Volume 659 Week 31 - Wednesday 9 December 2009 
Volume 659 Week 31 - Wednesday 9 December 2009 
[Volume:659;Page:8367] 
Wednesday 9 December 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Subject to discussions being held across the House I seek leave for members’ order of the day No. 6 the recommended sitting programme for 2010 to be postponed today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill—Classification 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill and the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill are set down for their first reading but before I set down the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill for its first reading I need to address the issue of its classification. The bill amends a local Act the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. However it is being promoted as a private bill despite rulings by previous Speakers that any Act that has been passed as a local Act must be amended by a local bill. Standing Order 249 requires a local bill to be promoted by a local authority; clearly the governing body of Christ’s College is not a local authority. 
In the late 1800s and early 1900s the boundaries between what constituted a local bill and a private bill were unclear and it was only in the 1920s and 1930s that the definition we know today was developed and adopted. Many bills that were passed as local Acts in those early days benefited private groups or corporate entities and would had they been introduced today have been classified as private bills. Amendments to these early local Acts are not common. In the past the House has dealt with such amendments by suspending the Standing Orders. On other occasions they have simply been passed by the House as private bills without comment. The Standing Orders though now provide clear guidance about the classification of bills. If a question arises the Speaker is required to decide the matter. 
I do not consider that it is necessary for the Standing Orders to be set aside in this case. I declare the bill to be a private bill. The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill is set down for first reading. 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Fiscal Challenges 
1. AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What fiscal challenges does the Government face as the economy comes out of recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 One of the main challenges for the Government coming out of the recession will be to continue to provide a high level of public services particularly to those New Zealanders who are most vulnerable but to do so at a time when the global recession has had a significant impact on the Government’s books. We have set a target of $1.1 billion new operating allowance for future Budgets. This will be sufficient to maintain public services particularly for those vulnerable New Zealanders if the Government is disciplined and we find new ways of providing those services New Zealanders have come to expect. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What adjustments will be needed to operate within the new environment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Quite significant adjustments will be required to operate within the new environment. For instance the average base salary for the public sector in the last 12 months ended June 2009 rose by 5.3 percent. The Government is open to negotiations of future pay increases but we have to be buying better ways of working primarily because of our obligation to provide public services to New Zealanders who are vulnerable and New Zealanders who need those services. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What other impediments exist to delivering quality front-line services? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The main impediment is overcoming the legacy of mismanagement and waste left by the previous Government. The current Government is spending days and days trying to untangle organisations with weak governance poor financial performance and services that cost more than they should. 
John Boscawen 
: What are the Minister’s plans to achieve the Government’s concrete goal of closing the income gap with Australia by 2025 given that current Treasury projections show that the New Zealand economy is set to grow by only 2.5 percent a year well short of the 4 percent required and identified by him at the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting this morning? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has outlined a plan which I am sure will unfold to the member’s satisfaction. It involves investment in infrastructure more productive public services less red tape a world-class tax system improved skills a focus on literacy and numeracy and upgrading our innovation and business support system. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Is the Minister dedicated to lower rates of personal taxation; if so why did he base his forecast in Budget 2009 on “a steady increase in the tax burden on the economy.” a forecast that by 2022 would see fiscal drag push the average income earner into the top tax bracket? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member has put his finger on a pretty critical issue as part of our outlook. The forecasts in the Budget that showed public debt coming under control include assumptions that as incomes rise with inflation someone on the average wage after the year 2020 will end up paying the top tax rate. That is clearly unsatisfactory and it points out the challenge that New Zealand has to live within our means as we come out of this recession and overcome the impact of the recession on our books. We cannot allow the situation to unfold where someone on the average wage ends up paying the top tax rate. 
Unemployment—Prime Minister’s Statements 
2.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements on unemployment? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and I would like to add one more statement. Should I take from the fact that there is no question from Phil Goff today that he has joined the ranks of the unemployed? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Come on! Be even-handed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member has just accused me of not being even-handed. I did not object when members of the Opposition were hurling absolutely insulting interjections across the House during the last question. If I am to be even-handed I have to allow a little bit of “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.” I am very happy to clamp down on all of it if that is what honourable members would like but I want the House to live and breathe a bit. 
Hon Annette King 
: What did he mean when he said yesterday “Treasury’s prediction for all of 2009 was that unemployment would rise … that is not the advice we had from Treasury.” and what is the difference between Treasury’s predictions and advice? Is there a difference; if so what does he believe Treasury’s advice or its predictions? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not referred to the quote from yesterday’s  
Hansard 
 but what I would have said is that there was an increase from Treasury each and every week for 2009. What has happened is that the trend has actually gone down for 9 weeks. Unemployment has fallen in this country because of the actions of this Government. The only people who are lamenting that are the miserable Labour members who are very focused on unemployment at the moment. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he stand by his comments that Treasury cannot predict what the deficit will be in December let alone anything that requires a longer time frame and their predictions are wrong; if so why is he staking his credibility on Treasury’s advice about unemployment and why should New Zealanders believe the advice when the Prime Minister of this country calls Treasury’s predictions nonsense? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I do not stand by that statement and the reason for that is that we are in December and I reckon Treasury will probably get it right in the next 7 days. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did the Minister for Social Development and Employment advise him that barely 3 hours after he admitted in Parliament that her unemployment benefit figures were “unreliable highly volatile and potentially misleading” she intended to put out a statement saying “Oops I’m sorry. The number of people on the unemployment benefit is not actually going down it is now on the way up again.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because the Minister for Social Development and Employment has been pointing out to Cabinet for the last 9 weeks in a row that unemployment has been falling because of the actions of her department and I just took the time to congratulate her on her great work. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Keep going. This is going so well. 
