Volume 665 Week 50 - Wednesday 4 August 2010 
Volume 665 Week 50 - Wednesday 4 August 2010 
[Volume:665;Page:12965] 
Wednesday 4 August 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell in Afghanistan 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the incident overnight in Afghanistan that tragically claimed the life of a New Zealand Army soldier and seriously injured two of his colleagues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is none. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I move  
That this House express its deepest sympathy and condolences to the family friends and military colleagues of the New Zealand Army soldier killed in Afghanistan overnight and his two injured colleagues 
. It is with great sadness that I stand here to mark the first death in action of a New Zealand soldier for a decade. Overnight at approximately 12.30 a.m. New Zealand time a patrol came under attack in the north-east Bamian Province in Afghanistan. The three-vehicle patrol was hit by an improvised explosive device and then came under fire from rocket-propelled grenades and small arms. It was a complex attack and New Zealand Army Lieutenant Timothy Andrew O’Donnell aged 28 was killed. Two of his colleagues were seriously injured. Lieutenant O’Donnell is the first New Zealander killed in action in Afghanistan since the first deployment of provincial reconstruction team efforts in 2003. 
Lieutenant O’Donnell was a young man and a very good soldier. He enlisted in 2005 and graduated from officer cadet school at the end of that year. He served in East Timor as a platoon commander for 6 months from late 2006. During that time Lieutenant O’Donnell’s platoon was involved in an incident that saw him awarded the New Zealand Distinguished Service Decoration. He received the award for his leadership and decisive action in intervening in a riot involving hundreds of people. In taking that action Lieutenant O’Donnell’s own platoon came under attack. His platoon managed to push back the attackers and save the situation from deteriorating further with the loss of life being most likely. More recently in Afghanistan he was a patrol commander who undertook dangerous assignments and continued to display the kind of leadership he was decorated for in East Timor. 
This morning the Prime Minister spoke with Lieutenant O’Donnell’s mother and he passed on his deep sympathy on behalf of all New Zealanders. This death is a stark reminder that the risks our military personnel face every day are considerable. The men and women who serve so bravely for us in Afghanistan are people we can all be immensely proud of. They are working to bring peace and stability to Afghanistan and in Bamian they are rebuilding a province that suffered badly under the Taliban. The people of Bamian want peace and stability. New Zealand is there to help them because we are not immune from the terrorist acts that have been planned from Afghanistan for so long. New Zealanders have been killed at the hands of terrorist activity and our soldiers are directly protecting our freedom to move unencumbered by the threat of terrorist activity. Their work is of great importance and the sacrifice of Lieutenant O’Donnell is one that while we mourn his death we should be very proud of. 
Today New Zealand lost a brave young man who paid with his life—a very high price indeed. He will be mourned by his family his friends his mates in the provincial reconstruction team the wider Defence Force family and all New Zealanders who value and respect the commitment of Defence Force personnel who work in this country’s best interests. We wish the two injured soldiers all the best for a speedy recovery. Our thoughts are with them and their families. Today we stand alongside the family friends and colleagues of Lieutenant O’Donnell as we mourn our loss. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Party I join with Gerry Brownlee in supporting this motion and expressing our sense of loss. Today we grieve for Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell who was killed yesterday in Bamian serving as part of the New Zealand Defence Force provincial reconstruction team. We extend to his family and to his friends our support and our sympathy for them at this time of huge tragedy for the family. We also acknowledge the Defence Force. We know that right across New Zealand members of the Defence Force will be feeling the loss of someone who was part of their wider family. I also express our sympathy and support for the two soldiers and their interpreter who were seriously injured in the same incident. This is certainly not the time to talk politics about New Zealand’s ongoing involvement in Afghanistan; it is a time solely for the mourning of the life of a young soldier who served in the Defence Force with courage and distinction and who died for his country. 
This is the 16th rotation of the provincial reconstruction team and we can count ourselves very fortunate that before this tragedy we had suffered no other fatalities. On the several occasions that I visited Bamian I was hugely impressed with the conduct the commitment and the service of our provincial reconstruction team members. They are doing a job for this country undertaking peacekeeping and reconstruction. They are respected and they are appreciated by the Hazara people who are the vast majority of the people living in Bamian. But all New Zealanders working as part of that deployment face the risks that such an operation involves. 
Tim O’Donnell was the first New Zealander killed in action since Private Leonard Manning was killed near Tilomar in East Timor in 2000. When my nephew Matthew who was like Tim O’Donnell a lieutenant and a platoon leader was killed in Afghanistan 3 years ago I received a very moving letter from Leonard Manning’s mother Linda and father Charlie. Her words and support apply equally to what we would wish to extend to Tim’s family at this time. I will read a short passage of it: “Please know that we are thinking of you all and praying that all who love and now grieve for him will find comfort in knowing that he served his country and his fellow men well. The courage and determination to make a difference that young men like Leonard and Matthew”—and now sadly Tim—“live and die for inspire us to live life to the fullest making the most of every moment we have… those who love him and who must now learn to live without him deserve all the tender care that is available.” We recognise the loss of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell a man who died in the service of his country and we pay tribute to him. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I too want to add the Green Party’s heartfelt sympathies and our aroha to the family and friends of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell from Feilding our first New Zealand soldier killed in action in Afghanistan and God willing our last. Losing a loved one is devastating for this whanau especially when it means losing someone so young and in the prime of his life selflessly working in a community that has been devastated by war and terror. He was a brave young man who was recognised for his bravery for his work in East Timor—a recognition well deserved. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time with those who remain injured and their families and I add with the community at Linton where he was also based. 
We in the Greens offer our gratitude to New Zealand’s armed forces for serving abroad in these foreign theatres. The provincial reconstruction team of which this young man was a part was supporting and working with communities in Afghanistan to rebuild and reconstruct their homes their communities and ultimately their lives. The team’s laudable effort was made successful by the contribution of the young men and women who dedicate their lives to this work. We have little understanding here those of us who are not part of those teams of the day-to-day risks that they face. We know that those serving in Afghanistan will be suffering deeply from the loss of a colleague and we offer them our condolences and support at this time. Kia ora. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I wish to express our sorrow at the death of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell in Bamian Province Afghanistan. This is New Zealand’s first combat casualty in the region and we send our sincere condolences to the soldier’s family friends and colleagues who have now lost a true hero in the most tragic of circumstances. 
Too often in the modern world we ordinary citizens living our lives in relative safety forget the role that soldiers play in defending our borders and preserving our way of life. Lieutenant O’Donnell has made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. On behalf of the ACT Party and in this our Parliament we pay our ultimate respect to this brave young man and we grieve alongside his family. I also send our respects to the two other soldiers injured in the raid. They have both made their sacrifices performing their duty and they remind us all of why we are proud to be New Zealanders. 
Our soldiers are doing a job that few have the courage to do. They deal with the darkest most savage and dangerous elements of the modern world and they do it with professionalism and pride. As Thomas Jefferson once said: “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” and this is never truer than in a post - September 11 world. We as New Zealanders will not ever let our commitment to what is good and right in the world wilt in the face of these most tragic circumstances. All New Zealanders can be proud to call Lieutenant O’Donnell one of our own and we salute his service and his ultimate sacrifice. Thank you. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare. Tenei au ka tu hei mangai mo te Pati Maori ki te poroporoaki ki tenei rangatira o tatau kua hinga i te pakanga. E korekorete marama ka mimiti te tai ka ngaro te tangata. Na reira tenei au e tu ana ki te mihi ki te tangi ki tenei hoia kua hinga mai i te pakanga i Afghanistan. Ko ia te tuatahi o nga hoia o Aotearoa i hinga i te pakanga i reira i taua pakanga. Ki te kite i tona whakaahua he tamaiti tonu tona ahua he taitamatane tonu tenei tangata ahakoa kua riro i a ia tetahi honore mo tana mahi mo tana niwha tona para tona toa i roto i te pakanga i East Timor kua riro ki a te honore mo taua mahi. Na reira tenei matou e tangi atu aroha atu ki tona whanau kei Aotearoa nei me te whanau o nga hoia ahakoa kei whea ratou e kawe nei i te kaupapa mo ngai tatou. 
Na reira ka mihi au hoki ki te tokorua kua whara i te pakanga. Ko te tumanako kia piki te ora te kaha kia hoki mai ratou ki te kainga nei. 
Na reira he kaupapa taumaha tenei mo tatou. Kia mahara tatou i te utu mo te pakanga. Ka utua ai te pakanga i te toto tangata. Na reira tenei au e tangi atu ki a ratou katoa mo o ratou kaha ratou niwha i roto i te pakanga a-ao mo tatou o Aotearoa. Na reira ko taku ake ki tona whanau ka nui te aroha ki a koutou kia kaha koutou. Na reira kai te rangatira haere ahakoa haere moata koe kohikohi nga tini mate kia tae koe i mua i te pohiri o ratou e kia nei ko te mana o te tini kia okioki pai koutou. Kia mohio mai koe kua mau tonu koe i o matou ngakau i tenei wa. Hai te rangatira haere haere haere atu ra. Kia ora ra. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us the House. I rise as spokesperson for the Maori Party to farewell this leader of ours who has fallen in the line of duty. When the moon wanes and the tide ebbs a life is lost. So I stand here to acknowledge and lament this soldier who has fallen in battle in Afghanistan. He is the first New Zealand soldier to be killed in the line of duty in that war over there. His photograph shows just how young he looks and despite this his deeds boldness bravery and warrior-like qualities have been recognised and suitably honoured in the line of duty in East Timor. So we extend our condolences to his family here in New Zealand and to all soldiers regardless of where they are serving on our behalf.  
I pay a tribute as well to the two who were wounded in the battle. Hopefully they will recover and be well enough to come back home.  
This matter weighs heavily upon us. We must never forget that war can cost lives. So I mourn them all in the light of their courage and being so resolute throughout the global wars on our behalf in New Zealand. To his family I extend much love to you. Be strong. So to you the leader depart even if it is somewhat premature; assemble with the myriads who have passed on before you as they beckon you. Rest there peacefully with them. Be assured that you are in our hearts at this time. Depart the leader; depart farewell and journey on. Greetings 
.] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is with great sadness that I join my parliamentary colleagues to express my sympathy and condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell and his seriously injured colleagues. It is with a heavy heart that any politician sitting round the Cabinet table decides to send our New Zealand troops to war-torn areas. We know only too well the possible cost. Tim served this country with bravery and pride. Today we honour his commitment not only to New Zealand but to the country where he lost his life. He was part of the provincial reconstruction team which plays a vital role in NZAID activities. His team helped to provide security and to rebuild schools and hospitals in one of the poorest parts of the world. Every New Zealander can be proud of his and their service. 
Tim also served with honour in East Timor. I was part of the Labour-led Government that made the decision to send troops like Tim to East Timor. I remember the heavy responsibility we felt at the time and our huge sadness when Private Leonard Manning was killed on duty in Timor. It is with humility therefore that we stand here today to express our condolences to his family to his friends and to his military colleagues. 
All of us in this House must acknowledge the heavy burden we ask our young soldiers and their families to bear when we send them to places like East Timor and Afghanistan. Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell represents our desire as New Zealanders to make the world a safer place to be good global citizens and to help people in some of the toughest and most violent places on the globe. Today we salute a brave New Zealander a global citizen a young man who was prepared to pay the ultimate sacrifice in his attempt to make the world a better place. His was a life cut tragically short but a life well lived with honour. Our thoughts today are with his family his military colleagues and his friends. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On last night’s television news there was the story of President Obama announcing to a veterans group in the United States a further reduction in that country’s deployment to Iraq. The numbers were mind-boggling: a reduction from something like 144000 personnel at the time of his inauguration to a figure of around 50000 at the end of this year—too mind-boggling to take real account of. This morning when the tragic news came through about the death of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell and the injuries to his two colleagues and their interpreter it brought a sense of realism to what military conflict is all about. It is not about mindless statistics or numbers; it is about people. The death of Lieutenant O’Donnell brings that home to all of us. 
Like other members I extend my deepest sympathy and condolences to Lieutenant O’Donnell’s family the families of his colleagues and the families of those who served with him. He was a man whose military career still very much in its beginning years in many senses had marked him out as a person of service and duty. Service to his country in a number of theatres had already seen him decorated for gallantry and his duty and commitment tragically saw him be in that particular place at that particular time. 
It is hard enough for us in this House to contemplate the situation. It is very difficult for those who served with Lieutenant O’Donnell and alongside him to come to grips with what has happened. It is appallingly hard for his parents and family to realise that one of their own whom they nurtured whom they were so proud of and whom they longed to see again at the completion of his deployment will not be coming home. Our sympathy and thoughts must be with all of them and we must acknowledge again the contribution that he made the contribution that his colleagues continue to make and the ongoing service that they perform in our country’s stead. We can never end up by becoming like the television story that I referred to and simply seeing the people who serve on our behalf as numbers and statistics. This story makes it clear to us that they are more important than that and that we owe them a bigger debt than that. All of the shields around this Chamber bear testimony to the strength of purpose and level of duty of our armed forces in the past and the memory of Lieutenant O’Donnell now belongs with those shields as we contemplate the future. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Today as the Minister of Defence and also on behalf of the Associate Minister of Defence I express my sympathy and aroha to the family of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell DSD and also to the wider defence family. I also extend my sympathy to his two wounded comrades. They have serious injuries which require hospitalisation outside Afghanistan. 
Lieutenant O’Donnell was a highly decorated soldier. As we have heard he had received the Distinguished Service Decoration for his cool steadfast and courageous leadership in a major riot in Timor-Leste in 2007. In Afghanistan he had the role of patrol commander on the most dangerous assignments of the provincial reconstruction team in the north-east of Bamian Province. His interview on television just 2 weeks ago showed the character of a young leader in the proud traditions of the Defence Force which are reflected in the battle honours on the walls that surround this Chamber. 
We should also note at this time that our role in Afghanistan is to assist the people and the Government of Afghanistan to build their own ability to be a nation free from terrorist influence both for Afghanistan’s own benefit and for the benefit of the wider family of nations including New Zealand—we have lost people in a number of terrorist incidents. 
But today we mourn the loss of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell. Our thoughts are with his family. The Defence Force will provide all the support it can at this time but we know that the family will face hard days ahead as they come to terms with the loss. In this House we should always be aware that although we make the decisions and have the responsibility in deploying our young people to serve our country it is they who pay the price for those decisions. In this instance Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell has paid the highest price. Lest we forget. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—Growth of Wage Gap 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why does he continue to deny that during his term as Prime Minister the wage gap between Australian and New Zealand workers has grown when both the figures he tabled in the House last week and the Parliamentary Library figures he referred to in his answer yesterday show that it has? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Despite the claim made by the Leader of the Opposition the Parliamentary Library figures the Prime Minster received and tabled yesterday show that between 2008 and 2009 and 2009 and 2010 the weekly wage gap between New Zealand and Australia if measured in absolute dollars increased slightly from $213 to $219 a week and if measured as a percentage gap decreased slightly from 20 to 29 percent. The truth is that over the short term these sorts of comparisons are very sensitive to assumption and methodologies. This Government is happy to be judged on its longer-term record which can only be better than the last Government’s record. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us how the absolute dollar differs from the ordinary dollar that people spend in the shop each week when ordinary New Zealanders know they have fewer of them to pay for prices that are going up? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The answer is not as difficult as the Leader of the Opposition might think. For example at the moment inflation in Australia is currently running at over 3 percent— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you will recall that the question asked how the absolute dollar varies from the ordinary dollar. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I recollect the question asked how the Minister explained something—the difference between an absolute dollar and an ordinary dollar. The Minister has to have a little bit of licence in how he explains something. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Leader of the Opposition does not like it when his argument starts to be deconstructed. The reality is that in Australia at the moment inflation is running at over 3 percent contrasted with New Zealand’s current inflation rate of about 1.8 percent. So although it might look like Australians are getting bigger wage increases that is not necessarily the case. It simply once again shows how difficult it is to compare figures between our two countries. The reality is that the performance under the previous Labour Government was an utter shocker. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I listened patiently for the Prime Minister to explain how an absolute dollar differs from an ordinary dollar but I do not think he made any reference to it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that that was the question asked and that the Minister was asked to explain the difference and the Minister in responding talked about the impact of inflation on dollars. Certainly inflation affects the value of dollars and when one is talking about absolute or ordinary dollars inflation does have an impact. It was a reasonable answer to the question asked. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that the Speaker has ruled that we cannot seek leave to table New Zealand press statements but am I correct that we can seek leave to table foreign newspaper statements? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table the article from the  
Sydney Morning Herald  
entitled: “NZ wage gap with Australia widens” which begins: “Australian workers are being paid even more than their Kiwi cousins since National became the government.” [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] When the Speaker is on his feet there must not be that kind of interjection and I will not repeat it because I do not want it to be on the record. All round there was far too much noise while I was considering the leave. Leave has been sought to table an article from the  
Sydney Morning Herald 
. I think that is not readily available to all members and I put the question to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I point out that the article concerned is a New Zealand Press Association document picked up by the Australian newspaper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If a member seeking leave to table a document describes it wrongly that is quite a serious matter because it is a formal situation being put to the House for the House to make a decision. There are proper ways of dealing with that but it is not by way of a point of order to allege something in the way the Leader of the House just did. He should not do that. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: My question— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: 2025. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I hope that member is grown up by then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister expect the wage gap with Australia to close when the figures just released show that 53 percent of all New Zealand wage and salary earners did not get any wage rise last year and when figures in the Budget show that inflation will be hitting 6 percent? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think the question that the Leader of the Opposition asks and the information he refers to is interesting but it goes to the heart of the problem of trying to compare like with like. There is no such thing. I want to tell the member that it will be the initiatives in the Government’s Budget that will create growth; initiatives such as tax reforms investment in infrastructure the research and development package reforms of the labour market skills and education cutting red tape and regulation extra trade agreements a reformed Resource Management Act the International Growth Fund and focused resources on the front line. All those programmes and all those efforts will lead to the growth that will see New Zealanders’ wages rise. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was straightforward. It asked how he expects the wage gap to close when 53 percent of workers in New Zealand did not get a wage rise last year. No effort was made to answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that was exactly the question the member asked—and I must trust him on that—I invite the Hon Gerry Brownlee to focus on the question because I do not believe there was a lot of extraneous matter in the question. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question so there can be no doubt. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister expect the wage gap with Australia to close when last year 53 percent of all New Zealand wage and salary earners did not get any pay rise at all? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The point I make again is that the Government’s programme which was well articulated in the Budget and has been well articulated by a range of Ministers since is designed to see the economy growing and it will give New Zealanders the confidence that this Government knows where it is going. They know that the previous Government did not know where it was going and that is why it was kicked out of office. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Has the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia ever blown out to over 30 percent; if so in what years did that blowout occur? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand was never as high as 30 percent until the year 2003-04. Using the same series of numbers that the Leader of the Opposition himself used in the House the other day—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a question. We cannot hear a thing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member makes a perfectly fair point. I realise that these matters are hotly debated but the Hon Rodney Hide asked a fair question and he deserves to hear the answer as does the House. I must say that even the Speaker was struggling to hear the answer. I ask members to be a little more reasonable. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Using the same series of numbers that the Leader of the Opposition used in the House the other day I say that the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand was never as high as 30 percent until the year 2003-04. Since then it has been over 30 percent in 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 and 2007-08. The wage gap peaked at 37 percent in 2005-06 and it is currently 29 percent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask that the Minister table the official statistical document from which he was just quoting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to ask the honourable Minister whether he was quoting from an official document. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The source document is from the New Zealand Parliamentary Library. It is available to all members of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that library documents are not normally considered to be official documents. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What are the targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025 which his Minister for Economic Development told the House last week that he had? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I understand that the Minister for Economic Development told the House last week that he was considering such matters. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can if necessary table what the Minister for Economic Development said last week. I asked what the milestones were that the Minister said in the House last week that he had. That answer did not address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I recollect the Minister’s answer last week he told the House that he would be considering the issue of milestones. In fact if the member were to look at today’s question sheet one of his own colleagues is asking the Minister for Economic Development how he has got on with his consideration. So I think there is some verification that that is in fact what the Minister said. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Further to the point order Mr Speaker; in answer to the primary question to the Minister for Economic Development last week: “Does he have targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025?” the answer very clearly was “Yes”. I am now asking the Prime Minister what those milestones were that his Minister for Economic Development referred to. I think that the Acting Prime Minister should know that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I invite the member to set that down as a question for the Minister for Economic Development. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear members asking questions from the back of the House if we have loud interjections across the front of the Chamber. I ask members to respect that. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Why is it important that New Zealand lifts its economic performance and does he believe that the Government is on track to achieve its concrete goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025; if so why? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes it is important to lift New Zealand’s economic performance because that is how we raise the living standards of New Zealanders improve public services and give people genuine opportunities and choices in their lives. In answer to the second part of the member’s question yes there is a considerable gap between the incomes of New Zealanders and Australians now but we think we have made good progress in starting to turn round the economy and taking steps to make it more competitive. I have well established today that the constant claims by the Labour members that the gap has got worse by its own measure is wrong. It is now 29 percent; it was 37 percent at one point under them. 
Hon David Parker 
: Could the Minister please tell the House what were the two statistical series provided to him by the Parliamentary Library that he used in answer to the question from Mr Hide being the statistical series for Australian wages and the statistical series for New Zealand wages? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not have that information with me in the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question asked from what series the Minister was reading. The Minister may care to answer further but it seemed to me to be a different series altogether. Would the Minister care to confirm that because he was asked which series it was. I invite the Minister to further answer. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Thank you for your invitation Mr Speaker to answer further. I do not have the series in front of me. I have the analysis of those series which is not uncommon when answering questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Acting Prime Minister recently told us that he was quoting from a document from the Parliamentary Library. If that was the case the document will clearly state the series. They always do. They indicate the source of the statistics. Either the Acting Prime Minister was telling the truth this time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat; he will not make that kind of allegation. The Acting Prime Minister has told the House that the material he is quoting from is an analysis—a further analysis of those series—and that is where the matter stands. That is what the Acting Prime Minister has told the House and that is where the matter now stands. Members can ask further questions about it to elucidate exactly what the analysis is but they cannot question it by way of point of order. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did he tell the House yesterday that the employment rate in New Zealand is higher than in Australia when the statistics show that exactly the opposite is true? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Because I believe that to be the case. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table the statistics I have just referred to the source being the Australian Bureau of Statistics June 2010 which shows the employment rate in Australia is higher than it is in New Zealand in contradiction of the claim by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure how a document from the Australian Bureau of Statistics would show New Zealand unemployment. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The document is compiled from both the Australian Bureau of Statistics June 2010 and the New Zealand household labour force survey— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: So the source of the document is? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Those are the two sources of the document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But the document— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The document I have is a compilation from the statistics that can be demonstrated from both of those sources. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought to table a document. I am trying to establish who put the document together. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The document was put together by my office from the series of statistics I mentioned. They can be verified. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was the document from which the Acting Prime Minister was quoting when replying to Mr Hide’s supplementary question a document from the Parliamentary Library or a document prepared in his office? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As I made clear before it was a document prepared in my office. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to your earlier quizzing of the Acting Prime Minister about whether it was an official document and therefore required to be tabled in the House if the Minister used it during his answer he said no because it was from the Parliamentary Library. You said that that is not normally considered official advice and therefore could be accessed by any member. The Opposition has used more supplementary questions than we had intended today in direct response to you saying that if members are not happy with the answers they can probe with further questions. We are trying to elucidate from the Minister what series he has been using in his statistics. A Parliamentary Library document would show that; they always do—that is clear to all members who use the library. It would be available to members. If it is official advice he has had prepared in his office that is not easily available to members and that is what has to be tabled. Either way— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
:—the information should be— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The series available from the library and all the statistics available from the library are available online. What I have is analysis of that online information. There is one sheet here that the Prime Minister tabled yesterday sourced to the Parliamentary Library. I am more than happy to table it today. It is condemning of the Opposition’s argument. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no more of that. The Hon Darren Hughes is not really raising a valid point of order. Even if the document is prepared in the Minister’s office the Minister is not required to table a document prepared to assist him in answering a question. A Minister is required to table only official documents from Government departments. The member seemed to be concerned that the Opposition may have had to waste supplementary questions in pursuing an issue but I am not sure they were wasted. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the issue as to whether an official document is no longer official because it comes from the Parliamentary Library. With respect I suggest that if an official document such as a data series is obtained by a member from the Parliamentary Library it is a normal way for that source to come forward. It really remains an official document whether it comes from the Parliamentary Library or direct from the Government department. I ask you to reflect on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need to reflect for long on that. Official documents are official documents prepared by Government departments. The Parliamentary Library is not a Government department and material that is prepared in Ministers’ offices to assist them with answers does not constitute an official document either. I will hear the Hon David Parker further. 
Hon David Parker 
: It seems to me that whether the data series is photocopied in the library photocopied in a ministerial office or photocopied in a Government department it remains an official document. It is a data series that the House should have tabled if the Minister was relying upon it and the way in which it is copied for the Minister seems to be a process issue rather than— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter is not to do with whether a document has been copied; the matter is to do with the source of the document. If the Parliamentary Library puts together a data series it is not an official document because it has been put together by the Parliamentary Library. If the Ministry of Economic Development had put together a document for Cabinet and the Minister was quoting from that it would have to be tabled. If the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet had put together a document for official purposes that would have to be tabled. But documents prepared by the Parliamentary Library are not official documents. I will hear the Hon David Parker further but not a lot further. 
Hon David Parker 
: With respect Mr Speaker the difficulty arises from new technology because the only way the library now presents these official statistics is by downloading them from the Statistics New Zealand website and providing them by email link to us. It is exactly the same as the old photocopy of a piece of paper that was the official statistic. So I suggest again Mr Speaker that perhaps you might reflect on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Statistics publications are available to all members. This provision for Ministers to have to table documents they are quoting from does not cover just ordinary statistics releases because those are available to all members. So I see no issue here. There has been a longstanding requirement in the House when Ministers are quoting from official documents for those to be tabled. Having been a Minister for 9 years I do not have any great difficulty in discerning what an official document is. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order because I think that you and Mr Brownlee have invited us to get the particular document on which the Minister was relying from the Parliamentary Library. The problem that I would like to put to you Mr Speaker—possibly more in your role as the chair of the Parliamentary Service Commission—is that it would be most inappropriate for the library to supply to us something that was supplied to another member and indicated that another member had asked for it. I think that it would be wrong for us to go to the library—fair enough we can ask—but it would be very wrong for them to supply a document saying “This is the document on which the Minister was relying.” That is the problem we have in trying to chase this one down. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to take further time on this. It is quite clear to me as the Speaker that the document from which the Minister was quoting was not an official document. Therefore there is no requirement on the Minister to table it. I accept that there might have been some confusion about the exact source of the document but that is not a matter for a point of order. Members pursued that matter by way of supplementary questions and got some further information about that. 
Telecommunications—Mobile Phone Termination Rates 
2. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What decision has he made regarding the regulation of mobile phone termination rates? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 This morning I announced my decision to accept the Commerce Commission’s recommendation to regulate mobile termination rates. Under the Telecommunications Act I am required to make the decision that best promotes competition for the long-term benefit of users of telecommunications services. After extensive consultation and analysis of submissions I believe that this decision will provide for more competition leading to more choice and better prices for consumers. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What do these changes mean for consumers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Commerce Commission will shortly begin its legislative process to set prices and other non-price terms that mobile carriers must offer. Once that has gone through competition for consumers will be increased in the mobile marketplace which will assist over time to achieve lower prices for consumers than would have occurred otherwise. 
