of a company then banking costs will go up. I have to tell Mr Prebble that our experience and our intuition take us in exactly the opposite direction of that. The banks have so far been protected by a maximum exposure of $6000 yet everybody in this country knows that for the last 10 years banking fees have been going up dramatically and interest rates have been held at artificially high levels. Our interest rates are higher than almost anywhere else in the world. Bank fees have become an important part of banks’ revenue and banking profits in New Zealand are extraordinarily high. That shows by logic that restricting the amount people receive in redundancy payments to a maximum of $6000 will be of no benefit at all to ordinary people who use the banks—it is quite the contrary. 
The only reason banking charges have come down is that Kiwibank is operating—and the National Party want to sell it off! 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Ha! 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Mr Prebble scoffs and laughs but that is what people understand. When Kiwibank came on the scene fees and charges went down and interest rates went down. When Kiwibank started to offer competitive home loans to low-income people the other banks decided to get into that as well. So that is where the situation is with regard to the New Zealand ownership of New Zealand banks—and the National Party wants to sell them off. 
This is a very good bill. I congratulate Mark Peck on doing what I could not do which is to shepherd it through this House. Mark Peck did a fantastic job on this bill and he deserves every credit for that as do all the Commerce Committee members. I want to close with one last word which is Peter Brown’s advice to this House and to the business community that if companies do not want to be involved with a redundancy agreement they should not agree to one. But if they do then they should expect to have to pay redundancy. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 In 17 months there will be an election in New Zealand. After it the former Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark will have tears in her eyes as she speaks to the former Minister of Finance of New Zealand Dr Michael Cullen. When that day comes in 17 months— 
Hon Member 
: Not before then? 
JOHN KEY 
: I doubt it. When that crushing defeat is delivered to the Labour Government in 17 months’ time its members will look back on today 24 March 2004. I doubt that they will look back to the Insolvency Amendment Bill or the Status of Redundancy Payments Bill as it was known and apportion any blame whatsoever to that bill. It is a small bill. It truly is a Government bill; it has been dressed up by Mr Peck as some sort of member’s bill but really it is a Government bill. So why should they in 17 months’ time after a crushing defeat has been delivered to them reflect on this day? Because this bill tells us two things about the Labour Party and gives us two reasons why this Government will lose for sure. 
The first of those is quite simple. Labour members simply do not understand business. They do not understand what drives the economy. I know that good economics is not always easy to understand. I know that good economics can be a little counter-intuitive. But what the Government has done in allowing this bill in sanctioning this bill as it travels through the House is to demonstrate the first principle—that they do not understand good economics and they do not understand how to run the economy. For 4½ years Labour members have come into the House and paraded all sorts of reasons why the economy is doing so well and why they are the cause of such a strong period of growth in New Zealand. But they have forgotten the whole way through that the real reasons for the growth have nothing to do with them. The growth has happened in spite of them not because of them. 
Why do I say that? Well the answer is very simple. This legislation changes the balance of power in corporate New Zealand. When this legislation goes through tonight—not with the support of the National Party the ACT party or the United Future party—thousands of small businesses will be in a worse position not just because they are susceptible to a loss if they are interacting with a company that has a supreme redundancy position as will be the case because of this legislation but because their businesses are fundamentally weakened by this legislation. Their business is now more vulnerable. The banks will ultimately look at the security that is required. They will ultimately look at those businesses and draw the conclusion that they are a greater risk and the banks’ propensity to want to be involved support and grow those businesses will change. That is the first reason why in 17 months’ time the former Prime Minister of New Zealand Helen Clark will be lamenting her great defeat to the former Minister of Finance Michael Cullen. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No she’ll be heading off to Cambridge University. 
JOHN KEY 
: She will be heading off to her real job—at the United Nations. It is quite a joke that she came down to the House yesterday and told the people of New Zealand that she is in the House debating issues all the time. She is not. The public of New Zealand know that she is around the world pursuing her real agenda. But I go back to the Insolvency Amendment Bill. 
The second reason that the Government will lose the next election is very simple: this bill picks winners and the winners in this bill are the employees who will get a preferential redundancy deal. The losers are the small businesses that will interact with it and the many other people involved in those companies. That is no different from the way the Government runs its normal economic agenda. It picks winners. This is a Government that knows best. It knows when the exchange rate is too high and when it is too low it knows when a company should be invested in and when it should not be and this legislation is just another example of that. When things really turn to custard as they truly will—and the Minister of Finance has already told the country we need to tighten our belts because we are heading into an economic recession and that he has no answers as to how to produce higher levels of growth so we are on our own; that was the message he gave the Labour Party a couple of weeks ago—this is the kind of legislation that will cause all sorts of problems. 
There is no need for this bill. There is absolutely nothing stopping employees in New Zealand from having this kind of contract with their employers nothing whatsoever but they do not do it. Why do they not do it? Because either they do not think it is important or they do not actually want to go their employers and talk to them about why they want to have it because they know that their employers will recognise the weakness of the position. There is nothing stopping them. If it is such a great idea if it is no big deal and nobody cares about it as Rick Barker and various other members have said then let us just let employees out there go and negotiate today. It is a free world; there is nothing stopping them. We do not need this legislation. 
The second point I want to pick up on is the point that Mr Prebble quite eloquently outlined in his speech and it is very simple. A redundancy payment is a payment for a future activity that would have taken place. That is the issue. The real people who will be hurt by this bill have already delivered their goods. The Labour Party members do not care about the fact that those people have actually undertaken work and done the hard yards. I am referring to the guys who have fixed up the lighting in the factory for example or swept the floors; the guys who have changed the broken light bulbs and fixed the broken window frames. They have done the work but apparently they do not deserve to be paid because they are entrepreneurs—because they have had the guts and the gumption to get out there and get a small business going. They do not deserve the support of the benevolent Labour Government which wants to pick winners. They are not worthy of support because they are prepared to get off their butts every day get out there and toil hard for New Zealand. They do not deserve support and they do not get it in this legislation. What they do get is a far weakened position as a result of this legislation. 
But the very people whom the Insolvency Amendment Bill will support do have options. There is nothing stopping them from getting a job in the future. They do not necessarily lose because of being made redundant. I was involved in a number of commercial companies in a 20-year period that made people redundant and within days they were in a new job. Some of them were really grateful that we had made them redundant. They were very happy to have moved on. They had plenty of opportunity to find a new job. It is not a sad story everywhere. If the Government were prepared to have pro-growth initiatives there would be plenty of opportunities for the employees of the odd company that fails to find another job. That will not be the case for the small-business person who has delivered the goods; that will not be the case for the builder who has worked for months and months on end and whose family needs the money to pay for the kids’ school shoes. That is not the situation for them. If employees cannot find another job they can get and enjoy the benefits of the welfare system which we know the Labour Government loves and develops and continues to cherish. They have lots of options but not the people who will be disadvantaged by this system—they do not have options. 
Lastly I want to talk a little bit about the point that Mr Prebble picked up on which is that a manager who is not a director could in fact write himself or herself a contract. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Maybe he should write it anyway and put it in the top drawer. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is exactly the point I was going to make. Managers might choose to have contracts at any time. They do not have to do it within a few days. Most managers can see a redundancy coming years ahead of when it really takes place and there is absolutely nothing stopping them from making sure they have a cosy little deal for themselves and the managers who work with them. There is absolutely no reason why they would not have a contract. Rob Muldoon used to have a letter of resignation already signed from every member of his Cabinet— 
Opposition Members 
: That was Holyoake. 
JOHN KEY 
: Holyoake—OK. If he can do it the managers of New Zealand can do it. This legislation is terrible. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take pride in taking a short call to speak on this legislation. I want to say first of all that I commend the sponsor of the Insolvency Amendment Bill. I think the National Party has lost the plot basically because the bill represents justice and fairness for workers. I think that is something those members might not recall. I do think we need to acknowledge another group of stakeholders in this debate and that other group is the employers. I do know my having negotiated with employers in my previous occupation that many of them have agreed to insert redundancy provisions into their collective employment contracts. I think that is a positive sign that most employers accept the liability of redundancy. Throughout this debate I have not heard Opposition members compliment that group of people—the employers. I think they need to be acknowledged simply because as I said they do accept that they have liability to protect their workers. There is a group of employers who do take on that liability and at the end of the day it is about justice for their workers and giving them security. I thought it was important to make that point very clear as I have not heard it throughout the debate today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We actually have two bills here. Shall I put them as one question? There is no objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Companies Amendment Bill and the Insolvency Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 74 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Noes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bills read a third time. 
Motions 
Guru Granth Sahib—400th Anniversary 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I move  
That this House congratulate the Sikh community on the 400th anniversary of the installation of Guru Granth Sahib 
. The brief background is that the Guru Granth Sahib is the sacred Sikh scripture. This year marks the 400th anniversary of the first installation of the Guru Granth Sahib at the Dabar Sahib commonly known as the Golden Temple in Amritsar. 
Motion agreed to. 
Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 3 March. 
Clauses 1 and 1A Parts 1 and 2 and Schedules 1 to 4 ( 
continued 
)  
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 When we last discussed this bill 3 weeks ago I explained to members the purpose of the further Supplementary Order Papers in my name. I will recap ever so briefly. The passing of the Holidays Act which will come into effect on 1 April this year necessitates some minor amendments to the bill as reported back. So the opportunity has been taken to correct a minor typographical error and to divide the bill into two. Shortly I shall be moving accordingly to amend the Volunteers Employment Protection Act and the Defence Act respectively. Further the opportunity has also been taken to provide that the bill will come into effect at the same time as the Holidays Act and finally to amend clause 5 consequential to renaming the Higher Salaries Commission as the Remuneration Authority. 
I now seek leave for the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in my name and the typescript amendment to be voted on as one question at the conclusion of the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is not. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 185 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clauses 1A 3 13 19 and 23 and to schedules 2 and 3 and the following amendment to clause 5 in his name be agreed to. 
to omit from the definition of  
State employee 
 the words “Higher Salaries Commission” and substitute the words “Remunderation Authority”. 
Amendments agreed to and clauses 1 and 1A Parts 1 and 2 and schedules 1 to 4 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 186. 
divided into Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and Defence Amendment Bill 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill 
Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I move  
That the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The people who serve our defence forces are being recognised today particularly those who serve as reservists be that in the Army the Navy or a very small number in the Air Force. Because I believe that this legislation will pass unopposed Parliament is today enhancing their role and recognising their service. 
It does so essentially in three ways. It provides—and this is a critical point—the protection of their employment in an event where the Government has made a declaration of national interest. Something like East Timor would qualify. 
Secondly the legislation establishes—and this is very important in terms of building up our reservists—an employers’ support council and gives it a statutory basis. In the past such organisations have been voluntary. This time it will have a statutory basis. 
Thirdly it gives the Government power to pass regulations that will enable employers to be compensated when their employees are serving on deployments that are declared to be of national interest. 
I acknowledge the hard work of the select committee chaired by Mr Peter Dunne who carefully steered this legislation through heard the evidence and sought to promote the bill. I acknowledge the Government’s part in that and the numerous meetings that were held. I also acknowledge the defence forces and in particular Brigadier Tim Brewer for whom this legislation has been a particular commitment. He will remain committed to building the reservists. 
However the most important thanks have to go to the men and women who choose—essentially in their spare time outside their employment often at big sacrifice to family life—to serve their country through the defence forces. That often goes quite unremarked and a lot of people do not really appreciate how important it is until we need them. This country needed them in East Timor. Twenty percent of the six rotations of battalions to East Timor consisted of Territorial Force volunteers. That is quite a significant number. 