Hon Annette King 
: Yes this is fun. I am enjoying this very much. [ 
Interruption 
]. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. A little more decorum please from the Government benches. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment who said that young people thinking of hanging about on the dole can forget about it on her watch; if so how come the number of young unemployed people has exploded by 14000 on her watch and of those 12000 have been unemployed for a year? Can he not see that this Minister is all puff and no action? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: My answer is to the Leader of the Opposition—sorry no it’s not. It is to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well feel free to ask a question I say to Phil Goff. I am here all afternoon. Anyway my answer to that question is quite simple. What about the 2100 people who have a job because of Job Ops? What about the 1200 people who got a job because of Community Max? We live in the real world on this side of the House. In the real world we are in the middle of a global economic recession and relative to other countries we are doing pretty well as a Government. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is he open to increasing New Zealand’s 2020 emissions reduction target when he is in Copenhagen next week in light of new evidence that even if the most ambitious targets countries have put forward are met the global average temperature will still rise by 3.5 degrees this century making large parts of the world uninhabitable? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it still his Government’s position to commit to an agreement that keeps average global warming below 2 degrees? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. The advice that we have had which is the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment indicates that if the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is stabilised at 450 parts per million we would stand a reasonable change of limiting global temperature increases to less than 2 degrees Celsius. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he accept the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that developed country targets averaging at between 25 percent and 40 percent below 1990 levels are essential to achieve the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: What I would say in terms of developed countries is that if one was to look at other countries around the world and see what they are proposing to take to Copenhagen I note that the target of the United States of America is 3.4 percent less Canada’s is 3 percent less and Australia’s could be anywhere from 4 percent less to 24 percent less. On that basis I think New Zealand is playing its part quite adequately. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a simple question as to whether he accepted the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about what was necessary to meet the goal. I did not ask about other countries. Can I repeat the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to repeat her question. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does he accept the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that developed country targets averaging at between 25 percent and 40 percent below 1990 levels are essential to achieve the goal of keeping global warming below 2 degrees Celsius? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I accept that that was the average that the panel thought was appropriate. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that pricing emissions is an important way to lower emissions; if so how does encouraging increased agricultural emissions at the cost of New Zealand taxpayers make any environmental or economic sense? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given his previous answer that targets of 25 percent to 40 percent on average are necessary and given that we are prepared to commit to only between 10 percent and 20 percent conditionally which countries does he think should do better than 40 percent in order to offset our failure to act? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Countries that will find it easier than us to achieve that greater reduction. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the answer that the Prime Minister just gave to the first part of my question how does encouraging increased agricultural emissions at the cost of New Zealand taxpayers make any environmental or economic sense? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because in the real world 3.5 billion people will be added to the planet over the next 40-odd years. The demand for food will double and this Government is focused on trying to play its part in feeding those people in the world and on doing so with a lower carbon footprint. That is why we are going to Copenhagen and arguing very strongly for our global alliance. I say to that member that if he keeps his eyes and ears open at Copenhagen if he goes or if he watches what is happening at Copenhagen he might find some quite surprising announcements on that front. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Has Cabinet delegated to him the authority to increase New Zealand’s 2020 target when he gets to Copenhagen in order to ensure that a successful agreement is achieved? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Cabinet has delegated to me in conjunction with the Minister for Climate Change Issues and the Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations) discretion about what we can agree to at Copenhagen but the target is unlikely to change. I tell members that the target will not be increasing. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Exactly what conditions would need to be met by other countries in order for New Zealand to commit to a target in the 25 to 40 percent range which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is essential? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I am not focused on that. What I am focused on is going to Copenhagen— 
Hon Annette King 
: What! What do you mean you’re not focused? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not focused on increasing New Zealand’s target. What I am focused on is going to Copenhagen and making sure that New Zealand can successfully negotiate the conditions that we think are important in order for us to achieve a target of 10 to 20 percent. If we do not negotiate those conditions we will not be able to achieve a target of 10 to 20 percent and we would have to have a lower target. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Prime Minister confirming that he is going to Copenhagen with a recipe for failure for the world’s climate rather than success? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Far from it! We are going to Copenhagen with a comprehensive plan. We have an emissions trading scheme that is now in legislation. We have a credible target relative to that of other countries. We have a global alliance that we are promoting around the world. That member is quite aware that from New Zealand’s perspective actually achieving large reductions on the 1990 base level is quite challenging. We have had some of the fastest population growth per capita of any annex 1 country. We started with one of the highest levels of renewable energy of any developed country. Also 50 percent of all emissions come from agriculture and we have no solution at this point to methane and nitrate emissions. If New Zealand were to achieve a target of 10 percent less that would be a significant milestone. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 4. [ 
Interruption 
] The Speaker is on his feet and the Prime Minister will respect that. I have called the Hon Jim Anderton and I would ask members on both sides of the House to show him respect. 
Primary Growth Partnership—Funding of Projects 
4.  
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: How much funding has been paid out to research and innovation projects in the primary sector through the Primary Growth Partnership since the formation of the National-led Government in November last year? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 The Primary Growth Partnership has adhered strictly to its funding timetable since being launched in September. Two first-stage funding rounds have already been undertaken and funding decisions will be made shortly if the business plans are approved. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: What we just heard from—sorry. Is the Minister of Agriculture telling the House— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The man who has been in the House longer than anybody else should be starting his question with a question word. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Jim Anderton realised he had made a slip of the tongue and he immediately proceeded to ask his question. I invite him to continue. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Is the Minister therefore telling the House that after 12 months in office the amount of money provided through the Primary Growth Partnership to help research and development in the primary industry sector is nil and that no progress has been made whatever when in fact before the Fast Forward Fund—if the Minister confirms—there were proposals ready to progress when he took office? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No what I am telling the House is that we are adhering to the timetable that was established. What I am telling the House is that good things take time. What we have before us is a Primary Growth Partnership that has been well supported and well thought through with industry supporting it unlike the former Fast Forward Fund which despite all the talk and smoke and mirrors did not receive one application from primary sector organisations. 
Shane Ardern 
: What level of industry support has the Government received for the Primary Growth Partnership? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The support the Government has received has been extraordinary. To date 14 different organisations have publicly endorsed the Primary Growth Partnership and over $200 million worth of funding applications have already been received. 