Clare Curran 
: Given his logical decision to regulate on mobile termination rates what is the basis of his illogical decision to give a regulatory free pass to the coming new fibre network for 10 years? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure how that relates to the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well at least the primary question was included in the further question asked but I accept that the further question asked went beyond the scope of the primary question. If the Minister does not have the information to answer it it is perfectly reasonable to say that because it did— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Cop out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister does not have— 
Hon Members 
: Welcome back Shane. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have no idea what happened then and I apologise to the House for that. But I ask whether the Minister has the relevant information. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the reality is that mobile termination rates and ultra-fast broadband are not in the scope of the same question but if the member would like to repeat the supplementary question I would be happy to have a crack at an answer for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wishes to repeat the question she may but I stress that it should be within the scope of the primary question. 
Clare Curran 
: Given his logical decision to regulate on mobile termination rates what is the basis of his illogical decision to give a regulatory free pass to the coming new fibre network for 10 years? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having listened to the question again—and I gave it the benefit of the doubt first time round—I say that the member cannot include in her question a claim that some decision was illogical. That is outside the Standing Orders and given that the subject matter is way beyond the primary question to do with mobile termination rates I cannot expect the Minister to answer that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Quite often in this House members provide descriptions of policies or ministerial actions in questions that are not ruled out of order. I seek your guidance and submit to you that oftentimes words used by members of the Opposition are harsher than whether something is logical or illogical. In this case— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear this further. Had the question been absolutely within the scope of the primary question I would not have objected; I would have let the Minister deal with it. But given that the subject matter of that part of the question was way outside the primary question I felt that it went beyond what is reasonable and that is why I have ruled it out. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to bother the Speaker further but that goes precisely to the matter at issue that my colleague has asked about which is whether the use of regulation which the Minister has upheld in his— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will resume his seat. The member is now starting to debate the issue and he cannot do that by way of point of order. I have ruled the question out. It was clear from the way the Minister tried to answer the question that the question bore a very marginal relationship to the primary question asked. I invited the member to repeat the question to see whether she could bring it further within the scope of the primary question. She did not. She repeated the part of the question that really is outside the Standing Orders and that is why I have ruled it out. 
Income Gap—Parity with Australia and Other Countries 
3. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is the gap between our wages and wages in Australia and other parts of the world getting wider; if so why is this occurring? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Government does not monitor wage movements around the world. However we do monitor incomes using GDP per capita and on that basis it is very clear that New Zealand has fallen behind many other developed countries. The last year for which we have consistent data is 2008 when New Zealand slipped from 20th to 22nd on the OECD ladder. This decline was in no small part due to mismanagement by the previous Government. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will the increase in GST in New Zealand which will raise it to 50 percent higher than it is in Australia make the wage gap with Australia narrower or wider? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The after-tax wage gap between Australia and New Zealand after 1 October will be narrower. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will wages rise faster than prices this year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That question will best be answered in the light of history. It is the light of history that is so condemning of the economic policies that the member’s Government ran for 9 years. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that is about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Yes it is. That is about the shortest question that I have ever asked in my whole history in this House—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I think it therefore deserves to be given an answer rather than to have a discussion about history. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When a member asks a question about the future and whether something will happen in the future there is no precise answer to that. The member is experienced enough to know that. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Was the net tax cut last year zero for all employed New Zealanders who earn under the average wage—that is 64 percent of all employed New Zealanders—and is it virtually zero for everyone in the same group this year; if so how does that help to close the income gap for the majority of wage earners in New Zealand compared with their Australian cousins? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The answer I think to the middle part of his question is no. The 1 October tax change will mean that 75 percent of New Zealand’s workforce will pay no more than 17.5c in the dollar. They will be better off. 
Irrigation—Community Irrigation Schemes 
4. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What measures has the Government recently taken to progress community irrigation schemes? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Recently the Government announced changes to the Community Irrigation Fund. These changes will remove many of the common blockages to the development of community irrigation schemes. They are aimed squarely at fast tracking reliable but environmentally sound irrigation schemes which are a clear priority for this Government. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Why is progressing water storage and irrigation a priority for the Government? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Water is perhaps our greatest natural advantage and has huge economic potential which is why accelerating water storage and irrigation is an important part of the Government’s economic growth agenda. In Canterbury alone irrigation currently adds approximately $800 million each year to the regional economy. There is real potential for a much greater contribution from Canterbury and from throughout New Zealand. However I stress that this is not about irrigation at any cost; any new schemes will have to meet very high environmental standards. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What other steps is the Government taking to progress environmentally and economically sensible irrigation projects? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Government has a major work programme under way to progress better water management. Aside from expanding the Community Irrigation Fund we have established the Land and Water Forum which is due to report to the Government shortly; we have reformed the Resource Management Act; we have appointed commissioners to deal with Canterbury’s water issues; and finally we have made it clear that once the regulatory roadblocks are addressed and if all the commercial options are exhausted we as a Government would consider financial assistance in order to get things moving. 
Violence Domestic—Minister’s Statement 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her recent statement “If you tell people don’t call the Police if you’re getting beaten up at home because that’s a family issue then you’re going to see your crime rates drop. That’s not something I’m prepared to do.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. That is why I expect everyone who experiences or witnesses family violence to report it to the police so that the victims can be helped and the offenders held to account. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What is she therefore prepared to do about the new policy of the Gisborne police to restrict which crimes they report to the media in order to—to quote the Gisborne police commander—“make people feel safer”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The Gisborne police area commander Inspector Sam Aberahama is a hard-working police commander not a spin doctor and his press release certainly ruffled some feathers. My understanding is that the  
Gisborne Herald 
’s complaint arose from police calling for an end to a historic tradition of a reporter wandering in daily sitting at the senior sergeant’s desk and going through the paperwork. That practice is not common in the rest of the country. I suggest that everyone calms down has a cup of tea and sorts it out. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Was Jeremy Muir the editor of the  
Gisborne Herald 
 correct when he said that the most important duty of the police is “actually making communities safer” rather than engaging in a crude public relations exercise by selectively releasing information to make communities feel safer as the commander of the Gisborne police district said? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am very pleased to say that New Zealand police have a good working relationship generally with the media. As I have already explained the situation in Gisborne was completely out of kilter with all other practices around the country. I do not think it is acceptable for a reporter to wander into a police office sit at the senior sergeant’s desk and go through the paperwork everyday. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What steps are being taken to help front-line agencies tackle New Zealand’s appalling record of child abuse? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The New Zealand Police and Child Youth and Family are two of the front-line agencies that deal with the terrible results of child abuse every day. When a child’s life is marred by the horror of abuse or violence that child must have somewhere to go and someone they can turn to for help. This morning I was very pleased to attend the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the New Zealand Police and Child Youth and Family along with my colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon Paula Bennett. This memorandum will strengthen the relationship between the police and Child Youth and Family staff and will help ensure that children are kept safe child abusers are brought to justice and child abuse is reduced. We will do everything we can to help make that happen. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is this new police policy in Gisborne an attempt to mask the reality that total crime in Gisborne increased by 8.6 percent last year under her watch including an increase of 19.8 percent in violent crime; can we expect to see a similar policy implemented in Counties-Manukau considering that there have been five homicides in the district already this year including two last weekend? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: There were about six questions in that; I will answer accordingly. I have already said twice today that the situation in Gisborne has been brought into line with that of the rest of the country. The police are not worried about publishing crime statistics; in fact only last month they instituted a new policy of making sure that crime statistics for every month are on the police website so that people in every district and every area can access them as can the media and as can that member if he ever bothers to have a look. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that answer can she confirm that she also asked police national headquarters to change the way that it reports crime statistics so that they appear more positive; is that not just another attempt at spinning the reality to mask the fact that crime under her watch has been soaring? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: No. I have said to the police that I think it is a great idea to get the statistics out every month so that everyone knows what is going on. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Hapu and Iwi Governance and Management 
6. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Kua hoatu e ia he tohutohu ki te Attorney-General kia whai mana ai kia whai kawanatanga ai hoki nga hapu me nga iwi ki nga rahui tapu i te moana; i roto i nga ture takutai moana hou; a he aha aua tohutohu? 
[ 
Has she provided any advice to the Attorney-General regarding the opportunity for hapu and iwi governance and management of rahui tapu (marine reserves) to be encompassed in the proposed foreshore and seabed replacement regime and what was the nature of that advice? 
] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Conservation 
: The advice provided to the Attorney-General has been focused on the involvement of iwi and hapu in the establishment of marine reserves rather than their governance and management. Management committees have been established for some marine reserves and it has always been the practice of the Department of Conservation to include both local iwi and hapu representatives on those management committees. 
Hone Harawira 
: Is the Minister aware that Te Uri o Hikihiki and Te Whanau Whero of Ngati Wai wish to nominate a marine reserve at Mimiwhangata but that the Marine Reserves Act 1971 means that the Crown will retain ownership of their rohe and alienate them from governance and management; how will the replacement regime protect their customary interests? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes the Minister is aware of concerns from iwi in eastern Northland about marine reserves and the impacts on their customary interests. Although there were some informal discussions on marine reserve at Mimiwhangata in about 2004 there has been no formal application and no statutory process for creating such a reserve is under way. There is a marine reserve reform bill currently before Parliament and the Minister would be happy to have a dialogue on the bill to ensure that a Maori perspective on marine reserves legislation is considered and that it works well with the new proposed regime around the foreshore and seabed. 
Hone Harawira 
: What action has the Minister taken to assure Ngati Wai that the Department of Conservation will act in such a way as to enable them to participate in governance and management decisions over the Goat Island and the Poor Knights marine reserves? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Both the Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve and the Okakari Point Marine Reserve are managed by the Department of Conservation with the advice of management committees that include representatives from tangata whenua. This provides the community with an ongoing ability to contribute to the management decisions that relate to those marine reserves and the Government wants to ensure that iwi has an ongoing role in the management of marine reserves such as those. 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—Milestone Date 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: When I asked him last Thursday will he give us a milestone date by which the wage gap with Australia will stop getting wider when he replied “I will give that some consideration.” how much longer will he need for his consideration? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: No further time. When he made that remark last week he was giving that member what is technically known as a brush-off because although it may be of great academic interest to dream up arbitrary milestones they will not make a blind bit of difference to the ability of New Zealand businesses to grow and take on new staff. There are any number of economic indicators out there including the latest trade surplus figures that show the first signs of an export-led recovery with the largest quarterly trade surplus since September 2001. 
Hon David Parker 
: In light of the Minister for Economic Development’s answer earlier today on behalf of the Prime Minister when he was asked by Mr Goff: “What are the targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025 which his Minister for Economic Development told the House last week that he had?” to which the Minister for Economic Development said on behalf of the Prime Minister that we should ask the Minister for Economic Development I now ask him what are those targets? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can only reiterate the answer to the primary question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem we have—and we are not allowed to table  
Hansard— 
is that when asked earlier whether such things existed the answer was “Yes.” It was not “Maybe at some stage in the future.”; the answer was “Yes.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is now debating the quality of answers given although he may even go as far as to claim that he is debating the accuracy of answers given. But that is a matter for further questioning and for the public to judge. It is not a matter that can be dealt with by way of a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I know this is really unusual but this question asks: “Does he have targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025?” The answer is “Yes.” I seek leave to table that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is  
Hansard  
that the member seeks to table? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is  
Hansard 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
:I will not put leave to table  
Hansard 
. That is the end of the matter. The member cannot argue with me. The member I am sure has made his point perfectly adequately. There is no need to waste further time of the House by seeking leave to table documents that are readily available. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Government continue to dodge providing any meaningful milestone by which the Government can be judged by New Zealanders on its election promise to close the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government does not dodge its milestones. It has made it clear that over a 15-year period we will fix up the damage caused by the previous Government with our very careful economic growth agenda. I am happy to run through it for the member: personal tax reform investment in new highways and new transport projects cutting red tape science investment employment law reform putting more money into tourism lower company taxes electricity transmission investment sorting out irrigation in Canterbury aquaculture ultra-fast broadband trade negotiations— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Someone at the back of the Chamber has a very loud voice. Please keep it under a little control. 
Chris Tremain 
: What examples can the Minister draw upon when considering the potential to impose milestones on economic development? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Under the previous Government the much-touted “jobs machine” which members may recall promised that handing over 4 hectares of prime Auckland waterfront land for less than 5 percent of its value to a company called Sovereign Yachts would deliver 350 jobs within 2 years and generate $600 million in export earnings over 5 years. None of those milestones were met and Sovereign Yachts was ordered into liquidation by the High Court last year. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order because we have had an ongoing discussion on exactly the same matter. You have previously ruled that it is not acceptable in this House for a Minister to base the main substance of his reply upon Opposition policy and the policy actions of a previous Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member knows full well that the Minister is not in any way commenting on Opposition policy. He was asked something to do with milestones and the Minister is reporting on what he claimed to be a situation that occurred previously. That has nothing to do with the Opposition’s current policy. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ruled that it is acceptable for the Minister in his answer to the primary question to admit to having dodged a substantive answer earlier in response to a question on the Government’s targets. You are now ruling it acceptable for the Minister to quote a random example of a previous Government target. Why is it not acceptable— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to resume his seat. The Minister has reporting responsibility for what happened under the previous Government. In respect of whether in answer to a question he admitted to something having previously been brushed off that gives the Opposition the opportunity to ask further hard-hitting questions and not waste time with points of order. Hard-hitting questions are what make a difference. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why did the Minister for Economic Development last week in response to this question: “Does he have targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025?” say “Yes.” but this week refuse to say what they are? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I said in answer to the primary question when the Minister made the remark last week he was giving that member what is technically known as a brush-off. The Government does have a milestone and it is to achieve parity with Australia by 2025. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does his Government’s refusal to provide New Zealanders with yardsticks by which they can measure the success or otherwise of National’s pledge to close the wage gap reflect either an admission by National that it does not intend to keep its promise or an arrogant assumption that Kiwis can be kept in the dark and fed the proverbial? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: One has to find it a little amusing that the Opposition is hassling us about milestones when Labour was the crowd that came up with a whole range of terms that had absolutely no milestones attached to them: closing the gaps the growth and innovation framework the knowledge wave economic transformation sustainability— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are now well into the answer from the Minister and he is talking about the previous Government not the one that he has responsibility for and the one that we are trying to ask questions about in the public interest of New Zealand so that we can talk about today not yesterday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I think that the member should reflect on the nature of the question that was asked. It invited not the most precise answer. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister understand that John Key’s replies to similar questions from Phil Goff last week showed Mr Key to be to use Duncan Garner’s words a “slippery politician” and does Mr Brownlee accept any responsibility for Mr Key’s fall from grace? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for the Prime Minister. It might work the other way round as the Prime Minister has responsibility for his Ministers but a Minister does not have responsibility for what the Prime Minister might say. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have seen that question and I heard it being asked then and I think it asked about the Prime Minister’s response to Mr Brownlee’s misleading statement. It was a question about whether Mr Brownlee felt responsible for the Prime Minister’s response to the inaccuracies that Mr Brownlee gave to the House and to the public. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a nice try at making the question come within the Standing Orders but the Minister does not have responsibility for what the Prime Minister might think or say. The Minister does not have responsibility for that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Reflecting upon the exchange that has just occurred and seeking your guidance for future exchanges what is the difference between the technical definition of a brush-off and contempt of the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. I might have some sympathy with the member’s concern but that is not a point of order. However I remind everyone that this is Parliament and everyone in this House should be careful in terms of what they say to this House. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress 
8. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What recent progress has the Government made towards its goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Last Friday the Crown signed terms of negotiation with Ngai Te Rangi one of whose negotiators is our parliamentary colleague the Hon Mita Ririnui. This milestone is important as it means that all three Tauranga Moana iwi have now entered Treaty settlement negotiations. Since the start of last year the Crown has reached over 30 significant settlement milestones including 14 agreements in principle and six deeds of settlement. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What other initiatives does the Government have under way to support its goal of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government recently announced the date for the 2010 Te Kokiri Ngatahi Treaty settlement hui where the Crown and iwi will continue to discuss ways of improving the path to settlement. These hui were initiated last year so the Government could meet iwi to discuss ways of improving negotiations. It was the first time in over 9 years that the Government had engaged with iwi on Treaty settlements and it is illustrative of this Government’s commitment to achieving just and durable settlements. 
Pay Equity—Gender Gap 
9. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: Is she concerned that the quarterly employment survey released yesterday shows that the average wage gap between men and women has grown to 12.8 percent? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I have made the gender pay gap one of the three priorities for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and the ministry has a Budget increase of $2 million to tackle the issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I go on to invite further supplementary questions the primary question—and it was a primary question—asked whether the Minister was concerned. I guess that in her answer she said that she had made that a priority for her department. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister want the good news or the bad news? The good news is that very recent figures show— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having just given some thought to whether I could assist the member to get an answer to her primary question I cannot allow that kind of supplementary question. It bears no resemblance to the Standing Orders whatsoever and I invite the member to rethink her supplementary question. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree that the quarterly employment survey which surveys 18000 businesses to measure changes in average hourly and weekly earnings is relevant to measuring the gender pay gap in New Zealand? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: It might be relevant to the measuring of the gender pay gap because the gender pay gap can be measured according to the survey mentioned by the member but it can also be measured by median weekly earnings and median hourly earnings. Therefore adoption of a consistent measurement base is very important. Since 2004 the Ministry of Women’s Affairs has adopted the measurement of comparing the median hourly earnings of men and women provided by the annual New Zealand Income Survey. That measure gives us less distortion because it excludes the value of benefits and is less influenced by the number of hours than weekly earnings are. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Why does the ministry not take into account multiple surveys that measure the gap in order to have the fullest and most up-to-date picture of the problem? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I thank the member for wanting to know what is fair and wanting not to have confused messages. Since 2004 the Ministry of Women’s Affairs has adopted as its measure the median hourly differences supplied by the New Zealand Income Survey. The latest figure available is for the period up to June 2009 when the gap decreased to 11.3 percent from 12 percent. It had been static since 2001. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How many ways can the pay gap be measured and which one has been consistently used by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Because there is so much confusion out there I welcome the member giving me an opportunity to once again say that there are at least half a dozen ways of measuring the gap. It is important for us to look for consistency of comparison by using the measure used by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. It has selected the difference between the median hourly earnings supplied by the annual New Zealand Income Survey which shows the gap has reduced to 11.3 percent. That is the good news for New Zealand women. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: How can she justify dismissing the latest figures and relying on a measure that has not been updated in over a year? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: By no means do I dismiss any figure but it is important to measure the gap by a standardised consistent trend because of the many variables. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has adopted that measurement since 2004. If I wanted to manufacture good news I could use the figures for full-time median hour earnings which shows a wage gap of 7.8 percent but the National Government is transparent and credible. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: What new steps has her Government taken specifically to reduce the gender pay gap in the last 12 months? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: It has taken many steps and I will try to be concise because I know that Mr Speaker wants concise answers. Some of the measures are promoting women into more choices in the trade sector; the ministry leading the work to establish the Women in Trades Network in Auckland and Wellington; and investigating the graduate income differential. We want to understand why 1 year after graduation a pay gap of 6 to 8 percent has developed. We are very very fortunate to have many good accounting practices that can demonstrate that flexible work practices are good for retaining women and increase productivity. Mr Speaker the good work keeps rolling out but I respect your request to be concise. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Can the Minister explain—I am sure she can—why she is commissioning research into the problem if she has no intention of making changes based on the findings which show that the gender pay gap continues to increase? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I thought I had just quoted that the consistent pay gap measurement taken by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs has gone from 12.3 percent to 11.3 percent. I thought that was a reduction. I am an accountant; I should know. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is she concerned that the gender pay gap got as low as 11.94 percent in March 2009 as a result of Labour’s planned approach but since she stopped the pay equity investigation for social workers and school support staff and since she closed down the pay and employment equity unit the gap has widened to 12.81 percent? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: My worry is that the member has not been listening to all the previous answers. I advise her to discuss the issue with the previous Labour Minister of Women’s Affairs the Hon Ruth Dyson and also Lianne Dalziel and Steve Chadwick. They all endorsed the pay gap measure based on the hourly median earnings supplied by the New Zealand Income Survey. The gap has closed. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she taken instruction from the Prime Minister on how to fudge the figures when it comes to pay gaps? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I take offence at the words “fudging the figure”. I do not believe that is worthy of a supplementary question in the Parliament surely. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I take it the Minister is saying that—[ 
Interruption 
] I have already ruled out two Opposition questions today so I invite the member to rephrase her question. The member should not make outlandish allegations in asking a question. I invite her to reword her question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has she taken instruction from the Prime Minister on how to massage the figures when it comes to describing pay gaps? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: No. Unlike the Labour Party whose leader cannot even get his members to follow instructions to apologise to their leader this side of the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we have had enough of that. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to show a little courtesy to Catherine Delahunty who is sitting down the back of the House. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: We know they want to hear it. If the gender pay gap keeps getting wider will she concede that her Government’s approach is not working and work with the Green Party to develop legislation to address this big problem? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: It is very hard to cooperate with the Green Party when it believes in legislating for everything. I have every confidence in New Zealand women and employers and people can see that good work practices will close those gaps. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table two tables from the quarterly employment survey released yesterday showing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should not waste the time of the House on tabling statistical information that is available to all members. 
Tertiary Education—Management of Enrolments 
10. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Is he satisfied with how enrolments are being managed in the tertiary sector; if not what actions is he taking? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I have mixed views on how institutions are managing their enrolments and believe that some could do better. I have spoken directly to vice-chancellors in a number of cases and they have undertaken to manage their enrolments better. The Government took a number of steps in Budget 2010 to relieve pressure on institutions. For example it will fund a record number of places at universities in 2011—about 5600 more than in 2008—it has made changes to student loan entitlements for new residents and Australians; and it has introduced a performance element for existing students with the requirement that they pass the equivalent of 50 percent of their full-time courses over 2 years. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister think that Victoria University turning away 1500 students Massey University 2000 students Waikato University 600 students and other universities and polytechnics thousands more will help close the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The numbers quoted are interesting numbers. The reality is that they are the numbers mostly quoted in the media. I notice that Otago University has closed its enrolments and in actual fact has turned down 30 applications for the second semester of 2010. Nevertheless it is never ideal to turn away too many students. That is why we are working to increase and have increased the number of places in 2011 and also have put a limit on student loan entitlements for new residents and Australians. The introduction of a performance element for existing students will ensure that they either use their opportunity for education wisely or make way for somebody new to come into the system to have his or her opportunity. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect although the Minister talked about part of the question the actual question asked how that reduction in the number of students would help close the wage gap with Australia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will recollect that the Minister in answering the question disputed the statements contained in the member’s question and the Minister is quite entitled to do that. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Which of the following National Government actions is more likely to increase the numbers of Maori and Pasifika enrolling and succeeding at university: refusing to lift caps on tertiary institution enrolments; time limits on student loans; or New Zealand Qualifications Authority changes to National Certificate of Educational Achievement requirements for university entrance which will make it more difficult for thousands of secondary school students to gain eligibility to enter university? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Like me the member is a new member in this Parliament so she may not be aware that the reason for the student caps was the previous Government’s approach to student support and interest-free student loans. It introduced caps in 2008 to try to control the cost of tertiary education. Nevertheless I am confident that the performance-linked funding initiatives that we are putting in place will encourage institutions to provide the pastoral care and support that will improve the outcomes for all New Zealanders including young Maori and Pasifika. 
Grant Robertson 
: What work has he done on the impact on closing the wage gap with Australia of universities and polytechnics shutting the door on some student enrolments especially in light of the fact that while New Zealand tertiary institutions are trying to work out how to keep students out Australian ones are working out how to get them in? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member’s question is interesting. The latest statistics show that the New Zealand population aged 25-plus has a higher proportion of student graduates than Australia does. It goes to show that Australia has a little bit of catching up to do. I would also point out that as a percentage of our GDP we spend slightly more on tertiary education than the Australians do. The issue is the size of our GDP which is why the Government has a very comprehensive economic growth agenda to grow our GDP so that we can afford to spend more on these sorts of services. 
Rugby World Cup—2011 Festival Lottery Fund 
11. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Why has the New Zealand 2011 Festival Lottery Fund been created? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 During the Rugby World Cup next year nationwide festivals will be held to celebrate New Zealand’s culture heritage and national identity. The New Zealand 2011 Festival Lottery Fund is providing $9.5 million in funding to support these festival events. The Rugby World Cup is the biggest sporting event ever held in New Zealand and we want to maximise the community’s involvement. This funding will help communities and regions get involved in the spirit of the event. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What kind of events can be funded? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: This fund will support all sorts of events with a community purpose associated with the Rugby World Cup. This could include things like concerts fairs exhibitions street markets and parades. Applications are now open and they close on 17 September. I encourage communities to come up with ideas and make their applications through the website of the Department of Internal Affairs. 
Employment—Workplace Access for Union Representatives 
12. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: How many complaints if any about union access to the workplace being abused by unions or union members has she received since becoming the Minister of Labour? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: The Minister has spoken to many employers around the country since becoming the Minister of Labour some of whom have raised with her the issue of union access. She has also received correspondence on this issue. However she does not have a spreadsheet cataloguing every complaint. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Why is the Government proposing restricting the right of workers to have union representatives in the workplace when her own policy paper dated 15 May 2009 stated: “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and unions members.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A subsequent policy paper also says that providing discretion could enable employers to undertake better business planning—for example avoiding any unforeseen stoppages and potentially rescheduling activities around employee availability. The reality is that this is not a widespread problem but where abuse does occur it can cause significant disruption. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What specific problems with the current arrangements is this proposed law seeking to address given that even Business New Zealand has said that this is not a high priority and that it does not receive many complaints from employers? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: There have been some cases where unions have caused problems by using the right of access law—for example pulling workers into long meetings unannounced blocking customers trying to access stores and making public scenes inside premises in order to embarrass employers. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What advice has she provided to the Prime Minister since he told the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions that this issue was “not a driving priority” for him that caused him to change his mind? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not in a position to be able to discuss what advice the Minister has given the Prime Minister on that matter. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does the Minister agree that by restricting the right of workers to have access to union advice at the workplace during a 90-day trial period the Government is making our most vulnerable workers more vulnerable than ever; and will the Minister therefore support my member’s bill to repeal the 90-day fire-at-will period? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I reject the premise at the opening of the member’s supplementary question because this is about reasonableness and reasonableness will be based on common sense. The reality is that if a workplace has a busy workload and needs all staff on deck it can reschedule a union visit to another time. Saying no is not being unreasonable. 
General Debate 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Women do not have pay equity yet and it is not improving. Even if the Minister of Women’s Affairs prefers the yearly New Zealand Income Survey to the quarterly employment survey the picture remains bleak. In the 21st century as of today the pay gap is 12.8 percent. When the Government axed the pay and employment equity unit it ensured that years of work that substantiated discrimination was not going to be implemented. The problem the Greens have with using the New Zealand income survey data is that it is an annual figure based only on April to June in any given year. The value of the quarterly Statistics New Zealand data is that it is based on payroll and it is every quarter so we can speak authoritatively about a pattern—a pattern that is getting worse. 
A fair society is better for everyone and it must start with the basics such as honouring Te Tiriti o Waitangi and ensuring that 50 percent of the population has equal pay and pay equity. It is disturbing that we are still litigating an issue so fundamental in terms of human rights. Last year the Minister of State Services Tony Ryall told this House and the media that because of the recession we cannot afford pay equity for women. I ask what the excuse is this year. Apparently we are sort of out of the recession but women should still be patient while we build more motorways and somehow that will help to give us pay equity. How? Without a rigorous commitment from the Government and a requirement in law to make specific gender pay gaps public in both the public sector and private sector we are living a lie of a free and equal society and we do not even know the scale of the lie. 
Many young women whose mothers fought for the Equal Pay Act are deeply shocked when they find that pay equity is not a given and that the gap is 12.81 percent and rising. They have logically assumed that all the rhetoric around equal opportunity included economic equity. But au contraire the occupations where pay inequity remains are not just the caring professions which the Minister of Women’s Affairs has kindly told women they should abandon for jobs with a higher average pay; they are also unequal for women tertiary graduates who are now 6.8 percent behind their male colleagues at the end of their first year of work. That statistic about the tertiary graduates comes from the New Zealand Income Survey which is favoured by the Minister and it is relevant from that research because it is an annual statistic. 