Many told me that—and this was the motivating force behind the bill—they had had to give up their jobs as they could not negotiate an appropriate arrangement with their employer. But at that point they had spent maybe 10 years or longer in the New Zealand Defence Force. They wanted to put their practice to meaningful use serving their country in a cause that everyone in this Parliament and indeed everyone in this nation saw as valuable—literally building a new nation in our region after the terrible circumstances of the preceding 20 years in East Timor. We owe them a debt. 
One of the things that this House has to reflect upon—and more the country has to reflect upon—is why so many of those young and not so young men and women have had to make that sacrifice of giving up their employment. I suggest that unlike perhaps the United States and unlike Britain our employers and our community have lost the knowledge of the value of people serving the country through the defence forces. It is not something that takes away but something that adds. People learn leadership skills self-reliance and responsibility for self. 
All of that of course is valuable through their Defence Force careers. It is valuable in a much wider way as well. It helps them in their lives; it helps their employers and their communities. It builds the ethic of service—service to other people in the community. That is why the Territorial Force and the naval reservists have been so valuable. But it is a culture that is declining—today only 1800 people are in the Territorial Force. 
Ron Mark 
: How many? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The figure is 1800. When I was in the Defence Force in the 1970s 1980s and early 1990s there were up to 7000. There was a well-understood base of knowledge in the community of the value of that service. But things have changed. The reality is that at the very time when the numbers have been going down we are asking reservists to do more than ever. What I am hoping from this bill and particularly from the Employer Support Council is an opportunity to rebuild the territorial and reservist forces—that voluntary action. 
Frankly—and the Minister should take note of this—this is the cheapest way to rebuild the Defence Force. We often need to use it particularly in the difficult and demanding jobs of peacekeeping. People who have had experience through their civilian world have an acute understanding of peacekeeping. They bring a broader and wider perspective and that has been well understood throughout the years. Britain and the United States are learning the value of that experience in Iraq today. Those who have that broader experience have a clearer and more coherent understanding of how to interact with civilians who frankly are often doing much the same jobs living much the same lives as they would be in their own countries. It is a sensitivity to the people of the host country. 
I want to acknowledge the debt that this country owes to our reservists. I want to tell the Government that it is time to rebuild them because we will need them again. It is a pity that the bill has had to take 4 years. When I introduced this bill it was only 10 months after the initial deployment to East Timor. I was hoping that it would be passed in time for at least one or two of the deployments to East Timor to have the benefit of it. It would have taken a year to pass the bill into legislation which is not an unreasonable request. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: We would have to rewrite the whole bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: That member had a whole year to do that. It is unfortunate that we could not do it in time. It is certainly an issue I raised at the time but time has passed and that opportunity has been lost. It is a good thing we are at least doing it now for the future. I would like to see the legislation ultimately extended so that it covers people who go on individual deployments such as UN observers in the Golan Heights and Lebanon. I think it would serve with value there. Maybe the Minister will take advice on that issue. 
I conclude by saying that this is a great day for the men and women who serve our country through the armed forces on a part-time voluntary basis. I know many of them have been waiting for this legislation. They value it not just for the particular protections it provides but because it is an opportunity to kick-start the ethic and value of the reservists in our defence forces. I am certainly hopeful that it will achieve part of that goal. I will be focusing particularly on how the Government puts this legislation into action to build our defence forces because they serve our country in such an important way. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am very happy to join the third reading debate and to see this good piece of legislation through its final stage in this Parliament. I acknowledge that Dr Wayne Mapp did sponsor the original bill to protect the employment of volunteers and provide support for their employers. It was a worthy bill and that is why the Government and I acknowledge every party in the House have provided active support to progress it now that we are at this point. This is not a time for playing politics and I hope we do not hear any more of that. The process in terms of the time that this bill has taken has largely been to do with the work required to be done by our Defence Force personnel in order to get it right. In saying that I acknowledge as Dr Mapp quite rightly did the sterling work of Brigadier Tim Brewer and the leadership that he in particular showed and I also acknowledge the work of the many other men and women in the Defence Force who have contributed to getting this legislation through to this point. 
I also acknowledge that we had quite a unique select committee process on this bill. Members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee met as Dr Mapp indicated on many occasions—many of those meetings in my office. We worked together alongside Defence Force personnel and other interested parties to try to get this bill as good and as effective as it could be in terms of achieving the aims that are set out. I want to acknowledge all the members who took part in that process from all but one of the parties in Parliament. It was very satisfying to work with parliamentary colleagues in that collaborative manner. 
This bill was introduced back in 2000. It was referred to the select committee which heard submissions and then needed to go through a substantial rewrite and extension in order to achieve the things that I think were consistent with the original intention and the needs that Parliament and parliamentarians felt should be addressed. Significantly the scope of the bill was expanded in terms of the protection available for volunteers in all three services of the Territorial Force. As Dr Mapp has touched on that is dealt with by the proclamation for continuous service whether in New Zealand or overseas—that is a particularly important component of the bill—or when serving voluntarily for fixed periods when that service is declared to be a situation of national interest. 
The bill will ensure that through the principal Act we have relevant and up to date legislation in terms of the current employment environment. That was one of the important factors that required a lot of technical work on the part of officials. They had to ensure that this bill did dovetail in in an appropriate way with the vast amount of employment legislation and workplace legislation that has been enacted over the last 20 years. Out of that comes perhaps the single most important feature in this bill: the creation of the employer support council which will provide a framework to enable the negotiation of solutions between territorial and reservist force personnel and their employers on a flexible and where necessary on an individual basis. 
Territorial force personnel receive on-the-job training in leadership management teamwork and problem solving. It is of benefit to them I think. But equally I would suggest it is of great benefit to their employers and to their workplaces. It is my hope then that this bill will encourage more young people to join the Territorial Force and assist more employers to support their staff to participate in the Territorial Force. As I think Dr Mapp indicated we have to address both sides of that equation if we are serious about building the Territorial Force. 
Let us be clear about this: the present environment is one in which every volunteer organisation in the country is struggling to maintain the sorts of numbers it had in the past. In the last generation there have been huge changes in the fundamentals of our society in work habits in the workplace and in occupational arrangements. Volunteerism which is such a fundamentally important part of New Zealand society is challenged. There is no doubt about that. It is challenged here as it is in every voluntary organisation I know of. Most members in this House who regularly get back into the electorates around New Zealand and who are in touch with their electorates know that voluntary organisations by and large do struggle in the same way that the Territorial Force does. So we do have to take quite strong action to facilitate support and to recognise that when men and women give their time and talent and are prepared to be available to do the training there is a cost and a challenge to their employers as well. Out of this process we will see a balanced response and a way forward that will encourage support and facilitate both those who are willing to volunteer and the employers whose goodwill and generosity we also rely on and when necessary when those situations of national interest prevail ensure that there is fair recognition and recompense for those employers. 
I conclude by saying I too want to recognise the extraordinary contribution the Defence Force men and women both full-time professionals and volunteers—territorials and reservists—make to our country. I think over recent years one of the things we can all be very satisfied about in this House is that New Zealand does recognise that contribution and does celebrate and acknowledge it openly in ways that we have not always done in our past. I certainly applaud that and I think it is something that the men and women whom I meet week after week all around the country in our Defence Force appreciate. It is good that tonight this House is united in support of a bill that is in the best interests of those men and women. Let me thank all the parties in this House for their cooperation in advancing this legislation. In particular I extend my thanks to all members of the select committee both past and present. There are one or two former members like Graham Kelly and Doug Kidd who have played an active part in this legislation have been really keen and have continued to show that interest—in Graham Kelly’s case from the other side of the world and in Doug Kidd’s case regularly in terms of contacts and conversations with many of us. Their contribution is indeed appreciated. Thank you all and finally I welcome the passage of this legislation tonight. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak with a bit of a glad heart but also a warning. I feel a warning is absolutely essential at this point in time 
  
because 
of the 4 years that the legislation has taken to get to this point. 
I have to acknowledge the very good work that has been done. I myself wanted to mention Graham Kelly personally but I note the Minister of Defence mentioned him. Graham did a very good job in facilitating much of the work that happened behind the scenes both with the Minister’s office and through membership on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I hope that if Graham is listening to the radio in Canada he is taking a tipple and celebrating this moment because it has indeed been long in coming but is very welcome. I want to mention Tim Brewer of course and I do not think Air Marshall Carey Adamson can go without a mention because this all started off in his time. 
I want to say a couple of things. Firstly this legislation is welcome. New Zealand First has had both myself and Peter Brown working on it: Peter Brown because of his expertise in labour law and the employers’ perspective; and myself because of my 20-odd years of military service. 
I have to say that time that the Regular Force and the Territorial Force spend together is not always pleasant. Many times the Regular Force very much acts like the big brother with a kid brother hanging around whom it does not want to know. The “weekend warriors” who come to soldier who take up a lot of time and are a pain in the backside are often looked down upon by Regular Force officers and NCOs as second-class soldiers. I want to put it on record that when I and a number of my mates in the New Zealand Army were Regular Force soldiers we went out of our way to volunteer to exercise every year in the South Island with a Territorial Force unit there that unfortunately has been disbanded. [ 
Interruption 
] The answer is a very solid “No”—3rd Infantry Workshops of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. The fact that it was a field force deployable unit that was entirely staffed by Territorial Force personnel was interesting. I acknowledge the sterling work of those “weekend warriors” as they were often referred to by Regular Force guys because those people still today celebrate their time in the New Zealand armed forces. I just regret that that unit has fallen by the wayside. I think something happened under a National Government. actually but we will not go into the details of the politics right now. 
I also want to say that the pay issue is still with us. The words here today are good but we ignore what we have done. When Territorial Force soldiers were recruited to go to East Timor and were taken into camp to spend weeks and weeks training in build-up for deployment they were paid Territorial Force wages. They were paid Regular Force wages only on the day they deployed and their families bore the cost. Some young men serving in the prison service who busted their gut to get into that deployment had to suffer fiscal hardship. For what? For wanting to serve their country on operational service overseas. When I raised that issue in this House I was ignored. We did not leap to the fore and immediately— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: It’s been fixed. 
RON MARK 
: Well it took time and people told me I was grandstanding. There was another issue. Territorial Force soldiers were told on their overnight becoming Regular Force soldiers in order to go to East Timor that they were eligible for a grant to assist with their mortgage payments. What happened when they came home? They all got a letter from Defence Force headquarters saying they were not eligible for it and had to pay it back. We fixed that because Ron Mark raised it and embarrassed the hell out of the Government in a newspaper article and my compliments to Jerry Mateparae who moved swiftly to put his foot on the throat of the senior officers who had been so stupid—and it was fixed. But those signals and failures do one thing: they denigrate Territorial Force service which is precisely what we should not be doing. 
I have a personal friend who is a band 5 grunt soldier in the Canterbury Infantry Regiment. Until recently his average daily wage—and this is the reward he gets for serving his country—was $65 a day. Do members know what his private wage is in the company he works for? It is $200 to $250 a day. This young man whose talents have been recognised by the army has recently been commissioned. But this House needs to deal with Territorial Force soldiers’ pay. It is totally inadequate. It needs to reflect reality and the Government needs to take into account the hardship that the families take on when suddenly dad or mum gets it into his or her head that it is a good idea to take a pay cut and go and help the Government and has to say to the kids: “Sorry kids there is no going to the movies this weekend.” or: “Sorry bank manager. We are struggling to meet the mortgage.” 
This Government has to follow up with this matter and go one step further. If it can throw money around like a one-armed octopus to hip-hoppers all over the planet then it can do better on the pay scales. Three pay rises is not enough I tell the Minister. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Every year there has been a pay rise. 