Rahui Katene 
: What opportunities for iwi involvement in the Primary Growth Partnership have been secured as a result of negotiations with the Maori Party and what will be the specific investment allocated towards this? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Government has committed to working with the Maori Party on two important research initiatives: the Primary Growth Partnership and the domestic agricultural greenhouse gas research centre. In addition it has appointed Jamie Tuuta to the independent advisory panel to provide a strong voice for Maori on the Primary Growth Partnership. This commitment will ensure appropriate iwi involvement and substantially increase public investment in this strategically important area for New Zealand and for iwi. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Supplementary Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member the honourable member had a supplementary question yesterday and has had one today. He has two allocated for the week. 
Hon Members 
: Allocated by Labour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK I will accept that. I ask in the future we be advised in advance. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Can he confirm the most extraordinary statement he has made to the House—and we have got it right—that not only has no money been allocated to primary industry research and development in the first 12 months of his Government but that is actually the strategy the National Party intended in the first place? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. I encourage the member to listen. I have just told the House that we now have before the Investment Advisory Panel in excess of $200 million worth of applications unlike the former Fast Forward Fund which was all smoke and mirrors and never received one application at all from any primary sector organisation. 
Electricity Market—Performance 
5.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What is the Government doing to improve the performance of the electricity market? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Today I announced a package of measures to improve the New Zealand electricity system. The changes will improve competition may constrain price increases should ensure effective and streamlined governance and increase security of supply. The changes are contained in the Electricity Industry Bill which will be introduced to the House tomorrow. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What changes will improve competition and constrain price increases? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think it is important to note that no Government can promise to lower prices. What we can do is make sure that policy settings are as good as possible to constrain future price increases and promote competition and efficiency. The major changes that I have announced today include transferring the Tekapo A and Tekapo B power stations from Meridian Energy to Genesis Energy; Meridian Energy Genesis Energy and Mighty River Power undertaking long-term hedge contracts for supply; requiring the establishment of a liquid hedge market; allowing lines companies back into retailing; and establishing a special fund to promote customer switching. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Minister actually telling the House that this is not going to lower power prices for hard-pressed New Zealand families; if so why did National in Opposition promise continuously that that is what they were going to do? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well that was the leader of a party— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. Now look even though a member may not like a question he must not start answering it by launching abuse at the questioner. The House knows it was the Leader of the Opposition who asked the question and the House would appreciate an answer from the Minister. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise for saying “was”. During the 9 years that Labour were in Government electricity prices went up by 72 percent. During the same period there was a consumer price index price rise of 28 percent. That was utterly disgraceful. What we have done is put together a package of measures designed to constrain that price. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to ever find a statement from me that said that a National Government would lower power prices. We in National think that the massive price rise we have had in the last 9 years is completely unacceptable and we are doing something about it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether he could confirm that this actually would not lower power prices and we have not heard the answer to that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The reality is as the Leader of the Opposition knows that the power price is set by retailers. All the Government can do is make sure that the environment for—[ 
Interruption 
] Do those members want an answer or not? The way in which the industry operates does allow that competition. That is something Labour never did. Labour set up the Electricity Commission which charged people every month on their bills and we simply saw the price continue to rise. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: So is the Minister therefore confirming that hard-pressed New Zealand families whose wages are being frozen on the order of the Minister of Finance will continue to see their power prices go up and that this is really just a sham—a bureaucratic and asset reshuffle? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I hear no apology for the appalling performance of the Labour Government over 9 years in this regard. I will— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was obvious to you from the beginning of that answer that the Minister was making no effort to answer the question but simply to rattle on and bluster. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I intend doing is allowing the honourable Leader of the Opposition to ask his question again. I ask him though to delete the last part of it. If he expects a reasonable answer from the Minister he should delete the last part of the question he asked and ask the question. Then I have a chance to have the Minister answer it. But with what the member added at the end of his question it is hard for me to stop the Minister from firing back. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Minister telling the House that hard-pressed New Zealand families whose incomes are being frozen will in fact continue to see their power prices go up and that this is more about a bureaucratic and asset reshuffle than it is about reducing power prices to hard-pressed New Zealand families? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If the Leader of the Opposition was in touch with the needs of ordinary families he would know— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again it would have been obvious to you that that was not an effort to answer the question but rather to give a speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition is making a fair point of order. He has asked a question and once he cut out the innuendo at the end of his question it was a fair question. In having the question answered the questioner should not be attacked; that is unreasonable. I have no problem with there being some comment later on but I would like to hear at least at the start of an answer something that tries to answer the question. 
Hon John Key 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With due respect if Labour members do not want any barbs in the answers they receive then I urge you to consider the rules of the House. Every time I am on my feet those people are yelling and screaming abuse. For 9 years when the issue was on the other side of the coin I remember abuse coming back at a much heavier rate. I think that if those members want to give it then they should be able to take it. If they cannot then we will have rules where there are none of those interjections and that will be totally fine with those on this side of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Diddums! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not helpful. I think the Prime Minister has made a perfectly fair point and at times as in the first question of the day I have felt that the level of interjection was unreasonable. I did not intervene because I felt that the honourable Prime Minister was coping with it pretty well. A degree of reasonableness is needed but on this particular occasion after I asked the honourable Leader of the Opposition to remove from his question offensive words—words that were somewhat offensive—then I think it is reasonable for the Minister to at least attempt to answer the question. With the earlier version of the question I do not blame the Minister for launching back but the honourable Leader of the Opposition appealed to me under a point of order. I have allowed him to repeat his question without the innuendo in it and I think that a more reasonable answer is appropriate. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can say that the measures that are in this bill will mean that New Zealanders will not face power prices rising at three times the rate of inflation as was the record of the years from 2000 to 2008. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What changes will increase security of supply? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: We have announced a number of initiatives to increase security of supply and also to reduce the supply risk in dry years. Most notable is the decision to require generators to compensate consumers if consumers are asked to save electricity through a national conservation campaign. Consumers will have the confidence of knowing that if they get that call they will be getting some money back from those who are calling for those savings. 