So far the Government programme for addressing the gender pay gap is quoting selective statistics and getting women on boards. I am all for getting women on boards but for reasons other than to do with pay equity. Where is the evidence that getting more women on boards results in higher pay for the bulk of women workers? With the best will in the world the board employs the chief executive officer and can adjust his or her pay but the board does not set the pay rate for whole groups of workers and in many industries there is no board. There is no evidence that helping individual women to succeed impacts on the pay of marginalised groups of employees such as social workers and school support staff let alone marginalised women from Maori and Pacific nations. 
Everyone deserves decent work and a living wage—everyone. And we deserve to be treated with respect. A widening pay gap short-changes more than half the population and their dependent children. Often when we see women’s pay we need to remember that those women are the supporters of the next generation. We can turn this situation around with better leadership and with better law. It is not good enough to just continue ignoring the findings of the pay equity inquiry. I am drafting a member’s bill to improve the situation because a fair society is better for everybody. If we continue to treat the gender pay gap as a side issue as an irrelevancy or as something that can be dealt with by boards and by flexible working hours—both issues are important but completely irrelevant to the issue of closing the gender pay gap—we will make no progress as a country. All of us—men women and children—benefit when women who hold up half the world receive what we are due. At the moment there is a gap in the public sector so I urge this Government to listen seriously when we talk about legislation and to support gender equity because at the moment it is doing nothing about it. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Today we are all saddened to hear of the death of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell killed in action in Afghanistan and of course of his comrades who are wounded. It was right that earlier this afternoon the House unanimously passed a motion reflecting on that. 
The reason I have taken this call is that the National members will be looking at New Zealand’s role in the provincial reconstruction team why we are there what we intend to achieve and how it serves our own security. This House across the political spectrum has supported the provincial reconstruction team since it was first deployed in 2003. Its mission is clear. It is to help rebuild the province of Bamian so that the people within that province can be free from the extremism that clouded their future through to 2001. 
Let me be clear on this: we are in Afghanistan because we are defending New Zealanders and all free people against the evil of international terrorism. It is worth noting that several New Zealanders have lost their lives in the terrorist events that were directly related to al-Qaeda in New York London Bali and Jakarta. Under the Taliban Afghanistan had become the haven for al-Qaeda terrorism. The United Nations in a series of resolutions has approved the actions of the international community to enable Afghanistan to redevelop and to take its proper place among nations. That is so that it will not become a haven for terrorism. That affects all of us. 
Our soldiers now for more than 7 years have been working alongside the people of Afghanistan in Bamian. A number of people in this House including the Leader of the Opposition have visited Bamian. They know full well how the vast majority of people in that province have welcomed our presence. I noted myself last year that children in the town of Bamian would wave at our soldiers 7 years later. That says something about the way we are received. 
But it is also clear and we have had a stark reminder of it in the last 24 hours that this place is still fraught with risk. Even in Bamian Province not all places are safe and secure. The north-east part which is riven by ethnicity and ethnic division has proven to be problematic. We go there because we want those people to be part of the wider civil society within the province. That has been difficult which has been proven on a number of occasions. 
I want to briefly mention the role of the Defence Force and more particularly the character of our men and women in uniform. Their professionalism and their work with the local people have brought real credit to themselves and indeed to our nation. They follow in a proud and long tradition forged over a period of time. In this new era they serve our nation proudly drawing on the traditions of the past but building on the concepts of current conflicts. 
Let us be clear about what terrorism does. It has reached out beyond Afghanistan itself across the world and it strikes at innocent civilians. Today is a time to reflect on the price of freedom. There is always a price: readiness vigilance and commitment. We also know today that there is a further price and that has proven to be the life of Timothy O’Donnell. In this Chamber we owe our freedom to him and to those members of the New Zealand Defence Force who serve our country. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Before I begin the substantive nature of my speech I want to join the Minister of Defence and others in passing on my condolences to the family of Timothy O’Donnell and also our thoughts to those soldiers his comrades who were injured. Briefly I just want to say that as a Minister along with other colleagues I attended the farewells for soldiers that the Minister of Defence has referred to. I also recall welcoming soldiers back at Christchurch International Airport. I recall seeing two emotions in the eyes of family members. On exit it was an emotion of fear for their loved ones and of hope that they would return and on return there was a look and sound of sheer joy that their loved ones had returned home. I simply acknowledge that. 
I want to talk briefly today about what I see as some of the great things about this country that we need to preserve—our jobs our health system and looking after our elderly folk. But to do that we require something called a plan and something called a vision. Today I was going to start by saying that the National Party had no plan but it has articulated one plan in the House today. It was articulated by that spin doctor extraordinaire Steven Joyce and it is called “the brush-off”. It is the brush-off to the 160000 New Zealanders who now do not have a job. Middle-class men and women as well as working-class folk now some for the first time in their lives are bucketed out of work facing a mortgage foreclosing on them and not knowing how they will make ends meet as they look their wife or husband and their children in the eye. The plan for them as articulated by Steven Joyce and this Government is the brush-off. 
I know Gerry Brownlee well. He was a woodwork teacher at St Bede’s College and a builder I am told—of what I do not know. It could have been an outhouse a hen house or a doghouse. As a practitioner of the workings of wood even he would know that in order to build a solid structure one needs something called a plan. Gerry Brownlee of course was restricted at St Bede’s College to the chopping board; that was the nature of his skills. But one needs a plan and one needs a vision. 
What is National’s plan and vision? It ain’t got one apart from today called the brush-off. We had the Job Summit—a fizzer. We had the cycleway. It was going to be the nirvana for New Zealand and create thousands of jobs we were told. How many did it create? Seventy. National has brushed off that one and swept it neatly under the carpet. It does not want to mention that one again. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: She’s saying it’s not even 70. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member down the back says it is not even 70. I stand corrected. 
Then Gerry Brownlee articulated that the great plan for New Zealand the great aspirational vision was not a cycleway or a Job Summit; it was to dig big holes where no one wanted them and dig up gold as if there were gold in them there hills. What happened to that plan? It got brushed off. It got swept right under the carpet real quick—reversed ditched and gone even before lunchtime. The only reason for that of course was that New Zealanders said no. 
There is no Job Summit there is a cycleway to nowhere and mining is gone. So what do we have? Do members remember National articulating its plan to reverse the trend of Kiwis going to Australia and overseas? In the last 3 months more Kiwis have gone overseas; we are almost in danger of depopulation if this trend carries on. What is National’s vision for that? Nothing. 
Then there was the plan to close the wage gap between Australia and New Zealand. This was a centrepiece of National Party policy. Gerry Brownlee and John Key articulated this live-or-die stance day after day. What do we see now? After 18 months of a National Government the wage gap is growing—it has grown by $50 a week and it is exceeding that as we speak. What have we had as a plan a vision or some sort of aspiration to deal with the problem that has arisen? Gerry Brownlee got up in the House like a human jelly whom we are trying to nail to the wall with a sledgehammer. He minced around the place and tried to get himself out from under the rock he put himself under. He tried to disembowel figures get any statistics and put anything on paper to try to explain why he failed why there was no plan and why there was no vision. But the Government has one plan which it has articulated today: to brush off all the bad news brush off 160000 unemployed in New Zealand and sell out every Kiwi that it made a commitment to before the election. 
Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I like other members on the Government side of the House will focus on New Zealand’s place in the world today reflecting on the tragic news that we all heard this morning. I join the many eloquent statements that have been made by members on all sides of this House in extending my deepest sympathy to the family of the late Lieutenant O’Donnell and to his friends. I remind them that the wishes of New Zealanders right around the country are to be beside them and I also do not forget the obvious grave concerns of the families of the two injured soldiers news of whose recovery we await with keen interest. I think that in this country there is a very strong appreciation of the role of our armed forces and of the invaluable part that they play in defending New Zealand’s role in the world. I think there is particularly strong support for what I call the quasi-political role that some of our soldiers play probably better than any other soldiers in the world in supporting stability and peace and in working closely in very complicated political and social situations particularly in the South Pacific. They obviously put themselves on the line. 
I was very much struck by a comment that Mr Anderton made and I associate myself strongly with it. He reminded us that the gravest responsibility that anyone who has the privilege of being a Minister in any Cabinet has is to take part in a collective decision to send our New Zealand citizens abroad to potentially risk their lives in the defence of our values and interests. I strongly associate myself with Mr Anderton’s comment and I know that that was very much in the minds of our Ministers just as I am sure that it was when he had the privilege of being a Cabinet Minister himself. I am sure that it will always continue to be the case. 
Unfortunately we live in a world where the conflict of ideas still has the capacity to erupt into almost mindless violence. Like many others I can see enormous progress being made in terms of limiting the competition amongst nation States in the last 30 or 40 years through elaborate understandings involving disarmament closer trading agreements and diplomacy. In 1989 when the great dividing barrier in Europe finally fell we thought we might be able to put the clash of nation States behind us at least substantially. Although we have to acknowledge that there are one or two trouble spots like Korea where that traditional threat still exists the new menace of international terrorism has arisen to threaten us in our homes in our own countries or when we are visiting other countries. It is a threat against the very basis of civilisation. 
Unfortunately although I strongly associate myself with those who believe that armed force can never be the final answer to the threat posed by international terrorism it is regrettably part of the final answer. We just cannot escape that. Clearly we will be relying on social change change in attitudes better education and better development opportunities to deal with the roots of international terrorism. I see it as the death rattle of those who are resisting modernity. But at the end of the day we simply could not tolerate without response a situation where a country was being used as a training base for international terrorists who then turned the very forces of globalisation against people in New York. I think that although it is a very grave issue to commit our people to a collective response to that situation it was an appropriate decision of the previous Government and I think it was an appropriate decision of this Government to continue that contribution. 
Obviously we all look forward to a day when that contribution will not be necessary: when the Afghan people as the Prime Minister has said publicly today from Vanuatu can look after their own security. That huge challenge faces the people of Afghanistan. In the meantime we are trying to make a contribution there and although New Zealanders are obviously deeply concerned about the safety and welfare of the New Zealanders who are involved in that collective effort I think now is the time to stand behind our people on the front line. I strongly support their efforts. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I agree with about 90 percent of what the preceding speaker Tim Groser said. To highlight the differences would not be appropriate today. I think that today a lot of New Zealanders will be in some shock. As the Hon Simon Power and I have been discussing today in a small country like New Zealand there are always cases of really one degree of separation as in this particular case. 
I think it is important though that we get back to the general debate and start asking what happened to the fundamental purpose of John Key’s Government. John Key said before the last election that the fundamental purpose of his Government would be to close the wage gap with Australia. We have been asking what has happened to the purpose the raison d’être the plan for that Government. That plan does not exist. We know that it does not exist because there is a web page with the National Party’s plan as its header that shows a completely blank page for the rest of that plan. 
It is not a matter of National moving to close the gaps or making any decisions that would cause the gaps to be closed. What has happened is that the gaps have opened up since that time when comparing average weekly earnings from Statistics New Zealand’s series available from the Parliamentary Library. I am sure that a very specific series will be made available yet again from members here because we are not afraid to give the source of our figures. We are not afraid to have our figures analysed. We are prepared to stand by the truth and not to massage figures in our offices because those figures from the library show that the wage gap with Australian workers has increased by more than $50 a week since National was elected to Government. 
We have had question after question on this issue in the last couple of weeks and I will not go into a lot of the detail of an answer given this afternoon because that is not the proper way of bringing up that answer. But I will say that last week when Gerry Brownlee was asked whether there were milestones he said yes. Gerry Brownlee said yes. So I want to see those milestones. We want to look at them. We want to hold the Government to account. We want to see the official documentation. We want to know what stands behind Gerry Brownlee when he made that assertion. We want to know what the Prime Minister means when he says that that gap is being closed. 
We have just about accepted that there is not a plan but let us see which goal we are aiming for. It is a bit like the All Whites really. I have a feeling that the All Whites knew which way they were playing but that the Prime Minister and Gerry Brownlee do not know which way they are playing at all. I might say that I found it interesting to get feedback from the people who were away and at the soccer when a particular match occurred. At the Italy game a fellow in a white jersey stood up in the crowd and people started booing. People started booing our Prime Minister; they thought he was trying to take advantage in a political way and in a way that was inappropriate. 
I ask National members to think about whether they want to have the Rugby World Cup before or after the election next year. It is a very real question for them. But most of all I want to ask about the plan. Seventy-eight percent of Australian companies will lift salaries this year; only about half of New Zealand companies will do that. We are closing some gaps. The unemployment gap has closed. We used to have a lower rate of unemployment and Australia had a higher one. The gap closed but now it is opening again. Where is the plan? 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 The newspaper cries out today that Tim O’Donnell was just a “bloody good bugger.” I associate myself with the comments made by party leaders earlier in the House today. 
This brings back memories of a close shave I had something like 10 years ago when bullets ripped through the skin of the helicopter in which we were flying and the co-pilot started screaming for more power for the rotor that was trying to claw us up and over a ridge. Those sorts of thoughts will have gone through the heads of all of our people in Bamian over the last few days. Why when we think about these things do we end up thinking that luck was with us or against us? Unfortunately luck was not with O’Donnell yesterday afternoon in Bamian. 
The roots of democracy can be traced back to England and its Parliament a precursor to the place we stand in today. I reckon there are about 116 democracies in the world. Members of this Parliament have witnessed the swiftest advance of freedom; if we go back to the 1970s we see that there were about 40 democracies. I think we have seen the fastest growth in democracy across the globe. 
For more than 100 years generations of young New Zealanders have served with courage with selflessness and with endurance often in appalling conditions. I met someone last weekend in Dannevirke; a 92-year-old Ian McCulloch was given an RSA gold bar. Tim O’Donnell leaves us with a legacy of courage: the putting down of one’s own individuality and the commitment to a wider cause. His untimely sacrifice is proof that this country is not immune from global pressures and that we are not so remote as a country that we are not in some way a beneficiary of global democratic traditions. I think it is also important to understand that his death confers on us the reality that we are not isolated from other world events even from our distance. I think that his passing reflects the fact that we come from a country that has stood by its allies and interpreted our obligations generously and we have fulfilled those obligations very promptly. 
The loss we feel today does not in any way cancel out the need for us to stand for principle and to confront those who flout the struggle for international order whether Taliban or al-Qaeda. That is why we are working in Afghanistan today with our NATO and International Security Assistance Force partners to build the capacity of the Afghani Government and people. Our soldiers and civilians are working to create the conditions in which new a democracy can take place and flourish. Our people are working in Bamian to provide inspiration for people oppressed by the Taliban and al-Qaeda. 
Bamian is an example of an area where liberty from Taliban control and influence would be a powerful trend because prosperity social vitality education and the progress of people in a technological sense are all related to their freedom and their liberty. We are intending to hand that area and those skills back to the Afghan people. 
Freedom we know unleashes human creativity and Tim O’Donnell has lost his life defending that freedom. He knew that if freedom is not defended it can be lost. As the Prime Minister said we owe it to the thousands of New Zealanders who have served in Bamian to see that the job is done and that we create a situation where we can hand back control to the Afghani people. 
The success of what our forces are doing in Afghanistan rests on their willingness to sacrifice. Our commitment to democracy is tested in the Middle East and it was also tested there in the Second World War and earlier. It has been tested in Europe and it has been tested in the Pacific—in Bougainville in Timor in the Solomon Islands and most recently in Fiji. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. I join with others in paying my condolences to the family of Tim O’Donnell. In thinking about that young man I think of my niece’s husband who died about 2 years ago. He too served in many battalions overseas and then came back to New Zealand. He was back for a matter of weeks when he collapsed and died at his home at only 39 years of age. Did we honour that young man? No. He was only days away from having served this country for 20 years in the army but today his widow is still fighting to get his pension paid to her. Sometimes I think that when we pay homage to the people who serve us so well overseas we need to make sure that we remember those whom we do not honour but whom we should. 
In a place like this sometimes it is easier to focus on the points of conflict than to focus on a vision of what could be yet it has been so incredible in the momentum that has swept us up in the philosophy of Whanau Ora to realise the extent of optimism and determination that is a driving force in our w’anau and in our communities. I have met amazing New Zealanders who are catalysts for great change combining action with vision to make things happen. I met one of those New Zealanders yesterday: Sir Stephen Tindall. Those New Zealanders are inspired by the potential of their own to be all that they can be. They believe that they are limited not by their abilities but by their vision. They are committed to nourishing their dreams and the dreams of others. They are committed to sharing their ideas knowing that together they can accomplish more than they have ever dreamt possible on their own. 
I return to the hope of those everyday leaders every time I hear another story of grief on the news and I wonder who was there in the life of that w’anau to nurture them through the darkness and to give them hope that one day they too would dance in the light of the moon. 
We all know the home-grown advice that every child deserves to know that at least one significant adult totally believes in him or her. No doubt all of us in this Parliament can recall the influence of at least one adult who has helped to shape our own pathway. We may have forgotten what that adult said to us but we will never forget how he or she made us feel. That adult helped us to live in the world around us and to participate effectively in all worlds. 
We must embrace a sense of literacy that is not only about reading the word but also about learning to read our world and learning to know the geography of our landscapes our history our carvings the tukutuku in our meeting houses and the relationships that bind us together. Literacy is about taking part in the fullness of our environment. It is understood in the recognition of our atua and in the respect and meaning that we acquire from Ranginui and Papatuanuku me ona tamariki. 
Our mountains rivers lands and streams have been desecrated by the hand of mankind in the name of progress. I only have to think about our river claim the Whanganui River claim—which is one of the longest sets of legal proceedings in Maori claims history—to recall a history where the riverbed was expropriated and its use ownership control and management were fragmented. Fishing rights were denied and water and gravel were extracted without compensation. There has been environmental degradation riparian lands were wrongfully acquired eel weirs were destroyed and so it goes on. We must continue to fight to protect and preserve te awa tupua which we describe as our aortic artery—the central bloodline of that one heart. While we are pursuing justice in one realm we must take that same passion to confronting the injustices and barriers that confront too many of our families every day. 
One of our greatest challenges is that we must not let others define us by default focusing on our perceived deficiency to the extent that we lose our sense of self and cannot have hope and aspiration. I want more for my mokopuna. I want them to have a future based on my actions today. Only my attitudes and behaviour can give them that. It is my lifelong ambition to invest in the power of their potential to remind ourselves to always believe in our abilities our ideas and our talents. We do not need to change the world; each of us needs to change only ourselves. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 May I place on record along with other colleagues in this House my condolences to the family friends and colleagues of Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell. I will spend my time focusing on the things that we can change here today in this Parliament. Sadly we cannot change what occurred to Lieutenant O’Donnell but one of the things we can change is the future of our country. What we need is a plan. We need a Government with a plan going forward so that the people in this country can have every opportunity that they need. 
This Government told us that its fundamental purpose would be to close the wage gap with Australia. That is what it would do but now we are discovering that that was just a bumper sticker slogan. That was just a brush-off because no plan underpins that ideal that bumper sticker slogan of closing the wage gap with Australia. We are finding in fact that the wage gap is increasing and it is increasing not just by a small amount but by more than $50 a week. That is how much the wage gap between Australian wages and New Zealand wages has increased since National took office. That means that either the Government has a plan that is failing or it has no plan at all. It would seem today and in the previous days this week and last week in the House that we are discovering that there is no plan. There is talk of milestones and talk of brush-offs but there is no actual plan. I think today that it was evident again when we heard the Minister of Women’s Affairs Pansy Wong going into complete denial and complete spin overdrive by saying that there is no problem with the gender pay gap in this country when clearly there is. I would like the Minister of Women’s Affairs to spend her energy and time actually creating a plan to close that gap rather than denying that it exists because that is the sort of change we need going forward. 
It is all very well to talk about the statistics and for members to have a fight in this House about whose statistics are right and whose are wrong and which series is right and about what year they start from but we are talking about real people. I will talk about a couple of real people: Paul and Bronwen Neely in Hamilton. They went to the  
Waikato Times  
last week and said that this country is not working for them and that they would have to move to a country where there is a plan. The country that they have found where there is a plan is Australia. Hobart Australia is where they are moving to because Paul Neely who is a landscape architect was made redundant 15 months ago at the height of the recession. Some 15 months later he still has not been able to find any work in New Zealand. I met him the other day. He has scoured the entire country looking for work but he has not been able to find any. He stated in the  
Waikato Times 
 that if he had found a job they would have stayed here. He said that he thought the Government has not put enough money into the economic stimulus package and that a national cycleway does not cut the mustard. 
That is just the beginning of it because the Neelys have worked out that they are currently living in a country where the Government has no plan to fix their problem. It has no plan to increase the number of jobs available. The Neelys are picking up their two young children taking their future away from New Zealand and taking that future to Australia. Because of the stage the Neelys are at in their lives they are taking their specialist skills. Mrs Neely is a registered nurse. They are taking the skills of an architect and a registered nurse and taking their two young children and they are relocating to Hobart. They will not be back for some time. That is sad because they very much want their future to be in New Zealand. That is what they told me but there is no future for them here in New Zealand. Once they take their children overseas at the age that those children are they will start school in Hobart. They will not be back until their children have completed their schooling because they want to make sure that their children have some consistency in their education. 
This Government right now has no plan. There has not been the investment in infrastructure that would have allowed Mr Neely to continue with his good work as a landscape architect. Because this Government has no plan we are losing that family and hundreds like them to Australia where that Government has a plan. I think that what is exposing this Government is that it said it would close the wage gap with Australia but clearly it has no plan. It promised New Zealanders a brighter future. It promised New Zealanders that it would deliver that. New Zealanders are finding that the brighter future is not here in New Zealand under this Government but in Australia. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 A press release from the New Zealand Defence Force website from 2006 entitled “Pre Deployment Training in Tekapo” eerily foreshadowed what happened in Afghanistan overnight in the incident that resulted in the death of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell and the injury of two other soldiers while on patrol in Bamian Province. The New Zealand Defence Force article describes how in pre-deployment training: “Gunfire erupts as a man carrying an assault rifle storms into a remote Afghan village and opens fire on a group of New Zealand soldiers conversing with locals during their routine patrol. The New Zealanders quickly withdraw covering each other just as their sergeant has instructed them to in a situation such as this. The mock exercise carried out in Tekapo … was one of many worst-case scenarios the next rotation of the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Teams [undergo] before their deployment in Afghanistan …”. 
The pre-deployment training is designed to prepare New Zealand troops for whatever scenarios they might face during their deployment. It includes advanced combat training group exercises and the development of an understanding of the culture of the people of Afghanistan. The training is realistic progressive in intensity and difficult. In the words of one soldier: “As we left for Afghanistan I personally felt well-prepared and confident to do the job required.” 
The job is to assist the Afghan Transitional Authority to extend its influence beyond Kabul by promoting stability through the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian Province. The provincial reconstruction team is tasked with maintaining security in Bamian Province and it does this by conducting frequent patrols throughout the province—patrols such as the one Tim O’Donnell was leading last night. The provincial reconstruction team also supports the provincial and local government by providing advice and assistance to the provincial governor to the Afghan national police and to district sub-governors. 
Lastly the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team identifies prepares and provides project management advice for New Zealand aid projects within the region. These projects are often contracted to Afghan companies which then hire local workers to assist with the completion of these projects. Each project provides new amenities and also provides employment in the region. The projects undertaken are extremely significant to the local people. A new well may be a small construction project but it can provide clean water for a village for many years. 
In other deployments including those in environments as diverse as Timor-Leste Bougainville the Solomon Islands Bosnia and the Middle East New Zealanders have been respected for their professionalism and their ability to engage and relate to the local people. I am very proud to say that both my sister and my son in the New Zealand Army have served in Timor-Leste and I would further add that my son would “bust a gut” to do a tour to Afghanistan. 
These types of tasks are indicative of the wide-ranging and increasingly complex nature of modern peacekeeping operations. New Zealand’s international commitment is to cover a range of operations including enhancing State stability and securing operations in weak and fragile States and aiding humanitarian and disaster relief efforts. We can be proud of New Zealand’s contribution in places like Afghanistan. The New Zealand provincial reconstruction team aims to ensure security in the region to help with the distribution of aid and also to promote nation building. 
In my contribution to this debate I wish finally to extend my condolences to the family of Tim O’Donnell and to the families of the two injured soldiers. I wish them a speedy recovery. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 He timatanga korero maku e hiahia ana ahau ki te tapiri i oku mihi oku kupu poroporoaki ki tera o nga hoia kua hinga i te mura o te ahi ara Rutene Timothy O’Donnell. Ka mihi hoki ki tona whanau me wana hoa e noho ana me tenei kapua pouri kei runga i a ratou. I begin by adding my condolences to the family friends and colleagues of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell who as we know was the first soldier to lose his life in Afghanistan. 
I come to the substance of my speech which is that New Zealanders are looking for a plan. New Zealanders want to know what plan this Government has in place to make life better for us all to improve our economy and to close the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia that has spiralled out to over $50 a week—not only that wage gap but also the disparity of income between men and women in New Zealand. 
I get the feeling from the way that Minister Wong avoided a question today that her plan to close the gap between the incomes of men and women in New Zealand is to allow the unemployment rate to continue to spiral so that more men lose their jobs so that our wages decrease and therefore the gap will be closed in that rather negative way. 
New Zealanders want to know what plan this Government has that will make it easier for mums and dads to buy food to buy clothes to pay the rent to pay the bills and to provide just the essentials and the necessities for their families. We have not yet seen a plan from this Government and we are not holding our breath in the hope that we will see one soon. 
I have to say though that there is a plan for education: the much-vaunted national standards. The only trouble is that this National Government does not actually believe that the national standards plan will be very effective. How do we know that? What is the evidence of that? Let me tell members that if I was the Minister of Education and I explained my flagship policy for education that policy would make sure that achievement rose that kids when they graduated from school had better prospects better opportunities and higher qualifications and that they would go on to lead productive lives and contribute to their communities. 
Unfortunately 2 weeks ago we heard the Deputy Prime Minister tell the country that over the next 5 to 10 years the biggest organisation that the Government will have will be the Department of Corrections. The Deputy Prime Minister saying that the Department of Corrections will be the biggest organisation over the next 5 to 10 years tells me that National has absolutely no faith in the effectiveness of its flagship education policy. That is the plan that a Government has when it actually does not have a plan. 
We can see that the fact Labour members are telling Government members that they do not have a plan and that the country believes us is getting under their skin because we can see it in their eyes and we can hear it in their speeches. I sat in this House last night and listened to the 10-minute speeches which started off with 30 seconds of the members opposite telling us that they had a plan and then the remaining 9½ minutes going on to criticise and condemn the previous Labour Government but failing to tell us exactly what their plan was. They stuck to the petty they stuck to the irrelevant and we still have not heard the plan—unless of course that plan is to heap misery upon misery upon hard-working New Zealanders. 
I would like to read an email I received from Mrs Rita Howard who said: “Out of concern for my daughter who lives in Auckland. She I feel has been unfairly treated as part of this new regime by National. She’s been employed and then re-employed by a firm. I won’t say the firm’s name but on Monday she arrived there to be told she no longer had a job. How fair or unfair is this that this new Act has been created for young people who are trying to get ahead in life? She was informed when she arrived at work she had no job.” We are told that there are 70000 young people under 24 years of age who are unemployed. This mother Rita Howard went on to say: “I am extremely irritated by this as she my daughter has no firm leg to stand on in terms of arguing the point of unfair dismissal.” This Government believes that the plan forward is to make it easier for employers to sack their employees. Its plan to close the wage gap is to take away work so that employees do not have a wage. We are waiting to hear the National Government’s plan. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise in the House today to show respect to Lieutenant Timothy O’Donnell the 28-year-old soldier in the New Zealand Army who was killed overnight in Bamian Province in Afghanistan. Lieutenant O’Donnell was an experienced soldier who had represented New Zealand with distinction in Timor-Leste and in Afghanistan. He has been described as a free spirit and a committed and loyal friend to his fellow military personnel. The newspapers today have said he was a “bloody good bugger” and a man who loved his family. There have been messages posted on websites throughout the country. One reads: “Anyone who dies in military service for our county deserves our gratitude and respect.” and another states: “Our thoughts and feelings go to Lieutenant O’Donnell’s mother and his wider family.” I want her to know that her son has our gratitude for his sacrifice. He has our respect and New Zealand shares in her loss today. 