RON MARK 
: The Minister should get out that report he is hiding that shows the pay was 26 percent below market rates in some areas and tell members that he has closed those gaps. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Every year a pay rise. 
RON MARK 
: The Minister should not sit there and have the House believe that he has closed the gaps because they are still too wide. It is a pittance. If that Minister wants to go to the next election on that pittance I say he must beware because the truth will out. 
Opposition Member 
: Bring it on. 
RON MARK 
: “Bring it on!” I say to the Minister. I acknowledge the promotions brought about through my campaigning but he has not gone far enough. I want it to go on the record that what is being done today is good but it should not hide the fact that the pay rates still need to be addressed. I want the Minister to answer a question. 
I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Is it appropriate for me—without losing my spot—to ask the Minister to answer one question and get him to answer it? 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. 
RON MARK 
: The Minister knows he has a report that states that the pay gap with the market rate was in some trades up to 26 percent yet the Minister sat here and told me that he closed that gap right up. I say to the Minister that there is a porky pig flying through the House and that he should close the 26 percent gap. I ask the Minister to take a call after my speech and answer that. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I cannot take a second call in a third reading debate. 
RON MARK 
: I will give leave. We will all give leave. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You cannot give leave. 
RON MARK 
: If the Minister seeks leave I will not object to his taking a second call. I am sure that one of his members is going to take only a 2-second call anyway. He has plenty of time. I want to talk about what these Territorial Force soldiers do. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Can’t you be gracious for once in your life? 
RON MARK 
: Gracious? This is the Minister who said that we should all value Territorial Force soldiers for what they do. This is the Minister who interfered in Exercise Tasman Reserve and stopped local Canterbury MPs from going there as invited guests. I ask the Minister who went. Yes the Minister did. I know that Canterbury MPs like Brian Connell and me were wanted by the Territorial Force unit. The Minister intervened and guess who went? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What’s he got to hide? 
RON MARK 
: What does he have to hide? The Minister did not want us to talk to the Territorial Force soldiers. It was a sales pitch. He sent Damien O’Connor as the Government representative and he deliberately stopped every South Island MP who was not a Government member from attending. I ask the Minister to say that it is not so that he did not issue that instruction and to tell us why. The employers group that went along had a great day. Ngai Tahu had a great day. Everybody said that it was what people should have been seeing for years. Where were the local MPs? Who stopped them? Who interfered? Whose political manipulation stopped that from happening? The Minister sits there so red-faced because he just got snapped. It is exactly the sort of manipulation that this Government is heavily involved in and we as MPs have a right to see our South Island Territorial Force soldiers at work under training and on exercise. If that Minister thinks he will get goodwill from me for carrying on like that he has another think coming. 
This is good legislation. New Zealand First supports it. We welcome it but there is a lot more yet to be done. A very red-faced Mark Burton who just got snapped has a lot of work to do before New Zealand First will be happy with what the Territorial Force soldiers and servicewomen receive. The Minister is looking red over there. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a second short call in this third reading debate. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: To answer the member’s specific question about pay rises I point out that in each of the last three Budget rounds the Defence Force has had a stepped contribution to pay increases to base pay for all Defence Force personnel and to targeted pay at the discretion of the Chief of Defence Force in consultation with his service chiefs in order to target trades where they have determined that there is a need to target for recruitment and retention. In each of those 3 years the Government has stepped up the service allowance—which the member understands—which is all about ensuring that the relativities go up for the lowest paid. That member would understand better than most in the House the importance of the allowance. Perhaps most important each of those pay rises has been at the level requested by the Defence Force as long as it is done over each step of the way. 
I say to Mr Mark that the test will be what is in this year’s Budget. We will all have to wait and see. This is the fourth year and the member is right that we still have a step to go. We will see what is in the Budget. [ 
Interruption 
] No I have not. I have said that we will have to see what is in the Budget. I wait to be judged. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: The cat’s out of the bag. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Nothing is out of the bag. As I said we have gone through three steps. We will have to see what we can do in the Budget. It remains to be seen. [ 
Interruption 
] There is a step to go yet. I agree. We will see where we are up to. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I am proud to stand as the deputy chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to participate in the debate on the third readings of the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill and the Defence Amendment Bill (No 2). I want to express our appreciation and thanks to the officials the Minister of Defence the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force for their hard work and intelligent advice. I also acknowledge the input of Brigadier Tim Brewer who appeared before the select committee and advised us in a personal capacity. The committee enjoyed good robust and informed debate under the very able chairmanship of the Hon Peter Dunne. We received submissions from groups such as Business New Zealand the New Zealand Law Society and the Council of Trade Unions. We received and considered 13 submissions from individuals and groups and heard five submissions. The legislation enabled input from all the key stakeholders and arrived at a positive outcome for all. We support the legislation. 
Dr Wayne Mapp introduced the original bill on 17 August 2000 and we thank him. The Minister of Defence the Hon Mark Burton released Supplementary Order Paper 66 on 18 March 2003. That was referred to the select committee for consideration with the bill. 
The main purpose of the legislation is to protect the employment of volunteers in the Territorial Force and to support employers. The Volunteers Employment Protection Act of 1973 has become increasingly out of date. It does not provide protection of employment to operations that do not occur at a time of war or emergency. An example is the Territorial Force personnel who were deployed in significant numbers to Timor-Leste—formerly East Timor—and whose contribution was vital to the operation. They were not protected by the Act. 
I want to refer to two provisions of the legislation that address this issue which include the setting up of a council known as the Territorial Forces Employer Support Council. Before I speak specifically to those parts of the legislation I would like to contextualise and support the wonderful work of our volunteers—our Kiwis our taonga and our territorial forces who have made a tremendous contribution to and impact on peacekeeping. We will all recall the pictures we saw on television in New Zealand of the children from Timor-Leste who always greeted our Kiwi territorials with warmth and a smile by saying: “Kia ora Kiwi”. Our volunteers and territorial forces were instrumental in rebuilding trust and healing those families and communities. The East Timorese people did not trust people in uniforms because of their horrific past experience. Our wonderful Kiwis and New Zealanders were ordinary Kiwis who sang waiata participated in rebuilding projects and worked very hard at all levels in the lives of those children those families and those communities in East Timor. They came grounded from their own communities in New Zealand with a tremendous motivation to help serve and work with the Timor-Leste peoples and communities. 
Our people were received with much warmth and affection by the people of Timor-Leste. Those volunteers and territorial forces are our heroes. They are our Kiwis who through their wonderful work and commitment facilitated hope and contributed to the economic social and cultural lives of the people. They healed those communities—and if a community feels good it walks tall and continues to make a major contribution to nation-building. 
This legislation aims to protect the employment of our Territorial Force soldiers in the future while they are deployed in situations of national interest like in Timor-Leste. It provides for protection of employment when a situation of national interest is declared. It applies to every employee who is a member of the Territorial Force or reserve forces and to other persons. This legislation protects them. It also requires the appointment of a Territorial Forces Employer Support Council to promote service in the Territorial Force and to advise the Minister of Defence on matters related to those forces. 
Our select committee was very impressed by a similar very successful entity in Australia. Mr Mark McGowan the Chief Executive Officer of the Defence Reserves Support Council in Australia shared with us in an open and frank discussion the establishment and experience of the Australian council. 
He emphasised the important role the council plays not only in promoting service in the Territorial Force but also in establishing and facilitating an ongoing flexible partnership and lines of communication between the Defence Force the community and business. Mr McGowan informed us that in Australia that process of collaboration has been very successful. The legislation also provides for the Minister to appoint a council to be called the Territorial Forces Employer Support Council. That council would have the role to promote service in the Territorial Force and to advise the Minister on matters related to the Territorial Force and its functions. Regional committees will also be established and they will complement our Government’s regional economic development programme. They will provide the day-to-day interface between Territorial Force personnel and employers in the region. 
Our volunteers protect New Zealand’s interests overseas. We should protect their interests at home. I commend this legislation to the House and ask all parties to support its third reading. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Green MP Keith Locke was on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee which considered this bill and was pleased at the cooperative cross-party way in which the bill was developed to its present point. Unfortunately he cannot be here this evening and I am giving this speech on his behalf. 
The Greens support this bill which enables territorials to take part in such useful operations as our peacekeeping operation in East Timor which of course the Green Party has been very supportive of. A large part of our East Timor contingent consisted of territorials and Keith Locke had talked to a large number of people who took part in that operation. These were people who knew they would probably not have a job waiting for them when they returned to New Zealand. Of course that is not a good situation. It is perhaps analogous to the right of women to take time off to have children with a guaranteed return to employment afterwards. So it should be the same for New Zealanders who go on the extremely important business of protecting peace in places like East Timor. 
We are very pleased that the provisions of this bill are aligned to those in the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act. It is good to see that the National Party in promoting this bill is not letting the market rule on this occasion and that it supports the justifiable obligations being placed on employers in this regard. The structures to be established to educate employers and obtain their commitment to this such as the Territorial Forces Employer Support Council are also important to ensure that the purpose of this bill is met. 
The provision of appropriate compensation to employers for demonstrable loss through cooperation with the scheme is also very important. Self-employed people are in some difficulty however in terms of whether they are covered for compensation although if they have a company of some sort in their name they would be eligible for compensation. It is important however that our small businesses are not unduly burdened compared with larger employers. There is discretion by the Government as to which service qualifies for the provisions of this bill and we would expect that important large operations like that in East Timor would qualify. 
The Council of Trade Unions sought in the select committee that the period for which a person must have been employed in order to be eligible for protection be reduced from 12 months to 6 months. Given the fluidity and frankly insecurity of the job market 12 months is too long to expect people to be employed before they are eligible and we are concerned that too many people will be left out of this scheme. We were advised by the Government however not to accept the amendment put forward by the Council of Trade Unions. 
Since the report back to Parliament the Government has announced that it is reviewing the provisions of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act and intends to reduce the qualifying period in that Act to 6 months previous employment. In light of this newly announced Government intention Keith Locke had intended to move an amendment in the Committee stage of this bill to reduce the qualifying period to 6 months also so that it was consistent with the planned parental leave provisions. However we are now assured by the Government that when legislation is brought in to reduce the qualifying period for parental leave to 6 months that legislation will have a consequential amendment reducing the qualifying period in the Volunteers Employment Protection Act to 6 months also. We accept that assurance. The Green Party supports the third reading of this bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 In speaking to the third reading of the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill I would like to recognise the excellent work done by Captain Dr Wayne Mapp. He was the promoter of the initial bill as a member’s bill. He rose to the rank of captain in the Territorial Force and the bill is a reflection of his commitment to his country. That is what this bill is all about—recognising those who volunteer to serve alongside our full-time professional armed forces in defence of the realm and in protecting our national security. What greater service can one provide? Captain Mapp has certainly made that commitment over time and he should be commended not only for his service in the Territorial Force but also for bringing this bill to Parliament. After he left the Territorial Force he did not forget his mates. He knew the hardship he had endured and he brought this bill here to ensure that others did not suffer that same hardship. 
The shame of it all—it is a shame and I am sorry the Minister of Defence is not here—is that the bill was introduced way back on 20 September 2000. We know that the volunteers of our armed services have been haemorrhaging—absolutely. I have all the graphs. Year after yearthe number of volunteers has been falling off to the point where we are way below critical mass. Everybody knows we need a critical mass in the armed forces to remain effective with capacity. We were given the figures. Not so long ago 8000 territorial volunteers were serving in our armed forces; we are now down to 1800 only and not all of those are active I understand. Perhaps about half of those are active so we are probably down to less than 1000 New Zealanders who are actively volunteering to serve alongside our professional armed forces. That is very bad indeed. 