Finance Minister—Treasury Advice 
6.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement “advice we disagree with is bad advice; advice we agree with is good advice”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he consider it good advice that Treasury confirmed to the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that Government expenditure actually fell as a percentage of GDP by a full percent from 1999 to 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Whatever advice Treasury gave to the member what I can confirm is that in the 5 years to 2009 the actual level in dollars of Government spending went up by 49 percent and in the 5 years to 2010 it went up by 45 percent. This Government is wrestling— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It cannot be an acceptable precedent in this House for a Minister of Finance when asked whether a particular statistic was good advice to answer by choosing a different statistic. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In the interests of saving time I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister consider it good advice that Treasury confirmed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that Government expenditure actually fell as a percentage of GDP by a full percent from 1999 to 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That may be correct. As we discussed at the select committee the actual dollars spent rose by 49 percent in the 5 years to 2009 and this Government is wrestling with the consequences of mismanagement and reckless spending by the previous Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he consider it good advice when he created that 49 percent figure by including the effects of inflation economic growth economic cycles calculation and assumption changes and his own last Budget in order to overstate the expenditure trend for political purposes—that is to blame the previous Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. The member is wrong about that. He can look at the figures. They establish what everyone else seems to understand which is that Labour was a big-spending Government and we have to shut down that spending. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is his deliberate manipulation of these figures a precursor to substantial spending cuts in next year’s Budget as foreshadowed by his stalking horse 2025 Taskforce report? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has been very open about its intentions in respect of Government spending. We want to provide more and better public services for less money. That will be a challenge because in the last 5 years up to June 2009—mostly under Labour—Government spending went up by 49 percent when the economy grew by half that amount. Government spending has been out of control. There is a lot of waste and a lot of weak governance and we are trying to clean it up. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not mean to interrupt the flow but you were quite precise before about the fact that Ministers need to answer without diving into too much criticism of those who are asking the question. But that last question led off with an accusation that there had been deliberate manipulation of the figures. That is total supposition it is an allegation and the Minister should not be put in the position of answering material that has no factual base whatsoever. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not really want have a debate on this. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I ask the member to resume his seat. I assessed that the language used was not abusive. I accept that strictly speaking the honourable member is quite right in saying that questions should not contain assertions like that. But I think it was not unreasonable and members will note that I allowed the Minister in his reply to punch back. He made some comments in his reply that the questioner would not have liked and that is the way it flows. Had the language been more offensive I would have stopped it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How can he defend his comments about poor economic management when during the term of the last Labour Government Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s both increased New Zealand’s credit rating to the highest level in 22 years; when New Zealand reduced its net debt by 78 percent; and when New Zealand under Labour built up net Crown worth from $10 billion to $105 billion? How can he sustain an accusation that is clearly false? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The electorate will be ready to take Labour seriously when it apologises for squandering the best 10 years New Zealand could have had. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can the Minister reconcile his statement now that his focus is on getting debt under control with his statement at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that “frankly I’m not overly concerned about a reduction in debt” when it comes to the cost of superannuation or the cost of subsidising carbon pollution? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour Party of course would like the Government to cut national superannuation but National gave an undertaking about the level of national superannuation and we are going to stick with it. Alongside it we have to get control of Government spending which got out of control under the previous Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again when this Minister is in trouble on the facts— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no the member must not do that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Well Gerry does. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Yes Gerry does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members should not interject when I am on my feet. I called the member for a point of order; he must not start it in that way because it always leads to disorderliness. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To rephrase it seems to me that the Minister has made two errors under the Standing Orders. Firstly he has replied to a question about Government policy by making an allegation about a policy of the Opposition for which he is not responsible. That is the first point. The second point is that what he is alleging to be the Opposition’s policy is not in fact the Opposition’s policy; it is a fiction. On either ground he is at odds with the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not going to continue this matter any further. What is happening now is a debate under a point of order and I am not going to allow that. But I note that the Minister in answering did refer to an alleged Opposition policy and make a comment about that which is strictly not within the Standing Orders. However this question has gone to and fro and both sides have contravened the Standing Orders. I think we had best let it lie. It has been a reasonable exchange up to this point and I do not want to let it carry on under points of order. 
Climate Change Copenhagen Conference—New Zealand Objectives 
7.  
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What objectives does New Zealand have at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen and what is the latest advice on the prospect of these being achieved? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 New Zealand’s objective is a comprehensive global agreement that limits temperature rises to 2 degrees or 450 parts per million carbon dioxide equivalent and that contains the essential elements to achieve this with mitigation commitments by developed countries and mitigation actions by developing countries. It will not be possible to achieve a ratifiable successor to Kyoto but it would be a significant step forward to achieve agreement on a political declaration decisions on early action and a mandate to progress to a final agreement next year. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What reports has the Minister received on the adequacy of New Zealand’s target of a 10 to 20 percent reduction in 1990 emissions by 2020? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that an independent assessment of individual country pledges published in Copenhagen this week by the European Climate Foundation ranks countries from role models to inadequate. New Zealand receives a medium ranking consistent with our policy of ensuring that we do our fair share as a developed country and is in the top 10 of countries that have tabled commitments at Copenhagen. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Does he agree with the assessment that the biggest challenge at Copenhagen will be bridging the political gap between developed and developing countries; if so what steps will New Zealand be taking to assist in resolving these differences? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I do because we will not resolve this global problem without getting large developing countries to curtail the growth in their emissions but they understandably want developed countries to take the lead. The initiative announced by John Key at the United Nations General Assembly to develop a global alliance on agricultural emissions is a contribution to assist in this area and we will be advancing it further at Copenhagen. 