New Zealand is working with NATO and our International Security Assistance Force partners to build capacity and security for Afghanistan’s Government and people. New Zealanders are active in rebuilding schools to bring education to a people for whom education was reserved for the elite and to a country where women were repressed and treated like third-class citizens by the Taliban. New Zealanders are building hospitals to bring medical care and attention to a people who have never experienced help in many cases from doctors and nurses. The work that our defence forces are doing in Afghanistan is extremely important. 
We have a proud history of helping in parts of the world where oppression and catastrophe are present. New Zealand Defence Force and police personnel have been present in East Timor the Solomon Islands Bougainville Papua New Guinea Samoa and Tonga to mention but a few countries following natural disasters. Much of their work is in the Pacific in countries close to our home and to our heart. They go there in defence of our values and to bring peace and fairness to others less fortunate than we are. The role that New Zealand plays is valued by other nations. In many countries that we are present in Australia is also there. Former Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs Alexander Downer said: “We’ve had some difficult times in East Timor and the Solomon Islands. Who is always there with us? Who can we always rely on? I’ll tell you who we can always rely on. New Zealand. You can always rely on them.” The Afghan President said in 2007 that it gives his people a huge boost in confidence that New Zealanders came to Afghanistan from so far away to help build peace and stability. 
Our forces have done work that the world has recognised and that we are very proud of. In Bougainville we were stationed on the ground not as peacekeepers but to provide support to a destabilised and dislocated community. Health services showed a presence there on the ground and our New Zealanders played a large part in stopping a small island from going back to civil war. That was the first long-term regional peace initiative in the Pacific that New Zealand was involved in. In East Timor our soldiers kept Timorese people safe from militia and provided security by carrying out patrols protecting a local population that had been brutalised for many years. In the Solomon Islands a small country that had been wrecked by infighting and civil unrest we brought law and order and trained local people along with police from Australia the Cook Islands and other Pacific countries to build stable governance and provide normal lives for the people of the Solomon Islands. Private Sam Howie in his “Reflections on the Solomon Islands” which was published earlier this year said “It’s been evident throughout this deployment that the Kiwi ‘can do’ attitude has reflected positively in the Solomon Islands. Any given task was thoroughly completed no questions asked.” He went on to say: “This deployment has also made me realise more than ever … how important the relationship between nations can be.” 
New Zealand has given and will continue to give much to the less fortunate in other parts of the world. We are extremely proud of New Zealand’s record in supporting those less fortunate than us in other countries. We are very proud of the life of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell. Our thoughts are with his family and his friends at this time. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I pay my condolences to the family of New Zealand Army Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell. 
This country is becoming more and more economically insecure and I ask what the Government is doing. It is doing nothing but making New Zealanders’ lives harder and making them more afraid. I would like to talk about people—real people—and how they are feeling. Over the last few weeks I have been doorknocking in Dunedin South one of the poorest and most densely populated parts of our country and I am pretty angry about what I am hearing. People are insecure and afraid. They either have jobs that are not paying much and they have not had a pay rise for a long time or they do not have jobs and they cannot find jobs. They cannot make ends meet. They are not turning their heaters on. I have talked to countless elderly people who have either lost or are confronting losing their hour and a half per week of home help. Doing a bit of housework preparing some meals and helping with some chores around the house is actually not a great deal but it makes a lot of difference to them. That home help means doing work that they can no longer do and it allows them to stay in their homes. God help us that those elderly citizens who have contributed to our country by paying taxes—many of them went through the Great Depression—and bringing us all up now get treated like this at the end of their lives. Helping people stay in their homes and lead a life with value is actually more cost-effective than taking away their independence and requiring them to be put in a home and it does not take much brains to realise that. 
This Government has no vision and no plan to improve the lives of ordinary New Zealanders. This Government is deliberately chipping away at the assistance to vulnerable people who need it the most. I will tell the House about Marie who is a single mum who contacted me and told me that she had her heart set on gaining a Bachelor’s degree in health science to get a nursing degree. She believed that because of the shortage of qualified nurses she would be guaranteed a job. But she has a 2-year-old and a 5-year-old so childcare is a major barrier to gain that qualification and a barrier for her to get back into work. She cannot work weekends because of the lack of childcare. Public holidays are a problem also. On top of that she has to deal with rising childcare prices and a serious lack of job vacancies. She said that she knows that she will get there eventually but there are so many obstacles. She said: “Yet here is National planning to punish us if we don’t find work label us as breeding for business calling us unemployable and has generated maddened groups of benefit bashers.” I tell members that she does not have the ability to go to Australia like so many others. She is stuck here with no brighter future. 
Then there is the latest example of the fight to keep neurosurgical services in Dunedin. The absence of those services will be of great detriment to the people of Otago and I will state the obvious: Dunedin should not lose neurosurgical services. People will die families will suffer and our hospital and medical school would both be put at risk. And all the while the Minister of Health Tony Ryall is sitting on his hands doing nothing. It is clear that this Government has no vision and no plan. What is the cost? Recently one family said to me that they could not afford to eat meat but they used to be able to. A lot of families say that they do not know what they will do when GST goes up. Any gain from tax cuts will be taken away by the GST rise and the predicted 6 percent inflation. 
My colleague Carmel Sepuloni’s bill is coming before this House. It seeks to overturn National’s attack on workers’ rights. Labour will show our commitment to the rights of workers by voting for this bill. I encourage any National MP who cares about his or her constituents and their livelihoods to do the same. So instead of attacking people’s rights and chipping away at assistance to people who need it the most we need policies that address inequality and help Kiwis stay afloat. We need some fresh ideas to put more money in the pockets of people. We need honesty and vision not distractions and sideshows from a do-nothing Government. We need a vision and we need a plan. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 21 July. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Ko te taiao e awhi nei i a tatou tihei mauri ora. I wish to acknowledge the passing of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell DSD killed in action on active service in Afghanistan and also the severe wounding of two of his comrades in arms. Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell was a veteran at the tender age of 28. I wish to extend my deepest sympathy to family friends and unit colleagues of all three men. 
As my honourable colleague Nanaia Mahuta observed in an earlier part of this debate John Key’s National-led Government is making great progress in negotiating Treaty settlements and working with Maori in addressing challenges facing the whole of New Zealand society. The Resource Management Act 1991 recognises the role of tangata whenua in various ways. Those exercising power under the law are required to have regard to both kaitiakitanga and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Consent authorities are required to consult iwi. We have already achieved so much in reforming the Resource Management Act. The first phase of our streamlining reforms went a long way to reducing costs uncertainties and delays that have frustrated New Zealand homeowners small businesses and farmers for years. It ensured a better balance between environmental protection and economic growth. One of the four objectives of the phase two reforms is achieving the efficient and improved participation of Maori in resource management processes. So there is no need for a separate amendment bill and National does not support this bill. Thank you. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to support the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I was astonished to hear National’s position and to hear the previous speaker say that the Resource Management Act is working in terms of consultation and involvement with and the participation of Maori when this is an elegant little amendment to the 1991 Resource Management Act that will make consultation easier for Maori. Therefore the results will be a far improved model of hearings and consenting under the Resource Management Act in terms of iwi management plans. 
I sat in on the hearings in Auckland on the Resource Management Act along with my colleague Nanaia Mahuta when Mark Solomon gave a plea to the Local Government and Environment Committee in its consideration of the Resource Management Act that as far as Ngai Tahu were concerned they were not involved in the resource consent process and that due recognition of iwi management plans was simply not happening at either local council level or regional council level. I think it is really sad that National is saying that because the Act is strong enough now it therefore works. National is saying that because it has done a lot about streamlining and turbo-charging the Resource Management Act and taking away the regulatory barriers to the consenting process the Act therefore works for iwi; I do not think so. That is not what we heard at the select committee. 
All this little bill does is make three amendments. It amends under clause 5 the “take into account” provision. All that consenting authorities have to do now is just to “take into account” but the bill substitutes “recognise and”—the strong word is—“provide for” iwi management plans. This bill is yet another solution a part of the puzzle that would strengthen the Resource Management Act. 
I wonder what has happened to the iwi leaders forum that consults National and the Maori Party on the foreshore and seabed legislation. I wonder whether National has taken time out from its agenda and its crowing about achievements to say: “What do you think iwi leaders whom we consult openly with? What do you think about this amendment that has come from Nanaia Mahuta who knows only too well along with the Tainui people of the Waikato River that here is yet another streamlining amendment that will make it easier for Maori to be recognised and to be taken account of?”. [ 
Interruption 
] No they have not even asked. 
This amendment gives a focus for iwi management plans in both regional and district council plans. All it does is put the issues that iwi have laid on the table at the front end of the planning process. It ensures the participation of iwi in the consenting process; what is wrong with that? Why would National vote against this bill other than for political pique? If iwi do not like what is happening in terms of what they have proposed as a vision and a strategy in an iwi management plan and if they are not taken notice of all that they can do now is look for redress in a Treaty settlement process. How cumbersome is that? I think all parties would benefit if only National could be generous enough today to support this bill. I am glad the Maori Party is supporting it. We will be speaking about that when we are out on the hustings next year. 
Current iwi authorities—and Mark Solomon told us this—have consultation fatigue absolute consultation fatigue. They said that they have put together their iwi management plans and that this bill is just a plea and an amendment to the Resource Management Act that asks for those plans to be taken notice of. If we had done that earlier we would have got right issues in relation to the Maketu Estuary and the Kaituna River when we looked at the Rotorua lakes and their clean-up. If we had had that right in the Resource Management Act currently there would not have had to be a Treaty redress through the Waikato River settlement legislation. We would have got it right at the front end. 
In conclusion I tell members that in answer to question No. 6 today in the House from the Maori Party Nick Smith said that iwi had an ongoing role. He gave that assurance in respect of Goat Island and the Poor Knights Islands. But iwi do not have that role because the very instrument that means most to them in the Resource Management Act is the iwi management plan which does not have to be taken notice of. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I have listened to all the contributions in the House on the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill. I thank my Labour colleagues for their contributions and practical experience in terms of the information we have heard as to the positive impact that this bill could have. I am disappointed that National in particular is not supporting the bill but I am not surprised. In the preceding debate Government members stood and said: “But wait. The second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments are issues affecting Maori and will be well dealt with then.” The difficulty with that is they failed to clarify how that would be done and in what way. If the response is just to retain sections 6 7(a) and 8 then frankly that is not good enough. This bill seeks to normalise practices that have arisen as a result of Treaty settlements and as a result of moving towards best practice and placed towards the landscape that we are going to which is beyond Treaty settlements and towards better co-governance co-management practices in relation to resource management. I think that in time on reflection National will see that these small amendments are progressive and a positive way forward. 
I am concerned that many iwi are not able to learn from the experiences of the iwi who have settled earlier. Ngai Tahu was a very good example which was raised by Stevie Chadwick. They have iwi management plans that are more than aspirational high-level statements. They are planning documents that have and can be integrated into the policy plan and rule-making process which in effect will lead to better decision-making about developments protection of areas natural spaces and heritage reserves. 
The bill acts as a carrot not a stick to lift the responsiveness of regional councils to recognise and provide for priorities set out in iwi management plans in the regional policy statement in local authority district plans and to ensure that policies and rules followed by the council give greater recognition in the planning regime to what has been expressed by iwi in their plans. It is a progressive and positive step as I have said. If anyone wants to talk about a step change in working with hapu and iwi in the planning landscape then I think this is it. I regret that members on the other side of the House failed to recognise that in taking this step forward the community and the public at large will have a better opportunity to understand how Maori perceive their natural environment and the planning challenges that result from trying to provide for that perspective because it is difficult. 
I want to point briefly to the legal advice I received from the Office of the Attorney-General in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test. In particular I am quoting from paragraphs 9 and 10: “Arguably and placing greater weight on IMPs clause 5 of the bill draws a distinction indirectly on the basis of race. This is because it distinguishes between planning documents generated by groups that are predominantly Maori and those that include non-Maori. Nevertheless in our view the provision does not give rise to discrimination because it does not create any substantive disadvantage. In reaching this view we have noticed that section 6(e) of the Act already requires all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with the ancestral lands water sites wahi tapu and other taonga. This provision needs to be read with section 7(a) and 8 of the Act. Section 7(a) requires decision makers to pay particular regard to kaitiakitanga or Maori stewardship. Section 8 requires decision makers to take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” 
So the bill passes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act test. By virtue of including iwi management plans into the planning regime we know that the process is better. In my first reading speech I cited a small number of examples in my electorate that have frustrated hapu and led to this particular bill. It is about bringing the interests of hapu and iwi to the front end of the planning regime towards a more integrated response to deal with planning challenges so that communities and iwi can deal with it at a practical level. Maori just like anyone else want to preserve their natural environment and their cultural and historical heritage as they want to be a partner to the development of their lands and coastal spaces. The bill is about finding a practical solution to a shared future in integrated resource management. They are largely aspirational statements but they can be much more than that. The bill will set a pathway for greater recognition that they should and can be integrated into the planning process at a local government level. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management (Enhancement of Iwi Management Plans) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill 
First Reading 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I hope and intend to move that the bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This bill seeks to ensure that our Crown financial institutions invest the money of New Zealanders in an ethical manner. It does that by amending the relevant legislation for Crown financial institutions setting forth investment policy criteria consistent with internationally recognised norms and conventions for ethical and socially responsible investment. Although Crown financial institutions do not directly control their investments this framework will require them to instruct their fund managers to invest according to the criteria described in the bill. I want to stress that the main goal of our Crown financial institutions is and should be to generate healthy returns that can fund our future commitments to accident compensation superannuation and other key initiatives. This bill will not change that nor does it aim to change that. It is quite clear that part of sustainability for a business or indeed for an investment fund is to be profitable. This bill continues that as a key goal but it introduces meaningful criteria to guide and instruct those funds to invest in a manner that is ethical and socially responsible. 
A bill such as this one will inevitably raise questions about what the word “ethical” means. In the context of this bill it is defined as being socially responsible and environmentally responsible. UN conventions and treaties in those areas are used to set the parameters of what “ethical” is. Essentially it means that Crown financial institutions will be expected to invest in organisations that maintain good human rights and labour standards are conscious of their ecological footprint and are not engaging in activities that are harmful to resources such as water land and air. “Ethical” also requires that stakeholders are treated fairly and that the organisation maintains good governance finance ethical integrity and transparency. I take the opportunity to commend the investment policies that our Crown financial institutions have already implemented. 
At the same time I pay tribute to my colleague Maryan Street. She conceived this bill at a time when Crown financial institutions had no policies and had taken no action regarding their responsibility to invest as the law currently has it in a way that does not prejudice New Zealand’s international reputation. Maryan Street in her role as the Minister for ACC worked hard with the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to improve its investment policies and since then a number of other actions have been taken. In particular the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has excluded investment in certain activities such as whaling some nuclear weapons and landmine manufacturers. It has also engaged with companies using the UN criteria for socially responsible investment and all of our Crown financial institutions have discontinued their investments in tobacco. Policies such as those should be encouraged and supported. Furthermore their existence demonstrates that New Zealanders and Crown financial institutions recognise the importance of ethical investment and are willing to act to implement it practically. However they do not indicate that nothing else needs to be done nor should they be seen as an excuse to sit back and fail to consider what else could be done. There are several reasons I believe why changes are desirable. Having in our legislation a commitment to avoiding damage to New Zealand’s reputation is a defensive position in my view in terms of ethical investment. Parliament should be acting not only to back up the ethical investment policies we already see from our Crown financial institutions but also to extend them in a positive manner. 
This bill would establish Crown financial institution ethical investment criteria as law not relying simply on whether the guardians of the Superannuation Fund at a particular time believe ethical investment is a good thing or whether a particular Minister wants to encourage it within ACC. It would put that into law give some consistency across our Crown financial institutions and extend the policies. It would also demonstrate Parliament’s support for ethical investment. Policies on ethical investment for our Crown financial institutions need streamlining clarity and consistency. At present legislation for all of the Crown financial institutions remains vague and inconsistent when it comes to what ethical investment might actually mean. My bill would remedy that by creating consistent and extended ethical investment criteria across the Crown financial institutions. It would also provide more direct guidance to the managers of the funds and importantly as I said before that would occur without taking away any of the fund’s decision-making power. The bill also aims to improve accountability and transparency by requiring more adequate reporting of the social and environmental impacts of each Crown financial institution’s investments. Such reporting practices would also bolster each Crown financial institution’s ability to respond to public interest. Although the changes that are being made by the Superannuation Fund and ACC are to be applauded there are still issues to do with reporting and engagement with the investment managers and companies on how they go about interpreting ethical investment. 
The New Zealand people support ethical investment. We saw that when the public opposed the Superannuation Fund’s investments in companies involved in cluster munitions and nuclear weapons. The public sentiment is also backed by civil society groups which are active in New Zealand in support of Crown financial ethical investment. Such groups include Investment Watch Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Council for Socially Responsible Investment and I thank them for their support and encouragement on this bill. I have also received support and encouragement from organisations such as Amnesty International and Oxfam and a much broader group of non-governmental organisations around the world are working hard to encourage that work. 
Internationally there is increasing support for ethical investment and a growing trend amongst both public and private investors to invest ethically. The UN has endorsed ethical investment. The UN Principles for Responsible Investment which embody an internationally accepted framework for investors to manage environmental social and governance issues in a manner consistent with improving long-term returns has gained widespread support from companies and State financial institutions alike receiving over 700 signatures. Other countries have adopted ethical investment policies for their State institutions. 
A particularly successful example is the Norwegian pension fund the Government Pension Fund - Global. It is the second-largest sovereign wealth fund in the world with assets of over $400 billion. Its investment decisions must be consistent with a set of ethical guidelines. They are extensive guidelines. For instance the assets of the fund shall not be invested in companies that themselves or through entities they control produce weapons that violate fundamental humanitarian principles produce tobacco or sell weapons; people who undertake serious or systemic human rights violations such as murder torture the deprivation of liberty forced labour the worst forms of child labour and other child exploitation; serious violations of the rights of individuals in situations of war; severe environmental damage; gross corruption; and other particularly serious violations of fundamental ethical norms. This fund is able to be successful with those criteria. Another aspect of the Norwegian fund’s operations that I think is useful and is something that we can talk about further if this bill proceeds is the ability for it to establish relationships with companies that the fund invests with in order to observe their behaviour and to ensure that it is ethical. 
It is important that this becomes a positive measure rather than a defensive measure. Companies that are seeing their investments potentially withdrawn will want to know in advance that that is a possibility and potentially change their behaviour. So the Norwegian Council on Ethics is involved in observing the behaviour of individual companies. Meanwhile in Sweden the five largest State-controlled pension funds are required by law to follow environmental and ethical considerations in their investment policies and to report annually to the Government detailing how they are adhered to. Sweden and Norway are only two examples of States that have adopted ethical investment for their State financial institutions. 
These international developments give us food for thought. New Zealanders are justifiably proud of New Zealand’s stance on the world stage in areas such as human rights the environment nuclear weapons cluster munitions and landmines. Therefore it makes sense for us as a country to put our values into practice in the way our Crown financial institutions invest public money. It also makes sense for us to avoid the embarrassment of unethical Crown financial investments prejudicing our international relationships. This bill is a tangible means of practising what we preach. It is a tangible means of enhancing New Zealand’s image on the world stage and proving that we are socially conscious and environmentally sound. I commend the bill to the House. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to speak on the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill. This is a bill being put forward by Grant Robertson— 
Grant Robertson 
: So far you’ve got everything right. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Well the next bit the member will love because National will not be supporting the bill. So that is the right bit about it. 
We need to look at the policy behind the bill first of all before we go into the detail of why we support it or do not support it. The policy behind it is not something that any party in this House will have a particular problem with. The nature of investment is such that countries are very careful about how they invest and also the institutions that invest for them. However although there is that policy of wanting to be seen as ethical in a sense this bill is not necessary. It is just an attempt by the Labour Party and by that member to try to get some publicity which they are definitely very short of. 
The nature of investment is that ethical investment happens now and will happen in the future. I want to go through two reasons why it is happening now. The first is very much the market. If we look at the market effect in investment companies that have a problem in the way that they conduct their operations are seen very poorly in the market eye. Modern markets are not big investors in companies that do not take an interest in the environment the community and the sustainable development of their people and their communities. We have just to look at what is going on in the US at the moment with a large oil company and see the effect of the market price of that oil company to give us a reflection of what the market says as if it does not even think it is investing in an environmentally friendly way or actually working in an environmentally friendly way. 
Why would we as a Parliament need to set these rules in concrete and in motion when the market is achieving the very things that the member wants to see achieved by forcing companies and corporates to conduct the affairs of their operations in a way that is seen as suitable in the public eye? In essence this bill is not even necessary because the market forces those organisations to act in a way that is respectful of what the public would demand. 
Grant Robertson 
: Leave it to the market? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: But public demands do change. Mr Robertson says to just leave it to the market. He thinks that is a problem. But the point is that public demands have changed and what was publicly feasible a few years ago may not be publicly feasible in a few more years’ time. So the market develops with public opinion and it would be very poor of this Parliament to hold public opinion to one level when we could look at public opinion developing even further in the future. Mr Robertson may do the opposite to what he wants to do by holding investment back to levels that are seen as publicly acceptable now when in the future we could see the institutions’ investment and the investing companies being respectful of the nature of public opinion at that point in the future. 
The other argument as to why this legislation is not required is that there are already established and developed ethical investment policies within our own institutions. If we look at the New Zealand Superannuation Fund we see a very good example of what we are talking about. The Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation are signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment and that provides a framework for shareholders to work together to encourage companies to improve investment analysis on environmental social and governance risks. So in this way the Superannuation Fund is already part of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. 
The guardians are also signatories to the Carbon Disclosure Project; it requires the secretariat for the world’s largest institutional investor collaboration on business implications of climate change. Basically when it comes to climate change they are already part of an international organisational project—in this case the Carbon Disclosure Project—providing such a basis in respect of investment for carbon when we are looking at greenhouse gas emissions including a risk analysis and comparative data. 
The guardians are also a member of the Investor Group on Climate Change—the IGCC. That group is a collaboration of New Zealand and Australian investors who are focusing on the impact of climate change and the financial value of investments. It consists of many institutional investors across New Zealand and Australia and represents a large sum of money under the control of those companies and investors. We have achieved through current processes the results that this legislation seeks to achieve and we have also achieved those results through the market process anyway. There is no need for this legislation at this time so the Government will vote against it accordingly. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill and I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on bringing it to the floor of the House once again through a member’s provision. 
This small bill requires something that is very simple and I ask Government members opposite to consider again the position that has just been outlined by the member who has taken his seat. The work is not yet done on ethical investment. The work is not yet done on socially responsible investment. We would have a much safer planet if it were. So the member who has just resumed his seat is quite wrong in every respect. 
Here is an opportunity for the five Crown financial institutions—the ones that Parliament and the Government can have some influence over—to make sure that their investments align with ethical standards which might include proper business methods proper consideration of natural resources the non-exploitation of labour and the prohibition on slave labour or forced labour. That is the stuff that this bill attends to. 
I am a little surprised I have to say to see in one of the media releases the co-leader of the Green Party Dr Russel Norman being somewhat surprised that this bill has come out of the Labour Party. That demonstrates how little time the man has spent in Parliament. This bill was in the ballot in the last Parliament’s term. 
This is a significant change. It is not just business as usual. I draw to the attention of members opposite that 2 or 3 years ago when I last looked at these figures $1 in every $8 of US investments was being invested in ethical investments or socially responsible investments. We are now in the era when fishing companies like Sealord in Nelson changes it practices because its customers like Waitrose will not take its hoki as it is damaging the seabed. 
We are in that era. Customers are saying that they will not buy products that they consider to be purchased manufactured garnered or sold at the expense of the planet. If the customer base has that mentality around it and one-eighth of US investment money was going into ethical investments a few years ago it is only a short step from there for a Government that has the courage—and in this case a Parliament that has the numbers and the courage—to ensure that Crown institutions that invest money on behalf of the New Zealand taxpayer do it in ways that do not bring New Zealand into disrepute. We should do it in ways that do not make us an irresponsible international citizen and in ways that uphold ethics. 
That is what ethical investment is about. It is about making sure that everything that this Parliament and this Government in particular has jurisdiction over is done in a way that is consistent with other Government policy. How can we invest in tobacco companies at the same time that we are having a no-smoking policy or an anti-smoking campaign? We cannot be inconsistent in that way. The same thing applies to cluster munitions. In case members opposite did not know the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee has just passed a cluster munitions treaty that those members opposite supported. The treaty prohibits investment by Crown financial institutions. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but her time has expired. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 In talking to the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill I say that Mr Grant Robertson is written up quite well as a future leader. He is a nice man and he may well win an election one day sometime in the future but he has let himself down here. 
I pick up from the previous speaker’s points. Perhaps this bill is aimed at distancing Dr Cullen from Labour as it is now or from the superannuation fund that the previous Labour Government set up and the directives for responsible and ethical investment that it put in place because it is a bit of an insult to those institutions that are already practising and have written and adhered to all sorts of various directions in ethical and responsible investment policies. In fact the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is very proud of its ongoing work and the way it measures its investments and makes sure its investments are looked after. 
Sue Moroney 
: Introduced by Labour. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: Well Labour National whomever—the point is whether the legislation is necessary to replicate something that is already being done. The explanatory note of the bill lists the Government’s five major financial institutions. There is about $45 billion to $50 billion in them. 
I note a ministerial direction from the Hon Dr Cullen to the Earthquake Commission in 2001—and this is online; I would not try and table it. I am picking up on reputation issues as the previous speaker mentioned. Paragraph 4 of that ministerial direction states that the commission must avoid: “prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community.” The direction refers to best portfolio management and all the financial things but then point No. 4 in paragraph 7 talks about: “ethical investment for avoiding prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community;”. 
So is it working now or is it not? If those members want to talk about this bill being on the books for a while it implies the failure of organisations already. In an Accident Compensation Corporation document I have here I see a whole series on ethical investment. It talks about activities repugnant to the laws of New Zealand and about guiding principles of the— 
Grant Robertson 
: Support the bill then. 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I am not criticising the fact that it is already there; I am pointing out that it is there so the need for this bill is redundant. 
I see that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund is in the Responsible Investment Association Australasia; it is a founding member. The United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment the United Nations Global Compact and the Carbon Disclosure Project are mentioned on page 1. I have here a section on responsible investment from the group that looks after $16 billion-odd of our superannuation. The document goes on to define responsible investment. Further on it talks about responsible investment policy meetings obligations and responsible policies for responsible investment. There is a diagram showing that the fund must engage with those the fund invests in and with to make sure it adheres to responsible and ethical investment and low and behold here is the New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s responsible investment practice. There are about 15 pages on responsible investment right here in this document which is bigger than this entire bill’s 4 or 5 pages. 
This bill is a typical leftie bill. It sounds good and it sounds nice and it will get a bit of public relations coverage for sure but in a practical sense it is already being done. Some of it is work in progress but the five financial institutions that look after the Crown’s financial assets are adhering to responsible ethical progress and management. If it is already working why would a member want his first bill to be pulled out of the ballot to replicate what is already being done? Perhaps it is all about job creation in the Public Service but if we do that and follow this bill through then we would have to lay off people in these other four or five institutions in order to follow through on the ethical progress. Perhaps the member would like to close the loop for us. 