But the terrible thing is that after Captain Mapp brought this bill to the House it languished on the Order Paper because this Government had no commitment whatsoever. The only time it got moving was when we had some television exposure of the predicament people were in—and all of a sudden the Government wanted to rush it through. The Government actually wrote to me and said it wanted to put the bill through as a Statutes Amendment bill. Of course it needed the consent of all the parties to do that. I said no and I will tell members why I said no. Although Captain Mapp had done a sterling job in the drafting he is not a law draftsman. He may be a law professor but he is not a law draftsman and the bill was deficient. 
Rodney Hide 
: What about Admiral Worth? Did he help? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Admiral Worth had his hand in there too I am told. Captain Mapp and Admiral Worth worked on this together. That is not the point though. The point is that it was a deficient bill and it needed to be sent to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Every speaker in this debate has acknowledged the tremendous work the select committee did and the tremendous assistance the brigadier gave to the committee to bring back a workable bill. Yet this Government having ignored it for all those years and allowed it to languish on the bottom of the Order Paper panicked as it does. It does these U-turns and panics. Everything is done according to public perception. The public were screaming out and asking why the Government was not making a greater commitment. So the Government wanted to rush it through but we stopped them. We stopped them because the bill was deficient. But now we have a bill that can proceed and that is good. 
In the mechanisms of the bill we have the protections of employment. That is important because—I think we were given the figures—20 percent of the six rotations that went to East Timor were Territorial Force soldiers. Twenty percent of six rotations were volunteers. I know because I was a UN observer at the ballot in East Timor in 1999 with Phil Goff and a few other colleagues. We were there when things turned to custard and it was a very ugly scene. We were on the last commercial flight out and the situation certainly needed the involvement of the armed forces. 
We are delighted that New Zealand has played its part in our region. We do not live in a benign region as our Prime Minister has claimed. The Pacific is becoming an increasingly dangerous place; there are some real serious potential security risks in our region and we should be taking defence and security a lot more seriously than this Government is. There is no commitment from this Government but here we have a bill that will hopefully provide some encouragement for those volunteers. 
It is regrettable that when we have debates on defence too much of it is hardware debate—how big the guns are and what sort of tanks and planes we are buying. What really matters in defence is personnel. What we want are highly trained competent multi-skilled personnel and that is the best investment we can make. We then must have a clear strategy and it is only once a clear strategy and competent personnel are in place that we should look at what equipment is needed. Unfortunately so many defence debates hinge on buying tanks or buying light armoured vehicles—all 109 of them. This Government has no idea because its members are all “peaceniks” from the 1960s and 1970s and they now find that by an accident of history they are in Government with no commitment or understanding of what defence of the realm means. That is regrettable and we are suffering as a country. 
Again I congratulate Captain Mapp on bringing this bill here and embarrassing the Minister into getting it through Parliament. We saw the Minister blushing in response to that incredible attack from Major Mark. Major Mark made the Minister of Defence blush here in Parliament this evening. 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s the lack of red meat. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: My colleague suggests it is the lack of red meat. Surely we would not have a Minister of Defence who is a vegetarian would we? Perhaps we have but never mind. Be that as it may. 
Ron Mark 
: Why can’t we see the Territorial Force soldiers at work? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Indeed but another point is that the professional soldiers have not given the encouragement they could towards the Territorial Force. It is a bit like the volunteer firemen. The professional firemen actually resent the volunteers and do all sorts of tricks to make their lives uncomfortable and minimise their input. I say that firefighting or defence needs a core of professional multi-skilled well-equipped people but the volunteers are also relied upon. That is certainly the case in firefighting and it is even more the case in defence forces. 
We should look at the way the United States runs its reservist regimes or countries like Switzerland Britain or any country where there is a recognition of the need to retain the skills of people who have an affinity for and have made that commitment to the defence forces. That pool is there to call upon if it is needed because people cannot be trained overnight. There needs to be a continual ethic of training people and having that reserve force and that is what this bill is all about. 
It is regrettable that it has taken so long to get this bill to its third reading. ACT will certainly support it. We say we needed it 5 years ago and it is a shame that this Government let it languish for so long on the Order Paper. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I join with other members who have spoken in this debate to express support for the Volunteers Employment Protection Amendment Bill that is shortly to become an Act. I will also express some appreciation to three individuals who have contributed so much to its passage. I acknowledge the contribution of Dr Mapp who was the sponsor of the bill and who has been a tireless advocate of it throughout its time before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. He has worked with officials and others to bring the bill to the position in which it is today. 
I also acknowledge the work of Brigadier Tim Brewer who has taken a long interest in this measure and has been a very effective and conscientious adviser to the select committee. He has worked with the Minister and with Dr Mapp and I am sure he can be forgiven a real sense of pride and achievement as we pass this bill into law this evening. 
The third person I want to acknowledge is my immediate predecessor as chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Graham Kelly. Other members have made reference already to his commitment and I know of his sterling interest in this measure. In fact the last conversation that I had with him prior to his departure for Canada was effectively a harangue from him to me to make sure that this bill was progressed swiftly and passed into law. I do not think that he will be listening in this evening. If he was able to pick up New Zealand on radio I think he would be tuned into the cricket but be that as it may Graham Kelly will certainly be very pleased to know that this measure is passing this evening. 
Other members have made reference to the relevance of this measure given the East Timor deployment and the circumstances that arose out of that but more particularly to the likely ongoing range of deployments by New Zealand defence forces that will always include a significant territorial component in the future. 
There is an argument about the numbers and effectiveness of the Territorial Force. I believe that the passage of this legislation will provide some of the incentive that is needed to help reinvigorate the Territorial Force to inspire greater numbers to become involved. As members have mentioned the financial penalty involved in serving one’s country is a very high one. The rewards even at the higher rate of salary that the Minister indicated in the House this evening are not great. We rely immensely on the dedication and commitment of people in hugely difficult circumstances. We think nothing of deploying people to inhospitable environments for many months at a time where their safety is at great risk. We reward them in the sense of some modest financial reimbursement and occasional medals and other honorifics when they return but frankly we do not do enough to recognise that their contribution and hardship are making an effective contribution to our security and freedom. There is an overwhelming case for strengthening the capacity of our Territorial Force and for encouraging more people to become involved. 
An important part of providing that encouragement will be the passage of this legislation this evening. I am delighted that in a rare moment this House will pass this bill without dissent. That seldom happens and in fact what is common these days is for the ACT party to oppose things simply to make sure that they do not pass without dissent. The fact that even ACT supports this measure this evening is a tribute to how serious it is how important it is and how necessary it is. Without further ado I indicate support for the bill and I intend to— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Tell us about Y2K. We haven’t heard a Y2K speech for a long time. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: That is very interesting. The member wants me to tell him about Y2K and laments the fact that he has not heard a speech from me on that subject for a very long time. He may not have noticed that Y2K occurred 4 and a bit years ago which is why I have not spoken on the issue. The member’s bill was alive at that time. All I can say to him is that in the time that I have been the chair of that committee he will know the interest that I have had in progressing the matter. I am pleased that we are at the stage tonight when the bill will be passed and I think our service people will be all the more grateful for it. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. I compliment the previous speaker on his contribution. Unlike the speaker before him Mr Dunne did not descend to some partisan political debate when in reality this bill has the support of the whole House although one or two members may want to make some very cheap shots. I particularly acknowledge—if I can use the title in tonight’s context—Captain Mapp. It has a good ring to it and I say that with absolute respect as I do when I refer to Major Mark because it illustrates that people have had a life a contribution and a passion for service to their country well before they came to Parliament. I acknowledge the hard work of the original author of the bill. 
 I know that Captain Mapp will support me when I acknowledge the passion that Graham Kelly the former chair of the select committee had in getting this bill through and the work he did. Although he may not be listening on short wave hopefully with Internet radio if he is up at 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning or whatever time it is in Ottawa he may very well be listening. Also I commend the very constructive leadership of Peter Dunne the current chair. The select committee I believe did a good job on this bill and in keeping with this positive spirit I strongly acknowledge Ron Mark’s contribution along with Mr Mapp’s. I acknowledge that Mr Mark has had a very solid and clear background with the Army and with the armed forces and that is interesting for someone like myself who has not had that life experience. I did not see Ken Shirley on those Vietnam marches in the 1970s but we will be checking out his history. [ 
Interruption 
] He may want to disavow some sort of participation but we will look back through library records and check that out just to make sure about what he was doing when he was in his teens and twenties. I seem to recall he did have certain affiliations before he joined ACT. 
In acknowledging people such as Ron Mark and Wayne Mapp for their participation in the armed forces I acknowledge the many many New Zealanders who have served this country both in the professional armed forces and as territorial soldiers. Those men and women have served this country well. The one thing that brings if one likes a tug to my heart is when I attend as we all do the Anzac Day commemoration services and see the young primary and secondary school students in some form of services be it scouts or guides—and in the case of my electorate we have an excellent army cadet unit with Hamilton Fraser High School. 
We also have an excellent young air force group navy group etc. As part of a useful contribution to tonight’s third reading debate on this bill perhaps we can talk about and reflect a little on the encouragement and the signals that we send to those students in terms of the services they may contemplate—firstly possibly going into the professional armed forces but secondly looking at ongoing service and marrying another career another role with service in the Territorial Force. 
This bill in my view is also about sending them positive signals about thinking outside the narrow and rather selfish lives we sometimes lead and about how we can serve our community. What is one of the things we can do to serve our community? Obviously joining and participating in the Territorial Force of this country is a wonderful example of service to our country. It is a wonderful example of patriotism in the broadest sense of the word. We see and think of those young secondary school kids and then suddenly they are a bit older and we are seeing those fresh faces in places like Timor and other parts of the world. When see people who are taking significant personal risks because they have some sense of service and a sense of pride in their country then anything we can do as parliamentarians to help in that service is to be strongly commended. No one will see me getting into any political tit for tat. The reality is that a bill came to a select committee—and in an ideal world things would move faster. We do not live in an ideal world. In spite of the in my view less than charitable contributions by an ACT speaker a member has promoted a bill and I think it is a very good example of a member being able to look back and say: “Yes we achieved this.” and having support from the Minister having support from the ministry and having support from the select committee because we said the existing legislation is not good enough. 
Let us take the time tonight to reflect on the legislation that this bill is replacing which is of course the Volunteers Employment Protection Act 1973—possibly when Mr Shirley was on some marches on main streets around the country; I do not know. That legislation was enacted at the time that national service was abolished and it protected the civil employment of the volunteer members of all three services. It was extended under the Defence Act 1990 to cover the deployment of members of the Territorial Force but it had not been systematically reviewed and that legislation that is currently in place—which will be replaced by the new legislation—is out of step with modern employment legislation. As I understand it it does not cover Territorial Force members who serve overseas voluntarily as many have in Timor-Leste and there was clearly a need—and I am stating the obvious—to update the legislation to refine it and bring it in to meet the needs of today’s situation. The select committee heard a wide range of public submissions to that effect and in fact the bill as introduced needed to perhaps go further than its original scope. 
As I said substantial work was done by committee members and the Minister of Defence and then of course we had the Supplementary Order Paper which expanded the scope of the protection available to volunteers in the territorial forces of all three services both when called up by proclamation to continuous service within New Zealand or overseas and when serving voluntarily for fixed periods when that service is declared to be in a situation of national interest. It also provides a workable mechanism for volunteers in the Territorial Force to serve voluntarily for various fixed periods. Aligning as far as possible the procedures and practices for volunteers’ leave with those established under the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act also brings the Act up to date with present employment law and empowers the Governor-General in Council to make regulations to compensate employers who have Territorial Force volunteer employees who serve in a situation of national interest. 