Finance Minister—Self-drive Car 
8.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Were the capital and running costs of the self-drive car used by the Hon Bill English in the first 6 months of this Government properly appropriated under the Public Finance Act 1989; if so will he table official advice if any to that effect? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services) 
: 
 Yes; the Department of Internal Affairs capital expenditure intentions were included in the estimates of appropriation as were the non-departmental other expense costs for the operation of those vehicles. The answer to the second part of the question is no. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If the Minister is so sure of himself then why does he not table the advice? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it is standard Government practice not to release legal opinions. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: If he thinks he broke no regulation or law then why did he sign consultation letters to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and the chair of the Remuneration Authority on 6 March only to consult them again on 18 May with one late change which is the one that removes the requirement for self-drive cars to be based at a member’s primary place of residence? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it was appropriate for me to do so. Can I—[ 
Interruption 
] Yeah I know that this is the thing that is holding the country back but members must bear with me for a second because I will just help them through their afternoon. The member pays a lot of attention to part 2 of the 2003 determination. Unfortunately for him he seems to have overlooked part 1 which I will just draw to his attention. It states— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What a smart alec. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: —no I am not a smart-arse; this is the answer to the question. It is the cost-effective principle which provides exactly this: “Wherever reasonably practicable members of the Executive should endeavour to use the most cost-effective alternative available.” That is exactly what we are doing. We are actually saving taxpayers money and I am sure that they welcome that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Minister make the hasty hurried and late change in May of this year which he now tells the House that he did not really need to do so; which part of that is not true? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it was brought to my attention by Ministerial Services in May that it was a good idea as a way of saving money and tidying up all the rules. 
Street Racing—Deterrents 
9.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Have any recent steps been taken to protect New Zealand communities from the dangerous behaviour of boy racers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that on 1 December— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I say to members of the House that what is going on here is just not reasonable. A member has asked a question which is her right and she deserves to hear an answer as does the House. The members who are carrying on their personal interjections across the House are being totally unreasonable. I invite the Hon Judith Collins to continue her answer and I apologise for her being interrupted. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I am pleased to report that on 1 December two new street racing laws came into effect. These laws have given the police the courts and councils new tools to crack down on boy racers. Repeat street racing offenders can now have their cars impounded seized sold or crushed. They can receive demerit points for noise offences. Councils can also bring in by-laws to ban cruising on city streets. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What actions have police taken following the passing of boy-racer legislation? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Police have been highly visible over the weekend throughout the country. In Christchurch a special police operation resulted in six cars being impounded 52 unsafe vehicles being taken off the road and 80 young drivers called up for breaching licence conditions. These new laws are part of this Government’s focus on making our communities safer for families. 
Brendon Burns 
: Can the Minister tell New Zealanders in electorates like mine who endure much debilitating boy-racer noise why the latest two laws do nothing to cut noise exhaust levels as repeatedly promised by National in Opposition? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The laws relating to noise levels are not part of the Minister of Police’s jurisdiction. I think that that member should put down the question for the appropriate Minister on that particular issue. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What other steps have taken place to protect communities in the Christchurch areas that have been particularly plagued by boy racers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am delighted to report that the new Canterbury police antisocial road user team has achieved outstanding results in its first 3 months of operation. It has impounded 48 vehicles made 33 arrests suspended 30 licences issued 185 non-operation orders prosecuted 25 drink-drivers and attended 12 vehicle crashes. In addition it has issued more than 2200 infringement and offence notices in just 3 months. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to table a page from a National Party election pamphlet in which big-bore campaigners Nick Smith and Nicky Wagner pledge tough new vehicle noise laws. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection? 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Adult and Community Education—Redundancies 
10.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice has she received about the numbers of redundancies of adult and community education coordinators in high schools which are occurring right now? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 I do not have advice on the numbers but then I would not expect to because those are matters for the boards of trustees. I do understand that those are employment or contractual arrangements and it depends on whether the boards of trustees have employed these coordinators whether they have contracted them or whether the coordinators will continue to provide services in the new year. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was set down on notice as a question for consideration. I would have thought the Minister might have been able to discern that information from officials. Is that not possible? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question that member has asked—and I accept fully that it was on notice—asked what advice the Minister had received on the matter. The Minister said she had not received any advice on the matter. I think that it was a perfectly reasonable answer to the question. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How are schools paying for these redundancies? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said to the member in my earlier answer it is an employment matter between the boards of trustees and the staff. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What advice has she received about the pressure on schools’ budgets caused by those redundancies and what will children go without next year because of them? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have not had any advice on that matter. 
Sue Moroney 
: If it is costing Melville High School in Hamilton around $80000 to pay for two redundancies what has she suggested that the principal of Melville High cuts from that school’s operational grant in 2010 to afford the necessary and rightful redundancy payments? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to the board of trustees of Melville High School that that was a decision it made when it employed someone full-time on a yearly contract of funding. It was clearly a decision that the board made itself. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked what suggestions the Minister had for what the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough. The Minister answered the question because the member asked what suggestions she had and she gave suggestions. If the member asks that kind of question she cannot expect a precise answer. 
Education National Standards—Introduction 
11.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When will national standards be introduced into English medium schools for years 1-8 and why? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This Government is not prepared to accept so many students leaving our education system unable to read write and do maths anywhere near the level they need to succeed. National standards will be introduced into primary and intermediate schools next year and schools will report progress against them to parents in plain English at least twice a year. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister seen in support of national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have had many teachers principals and members of the public tell me that they support national standards. One example of support that I received last week said: “It is important to let you know that not all principals support the present frenzy against national standards. There are colleagues out there”— 
Moana Mackey 
: Now read out the emails from all the other principals! 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: —I know that the Opposition does not want to hear this but there are principals who support it—“who feel the same way but raising your head above the parapet in these times is a risky act.” I am confident that most schools around the country are happy to get on with implementing national standards because they are worried that so many of our New Zealand kids are falling through the cracks. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister seen from educational organisations suggesting that they may take industrial action over national standards next year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen a report suggesting just that and I find it really disappointing that the unions want to stop parents from getting information about how their kids are doing. This Government is on the side of parents and on the side of kids. We want them to do well in our schools we need them to do well in our schools and national standards will help them do that. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Is she concerned that whereas Pakeha children scored an average of 547 in the Programme for International Student Assessment for science Maori children scored an average of 473 and Pasifika children scored an average of 441 and what action will she be taking in English medium schools to address the evident failure of those institutions to invest in the achievement of Maori and Pasifika students? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Of course we are concerned and that is why we are introducing national standards. They will provide an excellent tool for schools to identify and support those students who are not achieving. That party sitting over there had 9 years in Government to do something and all it did was talk while the gap between the top and the bottom got bigger. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What is the name of one of the academics or assessment experts she told the House last week who supports both national standards and her Government’s implementation methods? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Professor Hattie invented them so he should support them. 
Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004—Ports of Auckland Shares 
12.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What did Cabinet decide in response to his recommendation that the provisions of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 protecting the Ports of Auckland shares from disposal be repealed? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Although Cabinet has decided to repeal the Auckland Regional Holdings provisions in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act 2004 and bring those assets under the general council-controlled organisation provisions of the Local Government Act 2002 it has also placed a statutory moratorium on the sale of any shareholdings including the port shares until after the first long-term council community plan is completed by the new council in July 2012. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he stand by his statement to Cabinet that these protections—the ones in the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Act—relate to “the sensitivity at the time surrounding the potential sale of the ports of Auckland”; if so on what basis does he believe Aucklanders have changed their minds and no longer want a referendum on the privatisation of their ports? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes; the reason is that I have trust in Auckland people. We have had on numerous occasions Mr Twyford claim that the Government’s reforms are all about privatisation. On 9 June it was swimming pools on 12 July it was libraries on 20 July it was housing on 29 October it was the waterfront and on 9 November it was water. All these claims have been proven to be false. I understand that the Public Service Association has been concerned about them and has spoken to the Labour Party because of the upset that is being caused among council staff by the false allegations that are being made by the member. 
Phil Twyford 
: How does the Minister reconcile his advocacy for referenda on rates capping with his desire to repeal the law that requires a referendum before the port shares can be sold off? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Easily. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he stand by his statement that the privatisation of local assets is “a pretend debate” when Cabinet has decided to lift the restrictions on privatising the ports of Auckland and when the Government has decided to allow private companies to own water infrastructure for up to 35 years and to repeal the requirement that councils consult the public before they contract out public services to the private sector? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I do. This Government is different from the previous one in that we trust local government and the people of Auckland. I suggest to the member that he tries that. I know it is hard for him because they rejected him on the North Shore his own party rejected him in Mt Albert and he has been rejected— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —in Auckland Central and he will be rejected— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Hon Rodney Hide that it is not acceptable to keep talking when the Speaker is on his feet and it was unnecessary to add the last part to that answer. That was just personal criticism which is not helpful to the order of the House. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that he wants to see the privatisation of the ports of Auckland? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Not as the Minister. I suggest to Mr Twyford that in order to understand this issue he consults his party’s spokesperson on local government the Hon George Hawkins who understands the local government provisions in the Local Government Act 2002. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Jeanette Fitzsimons seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s emissions reduction target in light of evidence from a new study conducted in Germany the results of which were made public in New Zealand yesterday. The application arises as a result of newspaper reports of the new study. There is no ministerial responsibility for the results of the study and as has been ruled on many occasions a continuing issue—the accumulation of evidence concerning the setting of emissions reduction targets—cannot give rise to a debate under Standing Order 380. There being no particular case of recent occurrence this application is declined. 
Tabling of Documents 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Assessment of Government Target 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the assessment of New Zealand’s emissions reduction target at Copenhagen which rates the target very well given the interest that there is in New Zealand’s position at Copenhagen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Earlier this year John Key predicted that by this stage of the year New Zealand would be coming strongly out of recession. I am very pleased that the world is coming out of recession but so far ordinary hard-working New Zealanders are seeing no benefit from that. In fact New Zealanders on the average or below-average wage are finding that things are getting worse not better. This is a Government that looks after the privileged not ordinary hard-working New Zealanders. 
Recently I attended a rally of low-paid workers. They are the decent folk who keep our hospitals going: the orderlies the cleaners and the people who work in the kitchen. They are the people who care for the disabled and the elderly. Those folk are on $13 to $14 an hour but they have been offered by this Government a zero wage increase. A zero wage increase is not a pay freeze; it is a pay cut. Their power prices are going up the cost of their groceries is going up and their rents have gone up. They were finding it hard to make ends meet before; now they simply cannot make ends meet. 
This year rent payments according to Statistics New Zealand have gone up by more than 8 percent. A zero wage increase and an 8 percent increase in the average person’s rent are driving many New Zealanders into poverty. Last week we saw the figures from the Southern Cross health survey. What did those figures tell us? They told us that the figures relating to New Zealanders who simply cannot afford to go to the doctor have gone up by 8 percent. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders under this Government’s Minister of Health cannot afford to go to the doctor when they are ill. Doctors’ fees have gone up by 6.5 percent. I say to Mr Ryall that that is false economy because those people who cannot get treatment when they need it will end up getting more seriously ill at huge personal cost to themselves but also at a cost to the health system. 
We have seen power prices go up. Today we had the announcement of the new restructuring of the electricity market. But nothing in that restructuring will help ordinary people struggling to meet their power bills. Sitting next to the Minister of Energy and Resources is the Minister for State Owned Enterprises who got $300 million in dividends out of those power companies this year and said that he wants more; he wants more. 
Bill English the Minister of Finance told these low-income people that they will have a pay freeze for 5 years. A pay freeze of 5 years drives people into poverty and for the Minister of Finance to announce the pay freeze from the high moral ground of doubling his housing allowance to $47000—more money than most of these workers get in a full year—is actually a lack of moral authority. That is why he is not taken seriously. Mr Hide who supports this can take his girlfriend to Hawaii or Disneyland but what about the average family who is finding it impossible to make ends meet? Mr Harawira can do the same; he went to Paris. 