As I said this bill is quite typical of the left. It sounds nice and it is very cushy and fuzzy and comfy but at the end of the day this would cost New Zealand taxpayers. The costs would go up as we would have to take out something the previous Government had already put in place and replace it with this bill. I say to Mr Robertson that it is a nice try but he could do better next time. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next speaker I remind members that when we are debating a bill on a members’ day and there are 5-minute speeches the bell goes at 4 minutes with 1 minute to go. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill. The Green Party will be voting for this bill because the Green Party is a strong supporter of ethical and responsible investment. I think it is important to begin by talking about the rationale behind a bill like this. Fundamentally there are two basic ideas. The first is the objective to make capital cheaper and more available to businesses that are acting responsibly. So for businesses that are not destroying the planet and hopefully are trying to make it a better place we want to make capital cheaper and more available in order to make it easier for them to expand and prosper. For businesses that are acting irresponsibly and destroying the planet we want to make capital more expensive and less available to them. 
There are numerous other ways that we can influence the behaviour of businesses but one way to do it is through the availability of capital—the cost and easy accessibility of capital. A number of large sovereign funds around the world have adopted responsible investment criteria in order to achieve that. 
The second major purpose of ethical investment is about us living in a way that we think is ethical and investing our savings—whether those are collective savings through the tax system such as the Cullen fund or our own superannuation funds—in a way that is ethical and making a living off them in a way that is ethical. Ethical investment is a system-transforming objective to move our economy in a much more sustainable and humane direction and its objectives relate to what is appropriate ethical behaviour. The bill before us tonight will make a small difference towards that and for that reason we support it. 
The Greens have been strong critics of Labour in the past over its approach to responsible investment so we are very pleased to see this bill. When the Cullen fund was introduced in 2001 my predecessor Rod Donald attempted at great length to put responsible investment clauses into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund legislation in order to make the Cullen fund operate in a responsible way. Unfortunately we were not able to do that and all we got was a clause stating that the Cullen fund was to avoid prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community. That resulted in the fund investing in whale meat in cluster bombs—in fact the Cullen fund quite liked cluster bombs; it was very much into them—and in companies deeply involved in human rights violations labour rights violations severe environmental damage and nuclear weapons systems. The Cullen fund had some very modest direction on responsible investment but its direction was so weak that it proceeded to invest in all sorts of things that most of us would find reprehensible—although obviously not all of us in the House. The problem with the original Cullen fund legislation was that although we tried to put in a responsible investment clause we were blocked at that stage. In spite of Rod Donald’s best efforts to put a responsible investment clause into the legislation the fund went off and started investing in all sorts of things. 
The fund is still invested in all sorts of reprehensible things even today in spite of the Green Party campaigning outside of the legislative framework to stop the fund investing in numerous things. We managed to stop the fund investing in whale meat tobacco and cluster bombs which is a great thing but it is still invested in for example BAE Systems and United Technologies Corporation which make nuclear weapons delivery systems. The fund is still invested in Halliburton which of course is a profiteer from the Iraq war. It is still invested in Rio Tinto and Freeport-McMoRan which are causing massive environmental damage and it is still invested in Wal-Mart which has very poor working conditions and is renowned for its union busting. Those companies with the exception of Halliburton have been ruled out by the Norway Pension Fund. The Norway Pension Fund is the second-biggest sovereign fund in the world. All the oil profits that go into that fund are invested in a way that is ethical. It has ethical criteria which means that it has pulled out of investing in lots of firms that our Superannuation Fund is invested in. 
For those reasons we support this bill as it makes modest progress towards cleaning up the sovereign funds so that they behave in a way and invest in companies in a way that is helpful to our future rather than detrimental. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
:  
Tena tatou katoa. It is amazing that what goes around comes around and in this case that some seriously dodgy investments made by Crown financial institutions under the Labour Government and rigorously defended by it when challenged are now coming under fire from—surprise surprise—Labour now that it is in Opposition. Only a few years back the Labour Government provoked a frenzy of condemnation from the press gallery and political pundits alike when it was revealed that the Superannuation Fund was linked to companies that invested in cluster munitions and nuclear weapons production. The Superannuation Fund is just one of this Government’s five Crown financial institutions all of which have that nice ring of being sound conservative socially responsible investment options—but apparently that is not so. The Superannuation Fund was mentioned earlier by David Bennett as being run by a Crown entity called the Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation which has had investments in whaling anti-personnel landmines the tobacco industry and cluster munitions for God’s sake. To its credit though that entity has dumped its tobacco stocks based on the set of international guidelines on environmental social and governance issues. Indeed the Maori Party agrees wholeheartedly with the proposal of this Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill which is that all five Crown financial institutions sign up to a commitment on ethical investment based on socially responsible and environmentally sustainable development. 
The guardians’ decision to dump its tobacco investment explains perfectly why we support this bill so strongly. Everyone knows that the Maori Party has been a key driver behind setting up the Maori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry. Tobacco is directly responsible for the deaths of about 5000 New Zealanders every year more than 600 of whom are Maori. It is responsible for billions upon billions of dollars of indirect cost to this country every single year through health costs and the loss of productivity. 
A few weeks back thanks to the support of Action on Smoking and Health we had the honour of having Dr Jeffrey Wigand come before our inquiry. Dr Wigand as people will know was played by our Academy Award winner Russell Crowe in a memorable movie called  
The Insider 
 a story about Dr Wigand’s time of working within the tobacco industry and becoming a key witness against that industry in multibillion-dollar court cases all across the United States of America. Dr Wigand told us heaps of stuff including the facts that the tobacco industry had solid data on which to base its cigarette sales to different ethnic groups that its lawyers rewrote tobacco company reports to make cigarettes look safe that flavouring was added to make cigarettes taste nice that chemicals were added to make the nicotine addiction work faster and that tobacco companies specifically targeted young people to replace the older consumers who had died off from tobacco diseases. That is what I mean when I say that the tobacco industry is an example of the kinds of unethical investment we are all well rid of. 
Mark Peck a former Labour MP who was never able to get any real action on stopping tobacco has gone on to become the director of the Smokefree Coalition. He said something that I really agree with: “There is nothing good about the tobacco industry. It has lied about the harm its product causes to smokers lied about the addictiveness of tobacco products and lied about the harm caused by second-hand smoke. Because of these lies millions of people have died.” 
The Maori Party welcomes this new resolve from Labour to set some benchmarks in making it morally untenable for taxpayer funds to be invested in projects that are neither socially responsible nor environmentally sustainable. We are happy to support this bill. Kia ora. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I stand in support of my colleague Grant Robertson’s bill the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill for three reasons. The first reason is that New Zealanders need to be assured that the Crown on our behalf is putting our money in investments that meet our clear test of what we believe is right. The second reason is that New Zealand markets itself globally as a clean green 100 percent pure country. If we are to be true to this branding then we need to be sure that we walk the walk in every sphere of what we do on the global stage. Ethical investment is a large part of this branding. The third reason why this is important is that there is no legislative framework in place to ensure that the agents acting on our behalf actually follow the guidelines and principles expected by all New Zealanders. 
Firstly again the Crown through five existing Crown financial institutions invests huge sums of New Zealanders’ money gathered through taxation and many forms of investment right across the globe. I suspect that many Kiwis would be most displeased if they were to find out that agents acting on our behalf were investing in industries and organisations that go against everything that we as proud New Zealanders stand for. Secondly we market our wonderful country as clean green and 100 percent pure. We declared ourselves nuclear-free before it was trendy to do so. We stood up to the world’s biggest superpower and said no. It was a principled stance based on what we believed was right for the people of New Zealand. We fail ourselves if we do not continue to act in such a noble and practical manner. Therefore we need to be able to walk the walk when it comes to our actions as a global investor. We will not be able to articulate a vision on the international stage when we ourselves are seen to be investing in industries that forge the tools of war and death are involved in activities that directly cause environmental degradation and engage in activities of human abuse. Therefore this legislation is important in mitigating this global risk to our country’s brand. 
The third reason I support this bill is that there is no legislation in place to ensure that agents acting on our behalf behave in an ethical way. Most of our Crown financial institutes have already made commitments to ethical investment through recognition of the United Nations Global Compact which stipulates 10 ethical human rights labour environment and anti-corruption principles for businesses to abide by. The Accident Compensation Corporation the Superannuation Fund and the Earthquake Commission are all signatories to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment which give guidelines for investment that is socially and environmentally responsible. In fact section 58(2)(c) of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 the New Zealand Superannuation Fund’s governing legislation requires the fund to manage its investment “avoiding prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community.” This bill will introduce the framework needed to actually implement these commitments fully. Without this legislation they are little more than empty lines on a page. 
In conclusion there are three reasons why I urge this House to support the bill. First New Zealanders need to be assured that the Crown on our behalf is putting our money in investments that meet our clear test of what we as New Zealanders believe is right. Second New Zealand markets itself globally as clean green “100% Pure New Zealand”. If we are to be true to this branding then we need to be sure that we walk the walk. Ethical investment is a large part of this branding. The third reason this bill is important is that at the moment no legislative framework is in place to ensure that agents acting on our behalf actually follow the guidelines expected by all New Zealanders. This is great legislation and I commend it to the House. Thank you. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 It would be great to sit here and hear the previous speaker Stuart Nash talk about the issues around ethical and social investment if he did not take so seriously the fire engine he drives around Napier every week as I understand it. I will talk a little bit about why the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill is not necessary. Capital markets theory talks about the importance of diversification and the importance of investing in very broad and wide-ranging things. I commend the member Mr Robertson for actually coming up with some of these ideas. I think he has thought about an angle that he thought might make some sense. 
Unfortunately there are a whole lot of issues in this bill some of which are currently taken into account. Some flaws in this bill would actually cause some problems. I will talk about that but first I want to talk about some of the issues around why this bill is not needed. You see a former Labour Party Deputy Prime Minister the previous Minister of Finance Mr Cullen— 
Stuart Nash 
: Dr Cullen. 
AARON GILMORE 
: Dr Cullen. He was concerned about the nature of investment of our Crown financial institutions so he would turn round and put forward certain directives to some of them for various reasons. For example he put a directive to the Earthquake Commission about how it should invest its natural disaster fund with best practice portfolio management maximising return without undue risk and avoiding undue damage to the reputation of New Zealand as a responsible member of the world community. That basically means exactly what this bill is designed to do. A directive is already in place for the Earthquake Commission to do what this bill essentially says. It is a waste of our time. 
Equally there is a particular problem with some of the definitions in the bill. What is “ethical investment”? What is “socially responsible”? What is “environmentally sustainable”? There are a lot of issues around those definitions. What might have been completely appropriate 12 months ago might not be today. For example BP whose branding is “Beyond Petroleum” might have been seen as a great place to invest a year ago whereas today it is a social pariah. That has led to a massive drop in its share price. 
One of the other issues is that we have seen the Accident Compensation Corporation which has one of the most active management portfolios that exists with the Crown put in place some very tight rules about where it should and should not invest its money. For example it has recently in the last year or two got out of a number of investments that it considered to be inappropriate. It exited from investing in a company called Lockheed Martin because it was involved in nuclear explosive devices and it was deemed inappropriate for a Crown operation in New Zealand to have investments in a business like that. But there is a very fine line between what is Lockheed Martin and what is say Boeing. Over half of Boeing’s investment for example is taken into account by the defence sector. Is that appropriate or not? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: No. 
AARON GILMORE 
: Exactly. Mr Norman would say that it is not appropriate; other Governments and other members would say that it is appropriate. A whole lot of problems and issues exist in some of the definitions in this bill; what they may or may not mean has not been thought through. I actually think that that is a sensible thing to think about. Maybe the member should think more about some of the details and work with the directors to get this put in place. 
The bill puts in place some ideas about some of those definitions about international conventions and things like that. Again I commend the member for that but at what stage would this actually happen? For example would we invest in oil companies and extractive industries? In New Zealand those industries have seen some of the fastest-growing returns to New Zealand. A company that I am on record as being a shareholder in has increased about 400 percent in the last 5 years. The belief that that rules out certain types of investment is problematic for our good hard-working Kiwi mums and dads who are worried about their investments in Crown enterprises. They would actually lose 1 or 2 percent of their returns if this bill got tightened to an extent where those definitions were far too tight. 
I like some of the issues that Mr Norman pointed out about the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. I think it is a good fund and has some merit but its money came from what some would call socially irresponsible investment. It got its money from mining—in particular oilfields. In this day and age that is seen as not necessarily a good place to have one’s money. So if we rule out those sorts of things we would be in a position where we would make New Zealand poorer—for whatever reasons. I think it is great that the member has had this bill pulled out of the ballot; I have not had the great luck to have that happen yet. I commend the member for actually having some of these ideas come through. 
Grant Robertson 
: Do you have a bill in the ballot? 
AARON GILMORE 
: My bill has been in the ballot for nearly 2 years I say to Mr Robertson but we will not talk about that. I believe that this bill is superfluous. It takes into account a situation that we are talking into account anyway. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in support of the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill. In so doing I commend its proponent Grant Robertson for this excellent initiative. Billions of dollars are invested in the Crown’s financial institutions. They are an important part of the Government’s asset book and they are determinants of corporate behaviour in many sectors of our financial markets. It is absolutely appropriate and indeed necessary from a fiduciary duty point of view that the boards of those Crown financial institutions such as Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation have clarity and legislative protection of their mandate. 
Let us put the counterfactual if one did not do that. I ask members to take National’s argument at face value—if they can bear it—which is that the market will provide. That argument is straight out of 1950s ideology. It is actually asking people who have fiduciary responsibilities to shareholders to break their duties in order to suboptimise their return on investment to informally satisfy potentially some ethical or sustainability criteria. I will say that again. National argues that if one invests in a green share and it is earning less than an oil company or an armaments manufacturer then that is OK because the market will provide. 
Mr Deputy Speaker you know I know they know and the public knows that that is arrant rubbish—arrant rubbish. Directors have a legal responsibility to their shareholders. The guardians of the Superannuation Fund have a legal responsibility to the Crown. We owe it to those directors and to taxpayers to make those obligations crystal clear in law. That is what this bill does. 
This bill goes only a small step beyond the existing requirement on the guardians of the Superannuation Fund which is that they exercise good corporate citizenship and do not to bring the Government of New Zealand into disrepute. But that requirement gives the guardians a hard job because it does not define what that means in practice. This bill assists them by bringing more clarity to the question. 
In advancing that argument I will briefly note the important and ongoing role of the Council for Socially Responsible Investment which has been a continuous and sensible proponent of progress in this area. I also acknowledge Sustainable Aotearoa New Zealand the Sustainable Business Network the Business Council for Sustainable Development and a whole range of other entities. There is also the 100 percent plan which the Government has turned a blind eye to. I acknowledge all of those groups that have been pushing in this direction. 
I particularly single out one individual Dr Robert Howell who has been a longstanding advocate on these matters. When I was a brand-new backbencher on the Government side he helped me with a member’s bill on triple bottom line reporting for Crown entities. My bill did not get as far as this bill has so I am really proud of the work that Grant Robertson is doing here. 
This bill is a sensible and legally necessary step forward—a legally necessary step forward—if we are to uphold New Zealand’s international brand image as an environmentally sustainable peaceful and just beacon of hope in a world that is getting worse and worse to live in with every passing year. But the point is that we cannot informally put an expectation on directors bound by fiduciary responsibilities; we need to give them clarity. We need to protect them from second-guessing and the Crown owes it to boards to pass this bill. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate on the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill. I particularly thank the Green and Maori Parties for their support for the bill. I recognise that my colleague Dr Norman was perhaps concerned about the lack of progress on this issue under the previous Labour Government. I think it is important to note that this bill was proposed and put into the ballot by Maryan Street during the last Parliament. It is an issue that Labour feels strongly about. I acknowledge that as a person who was not part of the previous Government I come in here with a fresh look at these matters. I think that it is extremely important that this bill has had the opportunity to be heard today. 
I also acknowledge the comments that Hone Harawira made about the role of the Maori Party on the issue of tobacco; I think that that has been an important leadership role. It highlights the fact that there is nothing in law today that would stop the Superannuation Fund going backwards on that decision. Nothing would actually stop it from doing that. That is why we need to move beyond minimums. 
It is sad for me that National members on the other side of the House see everything in the sense of minimums. Where is the ambition for New Zealand that we heard so much about? Where is the ambition to get out there on the front foot and say that a bill like this is good for New Zealand? It is good for our reputation internationally; it reinforces everything we try to say on the world stage about New Zealand. It does not just rely on minimums and on the fact that some good things have happened in terms of investment. This bill is trying to say that we can actually be proactive. We do not have to be defensive and we do not have to be passive about our commitment to sustainability and our commitment to human rights; we can actually be active on the world stage and promote what we believe in not only because we think it is good for the planet today but because we believe in making positive change on those matters. 
We can look to historical events like the decline of apartheid in South Africa and ask what role sanctions played in that. What was the role of the fact that people pulled investment out— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What was the role of the National Party in that? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Exactly. I say to Dr Norman that that is true. We can look to that and say that it was an opportunity for people all around the world to contribute to making social change happen. That possibility stands again if people are prepared to back this bill. 
National’s main argument against this bill is that the market will provide—the market will provide. Well that is simply not true because investment procedures could change overnight without the kind of legislative protection that is in this bill. It is a defensive negative position from National which simply follows along with the tyre-kicking style of the Government. Mr Joyce likes to influence us with the view that they will go along with where public opinion is; they are not too interested in showing any leadership. But I say that this is the opportunity to show leadership. 
The already established ethical investment principles—such as those of the UN which the Superannuation Fund follows—are good and useful and they set a benchmark. But it is interesting to note that companies that are particularly focused on ethical investment questions like HSBC have moved to develop their own guidelines about things like climate change specifically because they do not believe that the UN principles go far enough. That is what this bill is trying to do. Let us move away from a passive stance on ethics and sustainability to a more positive one. New Zealand could use that stance to our advantage globally rather than sitting back and saying that we will put into law a clause that says these investment funds simply must not do anything that is prejudicial to our reputation. Instead we should go out and try to enhance our reputation. 
In conclusion I thank all those organisations that have supported this bill and these issues; I am sure they will go on supporting them. I also mention Dr Robert Howell. I thank my intern Hannah Blumhardt who has done a significant amount of work in helping to develop Labour’s position in relation to both this issue and the speeches that have been given here today. 
New Zealand has an opportunity to be a leading global citizen to make real the statements we often make about punching above our weight and to ensure that our investment funds invest in companies that are ethical sustainable and positive for the planet. I urge National members to support this bill and take it to a select committee. The bill is not perfect but it takes us steps forward in New Zealand’s ethical investment and in our reputation on the world stage. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Ethical Investment (Crown Financial Institutions) Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 The purpose of this bill is to give boards of trustees much greater freedom in the way they manage school affairs. Currently schools are free to decide how they spend operational grants as the Ministry of Education acknowledges that they know the best uses for the money. But when it comes to teachers’ salaries schools have little say in that they cannot trade off between salaries and other forms of spending. This bill would implement a system similar to the one National introduced in the 1990s the fully funded option alternatively known as bulk funding. I will talk briefly about that experience. 
The Ministry of Education in the late 1990s undertook to determine how the schools that had opted for full funding had fared. The ministry found an overwhelming positive: 94 percent of respondent schools felt that they had been mostly advantaged by bulk funding and 80 percent confirmed that their school would prefer to continue with bulk funding. The ministry found also that the common claim that was then made—that bulk funding helped the wealthy schools but not the poor schools—was totally incorrect. After all the previous model of bulk funding was optional and 36 percent of bulk-funded schools came from the ones in low-decile areas in deciles 1 to 3. 
I ask why so many low-decile schools would opt in if the scheme in fact harmed them. What did the schools use the money for? Over 80 percent of bulk-funded schools used the money to hire extra teaching staff. This shows that schools used the increased flexibility in order to increase teacher quantity and quality. Why should schools be prohibited from doing that? 
As soon as this bill was drawn numerous attacks were made on it. Probably the worst came from the Labour Party. Trevor Mallard stated that the bill was unnecessary because schools could already increase salaries by moving around their management units. Well first if the Labour Party likes flexibility I ask what the problem is in extending it. Secondly management units are a terrible way of rewarding good teachers for performance. It is absurd that the only way to pay good teachers more is to put them into a managerial role and have them spend more time out of the classroom in order to receive higher wages. I ask why Labour would support a policy that sees the best teachers not teaching. 
How would this bill place us internationally? Well the Australian Labor Government has just announced a policy to give schools much greater control over their budgets. Prime Minister Julia Gillard has argued that it is unfair to create league tables of schools while tying their hands over improving their relative position by preventing them from managing their own staff. In other words this National Government is to the left of the Australian Labor Government. 
How would a principled National Party vote? Those members say that they support freedom of choice; that is what they say. I ask why schools should not have the choice to pay teachers more to reward good teachers and to hire more staff rather than build a new gym if that is their choice. Of course schools should have that choice. National members say that they support having rewards for achievement. Well I ask why quality teachers should not be paid more than sub-par teachers. Why should we not try to attract some of the best and brightest into the teaching profession? 
Of course there is no chance that National members will vote for this bill. After all National members have spent the past 2 years in Government desperately trying to prove that they stand for nothing and that they just want to be popular; they just want to be popular. They will happily sacrifice good policy at the altar of the Prime Minister’s popularity. They will happily vote down a bill that was once their policy. They will happily pretend that they do not believe in this bill because they want to govern for governing’s sake. They simply do not care about the quality of the policies. They do not care about the children. They care only about the possibility that they might lose a vote or two. Children do not vote; teachers do. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Oh it’s not like that. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Yes it is I say to my friend. It is like that. Children spend around 15000 hours of their lives in the classroom. What they get out of it matters for the rest of their lives and it impacts on how well New Zealand fares. Good teachers are the most important factor in whether children benefit from school. Teachers determine whether children get a quality education not the curriculum not the class size not funding and not computers or the Internet. Those are all secondary to having quality teachers. This bill is all about allowing schools to employ and retain quality teachers. During the work of the working party on school choice one thing became clear and that was the desire of head teachers to have more control over staffing issues. This included training. From decile 1 to decile 10 head teachers wanted to be able to train their own teachers. They wanted more pay flexibility. This bill would allow that to happen. 
The centralisation of policy that has occurred in education over the last 40 or 50 years was aimed in part at driving out poor teachers through Government fiat. It has failed miserably. Decisions on how and what to teach and on the deployment of resources were taken away from head teachers in schools and are now made in Wellington with disastrous results. The fact is that 30 percent of children leave school with inadequate outcomes in mathematics reading and writing skills. Any other business in New Zealand that failed 30 percent of its clients just simply would not survive. The fact is that the rules and regulation that are basic to centralisation disempower teachers. The result is that they drive out good teachers and they protect poor ones. 
New Zealand has ended up with an education system that simply cannot work and in an overall sense it fails between 25 percent and 40 percent of all students. The system is propped up by many good schools which continue to exist despite the system rather than because of it. We have in New Zealand a centralised system of planning and direction Soviet Union - style. It is a system that systematically shuts out the power of incentives and choice to raise standards. My bill helps but it does not solve the problem. The Ministry of Education which created and runs this education monopoly is also a monopoly provider of advice to Ministers on policy and on how the system might change. The result is that we have a closed system that locks in declining performance. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill and I say from the outset that National will oppose this bill. We heard from the previous speaker Sir Roger Douglas and I quote him that “My bill helps but it does not solve the problem.” and that in fact is exactly why National will not be supporting this bill. 
The purpose of this bill is to allow boards of trustees to have control over the employment of the teachers at their schools. It would see schools paying teachers’ salaries out of operations grants and allow boards to negotiate employment contracts with teachers. Now is not the time for us to be considering this. The National Government has a plan for the education of the 20 percent—although Sir Roger said it was 25 percent—of students who are failing to make the grade when they need to enter the workforce but the plan in this bill is not our plan. That is not what we want for education. 
I can speak with some authority on bulk funding having been the board chair of a large school that was bulk funded. I have been through the discussions with school principals and with boards of trustees and parents over bulk funding. It is quite a contentious issue. It is a battleground actually I say to Sir Roger; the member knows that it is. The bulk-funding battleground is not the battleground to be on at the moment. Having said that though boards of trustees could negotiate the employment of teachers on any terms and conditions of employment as they see fit. That clause would allow schools to offer different terms and conditions to different teachers with the effect that teachers could be paid based on performance. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JO GOODHEW 
: This bill is a return to bulk funding and it opens up performance pay for teachers. The National Government has said it will not support these measures and therefore it will not support this bill. Prior to the 2008 election the National Party campaigned on education being one of the top five most important parts of National’s policy planks but its plan for education was not this one and the National Government is delivering right now on its priorities for education. However National members will not be drawn into Sir Roger Douglas’ descriptions of us; we will say simply that we know in which direction we are heading and this is not it. 
The Government has announced a major new approach in education to focus on lifting student achievement. It is innovative and exciting for education in New Zealand. At least 50 expert practitioners will now be appointed to work closely with schools to lift student achievement and the response to that has been very very positive. Professional development for teachers and principals will be focused on how to lift students’ educational performance. This National Government is investing $36 million to help children who need extra support in reading writing and maths. This follows the identification of students needing help which was made through the national standards. The Government is continuing to help schools roll out national standards to make sure that parents receive clear plain-language reports so they know how their child is progressing against the standards. Parents said they wanted better reporting and that is exactly what national standards provides. 
As I go around the schools in my electorate of Rangitata and talk with the principals I am really heartened by the progress they are making. It has not been an easy time for them; they have told me that. I have fed their views to the Minister of Education and I have also been able to in effect answer some of their questions. I have also been able to celebrate with principals the feedback they are receiving from parents about how they are enjoying these plain-language reports provided against the national standards. We encourage parents to get in touch with their schools to discuss their child’s report so that they can see what it means for their child and to give feedback to the schools as this year is of course just an embedding year for national standards. 
Hon Member 
: They do anyway. 
JO GOODHEW 
: I just heard a plaintive little voice from across the other side of the House saying: “They do anyway.” Clearly they do not. Most of the schools I know are doing a fantastic job but when 20 percent of the children going through our schools are not achieving by the time they get to National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 then clearly there is room to do better and National aspires as a party and as a Government to do much better than we have been doing. 
We want to give children the best possible start in life. We want to give them the skills and opportunities they need to succeed. That is not too much to ask. We recognise that quality teaching is the key to achieving better educational outcomes and we are committed to supporting our schools and teachers. National has delivered more for education in Budget 2010 than ever before: $12 billion. It is a bitter pill for Labour to swallow—$12 billion for 2010-11 is the most ever. Therefore I conclude my speech by saying that we have a plan for the education of our students. We are working on that plan and this bill is not part of that plan. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I say that if national standards is the plan if measuring is the plan then it is pretty sad. There were some classic lines in that speech by Jo Goodhew which we will share at some stage but I unlike that member will focus on the bill that is before the House. The Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill is a member’s bill. 
The first question I ask is what happened to the leading education expert on the far side of the House Allan Peachey. I have been sitting here waiting and listening for Allan Peachey’s speech. Allan Peachey I think it is fair to say is a person of incredible integrity with a wonderful understanding of how bulk funding works and he is probably the person who rorted it more than anyone else in the country. He got the biggest amount of bulk funding because he was the principal of the biggest school in the country. He made enough on it to purchase a corporate box at North Harbour Stadium for his school—he is someone who knows how it works. Instead we had someone who gave a speech of which at least 80 percent was about standards which are not part of this bill at all. 
This bill is about bulk funding something that the National Party believes in. It is about competition between schools something that the National Party says it believes in. It is about performance pay something that we know all of the National Party agrees with as far as teachers are concerned. It is about giving power to boards of trustees that they do not currently have to negotiate salaries—something that the National Party believes in. With all these things that are part of the core raison d’être of the National Party part of its core beliefs why is it that not one of the National members is prepared to stand up for their principles? Why is it that not one National member is prepared to stand up and support the bill? 