In the time I have left let me be gracious as most other speakers bar one or two have been in this debate tonight. Firstly let me praise and compliment Captain Mapp on his efforts. Let me compliment the Minister of Defence on his strong support for this bill. Let me compliment Major Mark on bringing an expertise and a background that I as a member who has not personally served in the armed forces of this country found to be very very useful. I thank Ron Mark for that. I talked earlier on about Anzac Day and seeing those young kids who go into the army cadets the air force cadets and the navy cadets. I am so delighted that this bill is sending those young New Zealanders—the kids who get on with life and do not cause us problems; the ones that the newspapers never write about; the 95 percent of good kids in this country—a clear message. We are saying to them: “Volunteer believe in service serve your country and we as a society will take care of you and honour your service to this nation.” 
Bills read a third time. 
Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
Consideration of Report of Commerce Committee 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Commerce Committee on the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill 
. We are currently in the forty-seventh Parliament of New Zealand. This bill first came before the House in the forty-fifth Parliament. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Last century! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes last century which in parliamentary terms is a very long time ago. It was introduced by our colleague Mrs Patricia Schnauer and it has had a long and winding history through the House. In fact it will be the only bill ever passed in the history of the New Zealand Parliament that will have two Committee stages in this House. That is quite extraordinary given the modest change it makes to our shop-trading hours. 
Before I go too far I would like to acknowledge Mr Mark Peck. I hope I will not do much damage to his career in the Labour Party. Without exception Mr Mark Peck is the finest chairperson I have ever served under in the select committee process. He has done a fine job generally in the Commerce Committee and on this bill in particular. 
We have a bill that will allow retailers to decide for themselves according to their customers’ wishes whether they open on Easter Sunday. That move is long overdue in New Zealand. What we have is arbitrary and does not make sense. It is subject to a lot of politicking and to a lot of very unfortunate policing activity by Department of Labour officials I guess going around snooping to see who might be buying a potplant—not the type the Greens go for because those are traded on Easter Sunday but a real potplant from the garden centre on an Easter Sunday. Everyone in New Zealand thinks it is a bit silly. 
I would have liked this bill to go a lot further and leave every day in New Zealand up to customers and to the shop owners who have their capital and livelihoods at risk. However it is fair to say that the best that we could do in our committee was to get Easter Sunday and leave it up to this Parliament to decide. I support that as a step in the right direction. 
In 2003 the Minister of Labour Margaret Wilson called on a working-group to look into shop-trading hours. The group released its report in June 2003 called  
Shop Trading Hours—Proposals for a Way Forward 
. It contained two options and states: “The two options proposed are founded on our assessment that Easter Sunday is the main focus for any change and on the need to balance the social community commercial and employee interests involved.” 
The committee supported the proposal of the working-group and agreed to focus on Easter Sunday trading. I have to say that it was not easy for the committee but it agreed and recommended an amendment to allow Easter Sunday trading across the board. The reason for that is that most of the current area exemptions relate to Easter Sunday trading and if we just removed that restriction we would alleviate most of the concerns about the differences between the areas. We tipped our hat to the Labour Party domination of the Commerce Committee and put protections in for employees and leaseholders so that they are suitably—in the Labour Party sense of the word—protected against compulsorily working or opening on Easter Sunday. 
I hope that Parliament will support this bill. It is a fair bill in terms of the interests that are reflected around this Parliament. What we have now is a law that is a bit of an ass looks a bit silly each Easter causes a lot of concern amongst retailers between one area and another and in an important way undermines the institution of Parliament. Quite frankly we have a law that is silly in this day and age. Paying civil servants double time to muck around on Easter Sunday taking notes and snooping to see who might have his or her shop open is not a very good idea. It does not reflect well on this Parliament. 
I should say that I do not think that anyone in this Parliament wants to dismiss or downgrade anyone’s religious views. We live in a society that is not overwhelmingly Christian but reflects a whole diversity of religious beliefs different cultures and different creeds. The important thing about that is not to legislate one religion over another or one view over another but to allow people the freedom to practice their religious beliefs. If people do not want to go shopping on a Saturday they do not have to go shopping on a Saturday. They do not have to open their shops on a Saturday. 
I see my friend Mr Tim Barnett here. When his bill goes through people will not even have to have a gay civil union. It will be up to the people concerned to choose how they live their lives and whom they partner with. We are not talking about making it compulsory that people open their shops on Easter Sunday. It is up to owners and whether their customers want it. Is that not the sort of New Zealand we want—a New Zealand that respects people’s religious beliefs how they choose to live their lives and allows them the freedom to choose? 
I commend this bill to the House. I thank my colleague Mr Mark Peck for his hard work and his very good ability at managing complex and conflicting views on a piece of legislation. As a chairman he is in many ways a model parliamentarian. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Much underrated by his party. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He is much underrated by this Parliament generally. Would it not be nice thing for our retailers if Parliament were of a mind to make the change before this Easter? How silly it would be to have Parliament supporting this bill but not getting it passed before Easter—having the absurd situation of changing the law after Easter and again having Department of Labour officials running around fining retailers who open because we have not done the business and got this bill passed. If there is enthusiasm in this Parliament to support this bill I ask the Government whether we can bring it forward. Can we put it into the urgency motion and give some sanity to our Easter shop-trading hours? Again I thank members of Parliament for their support. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague has raised a very important procedural matter that needs some response from the Government. He has pointed out that this bill could be passed before Easter. Because it is to allow shopping on Easter Sunday the request was that the Government include it in the urgency motion next week. Could a Minister from across the Government side of the Chamber give us some indication of that please? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member but that is a matter for debate. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I thank Rodney Hide for his praise. I must say I was much happier to relieve his colleague of some refreshments earlier this week in another role in particular. This has been an interesting bill. I want to deal for a moment with the New Zealand First minority view. It was raised at the Commerce Committee that New Zealand First would rather see these things dealt with by way of local community decision-making. I have some sympathy for that point of view but I have to say that within this legislation it cannot be done. One of the reasons that this bill went back to the Commerce Committee was exactly that. On the last occasion it was debated in this House a number of amendments were moved to bring precisely that state of affairs about. Because that was outside the scope of the bill those particular amendments were out of order. The amendments that had been carried out to the bill had essentially rendered it a nonsense; hence the member withdrew it and it went back to the select committee. 
 I also say that— 
Rodney Hide 
: You have a good memory! 
MARK PECK 
: Well I remember the debate on this bill quite well because it is one that I have an interest in and it is more than just an academic interest I suppose having been a shop assistant myself in my earlier life. 
Rodney Hide 
: They say you were a very good one. 
MARK PECK 
: Well I can cut cabbages— 
Brian Connell 
: You may go back to it! 
MARK PECK 
: I may well get the chance to go back to it at some time in the future. 
Rodney Hide 
: I least you will not say “Don’t be negative.” 
MARK PECK 
: I thank the member for that. But I also congratulate the Commerce Committee because during the whole currency of this bill even from the time Patricia Schnauer first brought the bill into the House to the time that we now have this second report-back speech on the bill there had never been submissions called for on the bill. There had never been a hearing of evidence as to what the community thought about the matter. I think it was a useful process that we went through of trying to clarify the issues in our minds as we put the legislation together. Furthermore the Minister of Labour was asked to assist with some work on the bill and to get a committee together to look at issues around shop trading hours particularly as they affect Easter. 
Two other issues that were important to the committee as we looked at this bill were the protection of employees and the rights of leaseholders. One of the things that is clear from this particular debate—and I tend to share Mr Hide’s view that people’s personal religious views are exactly that—is that there needs to be similar protection for those people who have a strong religious objection to working on the day and for those with a strong religious objection to opening on the day. Now let us just leave the issue of employees out of the argument for a moment and look at the issue of people who have leases in particular shopping complexes. We see their leases require them to be open during certain periods of time when the complex is open. It is important to give not just the employees but also the person who runs the business the right to say no as well. In putting this legislation together we were very keen indeed to ensure that the rights of workers to say no and not to be pressured into working and the rights of leaseholders to say no were protected. That essentially picked up on the options that the Minister of Labour was able to sort out through her particular working-party. 
I want to thank the people who took part in that working-party because it did require a number of people to step outside their comfort zones. The employers’ organisations had to step outside their normal comfort zones and their principled position that they were going to open at any time they liked and if they wanted workers to work they would work. Similarly those who represented the union side of the issue had to look at what was a reasonable compromise along the way to progress this legislation if it was to progress. 
I now come to the process of the committee. We took a lot longer to hear evidence than we did in the consideration of the bill. The reason for that is I think if we had taken a straight vote at the committee the bill would not have proceeded. That is my view. Essentially at the end of it—and I see Russell Fairbrother Darren Hughes and Ross Robertson here in the House and they were on the committee—on the Government side of the table there were strong views. I am sure that not many of those on the Labour side of the select committee will go through the Ayes lobby and vote for the bill to continue. I will do that. I will go through the Ayes lobby because I think we need to have this debate. 
I say that as a previous shop employee who took part in a strike back in the 1970s to stop Saturday trading. I will never forget that. Wellington and Christchurch went on strike and Auckland and Dunedin did not. I will never forget as a young man in my first employment realising the moment I lost pay and went home to take part in a strike on this issue that we had lost the issue. I will never forget how powerless I felt going home and saying to my wife—and we had just had our first child—that I would not have sufficient money to pay the rent at the end of the week. I went on strike for a principle yet that particular principle was not shared by all my colleagues in the retail industry. I have never forgotten that. So one of the things that I do accept when we are dealing with legislation of this ilk is that it is complicated. It is bound up in emotions and in a conflict of rights. There are not just the employers’ rights but the workers’ rights and they are not just the rights of those who have religious views but also the rights of those who want to enjoy the day. 
The issue that created this problem in the first place was the question of trading in tourist areas and of the gardening shops. Now the gardening shops have been tidied up. I see Steve Chadwick here. Retailers in her area are asking why they cannot open in Rotorua when shops can open in Taupo. Hanmer Springs is also another case in point—that area had wanted to join in the petition initially. I could not understand particularly why Hanmer Springs wanted to be involved but it does have a substantial trade during the holiday periods including Easter. So in putting the bill together at the select committee it took a considerable compromise from members to get it this far. Members were prepared to send the bill back to the committee for further discussion and I thank them for that because it allows the House to have this debate. I agree with Mr Hide. I would like to see this bill finished one way or another before Easter so that people know the rules. I think that the longer this particular issue hangs around the worse it will be. 
I do not accept the member’s contention that we should extend shop trading hours out further. I tested that issue with my own family at Christmas a couple of years ago. When I mentioned that this bill was around my son who was working in a bottle store at the time said to me that I must be off my rocker if I thought workers wanted to have to work on Christmas Day. Workers do actually value their time off. He was telling me that he valued his time off. And my son made another point to me that I actually know as a union official: one can actually write in protections but the boss can say to casual and part-time workers that if they have the day off they will be having every other day off as well and should not bother coming back. Those are real concerns and I do not want to make light of them. I know that until we address those matters they will continue to hang around as issues. 
I certainly hope that this bill will make whatever progress it does through the House hopefully by this Easter if that is possible. If that is not possible then I am sure that the debate around this bill will tidy the situation up one way or another for next Easter. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 As Mr Hide has pointed out the legislative path of this bill to the House has been rather arduous. I am pleased now that it has found its way here to the House this evening for serious consideration—after I think the 4 or 5 years that it has been in progress of being debated and formulated. It is clearly an emotional issue. It is one of those pieces of legislation where “You’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.” 