This is a Government that has no standards but expects to put the full weight of recession on ordinary hard-working New Zealanders who are finding it toughest at the bottom. These are the people who did not get the tax cuts that were forced through Parliament this time last year; these are the people who will be paying the costs in the cuts to accident compensation and the other things that the Government is doing to New Zealanders. This is a Government that has no concept of what it is like to be on the average wage and to struggle to make ends meet. This is a Government that has no concept of fairness. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 That speech from the Leader of the Opposition can lead us only to diagnose him with RDS—relevance deprivation syndrome. Relevance deprivation syndrome is how Gareth Evans once described going out of Government and that speech shows how irrelevant Mr Goff and his failed party opposite has become. 
I understand the situation they find themselves in. I remember going into Opposition after 9 years in power and it is true that one goes through the seven stages of grief. First up there is shock and denial as one reacts to learning of the loss in numbed disbelief: “You … deny the reality” and “Shock provides emotional protection from being overwhelmed all at once.” That is what it is like. During 9 years in office the media and the left-wing rags were telling them that they were completely impenetrable and that they were the best Government New Zealand had had so of course it is now shock and denial. 
The second stage is pain and guilt: “As the shock wears off it is replaced with the suffering of unbelievable pain … You may have guilty feelings or remorse over things you did or didn’t do”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker does not have painful thoughts. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am quoting from a document. Do members remember Labour members apologising for the seabed and foreshore legislation? They are guilty about that. They are saying that they should not have been so politically correct about that. They are saying that they should not have brought in the Electoral Finance Act. They are telling us to feel their pain and their guilt. 
The third stage of the seven stages of grief is anger and bargaining: “Frustration gives way to anger and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame … Please try to control this as permanent damage to your relationships may result.” We are seeing that in the party opposite. I have not seen David Cunliffe speak to Phil Goff in question time for a very long time. That is very sad. Of course bargaining is going on. There are deals about who will go to Phil’s barbecue this Christmas who will replace him and what will be going on. That is stage three. 
I think Labour members are stuck between stage three and stage four which is reflection and loneliness: “Just when your friends may think you should be getting on with your life a long period of sad reflection will likely overtake you.” I remember that Nick Smith remembers that— 
Hon Simon Power 
: I remember that. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —and Simon Power remembers that. It is pretty tough. That is why that party sits embarrassed with its head down when its leader gets up and gives that sort of general debate speech. When we are 2 weeks from Christmas and the party president has to stand up with the leader and pledge undying loyalty— 
Hon Member 
: This member has been loyal to everyone! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We remember that. It is so disingenuous. They get up and pledge undying loyalty. They say that there are no problems that caucus is happy with everything and that there are no concerns at all. Then the guy from Wellington Central Robertson is out talking to members of the press gallery and giving them the full story on what actually happened! 
So there are seven stages of grief. Opposition members are nowhere near the next step which is the upward turn—that is about 9 years away. Then they have to go through reconstruction which could be David Cunliffe’s big opportunity to deal with everything—with reconstruction. Then one moves to acceptance and hope. But the country can see there will be no acceptance of another Labour Government when it considers how the previous Labour Government failed over 9 years to provide this country with the kind of leadership and direction that John Key is providing to New Zealanders. Members opposite fail to realise as has been said in Australia that they are not a Government in exile; they are in Opposition. The country told the previous Government that it was time it left and it is time that members opposite realise they have a long way to go. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 The previous speaker the Hon Tony Ryall has seven stages of grief. The first one is when he remembers the days when it cost 50 bucks to go to the doctor not 10 bucks. The second is when he remembers it cost 15 bucks for a prescription not three bucks. Then he remembers the world before decent primary health care or when we still promoted healthy food in schools. He is really enjoying this is he not! He is really enjoying a fight; he loves a good scrap. What a resolute spokesperson for the Government the Hon Tony Ryall really is! Is that really the best that this tired Government could put up? Let me remind that member of a couple of other things. I remember when the Ministry of Health staff actually turned up and enjoyed their work and when the ministry believed in the direction of Government policy—before it was gutted and put out to scrap because of the ego of that man who is not prepared to stand and get his medicine back. Those are the seven stages of grief. If Mr Ryall wants to argue about it he should come back and face the music. 
Ordinary Kiwis are facing the music this Christmas. This Christmas they are faced with rising costs at a time when their wages are frozen and Bill English is doing the double-talk. He is telling them the world is in recovery but that they cannot be part of it. He is telling them that the previous Government lavished expenditure on them and they had it too good which is why they cannot have it now. The problem that Bill English has is that nobody trusts him any more. People do not trust his personal judgment they do not trust him not to get his wires crossed when his own interests are at stake and they distrust him even more after today to correctly quote Treasury’s figures. Manipulating Government expenditure numbers is about as bad as it gets for a Minister of Finance. Apparently Bill English cannot tell the difference between nominal numbers and real numbers. He is so fixated on Labour that when describing the previous Government’s expenditure he included his own last Budget. Talk about integrity! He cannot tell the difference between his own Budget and ours. The reason for that is that the only Budget that did anything for ordinary New Zealanders in the recession was ours. It was Budget 2008. That Minister ought to be very grateful that the so-called rough edges were taken off the recession because people had a Government that cared only 18 months ago. 
But it is all downhill for Kiwis now because the stalking horse of the 2025 Taskforce has been revealed for what it was. It was not a serious attempt at policy. Oh no! Mr Key saw to it that before the report was even released it was dissed to the media. It was just like what happened regarding Mr Hide’s trip to Hawaii. A little phone call from the ninth floor to the press gallery put paid to that one. This country is faced with a Budget in 2010 that might actually start to line up National’s actions with its intentions and that might actually start to claw into the basics that New Zealanders have had to get by on during this terrible recession. The Government cannot have it both ways: it cannot be both popular and decisive. 