I will be interested in the speech from the co-leader of the Maori Party because this bill fits very nicely with a number of things I have heard her say in the past. It fits well with Whanau Ora for example. It would allow the money to follow the students in a way that she prefers and has supported for quite a long period of time so I am interested in her point of view and the direction she will take on this bill. 
In fact I think I am just about prepared to suspend my judgment on our vote on this legislation until we have heard from the Maori Party. I ask my colleagues not to be too firm as to the way we vote because it may be that there could be even more embarrassment for National members if they were the only members to vote against this bill. Maybe we could get it to the Education and Science Committee. Then we could have discussions about National’s principles and plans for months and months and months on the basis of the bill. We could have submissions from all around the country. We could have Mr Peachey chairing the select committee on bulk funding and then we would have the view of National. So it is fair to say that it could well depend on the Maori Party. We look to see whether Ms Turia’s vote will follow her views as they have been expressed. 
Of course Labour does not think this bill is a fair approach we do not think it is a good approach but I do not want to totally rule out yet the possibility of letting the community have this discussion. It could be a good discussion for the community to have: to go over the issues around bulk funding and to look at some of the longer-term plans of National. 
At the select committee we have a couple of bits of legislation in front of us now but I think this would be a good debate to have so that we could get the clear views of the community. We could get an understanding around New Zealand about the issues of performance pay bulk funding and the role of boards of trustees. We could have that debate as I say which would be very well led by Allan Peachey. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 It is good to be able to speak on any education bill in the House but unfortunately the Government will not be supporting the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill which is the member’s bill of Sir Roger Douglas. I will address some of the previous comments. There have not been many times in my lifetime—actually it is a first today—when a member of the Green Party has referred to the National side of the House as being communist which I took quite personally and found quite staggering. ACT on the other hand is saying that this National Government is to the left of the Australian Labor Party. Again I found that to be a staggering comment. I will say that I enjoy my time on the Education and Science Committee with the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. I enjoy his debate and the things that he brings to the committee. On this particular one though National priorities are not the same as ACT priorities. Some parts of the bill could possibly have some merit at some point in time but we want to focus on different priorities in education—ones that are clearly around lifting achievement. 
The proposal of this bill is to allow boards of trustees to have the responsibility for teachers’ pay. In effect that is really about the return to bulk funding. I ask whether there is a real problem. If I look to my own constituents not one single person has raised bulk funding as an issue. If it was an issue I am sure that it would have been raised on more than one occasion because I quite proudly go around my electorate saying that education is my top priority. I am sorry to say to Sir Roger that not one person has said that bulk funding is top of their list in terms of making changes in education. 
Let us talk about boards of trustees. I have met with many boards of trustees over the last 20 months and I will tell the House what they talk about. They talk about achievement. Some of them talk about teacher training and how to make good teachers great and great teachers excellent. They talk about infrastructure the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband the New Zealand curriculum and well-rounded students. They do not talk about a return to bulk funding. So I take my steer from what my constituents tell me and bulk funding is not one of them. 
Obviously National wants to give children the best start in life and give them the opportunities they need to survive. 
Sue Moroney 
: You’ve cut the funding for early childhood education. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: The list member Ms Moroney talks about early childhood education. Clearly this is a Government committed to making more early childhood education available to more young people through an increase in the Budget. This Government has committed $12 billion into education which is more than ever before. We are supporting our schools and supporting our teachers. We want to say that bulk funding is not something that this Government is focused on. It is not a priority. I can understand that that member might like to bring it to this House but we will not go there. 
I will talk about one reason why the Government is not focused on bulk funding. Recently I have been in discussions with a State Representative Christine Scanlan of the Colorado House of Representatives who has just put through Senate Bill 191 which has brought in performance pay for teachers. No she was not a Republican; she was and is a Democrat. She introduced performance pay for teachers and—goodness—what a battle she fought. That is not a battle we are focused on. 
We are focused on lifting achievement which is why we are focused on getting more participation in early childhood education more students and getting plain English reporting to parents. If I think about my own child’s recent school report and my interview with his teacher I know that I have great information with which to partner my son and his teacher in improving his education. That is what parents want. Teachers want to do well in their schools principals want to get on with school leadership and not one board of trustees that I have talked to lately wants anything to do with bulk funding. Thank you. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. The origins of the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill arise from the revolution that took place in Aotearoa in 1989 under Tomorrow’s Schools. When the Education Act 1989 swept into place the responsibilities of governance and management of schools shifted from the Government to individual schools. Each school was to be governed by an elected board of trustees which would be responsible not just for the management of the school but also for the legal compliance with national education guidelines. This responsibility brought with it the power to employ teachers to hold the principal accountable for performance issues and to manage finances school property and the implementation of the curriculum. This bill essentially extends those 1989 powers to the fullest degree enabling boards of trustees to manage their own affairs by having full control over the employment of teachers at their schools. 
Teacher salaries are currently paid out directly by the Crown. This bill will remove that obligation from the Crown and place it in the hands of boards of trustees via the grants process. It is a radical move. In a technical sense it is the creation of a new section 91 which states that all teacher salaries must be paid out by the board of trustees from grants paid to it under section 79 of the Education Act. 
More than that it is about consolidating the autonomy and the self-determined direction of local schools. It is about establishing their total and absolute control. Associated with that of course is the potential for discrimination or questionable practice by the boards in hiring teachers given their newly acquired authority under this bill. Although we are keen to learn how the unfettered power and authority of boards of trustees would be monitored and scrutinised we cannot overlook the significant call from many kura for autonomy for self-management and for self-determining schools. 
I think it is worthwhile to mention that the same legislation that brought in Tomorrow’s Schools in 1989 also brought in the provision for communities to begin new schools—the kura kaupapa Maori movement. Kura kaupapa as we all know now is a means by which te reo Maori is the principal language of instruction and the history values beliefs and practices of mana w’enua are honoured and protected. Kura kaupapa are in many ways the ultimate expression of matuaranga Maori motuhake—the full autonomy and status for Maori knowledge and values. The distinguished Professor Graham Hingangaroa Smith spells it out in more detail saying that the three key themes of kaupapa Maori are validity and legitimacy of Maori the survival and revival of Maori language and culture and Maori autonomy over their cultural well-being in their own lives. 
It is this last principle that has really influenced us in considering this bill. It is about the relationship between autonomy and mana motuhake self-determination and independence. We consider the questions as to how kura can demonstrate meaningful control over one’s own life and cultural well-being. When the Maori Party came across this bill we saw in it the possibility to respond to the call from kura to support the ability of Maori to make their own decisions as an example of Maori educational independence. If there is one thing the Maori Party is really keen to support it is providing a mechanism by which we can attract w’anau hapu and iwi to engage with Parliament in creating a vision for Maori educational independence prosperity and success. 
In line with our usual practice at first reading and in the hope that Maori will be able to contribute at the select committee we will support this bill at the first reading. This bill will allow the korero to be had. Kia ora. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak to the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill put forward in the name of the Hon Sir Roger Douglas. I congratulate Sir Roger. I think I want to take him with me to the races sometime soon because he seems to have very good luck in getting his bills drawn out of the ballot. I may wish to borrow that luck not only for going to the races but also for the ballot draw myself. I have a bill in the ballot that I would rather like to see pulled out so I look forward to learning the secret to his success. 
As for the purpose of this bill the words “board of trustee freedom” have been used in the bill’s name—and have we not heard “freedom” used as code for a whole range of things—and in this instance it is code for bulk funding. The words “board of trustee freedom” are code for bulk funding and we have been there before. Sometimes this place is like being in a bit of a time warp. Sir Roger Douglas is doing the time warp of bulk funding yet again. He is revisiting a failed experiment from the 1990s and it was a failed experiment. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Ardern is noting that I have not said how Labour is voting on this bill and he is quite right. I have not stated Labour’s position at all. I think everyone in the House must acknowledge that bulk funding was a failed experiment in the 1990s although clearly the Maori Party has a different view. I am not sure where they were during the 1990s when we saw how that all unravelled. Certainly it would create unhelpful competition between schools for teachers and would result in winner and loser schools. But that is not unusual in the current environment. 
The approach that the current Government is taking to early childhood education creates winner and loser early childhood education facilities. This bill is not out of keeping with what currently happens. When Jo Goodhew spoke I note she warned Sir Roger Douglas that this was not the time to discuss this bill. When talking about code for things we know that “this is not the time for this bill” is code for “not in this term”. The Government is not brave enough to do it in this term but if the public should give National a second term it will be into it boots and all. That is what it is code for. “Not at this time” said Jo Goodhew while looking directly at Sir Roger Douglas—that is the signal the little wink and nudge to the ACT Party—“just not right now Sir Roger because we have this stuff going on with national standards.” The whole school sector is up in arms. This is not the right time. 
The Government is fighting on all fronts in education. It has cut funding to early childhood education and is that not striking a chord in the community! Jo Goodhew and Louise Upston can undo their own credibility as many times as they like by getting up and saying they want to give children the best start possible as they did say in their speeches. But the fact remains that the Government has cut funding to early childhood education. Clearly this Government does not wish children to have the best start possible because it is taking qualified teachers out of the early childhood education sector. There is a lot of double-speak in this debate; a lot of double-speak. Certainly much of the double-speak has been coming from the Government benches. Government members are running a mile from having the bulk-funding debate all over again. They are running so far from it that the chair of the Education and Science Committee Allan Peachey is not able to take a call in this debate. I think that is a great shame. Government members are running a mile from this debate because they know how much it compromises them. It will be very interesting to see a select committee chaired by Mr Peachey taking submissions on this bill. At the end of tonight’s debate that could very well be a reality. Thank you. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. Before beginning I must acknowledge my colleague Catherine Delahunty who might otherwise have delivered this speech and whose thoughts have gone into the preparation of it. 
The purpose of the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill clearly is to enable boards of trustees to manage their own affairs by having full control over the employment of teachers in their schools. This is highly reminiscent of the 19th century. It would undo consistency and equity and it would create chaos in our education system. It somewhat reflects and causes some recollection of a children’s series called  
Little House on the Prairie 
 where schools were totally controlled by the fathers on the school board the pay and conditions were set by those boards and all people lived happily ever after in their small communities. However we know of course that that is not how it works. 
The reason the education system has developed with the Crown negotiating with the profession and setting a standardised equitable and incremental wage structure based on qualifications and professional progress is that it is better for the communities it is better for the children and it is better for the teachers. A fair society is better for everyone and we need to protect the values of equity in the face of such unthinking and blind commitment to the free-market model. It raises the question of why we are wasting time on this bill. It is probably because these old ideas have a deep emotional appeal to a narrow group of ideologues who believe that we are only individuals rather than individuals within communities and individuals enriched by our strong social and cooperative instincts. This approach does not include an understanding of collective equity or empathy. The logic of the Crown negotiating consistent pay rates for all teachers appears somewhat sophisticated to the designers of this bill. Why is it difficult to grasp that each school board of trustees would be placed in a highly invidious position if it were obliged to set the pay rates for the teachers at its school? 
One questions the genesis of this bill. A number of my colleagues stay in close touch with boards of trustees and teaching staff and with parents and students at schools. Nowhere are we hearing a call for a measure of this sort to be undertaken. Boards of trustees have their hands full dealing with complex finances not to mention being caught in the battle between the Minister of Education the principals and the teachers over national standards. The boards are not looking for the burden of setting pay rates which would exacerbate the difficulties they already have in trying to divide up the limited funds to maintain buildings and evaluating that need against the need to fund special-needs support or in balancing the purchase of classroom equipment with providing support staff in the classes. The very last thing the boards of trustees which are made up of parents and volunteers want or need is the additional stress of endeavouring to add teachers’ wages into the competition for tight resources. That would be a very poor recipe for good local school or community relationships. 
The world is made and not least of all in education and maintained through respectful relationships—our sense of what is fair. It is maintained not by individuals scrapping against each other but through structures that create at least some kind of balance and equity. Schools exist as communities within the education system and teachers and principals move between schools. It is not every school alone; it is a network of communities trying to cooperate despite the best efforts of the free-market model. They do not particularly want or need to waste energy in justifying a consistent and collegial approach so the Greens will simply refer to this bill as being retrogressive in the extreme. 
Twenty years ago the Lange Labour Government introduced Tomorrow’s Schools. The marketing of Tomorrow’s Schools was based around parental involvement and control of schools. Having 7 or 8 years’ personal experience on a board of trustees which spanned the time of the transition from Tomorrow’s Schools I know that some schools did very well out of the increased flexibility. The Greens also know that the least well off most vulnerable and poorest communities struggled because they did not have lawyers they did not have accountants they did not have a stable school community and therefore this new model did not meet their needs in the way that it ought to have done. 
The passing of this bill will take us a considerable step away from progressive community engagement at schools. It will be a step towards complete bedlam and mayhem and the Greens will have no part in it. Kia ora. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I was not intending to take a call on this bill but I cannot resist after hearing that typically hysterical contribution full of code words from Mr Clendon. He began by calling our colleague Sir Roger Douglas and ACT Party members by definition narrow ideologues. That must also apply to the Maori Party; their members are not normally described as narrow ideologues by the Greens but with the particular alignment of the planets today that seems to be it. We are very happy to be aligned with the Maori Party on this bill and that is for one very simple reason: both the ACT Party and the Maori Party are interested in the best results for our kids and the ability to send our kids to the schools that suit them best. It may be for somewhat different reasons but we have the same end. 
I am reminded of the complete lack of understanding of the supporters of that sorry lot over there. During the election campaign I attempted to explain the ACT Party’s education policy but perhaps as a learner candidate I did not do too good a job. I tried to say that at my old office which is situated on what used to be farmland but is now office space there are I think four private schools which have sprung up in the last 10 years. They have sprung up because there is a market there—because there are wealthy Asians who can send their kids to those schools. The minute I said that the typical supporters of the Labour Party howled about wealthy Asians saying: “We don’t want to be at schools like that.” They just did not get it. We were trying to say that everyone should be empowered to send their kids to schools where they think their education will be best served—Maori parents ACT parents and Green parents. 
That is what this bill is all about. It is attempting to allow people to have the choice to go to schools where the education will be best for their kids. I am one of those members in the House—and I do not know how many other members there are who have young children at school— 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh quite a number. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —OK there is another one—who is as happy as Larry with the performance of the local school. 
In fact my son started school just today. It would not make the slightest bit of difference whether or not we had a voucher system because with his sister he would be going to and would stay at Kaukapakapa School because it is a great school. My daughter is top of her class in English and at that school they are allowed to put up which students are doing better than others because they do not believe in everyone being the same. It works well but if it were not working well she would be down the road at Waitoki School. That is why we are supporting this bill. 
It is no surprise that the Maori Party is supporting the bill. We are behind those members and we agree with them. Even half of the Labour members do; I notice members opposite have gone very quiet. Mr Mallard had a very interesting and useful conversation with Sir Roger but unfortunately he could not break through to “Planet Green” over there so sadly the bill will go down. However we are very happy to stand with our colleagues on this side of the House and it will be very interesting to see when we are next described as narrow-minded ideologues who cannot see anything. Thank you very much. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 If I thought the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill would raise achievement then I would support it but it will not so I cannot. The bill amends the Education Act 1989. It gives wealthy boards of trustees control over the employment of teachers. It gives boards of trustees in Remuera Howick Epsom and the other leafy suburbs flexibility and choice. It also gives them licence to pillage and plunder the best teachers for their own schools while less fortunate schools struggle to recruit and retain excellent teachers which will get a whole lot more difficult. 
In this House we must be careful that when we advocate for the rights choices and freedoms for some we do not restrict the rights choices and freedoms of others as a result. We have to ensure that advocating for the rights choices and freedoms of some is not really an excuse to concentrate the skill talent and expertise in just those schools that can afford to pay for it. We have to be careful that the concentration of that skill talent and expertise does not simply exacerbate the inequalities in our system and country and entrench burdened and despondent communities across New Zealand. 
As it is many low-decile schools have to run deficit budgets to survive and provide for their students. I ask Sir Roger Douglas how he expects those schools to have the resources to compete with wealthy schools for the services of excellent teachers. The vision from the ACT Party should be for every child in every class in every school to have an excellent teacher because excellent teachers raise achievement. 
Bulk funding will not raise achievement. The vision should not be for excellent teachers simply to be concentrated in schools that are concentrated in wealthy communities. When every child in every class in every school has an excellent teacher in front of them the Government’s responsibility is then to provide the conditions where those excellent teachers can weave their magic. Bulk funding is not a condition that will enable excellent teachers to weave their magic. 
People who sing the praises of bulk funding in the 1990s always forget to mention the fact that those schools that opted into bulk funding received a hefty and attractive bonus for joining up and therefore their allegiance to the scheme was guaranteed by a bribe. They received substantially more funding than was necessary to pay all their staff at the top of the scale. This bill is evidence that parties on the other side of the House do not have a plan for education or raising achievement. 
Reporting achievement does not lift achievement; good teachers raise achievement. The parties opposite do not have a plan to reduce inequality and inequity in communities and they do not care that their ideological beliefs for education mean that schools that struggle because of the geographic isolation or socio-economic status of their communities will struggle to compete with more fortunate schools for the services of the best teachers in New Zealand. 
In the far north we struggled at times to get any applicants for some teaching positions. In order to attract the best teachers under bulk funding we would have had to divert tens of thousands of dollars away from the curriculum professional development and resources for the students in order to pay bonuses for teachers’ salaries. 
In Kaitaia the allowance for hard-to-staff schools is simply not enough to attract excellent teachers. At Kaitaia Intermediate School we would have needed tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses to attract teachers to move them away from the big centres. In fact I added it up and it would have come to over $200000 which is more than two-thirds of our operational grant. When I hear of some wealthy schools being able to raise $100000 in 1 day at a school gala I can understand why this bill would be attractive to them. They can afford to pay those bonuses. For those of us in struggling schools raising $2000 $3000 or $4000 in a fund-raiser would pay for little more than one-third or one-quarter of the bonus we would need to attract an excellent teacher. 
This bill will harm educational outcomes. It will reinforce educational and therefore social disparity. It will mean that struggling schools in struggling communities will be at a disadvantage compared with wealthy schools in wealthy communities. It will make it harder for every child in every class in every school to have an excellent teacher in front of them. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I agree with the previous speaker Kelvin Davis about some of the things he said. I think he is a smart man and a very good person. He understands education and he has been a very good teacher. But I also think the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill represents an idea whose time has not yet come. 
I will talk about a few things and one thing in particular. It was my son’s parent-teacher interview at school today and my partner managed to go along to see my son’s new teacher who is a first-year teacher just out of college. Lo and behold my son is doing quite well. He is exceeding the standards and I think that is great. He is a 7-year-old who is performing at the level of an 8 or 9-year-old but given his wonderful mother that does not surprise me. 
One of the issues is that we are dealing with many other things in terms of the education sector. I generally like voting for bills with the word “freedom” in the title. I believe freedom should reign. But this bill has some issues which have been pointed out by prior speakers. 
I will talk a bit about Colorado. Louise Upston and I and a number of Labour members were in Colorado about 3 weeks ago and we met with a senator there. She was introducing a bill to put in place a performance-based pay system that is very unpopular in that state. She pointed out some of the extreme problems that exist with implementing that policy in Colorado. If this policy from Sir Roger Douglas was ever to be adopted there is a lot we could learn from what those people are doing in America. I encourage Sir Roger Douglas to look at what is going on in Colorado and to learn about that. 
With regards to this bill I agree with Kelvin Davis. I grew up in an environment where I went to a low-decile school and I agree that there would be some potential issues in low-decile areas with this bill as it is currently drafted. I think the intent of Sir Roger Douglas is admirable. He means well with this bill but the reality is that there will be a lot of problems in some areas. We are not yet ready to take into account some of the measures that Sir Roger Douglas wants to adopt. That is not to say that I do not agree with some of the concepts behind what this bill could do. As I said there is a lot of work to be done down the track. I point out the value of learning from international experience particularly what Colorado is doing. 
I will explain what is being done in Colorado. Effectively the legislation will cut the bottom 5 percent of teachers and give their funding to the top 5 percent. The top 5 percent of teachers will be paid double the salary of an average-performing teacher. I am not saying that is the right way to go but that is what one state in America is doing. It is putting a trial in place to see how that system operates and it will be very interesting to see whether it works. 
We should learn from examples of what works and does not work in terms of what Sir Roger Douglas is trying to achieve. I do not want New Zealand to be a test case for a policy like this bill because there are some things that we are looking at. [ 
Interruption 
] I will tell that member opposite about national standards. The school that my son goes to and my daughter will start at in about a month’s time performs very well. 
Sue Moroney 
: Your son is a guinea pig. 
AARON GILMORE 
: The students are doing very well and the parents love the reports they are getting. Boys’ performance is one of the problems in New Zealand education because they are underperforming relative to girls. Boys at the lower level are not performing. 
I agree with Kelvin Davis that national standards in themselves will not lift achievement but they will identify those students who are not doing well and need some help. That is a very positive thing. In some cases we know who those students are; in other cases we do not. The implementation of national standards will allow us to identify not only the students who are doing well but also the teachers who are doing well. The systems currently in place reward teachers who are not doing well which is not necessarily the best way in the long run. I admire Sir Roger Douglas’ attempt to put in place a system that he thinks will deal with that problem. I do not think the bill will do what he wants it to do; there may be better ways to do that. There are other things that we are looking at in the education sector. The time will come when a policy like this will be in place. We can learn from overseas experience how to reward good teachers. We can learn from the experience of Colorado schools and other places around the world but this bill as it is drafted will not achieve what Sir Roger Douglas wants. It will not achieve what the Government wants either. That is a reason why National will vote against it. 
In time we will realise that schools not having the ability to choose the good or bad teachers in this current environment will put too many restrictions on a bill like this. I agree with Kelvin Davis. One of the issues is that some schools do not have the ability to choose good teachers over bad teachers. Until we get those things right until we have the right people becoming teachers this bill will not be effective. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I start by thanking the Maori Party for its support in relation to this bill. It is appreciated. The fact is that centralised management and funding of schools have put the Government in a wholly conflicted position not only as provider but also as purchaser and regulator. It has resulted whether or not we like it in schools with poor teacher motivation bored children and falling standards while education spending has increased dramatically. I think everybody in this House agrees that good teachers are the most important factor in whether children benefit from school. Teachers determine whether children get quality education; much more than the curriculum the class size funding computers or the Internet. These are all secondary to having quality teachers. 
One of the things that I learnt when I was doing the work as part of the working party on school choice was that it did not matter whether children went to a decile 1 school or a decile 10 school; the principals told us that more than anything else their desire was to train their own teachers. They wanted to train their own teachers because they felt that the quality of teachers who were coming out of the training school was not high enough and they wanted to have pay flexibility so they could reward and retain the quality teachers. 
There is evidence whether or not we like it of system failure in the education system. We have a system that is failing to teach the basics to children. We have a system that allows 20 percent of school-leavers to be functionally illiterate. We have a system that allows around 25 percent of school-leavers to be functionally innumerate. In South Auckland this year a decile 5 or 6 secondary school tested the maths of the 13-year-olds who were coming in. One of the sums was “subtract 27 from 36” and 23 percent of them—one child in four—got it wrong. 
If we claim that we have an education system that will set this country up for the future we are very wrong. It also fails the disadvantaged children. We have a school system that discriminates against the least well-off and particularly in the big cities. That does not need to be the case. 
There is a well-documented case of a school in Australia where 87 percent of the parents of the children attending the school were on a benefit. Those children were 20 percent behind the performance of the average Australian child. It was so bad that the Department of Education told the principal John Fleming to go and fix it. He could appoint whoever he wanted and what have you. Seven years later that school had an average recording of 20 percent above the average in Australia. So do not tell me these kids cannot learn. They can learn if we give them the right environment. They can learn if we give them the right motivation. That principal of the school where 87 percent of parents of the children attending were on a benefit turned round the children’s performance from being 20 percent below the average to being 20 percent above. It can be done. 
It is an absolute disgrace that we allow kids not to learn. I think the Maori Party and the leader of the Maori Party know that with some freedom concentration and motivation they can do it. I have seen it in Maori schools in New Zealand. A school out of Gisborne is doing a fantastic job with the right teachers and motivation. But we want to have one system and we will never have one system that fits all. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Board of Trustee Freedom) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 10 
ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 111 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I say to my parliamentary colleagues that I seek their support for people who are being exploited in the workplace due to the National Government’s Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008. 
I need to acknowledge many people. Let me start with Charles Chauvel and the important role he has played in drafting this bill. Malo ‘aupito my Tahitian brother Charles Chauvel. Secondly I acknowledge our Labour team who worked tirelessly in fighting for the rights of wage and salary earners. I particularly acknowledge our spokesperson on labour relations the Hon Trevor Mallard and our associate spokespersons on labour relations Darien Fenton and Carol Beaumont. Thirdly I acknowledge the ongoing work undertaken by all union members in their fight to protect the rights of workers and ensure that fairness is achieved and maintained in the workplace. 
My bill seeks to repeal the 90-day trial period that the National Government introduced for new workers and businesses that employ fewer than 20 people. My bill will restore the relevant provisions of the Employment Relations Act to the pre-2008 application. We were vehemently opposed to the 90-day fire-at-will bill because it was an attack on workers’ rights on fairness and on decency and it was an unnecessary move by the National Government. It has hindered rather than helped employment during the recession and we are of the strong belief that it must be repealed as soon as possible before more damage is done. 
With that in mind what has caused outrage from us on this side of the House and from numerous members of the public is the Government’s recent announcements one week after my bill was drawn from the ballot that it would be looking to extend the provisions of its Act to apply to all workplaces of all sizes. This will be negative for all wage and salary earners including those who change jobs. 
Every year 700000 Kiwis start a new job. That will be 700000 workers whose employers can sack them without a reason and without a right of redress. There are no two ways about it. The 90-day trial legislation should not be extended; it should be done away with entirely. The 90-day fire-at-will bill that the National Government introduced in 2008 can only be described in the following four ways: exploitation of marginalised New Zealanders; arrogance towards ordinary working Kiwis; a corporate favour from that Government to its business mates; and disregard for fairness and the fundamental rights of wage and salary earners. 
What needs to be highlighted is that prior to the Government’s 90-day fire-at-will bill trial periods were not unknown in employment contracts. Trial periods were about fair appraisals of a new employee’s capability to do the job. For employers they mitigated some of the risks of employing new people but the key element of those trial periods was fairness. Employees had a right to a fair appraisal. If they were dismissed they had a right to know why. They also had the right to appeal the decision if they felt they were being unfairly dismissed. That was the situation before the National Government’s changes. 
What happened next is that the Government decided that legislation for fair dismissal was not enough. It decided to legislate for unfair dismissal. This move was seen as so important to the National Government that it included it in its first 100 days of action programme. In hindsight the National Government had no qualms about demonstrating its right-wing agenda from the get-go. By introducing the 90-day trial period it put all the power in the hands of the employers and took away employees’ rights to appeal. It was nothing short of an attack on fairness decency and workers’ rights. 
The National Government has taken the position that the 90-day legislation has been a boost for people on the margins of the workforce who need an employer to give them a chance in a new job. The National Government has tried to tell New Zealanders that the 90-day legislation encourages small businesses to give a prospective employee a go without fear of costly or protracted legal proceedings if the relationship does not work out. The National Government has touted this legislation as being a success but let us look at the unemployment rates and gauge for ourselves how much of a success this legislation has been. 
When the National Government took office in 2008 the unemployment rate for Maori was 8.3 percent. It is now 13.6 percent. When the National Government took office in 2008 the unemployment rate for Pasifika was 7.4 percent. It is now 13.3 percent. When the National Government took office in 2008 the unemployment rate for young people aged 15 to 19 was 17.9 percent. It is now 25.2 percent. The unemployment rate for 20 to 24-year-olds was 7.3 percent and it is now 11.4 percent. The overall unemployment rate when National took office was 4.4 percent and it is now 6.6 percent. 