I thought it would be useful and I take Mr Peck’s point really to step the House through some of the machinations that members of the Commerce Committee went through in trying to arrive at a sensible recommendation. Throughout the select committee stage 34 written submissions were received and broadly 50 percent of those submissions were in favour and 50 percent were opposed. Of those supporting deregulation the most frequently mentioned was the need to respond to local commercial and tourist demand and address anomalies in the Act that allows some areas to trade and some areas not to trade. This I believe is a confusing point that needs some clarification. Submissions also referred to the employers’ right to open when they chose. Easter Sunday is not a public holiday and its significance is far greater for some members of the community than others. I think members of the House will agree that these are all very cogent arguments. 
Those opposed to deregulation on the other hand all supported the retention of Easter Sunday as a restricted trading day. All favoured the restrictions for Christmas Day Good Friday and the morning of Anzac Day also. Those against deregulation most often cited religious reasons and time off with families as to why they were opposed. Others simply felt that there were enough working days and that the commercial argument for another day just was not justified. I think members of the House will agree that these also are very cogent arguments. 
Members of the select committee weighed these issues very carefully and finally we reached a position of recommending Easter Sunday trading. I have to say that I personally found this decision a very difficult one to make. I admit that I always found Easter Sunday to be a special day of significance in my case because it is a day to spend with family but I also respect that for others it is a very significant religious day. But on balance I decided that Easter Sunday trading was something I should support really because I believe that that is the only way we will make progress. 
I also decided there were many anomalies in the existing bill and that businesses really deserve an even playing field. In making the recommendation I and I think other members of the select committee were influenced somewhat by the report entitled  
Shop Trading Hours: Proposals for a Way Forward 
. It contains options for Easter Sunday trading that I found compelling especially the emphasis on the need for balanced social community commercial and employee interests to be taken into consideration. 
There also exists a widespread confusion amongst the public as to what shops are open and what shops are not and I think this issue needs to be resolved. The public are very demanding and no more demanding than when it comes to the supply of fresh food. Trading conditions mean that supermarkets in particular find the current legislation and current restrictions very difficult. They encounter great difficulty and suffer considerable cost from the imposition of having to close on Good Friday reopen on Saturday and close again on Easter Sunday. Our demand for fresh food and nothing less makes it difficult for supermarkets to meet our demands without having to throw out unsold produce at considerable cost. Purchasing produce on a Thursday and trying to retail it as fresh on a Monday just does not rub. So I was persuaded that we had to ease the passage of this legislation through the House for businesses like supermarkets and their ilk. 
I have to say though to members of the House that I do draw the line at Christmas Day and Good Friday. I have conceded somewhat to allow progress to ease the passage of this bill on Easter Sunday trading but I do foreshadow that I see that this is the end of the line and I will not be moved further. 
Having recommended trading on Easter Sunday the select committee moved to ensure that employees’ and shop owners’ and occupiers’ protections were in place. Mr Peck picked these up and I think he was right to do so. This was something that I think the general public and workers will have a legitimate concern about. I want to make it clear that under this legislation employees do not have to work on Easter Sunday if they do not want to and there will be no repercussions—absolutely no repercussions—but shop owners and occupiers may engage or employ another person to work in their place on that day only or part thereof. I think that is a reasonable and sensible compromise. 
The decision I have reached reflects I believe a fair balance between all the conflicting views that were received by the select committee. That the bill deregulates shop trading hours around Easter Sunday is clear but in my view it protects Christmas Day and Good Friday and protects the interests of those who do not want to work or be involved in those days. So I urge members to consider this legislation with an open mind and if they can do their own search have a look at some of the submissions that were put to the select committee and speak to select committee members I think they will come to a conclusion whereby they too can support the passage of this legislation. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to indicate to the House that I will be opposing this bill in its entirety. I say so acknowledging the considerable work that both current and former members of the Commerce Committee have spent on this vexed and emotional issue and I wish in particular to acknowledge the hard work by the Minister of Labour and MP for Tauranga the Hon Margaret Wilson and my friend and colleague the MP for Rotorua Steve Chadwick who has spent many hours on the issues of shop trading for her constituents in the tourist industry. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member is deliberately misleading the House by referring to the Hon Margaret Wilson as the MP for Tauranga. The MP for Tauranga normally occupies the seat I occupy right now. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is out of order to suggest that a member is deliberately misleading the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I should have said the MP from Tauranga. I apologise to the House. I wish to set out the grounds upon which in good conscience I must oppose this bill and there are three. The first is the workers’ rights argument. I believe that this is extremely important. The argument that the bill offers sufficient protection for workers is I believe plainly naive. Powerless low-skilled low-wage workers who can be sacked and rehired at a moment’s notice are not in a position despite legislative protection to protect themselves from the pressures that employers will inevitably bring to bear. 
The second ground is that the same test fails in respect of lease-holder protections. Those who are in lease deals with shopping centres will face the same pressures as workers. 
The combined effects of these two issues on families will be corrosive. There are only Good Friday Easter Sunday Anzac Day and Christmas Day that we observe as national holidays and I believe that families deserve certainly no less and probably more. 
But at the heart of this issue is a more complex issue. It is one with very deep and ancient philosophical roots and it is that that drives my conscience. That is the debate about whether this bill gives proper effect to the separation of State and religious affairs and there are two views on it. The former view which other speakers have mentioned is that it is appropriate if the State is not to favour any religion for it not to stand in the way of commercial activities that might conflict with any faith. It follows from this perspective that the eventual answer is that no religion should have a place in our society and that rather than being free open and diverse we would be compulsorily secular. That is not a view I espouse although I understand its roots. 
The other view recognises the importance of a range of religions to our cultural spiritual and national life. It acknowledges census data that shows that even now the Christian religion is still the predominant religion in New Zealand. Easter is that faith’s primary most sacred festival and it deserves as a matter of civic affairs to be respected. 
I also acknowledge that both Easter and Christmas have overwhelming cultural significance for families. How often have we heard grandparents long for their families to be reunited with them at Christmas or at Easter and long for that for 6 months of the year between festivals? Will we take that opportunity away from our grandparents because parents are busy working in shops that have been forced to open because of competitive pressure? I say not. 
Let me add a personal note if I might. I come to the Labour Party from the Christian socialist tradition and I am proud to acknowledge that. The Labour Party is a broad organisation that draws upon many sets of philosophical roots. This bill offends both of those traditions. It offends workers’ rights because it places intolerable pressure on the powerless in our society and it offends not only Christian but broader religious rights because it says that the implication of tolerance is a cultural desert. That is not the necessary conclusion. There are many many ways in which essential services could be provided on Easter Sunday as indeed they are now without liberalising that most sacred of festivals in the way that this bill suggests. 
This is a difficult issue. It is an emotional issue and it is an issue that draws upon deep philosophical traditions. I feel compelled to state to the House the premise upon which my vote opposing this bill is based. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will support this bill. We will also support the idea of putting it through under urgency. If the bill is to be supported it would be ridiculous to pass it after Easter. I shall examine for one moment what would happen if this bill were passed after Easter. Many of the shops in the area I come from and where Steve Chadwick comes from will open anyway. Those shop owners are sick and tired of this issue not having been addressed over the past 6 years or so. We are talking about Easter Sunday. Those shops will open anyway. Those retailers will challenge the law. I have no doubt about that although I cannot speak from concrete knowledge. I do know they are absolutely sick to their back teeth of not being able to open on Easter Sunday. 
It is particularly bad in Tauranga. Quite often a cruise ship comes in the passengers get off get on to a bus and go to Taupo! They spend their money in Taupo and when they come back they ask why the shops do not open in Tauranga and whether this is the same country. Retailers have expressed in very strong terms how daft is the way things operate at the moment. People can buy a plant and something else in a garden shop but they cannot buy an everyday piece of equipment in any other shop. If this bill is not passed before Easter we will have an even more ridiculous situation whereby any retailers who open will be fined only to find that a few weeks later this legislation has been passed. That is stupid. We should have been addressing this issue years ago—not last year but years ago. 
Rodney Hide 
: We have been. 
PETER BROWN 
: I acknowledge Mr Hide’s comments. This side of the House has tried very very hard. With due respect to that member he wanted to liberalise things too much and that has been to his detriment and to ours. If we had stuck to what New Zealand First wanted—just opening on Easter Sunday—I think we would have got there a lot quicker. If we had stuck to what the Rt Hon Winston Peters wanted and New Zealand First supports which is that the local community would make a decision on whether that area opened on Easter Sunday we could have got there literally years ago. 
I want to clarify the New Zealand First minority report because I think it could have been written a little more clearly. We do not support the option of opening on Christmas Day or Anzac Day at the community’s wish. We only support the option of opening on Easter Sunday at the community’s wish. We should have made that clearer in the minority report. 
Much has been made of people with religious views. I like to think that I am a person of Christian beliefs and principles. I have no objection to this bill whatsoever from the Easter Sunday point of view. I am encouraged in that view by the one-time local vicar of Mount Maunganui. He was the vicar of two churches but he is no longer in the area. That is sad but he has been replaced by very good people. He has moved on to other pastures. He came along with a group of business people. I believe he met with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. Certainly he and his group of business colleagues met with myself and gave us a very very good workable view of why shops could easily be opened for retailing on Easter Sunday but did not take a religious stance. In brief he said: “If the shops were open people would feel encouraged to go out. If they went out they would come to my church with their families and I would have more people in my two churches than I currently have and that’s a good thing.” He was exceedingly positive about it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Optimism defeating logic. 
PETER BROWN 
: I know the member is an eternal pessimist but he should come over here from time to time and get some positive vibes. He would have a much better outlook on life. I am a little bit worried about what the Christian socialist doctrine which obviously he subscribes to has done to him. Perhaps he should mix with New Zealand First people a little bit more frequently and he will get some positive vibes. We are firm believers in the people of this country. We believe that if local bodies had the choice they would make the right decision for their respective communities. That is where we are heading. 
When this bill gets to the Committee stage we will move an amendment to reflect that view. Notwithstanding even if that amendment is defeated we will support this bill. I have to say that our first preference is that local communities should determine whether shops open in their area. 
I want this bill to proceed and New Zealand First wants this bill to proceed at maximum speed. I do not know what we have to do to get it in the urgency motion but I hope the Government is taking notice. I suggest that New Zealand First would support an extension of urgency to get this bill comprehensively addressed. Let us get the issue sorted one way or the other before Easter. It must make sense even to those people who oppose the bill. Either it is dead in the water if that is what the member over there wants—I know he made his view clear—or we make sure it gets passed. But let us get law-abiding New Zealanders working together. They do not want this hanging over their heads. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Let’s have them together with their families. 
PETER BROWN 
: That member over there should look at my family and I am absolutely proud of them. I would go to war for my family. I brought them up to be commercially minded and with a social conscience. That member should not lecture me on bringing up a family. They have turned out to be great citizens. All my children are adults and all of them make a positive contribution to this country. I am very very conscious of the importance of the family group. To suggest that we are in breach of the family unit because we want shops to open on Easter Sunday is absolutely ludicrous. If we really are family minded there are far more important things that we should be doing or ensuring that are not occurring. 
For the remainder of my contribution I shall touch on the voluntary aspects of the bill. Obviously work for the shop owner is voluntary. I can tell members that shop owners in Tauranga and Mount Maunganui are feeling the pressure of losing business to Taupo. They get the pressure whether or not they are allowed to open. I compliment the Commerce Committee on inserting a clause that this is voluntary for the shop worker. I am conscious that Mr Paul Adams will pick me up on this if I suggest they are the only workers but I am referring to the employed worker. The bill provides them with the ability to refuse to work on Easter Sunday if they do not want to or cannot cope or whatever. 
This is a good bill. We support it but we want it addressed before Easter this year. We want it included in the urgency motion and if that is the only way we can do that let us have it. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker under Standing Order 106(2) in respect of misrepresentation. The previous speaker whom I refrained from interrupting imputed a motive to my interjection in respect of families that did not exist. My interjection was: “Let’s bring families together” in respect of Easter Sunday and I wish to make clear that in no way was I offering a reflection on that member’s family which I am sure is superb. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is to abolish shop trading hour restrictions on Easter Sunday. I see no reason why it should stop there. It has not managed to even slow down. I remember some years back that an American arriving in New Zealand on a Saturday was reputed to have said that he found the place closed. He might have said that he found us sleeping in gardening watching our kids play sport or relaxing with friends on the golf course the rugby field or the netball court. Many visitors arriving in New Zealand today after 20 years absence lament the fact that New Zealand now is not the way they remember it. We have lost something of our easy-going and laid-back manner. 
Retailers justifying the change to 6-day shopping said they were responding to consumer demand. The reality was that Saturday shopping was not an immediate success. Indeed it took some time and many advertising dollars to convince New Zealanders that they wanted to shop on Saturday. The change was driven by businesses with little connection or commitment to local communities. Initially small retailers resisted the change but the chain stores persisted and slowly but surely the habit took on. 
At the time I was a very small retailer selling my handicrafts on a Friday afternoon and watching my daughters play netball on a Saturday morning. Those of us who were concerned that we would have little choice but to open on Saturday morning were told that there would be no compulsion but eventually Friday shopping became a non-event. It was killed and my children had to get used to playing their sport on a Saturday morning without their father watching. 
Years later folk who remembered my opposition to Saturday shopping would say: “See Mike you had nothing to worry about. The world hasn’t fallen apart.” I am not sure where they have been because the world is a decidedly different place now. The world has changed. Shopping is now the preferred recreation for more New Zealanders and while we have never had so much stuff we have never had so little time to spend with the people we like or to enjoy the experience of living in this lovely country. We are also more violent and more neurotic our families fall apart more frequently and more regularly we spend more time at work gamble more take our own lives more often and—while it may be unfair to blame all of that on Saturday shopping—it would be extremely short-sighted to ignore the impact of consumerism on the quality of our lives and on the destruction of our environment. 
I have to concede that Saturday shopping has more elements of community and family than shopping at any other time of the week but that does not alter the fact that we now have less time to be family or to unwind after a week’s work. I have trouble getting to harriers on a Saturday afternoon and when I do fewer of my friends have managed to make it. Even fewer stay around to socialise afterwards. It is more difficult to find someone to coach the children’s teams or to turn up for the school working bees on a Saturday morning. While Saturday shopping is unlikely to be the day with which we would dispense adding Easter Saturday feels like the coup de grâce to a society that is in need of life support not putting out of its misery. 
Is it not already too late? What difference will an extra day’s shopping make? Saying no would signal that at least we are aware of the problem and out of our awareness might grow a willingness to show a genuine concern for family and community—an awareness that might extend not to increasing shopping hours but to clawing back a little of the family time that we have lost. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What about the gardening centres? 
MIKE WARD 
: It is not only the gardening centres. It is the thin end of the wedge. They will all be open. 
A recent news item declared that New Zealand is the third least-regulated country in the world. I am sure there are still New Zealanders who see that as high praise despite 20 years of deregulation—a couple of decades demolishing a quality of life that was once the envy of the world. 
All the Green MPs will be opposing this bill. We would urge all our colleagues in this place to think carefully about the kind of New Zealand we are trying to create and then work out what we have to do to get there. The deregulation model has not made us wealthier happier or more contented. It has certainly not addressed our environmental concerns. We throw away 10 million kilograms into holes in the ground every day—much of it toxic all of it valuable. We source our products from all over the world with little thought about the possibility that we may be degrading other people’s environments or lives and we do that through our shopping. We manage to do it very well on 6 days and we managed to do it quite well on 5 days. We will do extraordinarily well on 7 days. 
Those who advocate for extended shopping hours do so on the grounds that the present limited restrictions curtail freedom of choice. I say tell that to the small retailers who are working longer hours than ever before—frequently for smaller returns. If they want to stay in business the only choice they have is to open on Saturday mornings. With additional Sunday opening opportunities they will eventually succumb. Do they have the freedom to choose to watch their children play sport? Unlikely. Do they have the freedom to spend the morning in the garden? Not if they want to stay in business. Are the people who drove the retailing revolution the same individuals who serve in the shop? Unlikely. They have lackeys to do that for them. Do we not need the extra work? Not nearly as much as we need the time—and rather than providing extra work extended shopping hours have simply contributed further to the casualisation of retail trade. 
Far from providing choice Saturday shopping has undermined the opportunity for many New Zealanders to do many other things that once characterised what it meant to be a New Zealander. I recall an interview that Kim Hill did with a researcher who had concluded that 25 percent of rural Australians were clinically depressed. When Kim Hill asked how that compared with urban New Zealanders the researcher replied: “They are catching up.” So why are we such an unhappy lot? In spite of too many people having too little work too many of us are just working too many hours—more hours per man woman and child than ever before. While homelessness and inadequate housing are very real problems many of us have never had such large homes or so little time to spend in them. 
It is perhaps unsurprising that a party that sees us merely as consumers and taxpayers is unaware of the many other vastly more interesting and important elements that it takes to be a human being most of which take time. It takes time to be a friend it takes time to be a parent and it takes time to make the first XV or to get to my harriers on a Saturday afternoon. There was a time when New Zealanders enjoyed 4 days off at Christmas another 4 days off at New Year and the really smart ones knocked off on the Friday before Christmas and stayed knocked off until some time around the middle of January. All that and unemployment was virtually unheard of. 
Looking for extra days on which to sell people more things—that they probably do not need and probably will not get a lot of pleasure out of—is so extraordinarily unimaginative. So what should we be doing? New Zealand First’s minority view has some appeal. It says that the power to make decisions should lie with local rather than central government and should be seen as a result of community action. To date the decisions have been made by a tiny minority of business interests ably supported by sympathetic Governments. 
Has there been a community in recent history that has sat down and rationally decided how long its weekends ought to be; how many long weekends it would like to have; whether perhaps Sundays and Mondays should be holidays; and whether it has the right to make those decisions for itself. I would have thought that communities have at least as much right as business leaders or politicians in Auckland or Wellington. Although I would be deeply disappointed should they decide to open their stores on Easter Sunday they would have the responsibility of taking measures to avoid remedy or mitigate the harmful consequences of their decision by compensating—not simply by adding another day off but by adding another long weekend perhaps. That would give time for communities to do the community thing and for families to spend time together doing other things than accumulating. 
In the interests of community—and family and the environment—the Green members of Parliament will be opposing this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call Paul Adams United Future has two speakers with 5 minutes each. I will give the members a bell on 4 minutes. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 The debate on this bill is being treated as a conscience issue by United Future MPs mainly because we are a party that still has a conscience. Therefore I will be coming from a different perspective than my comrade Marc Alexander. 
I understand that due to the competitive nature of business today nobody thinks that it should be fair for one business to have an unfair advantage over another and I would tend to agree with that. However I do need to challenge that thinking when it comes to living life in the city. Just because each section of land in a city has the ability to have a building built upon it is that to say that we should let each section have a building built upon it? If that were the case we would have no parks in a city. That is what we are dealing with here. 
Most calendar years have 365 days. Currently there are only 3½ days left that still have no restrictions on them. So as I said if every section in a city had a building on it where would our parks be and where would life be in a city without parks? If we had no winter the spring would not be so pleasant. If we did not sometimes taste of adversity prosperity would not be so welcome. Yet this bill goes further towards making every day the same as the next and I say that the calendar year with no special holidays is the same as a city with no parks. 
I have learnt that I can work every day and make a living. However what I give especially to others is what I have found makes a life. To give requires time. To my children love was spelt TIME and in this bill we are trying to give more of that away to work. People do not need more time to work; they need more time to show love to others. Success I have discovered is not about having more; it is about what you are willing to give up in order to have what you really want. I personally am more than happy to give up 3½ days in the calendar year when I may not be able to operate my business in the way that people try to convince me is best for business but rather put that time aside to put deposits in the memory banks of my children and grandchildren. 
I am not anti-business and I am not necessarily saying one day needs to be treated above another although I do appreciate that Easter Sunday is a special day to the hundreds of thousands of Christians in New Zealand. But what I am challenging the House to do today is appreciate the importance and significance of a special day and look at it in the same light as one does of our beautiful parks. Would members really enjoy a city without parks and if not would members really enjoy a calendar year without special holidays? 
I believe time will prove that one is as important as the other and therefore I will not be supporting this bill. There are two things to aim for in life: first to get what you want and second to enjoy it—only the wisest of mankind achieves the second. In this journey called life many regret that they did not put a time aside to smell the roses. Let us not take away another day—as we also did not take away the places that have been put aside to help us to enjoy the journey. 
Family is just too important to keep destroying by trying to make every day the same as another. Let us help protect the remaining 3½ special days by saying no to this bill. If we have progressed so tremendously by making work such an idol in this country why do we not look at the state of our families and decide that as we need parks we also need special days? Right now there are only 3½ special days left in a calendar year of 365 and I do not think that is too much to keep. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I suspect that of all the debates we have here particularly those concerning conscience issues this one is destined to change the opinions of probably no one. The Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act (Abolition of Restrictions) Amendment Bill is something I am bound to support because the more the State tries to legislate against individual choices the more I believe individuals will be denied the ability to exercise their choices. It is about the right of employers and rights of employees. The idiocy of the State to impose its ideas as to when businesses can or cannot be open when it is not a shareholder is not on the board and does not have any pecuniary interest in those businesses makes no sense whatsoever. To me that is an absurdity. It is not even consistent. The police for example do not suddenly stop and down tools on certain days. Hospitals do not stop and close up. The hospitality industry for the most part does not shut up shop just because it happens to be day X Y or Z. 
I have been both an employer and an employee and I have worked on any public holiday that came my way—primarily as a matter of choice to be honest. For many years when the duties were being handed out I chose to work on the days that other people had off specifically because I wanted to take time out with my family when I could enjoy the things that were open. I did not want to spend that time just sitting at home with the family just looking at each other if I chose not to. Primarily I think the point for me is that no person ought to impose his or her ideas or ethics on to another individual when it does not directly relate to or have an impact on that person. 
One of the things I am reminded of is that primarily the argument here is not about religion; it is simply about the choice to be open. We cannot all down tools on any specific day. Let us look at Easter Sunday for example. I see a church as being nothing more than a business that peddles its wares. It collects money and it sells a certain product a certain theology that one can purchase. That is not a slight against any particular religion. As an employer I was mindful of the fact that sometimes my employees used to come to me and say that certain days were important to them whether for religious reasons or for personal reasons—their wife’s birthday their birthday or whatever it might be. As an employer it seemed important to me to give them their due consideration and allow them that time off if it was at all possible and in all cases it ended up being possible. I see no inconsistency with being able to be reasonable and giving the time off on days that were important to the individual—not necessarily the days that the State mandates as being important to the country but the days that are important to the individual. 
One of the reasons I support this bill is that we need to allow employers and employees to have flexibility to decide for themselves what constitutes for them their special days. We all have special days days that matter to us but the State cannot possibly be in a position to mandate them; it comes from us. It seems illogical to me that anybody can foist his or her ideas on somebody else. 