How can members of the National Government stand up in this Parliament and tell us and the rest of New Zealand that the 90-day bill has been a success? How can members of the National Government stand up in this Parliament and suggest that the provisions of its Act be extended even further? It has done nothing to alleviate the poverty imposed on an increasing number of New Zealand families. The provisions of the 90-day bill serve only to deny New Zealanders starting out in new jobs the dignity they deserve and the employment rights they should be automatically entitled to in this country. 
Last month the Minister for Social Development and Employment cited a Department of Labour report on the 90-day trial period scheme as apparent proof that the original legislation was working as intended but it noted that many employees hired under the scheme felt vulnerable to unfair treatment and job loss. Nearly a quarter of the workers employed under the scheme were sacked. Is this what the Government intended when it implemented the scheme? The report found some instances where trial periods appeared to have been misused by employers. Is this what the Government intended when it implemented the scheme? The report notes that it cannot be stated categorically that the scheme has created any extra job opportunities. So what does the Government do? It pushes on with the expansion of the scheme despite the lack of any clear evidence that it is creating new jobs. 
We know that the trial period scheme has been abused by some employers. There are many examples of that including one recently in the  
Dominion Post 
 about a woman named Alison Murray. We have been told time and time again by this Government that the 90-day trial is about giving people a chance particularly those who are disadvantaged in the labour market. This includes young people Maori and Pasifika migrants and people with disabilities or mental illness. This Government gives them chances by taking away their right to a fair go. The Government told us it would increase job opportunities for the most marginalised working-age New Zealanders. I ask this Government today where those job opportunities are. I cannot find them the Department of Labour cannot find them and the young Maori Pasifika migrant and disabled job seekers cannot find them either. 
It is insulting that the National Government would patronise New Zealanders in search of employment by stating over and over again that the legislation is there to help them. The only people who are benefiting from the 90-day fire-at-will legislation are the National Party’s mates who own businesses and want to employ workers but do not want to have to adhere to the legislation. 
Our workers are our greatest asset as a country. They deserve respect and job security. They do not deserve this prolonged attack on workers’ rights by the National Government. I ask all my parliamentary colleagues tonight to support my bill which will see the National Government’s 90-day fire-at-will legislation repealed. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 We just heard from Labour about the Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill. Labour’s one reason for bringing this bill before this Parliament is unemployment rates. Unemployment rates are the responsibility of the previous Labour Government. That Labour Government put New Zealand into recession before the rest of the world. It destroyed this economy through its 9 years of mismanagement. If members want to talk to the people out there who do not have a job they can tell them about what Labour did for 9 years that put them in that position. The previous Government did that. It destroyed this economy in our best times it created a recession before the rest of the world and it created the unemployment that New Zealanders live with. The National Government has been delivering jobs and trying to get this country out of recession. There would be a lot more unemployment if we had not done what we did in creating legislation like the 90-day bill. 
Members of the previous Government want to go back to the days of the past when they had the glory. Well they did not have the glory they did not use it properly and the people of New Zealand suffer now because of what the previous Government put in place. The public of New Zealand made the choice in the last election and that choice cannot be reversed through a member’s bill here tonight. It is a sad indictment of Labour that it has to use the member’s bill process to go back to the past when it could be looking forward and looking to help New Zealanders. But no it wants to go back to the past and resurrect what it had before under some kind of image of a past fleeting party rather than look forward and deliver what New Zealanders want and deliver the future they want. New Zealanders want that future. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Why do you hate New Zealanders so much? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour members ask that but they put this country in recession. Labour did it. Who was in Government when New Zealand went into recession? It was Labour. Was the rest of the world in recession then? No. The Labour Government put New Zealand into recession; that is where we got the unemployment from. The one reason Labour members are using for this bill—unemployment rates—is actually the one thing that Labour left as its legacy for the New Zealand economy. Labour left us with unemployment; we had to deal with it. Labour created the unemployment and it cannot take this away with a member’s bill tonight. That is the reality of the situation and what this country has faced. 
When we look at what we need to do as a forward-thinking progressive Government we see that we want to create an environment where people get the chance the opportunity and the ability to prove themselves. What more do young people want and what more do migrant communities want than to prove themselves and to get a step in the door? They want to be able to walk into those jobs and show that they can deliver the services where there may have been barriers put up against them in the past. That is what the 90-day bill did; it gave the opportunity for New Zealanders to get that first job. It gave the people whom Labour members talk about as being the most marginalised—the young and those who do not have the experience—the chance to show their potential prove their worth and not have to go through the systems and structures that Labour deems to be appropriate. 
That party over there wants to have its systems because it believes that people are automatically entitled to have them. Those were the words of the previous speaker Carmel Sepuloni—“automatically entitled” to having such things. Labour members look upon it as if there is an automatic entitlement and as if they know what is best for New Zealanders. That is not right—New Zealanders can prove what is best for New Zealanders and we are giving them that chance to get a job. We do not say who is automatically entitled to anything; we say people should be given the chance and they should prove themselves make it work and get the rewards. What more could a human being want than to be given a chance to be given an opportunity and to be given the ability to prove himself or herself—not to be seen as automatically entitled to something under some great plan that Labour had 9 years ago? 
Labour members bring out the concepts of poverty—all of those great stories of poverty—and say that the 90-day bill created the poverty that many families encounter. That is a load of rubbish. The thing that created the poverty in this country is a Labour Government that wasted 9 years and that took away our best economic times and threw them down the drain. We are not going to do that. We are going to give people the chance we are going to deliver them the opportunities and we are going to make it worthwhile for them to take advantage of those opportunities. 
This debate goes to the heart of the difference between the National Party and the Labour Party. This is the heart of the difference between a party that cares that wants to give a future and that wants to deliver prospects and a party that thinks it knows best that wants to tell people what is right and that does not give anybody a chance. That is the point of difference between the Government and the Opposition. We are here to help to give an opportunity; Labour is there to take and direct. That is the whole political difference that this House represents and this is a House that the public has made a decision on in terms of what it wants to see. The public wants to see opportunity they want to give people a chance and they want to see a 90-day bill. We campaigned on one the public voted for it and tonight we will see the public vote through the parties in this House to tell the Labour Party again—it took Labour 2 years to get the message but it will get the message again tonight—that the public do not want to be told what they have to do; they actually want to be given the opportunity to prove themselves. That is the prime lesson that Labour should have learnt at the last election—which it did not—and now it is trying to reinvent the wheel and bring back things from the past and say it had the glory and the answers. But it does not because Labour created the problems that led to the situation we are in today. 
As we can see National will not be supporting this legislation because this bill is a movement back to the past. It does not reflect the energy and commitment of this Government. It does not reflect the ability and desire of New Zealanders and it does not reflect what is in the modern world in terms of the way that employment relations are structured. If we look at most OECD countries we see that they have longer probationary periods than this. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The right to be dismissed at will. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I say to Mr Cunliffe that they have longer probationary periods. I ask Mr Cunliffe what he is saying. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The right to be extorted by the unscrupulous. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Oh let us put those lines on a billboard! It is no wonder that the member will never get the votes of middle New Zealand. Those are the longest words— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Back to Dickens! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Oh Charles Dickens—now we are getting the academic nature of the member coming out. That is why he will never be a success in New Zealand politics—he will never be Prime Minister. He will lead the Labour Party after the next election but he will never be a Prime Minister because he cannot relate to people. People do not want to hear about Charles Dickens; we have moved on from those days. The days of Charles Dickens were when the Labour Party was the great instructor of what could be done. We have moved on. We want to give people the chance; we do not want to put them in forced labour as the Labour Party would when Charles Dickens was in control. No National believes in our people we believe in their future and we want to give them— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: What is he talking about? How did Charles Dickens come into this argument? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: That is the member promoting the bill. What is she talking about? She has come into this House promoting a bill— 
Hon Pansy Wong 
: It must be Andrew Little. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Yes it must be Andrew Little texting those members. In reality this is not a time to go back to the past; this is a time when we can build a future. One of the big parts of building that future was the 90-day bill. It has been shown to be successful. It has given people an opportunity. It is something that we should enhance and deliver upon not take back. Why would another political party want to hold New Zealanders back by saying that it could determine the rules? We do not think it is appropriate to hold our people back. We think that there is a future for our people and that future will allow people to prove themselves and to give that opportunity so that they can get a job and then take their lives forward in a constructive way rather than being told that this is what they are automatically or not automatically entitled to as the case may be under Labour. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next speaker I say that the next speeches from here on will be 5 minutes’ duration. I will give a bell at the 4-minute mark. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that Mr Macindoe started off in a fairly spirited way but the further away he got from lunchtime the less spirited he was. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When we are talking about people in the House we have to use their correct names. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I must admit that I was a bit confused. I think the member said “Mr Macindoe” when the previous speaker was Mr Bennett. I was trying to figure it out myself. The Hon Tau Henare makes a point and I am sure we will get this corrected—[ 
Interruption 
] When the Speaker is speaking we will not have a babble— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Or a rabble. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Or a rabble. If there is one more comment I should make members stay here until midnight as a suitable punishment rather than sending them home early. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise to the members for Hamilton; they are all forgettable these days. This bill is about people having the right to have a reason when they get the sack as to why they got the sack. That is what it is about. It is pretty simple: one should be allowed to have a reason— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: They do. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no; the member should not believe the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister overturned the Acts Interpretation Act. It is very very clear in New Zealand law that the specific overrides the general. Under the 90-day legislation people are specifically taken out of the requirement for reasons to be given and any general good-faith arrangement cannot override that. One does not have to be a very good lawyer to work that out. I would have thought a briefing to a Prime Minister would work that out. The facts are very very clear: the 90-day legislation is designed so employers can fire without giving a reason. Most Kiwis do not think that is fair. Most Kiwis think that if one is getting the sack it does not matter if that person has been employed for 5 minutes 89 days or 50 years that person should be allowed to have a reason for getting the sack. This legislation stops that occurring. 
This is part of a general package. Some of my colleagues say that there is no plan but I actually disagree. There may be no plan to catch up with Australia on wages and salaries—I agree with that—but there is a plan: to drive down wages and salaries in New Zealand. This is part of that plan. This is part of the plan to deskill our economy and to have a lower-wage economy. That is something National has always believed in. It does not care about lower incomes. I apologise to the member Tim Macindoe. Getting him mixed up with the member David Bennett is a bit rough. There are some other arrangements. This is clearly very bad for vulnerable people. 
Tau Henare has been one of this bill’s biggest supporters but over the last 24 hours we have seen his innovative solution to low incomes for Maori. What is it? That they should shack up with rich Pakeha. That is what he said: if Maori do not have enough money they should find rich honkies and live with them. That is the Henare approach to getting Maori incomes higher in New Zealand. He does not want them to have jobs and he does not think people should earn their money; he thinks poor Maori should find rich honkies and shack up with them. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: If that is National’s approach to improving Maori skills and Maori unemployment these days I think it is very very sad. 
I must say that National is consistent. It is consistent with this legislation which undervalues people who earn salaries and wages. It undervalues skills it discourages skills and it discourages capital investment. It accelerates the approach to the bottom which is what National wants. It wants us to have a lower-skilled economy and it does not care about the rights that it is taking away from people as that occurs. National quite likes this. It has been going very well from its perspective. National has depressed wages—it has been successful from its point of view—and stopped people going to good jobs. That is the approach that National wants and we are absolutely opposed to it. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I say to my colleague Mr Trevor Mallard that somebody had to help the Europeans out to add a bit of colour to the race. Instead of being colonised we did the colonising. 
I am happy to join the debate. Forty-five smoke-free days ago I had what they call a cardiac event. While I was having this cardiac event I was wondering to myself whether if I was looking for a job under the Labour regime and I had had a heart attack—or a cardiac event as they are wont to call it these days—I would have been successful. No. Under the Labour regime not one employer would have given me a trial. Not one employer would have given me a go. Do members know why? It is not because I could not do the job because I could not learn the job because I would be a health risk or because I might fall down dead. It would have been because of the risk to the employer of something going wrong—one of the things I have just mentioned—or something happening. The employer would have worn it. 
It is not the job of the employer to make workers drink after leading them to the pond; it is for the employer to make sure that the risks are spread evenly and actually giving the person an opportunity to show his or her wares is the best thing. It is not up to the employer to pay for the worker’s health risks after the worker has had a cardiac event. It is certainly not the employer’s job to risk the consequences of having the worker drop dead on the job after he or she has had a cardiac event away from the employment. 
Trial periods have been around for donkey’s years. Even in my time there was the national awards system. Most of those members across the way would have had their union experience under the national awards system. They had trial periods some of 2 months some of 3 months and some in the national awards system had a 6-month trial system where the employer could trial a person and that person was given 6 months to learn the ropes of the job. The employee could bail out at any time that he or she wanted to. 
Trial periods are good things. Trial periods spread the risk right across the board. If I think about the cardiac event— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Probation’s not the problem. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well what is the problem? Oh I know what the problem really is. It is that the Labour Party does not have a single thing to go to war on. 
Darien Fenton 
: We have now. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Who gives a hoot about what those members have now? It is just like what I said in the House yesterday to the Hon Maryan Street—two words—“Who cares?”. I tell members what the worker who is looking for a job and who wants the opportunity to show his or her wares does not care what the Labour Party is on about. Those workers care about having the opportunity. Once Carmel Sepuloni finds her way around the new metropolis of Waitakere she will understand that the young workers out there—the workers whom she thinks she represents; Maori Pasifika and all the other people—will love this because they will be able to have the opportunity to show their wares. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have noticed that the Hon Pete Hodgson is in the House without a tie. I raise this point not to castigate the honourable member. If I could just be heard on this— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The member is correct. I say to the member that standard business attire is what is required which includes a tie. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Mr Deputy Speaker I had not actually finished my point of order I— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I knew what the— 
DAVID GARRETT 
: With respect Mr Deputy Speaker you do not. I thought that Mr Hodgson may in fact be testing the boundaries because I have consulted the  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 and indeed as you say Mr Deputy Speaker Speaker’s ruling 16/8 states that “The Speaker will take issue with any member who is not dressed in appropriate business attire”. I think there is actually a very good case to be made that these silly things that men are required to wear traditionally are no more. I say that because my legal colleagues at large law firms now routinely do not wear them— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that very enlightening example of what ties are about but I have ruled. The member has brought the issue to my attention; I thank him for that. We will move on with the debate. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Mr Garrett has a point. We should be moving to a broader dress code. Perhaps as a transition we could have a 90-day probationary period where people wear ties and then after that they can go without ties. In reply to Tau Henare’s comments I say that the question is not whether we have trial periods or probationary periods; it is a question of what type we have. The type that Tau Henare referred to in the past was the type— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have just come out of Maori Language Week and I would not mind if my name was pronounced Tau “Hen-a-re” not “Hen-ah-ree”. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for that. I ask members when referring to other members to try to get the correct pronunciation. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: My point was that Tau Henare’s position was similar to what the Greens and Labour have been arguing. In the past there have been—and even currently there are—some probationary periods that are fair ones where after a certain period an employee can transfer to permanent employment. If that employee is not transferred there are appeal procedures and the unions can be involved etc. as they were in the days past that Tau Henare referred to. 
What are the Government’s arguments in favour of keeping this 90-day period? The first is that somehow more people are hired when in fact the research on the legislation since its introduction provided by the Department of Labour says that it could not be stated categorically that trial periods had created extra job opportunities. That is common sense really because employers hire according to need; they do not go down the track of scratching their heads for 10 minutes about the quality of employees. 
Secondly the Government argues that more young people will get jobs in this way too. It is true that young people often have fewer CVs and find it more difficult in the job market. David Bennett went on about the fact that that was what the bill was all about and that the present legislation was giving workers a chance. In fact the situation with fair probationary periods that exists now in certain industries and that existed in the past before the current legislation came in does allow young people to have a go. In fact when there is an unfair probationary period where the employer has the arbitrary right to fire at any time without any reason there is a charter for bullying in effect. The employer does not need to provide any care for employees because employees can be sent down the road at any stage. Carmel Sepuloni mentioned the case in the  
Dominion Post  
of Alison Murray who got a job as an art valuer for Dunbar Sloane. She was not even given a desk to work at and later on was just fired arbitrarily. 
This legislation is also a charter for a greater level of sexual harassment in the workforce if the employer has arbitrary power over a new worker for 90 days. It is also a charter for dividing the workforce between those who are established and perhaps in the union and new employees who will not dare to join the union because a lot of employers are anti-union and would sack the person if they showed a great interest in joining the union. So the legislation will divide the workforce and that is bad for morale. It is much better to have a united workforce. In fact a unionised workforce in my experience is the most confident and productive workforce particularly if it has a good relationship with its employer. 
Kate Wilkinson the Minister of Labour said not to worry about all that because employers would act in good faith. Well we just cannot operate on that basis and we have plenty of examples where employers have not acted in good faith in that respect. If we generalise the 90-day period as the Government says it is intending to do that will have a lot of ramifications for the workforce. It will make workers much more reluctant to shift jobs because they will not be certain that they will not be sacked in the first 90 days. Migrants will be more reluctant to come to this country because they could come here and then their jobs could go down the drain overnight. So I think this bill should be passed because it will reverse a very bad piece of legislation from the National Government. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT Party has a particular interest in the Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill as indeed I have personally. Not only was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill 2008 one of the first things we considered when I came into the House but we managed to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to enact the legislation a month early. So I followed the issue with great interest. 
Back in December 2008 it was very interesting to hear the hyperbole that I have now learnt is typical of the Greens: the sky is always falling in the world is going to end tomorrow and global warming is going to get out of hand uncontrollably by next Thursday. But on this occasion we heard the hyperbole from Labour. We heard about the roll of shame. I will allow a little pause because when Carmel Sepuloni began her impassioned speech I interjected on her a couple of times and asked her to read out the roll of shame. I very much doubt that she did not hear me. Is she not familiar with the roll of shame? Members will recall that when the matter was being discussed back in December we heard about a roll of shame. It was going to be a regularly updated list of bad employers who employed people sacked them after a week hired others and then sacked them. I listened with great interest because I could not actually believe that the roll of shame would ever contain any names. 
So in the last year or so when the matter of employment law has come up in the House in a number of contexts I have interjected across the House and asked for the roll of shame to be read. When I have done that Labour members have always managed to find their papers very interesting. So the roll of shame I tell Ms Sepuloni is the list of bad employers who constantly sack people. I ask whether she would now like to read out that roll of shame. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: I started it: David Garrett— 
DAVID GARRETT 
: That is it is it? 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: —John Key. I can keep going; I have about 60 of them— 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Neither of us are employers so that is interesting. The roll of shame as I thought is empty. There are no names on it because in the real world employers have better things to do. They have better things to do than go through a lengthy process of hiring training and getting people acculturated into their workforce. They do not want to be sacking people all the time. 
It is very interesting that we heard from members on that side of the Chamber that this bill was designed to “support National’s mates”—I think they said “rich mates” as well—which completely overlooks the fact that the majority of employees in this country are employed by small and medium sized businesses. Eighty percent of them are employed by small and medium sized businesses. So it is a very interesting but sad admission that those employers those small and medium sized tradesmen and tradeswomen are all considered to be National’s mates. 
The reality is that the roll of shame has no names on it. Labour managed to find a few bedraggled employees—sorry I mean workers in Labour “union speak”—but I noticed that the chaps and “chap-esses” down at my local who are actually mostly Labour voters said that they would not employ those employees either. Out in the real world many people do not even have written employment contracts; they just get on with it. We heard Ms Sepuloni and others say that there are many examples of employment trial periods being misused. Well in this House the Hon Ruth Dyson regularly comes in and reads out quite heart-rending and upsetting examples—who knows whether they are real—of people who have allegedly suffered from having their home help taken off them etc. So I would have thought that if a large number or even a small number of workers have truly been treated badly by employers who should be on the roll of shame then we would hear about it. But we have not. That is because out in the real world people have better things to do. 
I close by saying that I was disappointed when Mrs Turia told me just a moment ago that she was unable to support the bill because one of the selling points was that it was intended to get more Maori and Pacific Island people into the workforce and apparently that has not happened. That is very unfortunate. 
Again it was surprising to learn that 90 days is actually a very short trial period and that the UK Labour Government for 15 years or more has had probationary periods of 12 months. Thank you. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Firstly I congratulate Carmel Sepuloni on introducing this Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill to restore the relevant provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2002 and in doing so to overturn the legislative measures that would allow workers to be fired at will in the first 90 days of their employment. 
In doing so I am particularly conscious of the statistics that come across my desk on a regular basis telling me of some 21000 Maori job seekers and 7000 Pasifika job seekers. Of that number roughly a third of them fall into the youth category so they are under 24 years of age. It is those rangatahi in particular who drive us to support this bill. 
We were told and we have heard it again tonight that the 90-day scheme would result in employment opportunity for youth to prove themselves—a chance to prove their worth. Well what happened? What we know too well is that Maori and Pacific youth under 24 are struggling to get into the workplace and they will be vulnerable to some unscrupulous employers who exploit the subsidy scheme. 
The Maori Party voted against the 2008 Employment Relations Amendment Bill which was passed under urgency and without going through a select committee process. Like other speakers we want to scrutinise claims that there is evidence that the 90-day scheme has created outcomes that demonstrate employers are giving more opportunities to young people. I agree—I actually do agree—that the majority of employers are unlikely to want a revolving door of employees but the problem for our young people is that they cannot even get through the door. 
I read a disturbing result from a recent study entitled  
Young(er) People’s Conceptualisations of the World of Work: A Qualitative Study 
. The sample chosen for the Maori component of the research was drawn from an existing longitudinal study of Maori households called  
The Best Outcomes for Maori: Te Hoe Nuku Roa 
. It gave some very clear warnings about the fragile state of many of our young people embarking upon the workforce. The study revealed the tendency of a number of participants to consider themselves solely responsible for their success or failure both in study and in the labour market. In other words they blame themselves for not being able to sustain long-term secure employment. In doing so they seal off their future; believing that their options are limited and that they will not go there again. The cost of failure to the State and to the whanau is huge. 
The workplace environment is a more complex world than one which many members of this House would ever have known. Amongst the inevitable challenge of standing up to apply again for job opportunities recent international studies highlight the fact that the transition from school that young people are experiencing today are increasingly becoming less predictable and more complex than the school-to-work transitions of the past. 
But some pervasive issues still impact on the opportunities for young Maori people to succeed in employment options not the least being the institutionalised racism that exists. The question we have to ask of the Government is how the 90-day probationary period will overcome that which Maori call the brown barrier—a phenomenon of systemic bias against employment and promotion of young Maori in the job market. 
It is a core feature of Maori Party employment policy that we support the right to be treated fairly and with dignity in the workplace. We want to do everything we can to enhance the chance of success for our young and for young Pasifika peoples as well. So we will be supporting this bill at its first reading. Kia ora. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 First of all I congratulate my colleague Carmel Sepuloni on having the Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill drawn in the ballot. I think it is very timely given the Prime Minister’s announcement at the National Party conference that the Government will be extending the 90-day trial period to all workers throughout New Zealand. It is interesting to look at the justification he used for that at the National Party conference. The deliberately delayed Department of Labour research report on the current 90-day trial provision was used by the Prime Minister to justify the move to extend it to all wage and salary earners. 
First of all what I will say about that report is that it was extremely unbalanced. As part of that report 3532 employers were contacted but only 13 employees were contacted. How unfair is that? That kind of methodology will not uncover the real impact of the 90-day trial law. But even with that imbalance the report provided some really interesting evidence—well a lack of evidence actually—to back up the Prime Minister’s claim that this provision should be extended to all workplaces. I will address a couple of issues. 
My colleague Carmel Sepuloni has addressed the issue of the claim that the provision will provide jobs for disadvantaged people. Well we know from the report that 72 percent of the people who got jobs under the 90-day trial period were Pakeha. The number who were Maori and Pasifika was very very small and employers said that very few of them used the provisions to hire workers whom they may not have hired otherwise. Employers were more focused on hiring the most suitable candidate. The Minister of Labour and the Prime Minister keep saying that the 90-day trial period can be entered into only by written agreement. 
I spoke to someone today and her name is Tyla Howard. She is 24. She got a job in an Auckland laundromat. After some months she was laid off then she was re-employed a few months later. As is the situation with so many other workers there was no written agreement—and the report shows that even though the law requires a written agreement so few employers bother with that—and nothing was said about the 90-day period. In fact in her case she should not have been on a 90-day period because she was re-employed. The law states that the employer cannot do that but she was re-employed under National’s fire-at-will Act. Anyway she turned up to work one day and was told that she was being let go—do not come Monday. She was being let go and it was because of the 90-day trial period. Tyla did not even know she was on a trial. She had not heard anything about it. She should not have been on a trial because the law states that she should not have been but this law has given employers the impression that they can use the 90-day trial period with impunity—with impunity. 
Another worker I heard from in the last 2 days is a woman called Lauretta. She said in her email: “I am one of the people that was on the 90-day trial period. The 90 days came up and I got a phone call from someone ringing up about my job advertised in the paper.” It was advertised in the paper! She said: “I went to my boss and asked him what was going on as I didn’t even know my job was coming to an end. He told me I didn’t have enough experience which he knew when he employed me. Now I am unemployed desperately looking for work.” The Government’s own report which it delayed quite deliberately until the National Party conference as a means to try to justify extending this provision to all workplaces shows categorically— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Tell us the company’s name. Did you make it up? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am happy to provide the evidence. I ask whether the member is saying that my word is not what I am saying in this House. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I’m saying you should name the company. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am happy to name the company and I will name the company. I am happy to provide that evidence and I have many many more examples which I am happy to use in the next couple of days. 
In summary National’s own report exposed by the Department of Labour shows that employers have been using this law as a means of employing people and avoiding their responsibilities rather than as a means of creating jobs. The law has not created jobs for disadvantaged workers and certainly there are many many instances in that report if members care to read it of employers not even following the very very lightweight requirements that are already in the law—for example the requirement to have something written down in an agreement. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 There is a great scene in the Monty Python movie  
Life of Brian 
. It starts—do members remember—with the question: “What have the Romans ever done for us?”. A few things are named—the aqueducts sanitation roads irrigation medicine wine and public baths—but the question is asked: “What have the Romans ever done for us?”. That is pretty much what we have heard from the Labour Opposition members with all these questions about the Government and whether there is a plan; they cannot see the wood from the trees. The list is so long that I do not have time to go through it. Those members are either asleep at the wheel or they truly believe there is one big lever that we can pull. In fact they would believe that because they spent 9 years pulling two large levers: tax and spend. 
But we know that there is not a big lever to pull; it is about things like cycleways oil and gas exploration lower taxes increasing free-trade agreements and it is certainly about moderate changes to our labour laws. One would think that every worker had been chained up and sent to the salt mines when very moderate changes were announced such was the over-the-top reaction from our friends on the left. 
But amongst the din of disgust there was one voice of left-wing reason. That voice said: “I don’t have huge objections to these changes affecting the fourth week of a holiday as long as the decision is freely arrived at by the worker and the worker is not pressured into it. If somebody chooses to do that I am quite relaxed about it.” Who said that? It was the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff—a lone voice of reason while the rest of the Labour Opposition were so happy to jump on the bandwagon and flog what were very moderate proposed changes. They said when the 90-day legislation came in that they would name and shame. They have had opportunity after opportunity. Miss Fenton told us terribly sad stories but not a single workplace has been named by a single member of the Opposition. 