Hon Member 
: Are you getting to the good bit? 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I am getting to the good bit. I have spent a lot of time in business; I have had my own business. I have to say that in the hospitality industry the idea of not being open on days such as Christmas Easter New Year’s Day and so on goes absolutely against the grain. Those are the most important days for that type of business. I understand that this bill will not actually affect the hospitality trade other than for restaurants out at vineyards which will be able to provide the wine that is grown there. There are so many facets to our lives now that revolve around a 24-hour 7-day week that we have individualised the time we have with our families and the time we have off to pursue our individual interests and I think the State should butt out. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I have found this an interesting debate and I want to go back to some comments other speakers have made. In respect of the issue that this bill needs to be debated and passed by Easter Sunday—as though Parliament has not dealt with it ad nauseam for years and years; it has—sadly for those people who have been proponents of it they have not won enough votes for it to be carried and that is why the law still offers 3½ days’ respite for those workers who work in an industry that requires staff to work on all the other days of the year. 
It is interesting to look at the Standing Orders for this place and I suggest that members who are not familiar with Standing Order 46 should go to page 28 where it states that there is to be no Sunday sitting at all ever. This is not just Easter Sunday but every Sunday. I am looking forward to a time when the members opposite who say we must sit in urgency start thinking about that Standing Order and about whether they would be in a desperate hurry to have it changed so that members in this House would work even one Sunday a year in this place. 
 One of the other more interesting arguments given the nature of debate in our society at the moment particularly in the media that there must be one law for all is that the proponents of this change to the law say that it should happen because people are breaking the law and they have a right to break it. Those proponents champion their cause of breaking the law. Then they would have us believe that the committee’s work in offering some protection would be worth more than the paper it is written on. I am sorry but I just do not accept that. If these people are prepared to flout the law—and we are in a country that at the moment is saying there should be one law for all—then how am I to trust that those very same people who openly flout the law now would obey this piece of legislation and offer protection to their workforce? 
As a union official I represented workers in the hospitality and health industries for years—people who would have dearly loved to have off any public holiday as of right. They have not had that right for many years. They would absolutely cheer and clap if Parliament gave them that right but it never will because we have gone long past those times when we respected the rights of people to say no to work on a day that they find special—a day that might be a time just to spend with their families. 
I thought it was interesting to listen to the speech made by Mike Ward who reminisced to a degree about what family used to be in this country not so many years ago. In my time as a member of Parliament when my sons were still at school there were very rare occasions when I went to watch them play cricket for the school on a Saturday and I was the only parent there. I was an MP at that time and there were no other parents there. If we contrast that with the days when we were growing up not that many years ago we would recall how many parents would have been on the sideline of every sporting event that their children took part in. Why? Simply because they had the time and they did not have to be at work. 
Have we taken stock of the consequences of that massive change in our society over the last 10 15 or 20 years and asked: “Is this enough?” I say that it is. It is a simple matter for me. It is not a matter of somebody else’s freedom to shop being more important than a worker’s freedom to be at home with his or her family on 3½ special days per year. It is enough. The line has been drawn and I do not want to see it changed any further than it is now. I may be outvoted on that but at least I will have had the chance to stand up for people who do not get a voice in the workplace. One need only have worked as a retail worker at any time in one’s life to know that the powerlessness of those people is at the extreme end of powerlessness in terms of their relationship with their employers—be they good or bad—because the competitive pressures in that industry are particularly severe. It is not easy for a largely young and female workforce to have power against not the local mum-and-dad employer as was the case when I was growing up but the enormous multinationals. 
Most of our shopping chains are not owned by citizens of this country so workers do not deal face to face with their boss who may be a nice bloke and be prepared to listen when they want the day off because it is their birthday. That is not the retail set-up in New Zealand any more. It is just romantic nonsense to believe that the power relationships are what they were 10 15 or 20 years ago in most workplaces. It would not be sufficient to say that this legislation offers protection to those workers. I know from a great many retailers themselves that those days off are about the only respite many of them get from running their businesses—those that are still small-business owners. We hear a lot about championing the cause of small businesses and I think that in rejecting this bill we would be championing the cause of many small businesses and those retailers would say: “The law says I don’t have to open and thank goodness because that gives me 3½ days off this year.” That can be a reality for many of them. Small-business people do not get any time off other than 3½ days a year. 
 So the points others have made is not enough to convince me that this should be sufficient to allay our fears about those who wish to have the day off. They will get the pressure. They will feel the pressure in many and subtle ways and find that it is better to give in and work. So I am utterly opposed to extending the line any further than the 3½ days we now have. I again ask people to think about this argument about freedom of choice because there is just no contest. My right my freedom to shop is not equal to the right and the freedom of workers to spend some time with their kids their partners their grandparents or their grandchildren. That is a far more important thing to stand up and defend than my right to go out at my convenience and buy something that I could easily have bought the day before and will still be in the shop tomorrow. It might be slightly less nice than it was on the Sunday if I have to buy it on the Monday but the retail sector has worked out how to overcome these difficulties and I congratulate the sector on that. 
We are not talking about going back to the days when we did not have Saturday shopping or the ability to go to the supermarket at midnight. All those things are available in New Zealand. What we are talking about is a very valuable remnant of some sort of decency in this country when it comes to many many thousands of workers. I repeat that members go into those shops and see who we are talking about. We are talking about a largely female and largely young work force and it is their right in my view to hear Parliament offer some leadership and some guidance through the law and say: “Yes we think it is our right as elected parliamentarians to use our judgment and offer some last vestige of protection for those people.” So I do not support this bill. 
It was good to hear from some of the people on the committee. I refer in particular to one of the speeches—I think it was the third—made by Brian Connell. I thought it was a very good speech. We are on different sides of the argument on this one but Mr Connell has obviously worked through the issues. He came down on one side of the argument I came down on the other but it was important for that select committee to do its work and it is important for this House to have these debates from time to time. But I certainly think we need to take stock of the consequences of what has happened in New Zealand with all the liberalisation and deregulation that has gone on and start to think about family values now not just at election time when it is a slogan. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There appears to be some wording missing from New Zealand First’s minority report and I am just wondering how we can resolve that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I cannot help the member. This matter should have been raised when the bill was reported back which was a long long time ago. The member cannot take that matter any further at this stage. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The bill came back to the House only a few days ago. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Time does fly but it was some time ago. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the member feels some wording has been left out he could seek the leave of the House to have the words included. If he wishes to seek leave he could do so. He could test the House to see whether it is of a mind to change the wording. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: He may always seek leave. Any member may seek leave at any time. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. It is a tribute to a former ACT MP Patricia Schnauer who worked very hard and had great success in getting this to the House. The bill is not as she originally introduced it; it has come a long way since then. I am pleased that we will at least be getting Easter Sunday trading and removing the ridiculous exemptions for tourist areas. We often hear members—even members on the Government side of the House—proudly stand up and say that the whole of New Zealand is a tourist area now. It is simply archaic to have some areas designated as tourist areas and some areas not. 
I have been sitting listening to this debate and I have been astounded at what some people think constitutes compulsion. It is not compulsory to open one’s retail business just because other people do. One does not have to. Compulsion means that there is legislation making it mandatory or that someone is holding a gun to one’s head. We heard the member from the Green Party saying that he was forced to open his little retail business and did not get to see his children playing sport. Opening the retail business was his choice. Nobody made him do it. 
We have heard a lot of talk about family values and how Sunday trading—at Easter only—will lead to the breakdown of the family and the destruction of family life. I have several things to say about that as a mother myself. Sometimes mothers actually like to get away from their families. Sometimes they like to go to work. Work is not a chore. Some people enjoy their work whether it be working in a retail shop waitressing working in a bookshop or whatever. They do not see it as demeaning but as something they can take pride in do well and contribute to their family life by passing on certain values that go with turning up for work and holding down a responsible job. Those are mores and values that people should pass on to their children not leave—as is the state now—to teachers and schools to try to instil those sorts of social values that make up a civil society. There are all sorts of aspects of family life and it is up to families to choose for themselves what constitutes a good family life. 
We have a situation in this country right now where parents are working at three jobs—not just one income as they used to be able to live on and not two but three. Mothers are working fathers are working and they are both working to bring up their families full time. Why is that? They are working to support not just their families but somebody else’s family as well—because they are being taxed far too much. If they were on a flat tax they would have so much more of their own income to take home and spend how they liked. If they choose to support other families then so be it. But the crucial issue in New Zealand at the moment is the tax on working families. That is why some members talk about being forced to go out and work. The only thing that is forcing them to go out and work is having to pay the high taxes that this Government has taken off them and used to build up a huge surplus. Why? Because it is ideologically opposed to people who earn $60000 or more—they are considered rich. It is “all aboard the Labour Government gravy train” and that is what is killing family life in this country—not Easter Sunday trading. 
As someone who has huge respect for Christian values I do not see that this legislation is an insult to those values at all. People will still be free to go to church on Easter Sunday if they want to. This bill does not bring trading in for Good Friday or Christmas Day. It is not denigrating Christian values at all. I see it as a boon for people who are on low incomes and who want to earn a bit more money and for students who want to supplement their income. I support this bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am thrilled to get an opportunity to speak on this bill which I support. The debate began so sensibly and moderately but I knew that it would deteriorate into an expression of some wildly diverse views and that is a reflection of the nature of the broad church of this House. 
After the second reading on the original bill that lapsed and our decision to put pressure on setting up a working party we decided to take the issue out of politicians’ hands because we could not reach consensus on it. It had been around for years and years and yes we could not get the numbers to pass the bill. I would like to thank that working party which also reflected a very broad church. It had representation from the Council of Trade Unions the Retailers Association the tourism industry and local government. I think that was a great reflection. 
We are here tonight to consider the report that has come back from the Commerce Committee which considered the recommendations of the working party report. That consideration arose after I sponsored a local bill for Rotorua on Easter shop trading. The report that has come back reflects the vote in the House the night we lost that local bill. People accepted there were some days they did not want to touch and the one day that was acceptable was Easter Sunday—shops could open on Easter Sunday. This working party report we are considering tonight reflects how the vote went then. Could I remind members of the House that that vote was lost by four votes. 
Rotorua I have to say was quite devastated after that because Rotorua had gone out to its constituency and asked them what they wanted. They considered that the only day feasible for them to open because Rotorua is a tourism icon was Easter Sunday. 
There are two options in this report and one option is that the local authority can make the decision—which is what New Zealand First favours. I say as an electorate MP for Rotorua that that would go our way but after hearing the debate on the local bill where everybody else came in—Napier Queenstown and other areas said they wanted to open too—I am not prepared to see those anomalies come before the House again. That is why I support that across New Zealand there is the right to open on Easter Sunday—not to have workers coerced into having to turn up to work on Sunday but to give retailers the right to open. I think that is a sensible approach. We nearly got there on our local bill but lost it by four votes. 
I feel the mood of the House will not be changed by this debate tonight; we all have fairly fixed views on it. We respect the views of those who want to go to church. We respect values of families and we respect the need for time with one’s family. But the world has changed and I find it hypocritical actually that the Greens do not support this report. At the previous vote the Greens came thundering into the House with an amendment to allow garden centres to open on Easter Sunday. Why on earth are they not supporting this bill that allows retailers to open on Easter Sunday? We have service stations open we have dairies open and we have garden centres open. We will have vineyards open and we will have 24-hour health centres with pharmacies attached open. 
The world is changing. It is closing in on those who do not want that isolated day to be tampered with. But I am afraid it is a different world the genie is out of the bottle and we need a sensible approach as politicians to manage the balance of days left to us to have open—those 3½ days. I want to have it put to the vote and put through before Easter Sunday. We are tired of this legislation. I have debated it for 4 years every Easter and I will continue to do that until the tide in the House turns to support this vote. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I have heard the debate this evening and I am very pleased to stand here and support this bill. But in doing so I must say I have respect for those members who speak contrary to this bill; they give balance to the argument. This bill is about choice. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.