I want members of the Opposition to take a call to say why they think so little of the workers of New Zealand why they cannot be trusted to make up their own minds about trading in the fourth week of their holiday or why they do not want to give workers a chance—the marginalised workers the immigrants who are saying “give us a go”—because that is what the flexibility of the 90-day probation period gives us. Better still why do Labour members not dust off their bus? Do members remember the bus that had “Axe the Tax” written on it—the tax that they would not commit to axing? Why do they not get the bus out get out their guitars and sing their “Ging Gang Goolie” songs all the way to the vineyards of Marlborough the electrical companies of Christchurch the salmon farms of the Mackenzie and the biotech companies in Dunedin and say why they are so down on employees? Why will they not give hard-working workers a chance to say “give me a go”? Better still they could take the bus all the way to Tiwai to the aluminium smelter and tell the 725 workers there who are not members of the union who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars into the Southland economy whose workplace health and safety record is as good as it gets in that industry and whose electricity is almost entirely renewable why they are so down on employees. 
There is a plan. It is about having flexible labour law it is about less regulation and it is about enabling employees to enjoy tax cuts that leave 82c in every dollar in the pockets of 73 percent of workers. 
Darien Fenton 
: What’s the plan? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Can members hear them; they are still asking “What’s the plan? Where’s the plan?”. They are too busy yelling and nobody is listening. It is about those things. It is about lots of little things and it is definitely about giving employees a chance to be flexible—a chance that is given in 29 out of 30 countries in the OECD many of which are run by left-wing Governments. I think that is not a bad model to follow. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I want to know what the plan is for young people. What is this Government’s plan to get young people into employment? On this side of the House we know that over 60000 young people are currently unemployed but what is the Government going to do about it? Nothing! National members have said absolutely nothing about how they will generate employment opportunities in our communities so that those 60000-plus young people can get a job and keep a job—that is real jobs real wages and our young people being looked after. That is why I want to speak to this particular bill. If the 90-day probationary period is the solution that the National Government has to get young people into employment then I can say now and I am supported by the Maori Party that it is not working for Maori young people and it is not working for Pacific young people. For the 60000-plus young people who are currently unemployed this bill has not made one iota of a difference. 
Meanwhile members on the other side of the House continue to say that this bill will be fantastic because it is a probationary opportunity to give a young person a go. Well the statistics speak for themselves. This is not about naming and shaming; this is about saying “Look at the statistics; they speak for themselves”. Over 60000 young people are currently unemployed and they are not helped by the 90-day probationary period bill so this bill that Carmel Sepuloni has brought forward to get rid of the 90-day probationary period bill signals a clear message. That is why Labour is supporting it. It reaffirms our values that workers should be given a fair go when they are given a job. They should not be able to be fired at will for no reason. 
I ask members to put themselves in the shoes of young people getting a job their first job. They are excited; they are keen to do something—anything. They have an opportunity they get into the workplace they get tasks to do and their supervisors say that those are the tasks for the day. The young people do the jobs to the best of their ability but hello at the end of the day their supervisors are unhappy. The supervisors have not thought for one minute that they were unclear on the instructions that they gave to such young people. When a supervisor relays information back to the boss who is worried about only time frames and bottom lines the next day the young person is called and told not to bother going back because the company has too much work to do. Under the current law which this Government is promoting as being popular for young people those young people can be fired without any reason whatsoever and got rid of. 
How would those young people feel? They would feel rejected dejected and most of all unconfident about their future job prospects. They would have nothing on their CV. Getting released from their first jobs for no reason at all leaves them nothing on their CV so what are their future job prospects? 
One member on the opposite side of the House decided to accuse Carmel Sepuloni of not knowing anything about her electorate. But Carmel knows that in the places where young people work—McDonald’s Burger King supermarkets movie theatres and such places—they are really afraid of the type of legislation that might hurt their opportunity to keep a real job. If young people got jobs today wanted to campaign to increase the minimum wage and went out on a limb to say “Well actually the work that we do should be valued and paid as such.”—that is if those young people campaigned to increase the minimum youth wage—their boss could get rid of them. Is that fair? 
Under National’s labour market legislation that situation would be absolutely within the realm of possibility but under Labour we say no. Workers deserve a fair go they deserve to be protected in the workplace and they deserve to be given a fair go. If they are released from work they should be given the opportunity to know why. That is why we are supporting this particular bill. 
I just cannot believe that the member for Hamilton East stood up in this House to promote a bill that will have impact on those young people who work in Countdown in Hamilton East and in the Warehouse in Hamilton East saying that the legislation will create more opportunities. In fact there are far more young people looking for work than there are jobs available yet the member for Hamilton East is continuing to promote that bill. He needs to get in contact with real people on the ground because young people want to know what the National Government’s plan is to create growth so that young people can be employed—so that they can keep their jobs get paid a real wage and more important ensure that their future job prospects will continue to grow from further opportunities and not be cut off at the post by the 90-day probationary period bill. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 What New Zealanders need at the moment is a Government committed to growing our economy and creating decent jobs a Government with a plan and a Government that will invest in people. The National Government has failed to deliver on all of those fronts. That Government has no commitment to growing our economy it has no commitment to creating decent jobs for Kiwis it has no plan for our country and it has no desire to invest in New Zealanders. We have heard a number of speeches—predictable but still disappointing speeches—from the other side of the House and I will touch on some of the stuff that has been said tonight. 
Mr David Bennett said that New Zealanders should not be automatically entitled to rights in the workplace. He has challenged my assertion that they should be entitled to those rights automatically. I say to Mr Bennett that I am sure that the electorate of Hamilton East would side with my assertions and disagree with what he has said. Let us get straight to the point. This bill is about giving New Zealand wage and salary earners the right to a reason if they are dismissed from their jobs. When 700000 Kiwis start new jobs each year that National Government is looking to extend the provision of the 90-day fire at will bill to apply to each and every one of those 700000 wage and salary earners who will begin a new job in the next year. I have no doubt that each and every one of those 700000 workers would be opposed to their rights being removed by that Government. They would oppose the National Government’s corporate favours to its mates they would oppose being exploited by that Government they would oppose the arrogance that is being expressed by that side of the House to ordinary working New Zealanders and they would oppose the complete and utter disregard for fairness and the fundamental rights of wage and salary earners. 
Another speech that we had to endure tonight that I want to mention came from Mr David Garrett from the ACT Party. He talked proudly about the fact that National and ACT supported this bill when it came to the House not long after that Government first took office. He talked about something called the “roll of shame” but the only roll of shame that I know of is the roll of shameful politicians who supported this bill when it first came to the House in 2008. That list includes each and every one of those ACT and National members including the ones who sit there tonight whom I could name but that would be a waste of my good time with regard to this speech. 
Over the last week we have heard where the priorities of the National Government lie. They lie with such trivial things as the Prime Minister sending a letter to the Queen trying to get the title of “Right Honourable”. That is where the priority of that side of the House lies. Never mind the workers. Never mind the fact that they have been denied their rights. Never mind the fact that the Government side of the House is trying to take away the dignity that each and every New Zealand wage and salary earner should automatically— 
David Bennett 
: Rubbish! 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: Yes I say to Mr Bennett they should automatically be entitled to that dignity. Instead the Prime Minister concentrated on his title of “Right Honourable”. Obviously the National Government’s priorities are in the absolutely wrong place. That side of the House fails to recognise that each and every worker in this country whether on the minimum wage or a higher income deserves to be treated fairly in the workplace. Each and every one of them is an asset to this country. Each and every one of them deserves respect. Each and every New Zealander deserves job security. They do not deserve what they are getting from the Government side of the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. The cross dialogue here in unacceptable. Keep the noise down. We have a member who has a very short time to go to finish her speech. 
CARMEL SEPULONI 
: New Zealanders do not deserve a prolonged attack on workers’ rights by the National Government. The Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill seeks to repeal the 90-day trial period that the National Government introduced for new workers and businesses and is looking to extend. We want to repeal the bill which the Government introduced to stop the damage being inflicted on New Zealanders. I ask all of my parliamentary colleagues tonight to support my bill which will see the National Government’s 90-day fire at will bill repealed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Probationary Period Repeal) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Reports 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report May 2010—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Financial Stability Report May 2010 
. First of all I would like to thank members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Members of this House will note when briefly looking through this report that the committee was generally unanimous although there were some differences in some areas. Overall I think that that reflects the importance of the really high-level framework stuff that this report addresses. I acknowledge the members of the committee the officials who helped pull that report together and of course Dr Alan Bollard Grant Spencer and Toby Fiennes from the Reserve Bank who presented it to us as they do every 6 months now. I think this is the fourth one we have had since a change of regulation in Parliament 2 or so years ago provided for reports to come out every 6 months. It is important to note the difference between this report and the Monetary Policy Statement although members will be inclined to wander into that territory. They are all linked at the end of the day. 
The good news is that New Zealand’s financial system is very very stable. As noted in the report from the Reserve Bank itself and the report back from the committee the general theme is that things are better than they were. All risks are still quite prevalent. There have been improvements—some within the control of these borders and some beyond the control of these borders. Generally things are looking better. It is also important to note that this report came out on 20 May. In fact we are now in August which is 3 months later. It is amazing how quickly things have moved around the world particularly in southern Europe over recent months in and around Greece and Spain and how what happens there affects how the rest of the globe looks at the New Zealand situation and any metrics that may come to their attention that align us up with perceived higher risk. Those are the glasses through which they are looking at many nations round the world. It is good to note though that the world is probably in a slightly better place than it was even in May when this report came out but the message to New Zealand is that it is still very very tenuous indeed. 
In the report itself—it may be of interest to those members who are not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee to pick it up off the Table—there is a very good diagram that the Reserve Bank introduced in an earlier report and it is called the financial stability cobweb. It addressed many of the questions people would ask about the diagrams and all things finance. This is one diagram that the Reserve Bank has brought into the report—the bank is slowly improving it of course—that shows in pictorial form diagrammatic form how things have improved and the bank has quite solid metrics under that. As members can see on page 4 of the report things have got better on the blue line and the red line is behind. 
One can see that the report starts in May 2009 and it looks at the trend until May 2010—until this report. On every single measure other than capital which I will come to in a moment financial market conditions have improved markedly since the last report which was in November 2009. Even in the constraints of a recession and the tight cash market out there there is still a measure of confidence and the domestic market in a financial stability lens—that is what we are talking about here—has markedly improved particularly in the last 6 months. Funding and liquidity have improved markedly. The global environment itself between November 2009 and May 2010 as in that report also improved. Capital and profitability are still pretty much where they were reflecting the squeeze on margins and the lower velocity of the economy but a bit of confidence is indicated there too. It is very noticeable that each and every one of those lines look better although they are only a snapshot in time. 
Looking forward as can be seen in some of the graphs at the back of the report and in the commentary from Mr Bollard again the message is that things are tenuous and we just have to keep our pencils very very sharp as an indebted country—a country at the whim of the credit markets of the rest of the world. Like it or not those so-called evil foreign bankers occasionally are the ones that have loaned this country $200 billion so we need to make sure that they roll over those loans at the very least and have reasonable terms as our economy tries to address the principal at the very least and pay it off. 
This report picks up a lot of other issues and it looks at a whole lot of things such as fiscal settings monetary policy settings liquidity changes and settings which I will come back to and the global environment overall to name but a few. I tell members to remember that although it is often very tempting in politics to look for the silver bullet or to grab the headline actually everything is linked in those various policy settings. We can argue and discuss as much as we like in this House and around this city but at the end of the day we are a debtor nation. Be it private or public debt as I said earlier we have to keep our pencils particularly sharp in a global environment where simple liquidity—that is the cash itself—is very constrained. Credit—the ability to borrow the funds in the first place then add the cash on top of that—is very constrained. 
The Budget came out at around the same time as this report and other members may want to touch on the importance of fiscal discipline insofar as the Budget is concerned. Members on this side of the House would argue that that was adhered to given the constraints the demands and the commitments made by this Government to New Zealanders and the tension between spending and saving. There is another very interesting part that might be new to members on page 9 of the Reserve Bank’s report in figure B2 on credit default swap spreads. Simply they measure the perceived margin that others are prepared to lend and are lending to New Zealand—anything denominated in New Zealand dollars. 
Some might ask who really cares. If we are a creditor nation then that is a fair point. But as a debtor nation regardless of whether it is the Crown people’s mortgages or working capital for businesses the rate that they pay is totally reflected right there in that graph. It is a bit hard to read but there is an Aussie and a US one over the page that reflects the spikes in the crisis around the globe a couple of years ago. We can see the trend in those southern European nations. When we line up some of the metrics New Zealand does not sit too well on some of them with the rest of the world but on some of them we sit very very well. It is our mission and I am sure it is our obligation to ourselves and to future generations to do all that we can to start to address some of the core problems that can create financial instability in New Zealand. Also as the committee noted there are many many useful graphs at the back of the Reserve Bank’s report. They are backward looking then they forecast out. 
I have no intention of making a political speech here at all. I think as all members acknowledge that we have some serious issues in New Zealand. Many of them have been with us for a long time. They have just got worse or have compounded over particular cycles but if we address the things that we can control in this country then when things happen that are out of our control such as an issue in southern Europe New Zealand itself will be better prepared to get ourselves through any crisis. A good example of that is the free-trade agreements. Most of the members in the House are in agreement with free-trade agreements. For example the free-trade agreement with China was started under the previous Government and it was completed by this Government. Regardless of that how that helped New Zealand through the recession and how it made our financial system more stable with more credit and cash moving around the system is a great example of one of those things that New Zealand could control. We invested in a free-trade agreement that actually helped our economy get through tough times when the rest of the world was imploding. 
On that note I will leave it there. As I said I am not getting political about this particular report. I will finish by acknowledging my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Overall I think we worked together very very well. Although this may seem very dry and boring to some people and members it is of such importance to our country that our system stays as financially stable as it is right now. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I join with the member who has just resumed his seat Craig Foss in welcoming this opportunity—quite a rare opportunity—to take the House’s time to note the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s financial stability report and indeed the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. There are several reasons for doing that. 
The first is of course that the public normally sees this House in full debate whether it be in question time in the general debate or in debates on members’ bills as earlier tonight. They do not often have the opportunity to see the House in its less combative moments. It is in select committees that a lot of the work goes on in the background where a lot of the time we join together to tease out evidence that is presented at the committees. This report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee tonight is really interesting because it shows 100 percent consensus. It is reported by the agreement of all the members around the table: the Labour members and the National members and the Green member the ACT member and the Maori Party member. We all reached a consensus on what we thought of the material in this report on financial stability. As the previous speaker said it is important it affects our whole country and it affects us for the longer term. 
That brings me to the second point. I ask members whether it is not important and good that we have an independent central bank that draws upon the evidence and presents it in an apolitical way to a select committee the public and the banking system so that we can get the view of if you like the technicians in the trade and what the data is saying with the politics taken out of it. That is helpful. It gives this House some things it can reflect on as we go through the headline conclusions in this report because we know they are in a sense more objective than some of the stuff we hear across the Chamber. 
What does the report say? Its first point is that although the global recovery has progressed over the past 6 months it remains patchy and fragile in many economies. It mentions the problems in Greece and it then goes on to talk about the problems that remain in the New Zealand economy. It notes that the first one is that the private sector in New Zealand remains heavily indebted creating continuing vulnerability in the financial system. It is very important that the report singles out the private sector because the overwhelming majority of New Zealand’s national debt is private debt not public debt. It is not a matter of the Government spending willy-nilly beyond its means; it is one of New Zealanders having borrowed principally on international markets through the banking system to invest in their home mortgages. 
Over the last few years it has been a national pastime a sort of sport in Auckland at least where people now grab the property pages of the newspaper to discover how successful they have been at bidding up each others’ house prices and feel richer as a result. Then they go out and spend a bit of their money racking up some credit card debt. The net result is that New Zealand has become more indebted to overseas lenders. 
Secondly the capital that that behaviour brought into New Zealand has flowed to the housing sector and not to productive businesses. That is why principally we have a very weak and shallow recovery going on with very low wage growth and very little employment growth. It is in that context that I would like to agree with the Minister of Finance when he said it was “bumpy” which was a bit of a euphemism. “Bumpy” means that we can hardly tell whether the economy is going up or down. I disagree with the Prime Minister who called it an aggressive recovery. The only people feeling aggressive are the Kiwis at the supermarket checkouts whose housekeeping budget will not stretch to cover the trolley full of groceries. 
The report states that rebalancing the domestic economy towards higher national savings and less reliance on external financing is important. In that regard the report does not add but I would add that getting the savings rate up is absolutely crucial. It is with some pride that we look back on the time of the previous Government and the introduction of KiwiSaver which was the biggest and most successful savings plan in New Zealand’s history. It is with regret that we note that the current Government has cut by half the contribution level and employer subsidy for that scheme and that not only has that left New Zealanders worse off because they do not have as rich a savings vehicle but also it has depleted the rate of savings increase that was coming from KiwiSaver. 
We note again with regret that in Budget 2009 the Government’s principal action was to defer pre-funding the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and that is important because it was another principal tool for lifting our aggregate national savings rate. By deferring pre-funding we have reduced the inflow of funds into our largest collective savings vehicle. We did so at a time when the markets were down and we have therefore missed out on some of the capital gain surprisingly enough as the markets have recovered but the Superannuation Fund was short of that additional capital that would have assisted it. 
Coming through from the report is a lack of—but I will put it more charitably as a need for—a comprehensive economic plan to address the structural imbalance. If listeners out there do not believe me perhaps we could quote the words of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that independent authority who testified to the committee. He stated: “Despite the improvement in the current account deficit”—people have imported less because they have been poorer in the recession—“the Governor stressed that the structural imbalances in the economy require continued attention. Specifically the Governor said that a focus is needed on changing motivational levers away from consumption and back into production to help to reduce New Zealand’s high private-sector debt”. If that sounds familiar that is because it is exactly what we have been talking about but do not take it from me or the Labour Party; that was the Governor of the Reserve Bank saying that New Zealand needs a plan to rebalance the economy. I add the implication that if we already had a plan he would not be saying that and therefore we can conclude that the Government does not have a plan. 
Labour does have a plan and it has recently been released in our  
Blueprint for Monetary Policy Reform 
 which of course bears upon the material in this financial stability review. We would firstly retain the independent full-service central bank and we would retain the current inflation target. We would however amend the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act and the policy targets agreement to broaden the objectives of the Act to include growth in employment and the economic well-being of New Zealanders and in so doing mirror more closely the structure of our nearest trading partner and most important neighbour with the  
Blueprint for the Australian Central Bank 
. 
Secondly we would explicitly recognise what this report refers to in terms of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and the G-20 movement in explicitly recognising the role of the new core assets ratio which is strengthening the balance sheets of our banking system and we would recognise the counter-cyclical role of what they call macroprudential policy—that kind of stuff—in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act itself. It is a surprise to us that the Government has not moved in that direction. It seems to be only the Beehive that has not recognised the movement that is going on all around the world as a result of the global financial crisis. It is going on in the G-20 in the Federal Reserve System in the US even in the Bank of England certainly in the Bank of Japan and in the Reserve Bank of New Zealand but it is not going on in the Beehive. It is also true that Labour would explore other complementary monetary tools and I suspect that my colleague the Hon David Parker will elaborate on those when he takes a call. 
It is important that we reflect finally on the record of the previous Labour Government on fiscal responsibility. We hear every day from the Minister of Finance in question time a mirage that somehow the previous Government was imprudent— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Reckless! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I ask the member how that squares with the fact that under Labour gross debt was cut in half net debt was cut to zero and the incoming National Government inherited net debt of only 5 percent of GDP—only 5 percent. It is now over 20 percent I recall. This Government has taken the economy in the wrong direction just as National did the last time it was in Government. As I have already mentioned the Government has put off pre-funding superannuation which puts an additional cost on our children. That is not fiscally responsible; it is not fair to the next generation. The Government borrowed for tax cuts. It borrowed for tax cuts because it did not keep its promise to be fiscally neutral in Budget 2010 and it gave one-third of those tax cuts to the top 5 percent of earners. 
Finally Opposition members do not need the Government to lecture us about fiscal responsibility and financial stability because Labour’s record stands up for itself. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call to debate the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank’s financial stability statement of May this year. In drafting the comments that I intended to make this evening I focused on three sections in the report: principally on the comments relating to unemployment on taxation policies and the effect of GST and lastly on the importance of agriculture in our economy. But the previous speaker Mr Cunliffe has just made a number of points three of which I think need to be responded to. Before proceeding with my planned comments I will briefly comment on some of the things that Mr Cunliffe has said. 
Mr Cunliffe started by saying the Reserve Bank in its testimony—because he said these were the words of the Reserve Bank not the words of the Government—focused on the need to rebalance the economy and in particular to direct funds away from consumption which had been funded by high levels of private sector debt and to put that money into first paying off debt and second savings. He said that if this Government does not have a plan the Labour Party does. Well the question that has to be asked is why we got into this situation in the first place. Why is the economy not balanced? Why do we need to rebalance it? The answer is very simply that there had been 9 years of mismanagement by the previous Labour Government. The current Government has to address these problems because of the situation that it found itself in when it took over the Treasury benches in November 2008. 
The next point that Mr Cunliffe made was that the Government on coming into power reduced the subsidy on contributions to KiwiSaver from 4c in the dollar to 2c in the dollar. Why was that necessary? The reason is that the Government accounts were in a huge deficit. In essence if we look at KiwiSaver we see that although it has a number of attractive features which I personally support effectively it subsidises people on higher incomes. So it is a subsidisation by people on lower incomes who are not in a position to save. They are subsidising—using Government funds or taxpayers’ money—the savings of people who are in a much better position to save than they are. 
Mr Cunliffe also criticised the Government for backing away from pre-funding New Zealand superannuation. Once again why is the Government not setting aside funds for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund? Very simply as Mr Cunliffe is very very well aware the Government is in deficit. It is running a huge deficit and that situation was bequeathed to it by the previous Labour Government. Mr Cunliffe suggested that it does not matter whether we have a $3 billion $4 billion or $5 billion deficit every year; he would like us to go out borrow some more money and invest it through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Mr Cunliffe knows more than anyone else that at the beginning of this year the money in the so-called Cullen fund was actually less than the dollars that had been put in and invested. Despite the pre-funding we had less than a dollar for every dollar that had been invested. 
I now come to the comments that I intended to make. I will start at the back of the report where there are comments on unemployment. They refer to the fact that the Reserve Bank governor informed us that the labour market is lagging in terms of the overall economic recovery of New Zealand. We do not have higher levels of employment. Unemployment is still hanging rather high at over the 6 percent mark. We have just had a debate on a member’s bill which was voted down this evening on the proposal to cancel the 90-day employment trial period. If we want to address the issue of unemployment we need to do everything that we can to incentivise employers to create jobs and offer jobs and to make it as easy as possible for people to get those jobs. That is one of the great things about the 90-day trial. It has enabled employers of companies with fewer than 20 people to go out and hire employees knowing full well if they make a mistake and the person they employ does not work out then they do not have an ongoing liability for that. The 90-day trial is about to be extended to all employers in New Zealand. If there is anything that will make a move to address the higher levels of unemployment that the governor referred to in his testimony that will be it. 
I thought it was particularly interesting that Nanaia Mahuta in speaking about that bill talked about the 60000 unemployed young people. I ask why we have such high levels of unemployed young people. The very simple answer to that is that the previous Government took out the youth rates. Previously an employer could go out and hire a young person—a 17 or 18-year-old—and pay something less than the adult minimum wage. Someone who did not have previous full-time work experience was able to go out there and employers had an incentive to take on a young person. The previous Government passed a law to abolish the youth wage rate. What happens now when an employer is faced with choosing between two potential employees? Let us say one is a family person who is 35 has a couple of young children as dependants has 10-15 years of work experience—has a proven track record and has commitments—and has proven his or her reliability. Let us say the other is a 16 or 17-year-old who does not have the same experience and cannot show the same track record of reliability. When faced with having to pay those two people exactly the same wage the minimum wage I ask why the employer would not hire the mature person who has experience and a track record of reliability. 
It was one of the great disgraces of this Parliament that when it had a chance to reinstitute youth wages earlier this year and support the member’s bill of my colleague the Hon Sir Roger Douglas this Parliament both the Labour and National members chose to vote it down. I think that that was a disgrace. One would expect that sort of thing from Labour members but one certainly would not expect it from National. I think that the National members when they talk about youth unemployment should realise that the answer to that problem lay in their own hands. They had a chance to do something about that but they missed that opportunity. That is tragic for those young people. As my colleague Sir Roger Douglas said a young person might be prepared to work for $9 or $10 an hour but the parliamentarians in this House do not believe that that young person should have the chance to do that. Instead that young person is put on an unemployment benefit of about $160 a week. 
I now refer to the section of the report on agriculture. The select committee’s report states that agriculture makes up some 16 percent of the total lending by New Zealand banks and that as the cash-flow position of farms has improved the demand for credit has declined. The report talks about the impact of the recent financial crisis on the agriculture industry. Once again one of the great tragedies of this Parliament is that we proceeded with the emissions trading scheme on 1 July. We became the first country outside Europe to have an emissions trading scheme and in the words of the Hon Nick Smith the Minister for Climate Change Issues it is the “most comprehensive” emissions trading scheme in the world. Those were his words from 24 September last year and he repeated them again in the third reading of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill on 24 November—the “most comprehensive” scheme in the world. Those were his words which are in  
Hansard 
 and he has the nerve to suggest that New Zealand is not leading on climate change. 
What is the impact of the emissions trading scheme on farmers? Well Beef and Lamb New Zealand has said the impact of the emissions trading scheme will add some $3900 a year to costs for the average dairy farmer. Those costs do not come in in 2015; they came in on 1 July this year. Dairy farmers face up to $3900 in additional costs from 1 July this year. Do the farmers in Australia pay those costs? No they do not. Do the farmers in Japan pay those costs? 
My time is coming to an end but I finish by simply saying that if the Labour Party members are concerned about the fact that we have had to reduce the subsidy on KiwiSaver contributions and if they are concerned about the fact that we have not been able to put funds into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund the so-called Cullen fund the reason for that is very much in their hands. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but his time has expired. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 To deal very briefly with the comments of the previous speaker John Boscawen in respect of problems within the dairy sector I say the problem within the dairy sector is that farmers have paid too much for their farms. Debt in the farming sector has gone up by more than two or three times in recent years and as a consequence the interest bills are unaffordable for some farmers. The impact of emissions pricing is relevant but it is not nearly as significant as farmers’ interest bills on their inflated capital prices. 
In the couple of minutes that I have I will deal with the issue of gross public debt. In the  
Financial Stability Report 
 the Governor of the Reserve Bank sets out a graph showing OECD averages for Government debt. It shows that by the end of next year the average gross public debt for OECD countries will be 100 percent of GDP—100 percent of GDP. If things do not change in places like Japan Japan’s debt will reach 300 percent of GDP by 2040 and that figure will be 200 percent in the UK and 150 percent in the US. That situation is not faced by New Zealand because of the prudent fiscal management of the previous Labour Government. When we left office net debt was at zero and gross debt was at about 17 percent. John Boscawen said spending was out of control. Well the National Government has had the opportunity to cut spending if it wanted to do so. It has cut some of it but it has not cut most of it because most of it was prudent. 
The big problem now is that we have a structural deficit caused by unaffordable tax cuts. If members do not think that is true I ask them to look at the Business and Economic Research reports following the Budget on the financial outlook for New Zealand. The future deficit forecast by the Government relies on a very significant rebound in non-residential business investment. Non-residential business investment has been going in the opposite direction of that. Business confidence is down for the third month in a row and it is plain that the Government’s deficit next year in my opinion will be higher than the Government has projected it to be in its rose-tinted view of events this year. Why? It is because the Government wanted to give 35 percent of its tax cuts to the top 5 percent of income earners. National could have easily avoided having a growing deficit by not borrowing for tax cuts and indeed by not having such generous tax cuts and not running such big deficits. Instead we have gross Government debt going up and net Government debt going up as well. 
It is true that New Zealand is relatively stable in its financial sector. That is largely because of both the strong balance sheets of the Australian banks and the prudent fiscal management by the previous Government. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.