We all know that the only decisions that National is prepared to make are the wrong ones: the decision that says the answer to a recession is to make cuts or the way to give New Zealanders a future is to take away their educational opportunities or the way to have healthy kids is to take away healthy food in schools. I say: “Mr Ryall come back; your country needs you!”. The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot be a kinder gentler “Labour-lite” National Government and deliver what New Zealanders want and also give New Zealanders a clear plan because it is obvious that the only idea of a plan is one that Don Brash serves up to the Government. Why is it that when the Government ship is becalmed in the sea of ideas the word goes out to the denizens of the old right—the Murray Horns the Graham Scotts and the Don Brashes—and the sign goes up saying “Help we need an idea.”? But when the idea comes in the National members say: “Ah that wasn’t exactly the one we wanted to try to sell. We wanted a new idea.” Well I say so do New Zealanders as they are at home worrying about this Christmas. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Seven years in the wilderness is what that crowd opposite is facing. For the biblically inclined it will be a time of tribulation. We could ask whether Mr Goff can survive such a trial. Mr Goff already knows what that is like. He saw it in 1990 through to 1999 and I have to say National saw it from 1999 through to 2008. We know that things happen in 7 years. Leaders become desperate. They make what they believe to be epoch-making speeches. They fend off challenges—or not. They demand loyalty. They deal with whispering campaigns. 
We have all seen this in just the last week. It did not take 7 years actually. It took 1 week. I am not surprised that Mr Goff is somewhat grey-haired now; the flush of youth is truly gone from him. Let us look at the so-called nationhood speech that he made. How did it start? “New Zealand is at a cross-roads” and there was some kind of divisive approach—one pathway another pathway. So why does this speech include words like “festering wounds” “dividing New Zealanders” “set one against another” and “ ‘pork bone’ politics”? 
Mr Goff knows full well the importance of language. He knows that those words will set people against one another. He knows that people will react adversely. So it was not surprising was it that Andrew Little the president of the Labour Party said on Monday that he had personal concerns. I have to ask whether he was speaking personally or speaking for other members of his party. I notice for instance that Mr Shane Jones did not applaud his leader’s speech today. Actually he was virtually the only one who did not. 
Hon Member 
: Oh for God’s sake! 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Well for God’s sake everyone else clapped but Mr Jones did not. Are they personal concerns or party concerns? 
Look at what happened. On Wednesday the headlines read like this: “Party backs Goff on Nationhood speech.” The article stated that Mr Goff said there was “unanimous support” for his leader’s speech. How can it be that on Monday Mr Little had personal concerns but on Tuesday Mr Goff had unanimous support? Well I have seen that sort of thing happen. I have been in a party that endured a little bit of time in Opposition. We had more than one leader. I have seen people going into caucus with a little bit of a whispering campaign talking to the media and going around the back saying that maybe things are not quite right but when they come out of caucus there is unanimous support. Do members know what usually happens after that? A bit of time goes on there is a bit more whispering and then what happens is a leadership spill. 
When Mr Ryall said that Mr Cunliffe had not yet conversed with Mr Goff during question time it struck a chord because I have seen that sort of thing happen in the past. I have seen people like Shane Jones not clap. We can see the divisions emerging. We can see the unhappiness that exists on that flank. We always know it do we not? Immediately after such a time what does the leader do? He comes down he uses the general debate to give a speech every party member is sitting there dutifully—actually they were looking a bit grey-faced I have to say—and they all applaud. What we do on this side and what those members have done in the past is to look for those who do not applaud because that is where the divisions lie. We look for those who do not look at each other and we can see where the divisions lie. 
How is it that in the beginning of the week there were concerns but after a few days Labour members are comfortable with the speech? We know where this sad tale ends. There will be many more years in the wilderness. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 People all around the country are asking what the plan is from the Government. Well we have just seen that the Government does not have a plan but it does have a Mapp! That is about as close as it will get to having a plan. The member who has just resumed his seat Wayne Mapp once held the lofty title of “PC Eradicator”. The “PC Eradicator” was going to sweep the country and eradicate the scourge of political correctness. Well the only thing that was eradicated was his title. It was gone by lunchtime. Wayne Mapp did not have any credibility to start with and that was why he got the job of PC eradicator. 
There are 16 more sleeps until Christmas. I know that a lot of people in this House are looking forward to what is a very special time for many families. We will have time with our families without the pressure of work have special food together have special times to share and perhaps if we have been very good—as I understand Mr Speaker you are reported to have been this year—we will even get some special gifts for Christmas. I hope that everyone in the House does have a wonderful time. 
But I know that for a lot of New Zealanders this Christmas will not be a good time. For a lot of very hard-working ordinary New Zealanders this Christmas will be very sad and very hard. What many of our New Zealand families face are increased costs and a decrease in income. People who are already on a low wage and are working really really hard at their job have then been offered a 0 percent wage increase. When they face increased costs for petrol electricity and food and for rent or mortgage repayments—everything that they have to take out of their pay packet every week—and they are offered a 0 percent wage increase by the Minister of Health and by the Minister of Finance they really do wonder what they have done to deserve such a heartless Government. 
This Government lacks any respect for people and the jobs that they do. It does not care about the fact that not just at this Christmas but throughout next year as well life will not get any better but will get harder. A lot of New Zealanders face insecurity in their jobs. They are facing a 0 percent wage-increase offer which is in fact a wage cut and they are watching all the prices around them go up. For example Maori and Pacific workers have seen their weekly earnings actually fall in the past year. It is not just that they have had a 0 percent wage increase; their average earnings have actually fallen over the last year. The average wage per week in June last year for a Maori family was $398 and now it is $392. For Pacific families the average wage was $375 a week and now it is $359. So they have already lost money. 
In the South Island the clerical workers who work in our hospitals in our district health boards have been offered a 0 percent wage increase. That is a wage cut. Those are front-line health workers. Those are the people who answer the phone make the appointments put away all the patient records and make sure that the doctors and nurses can do their jobs properly. They are being told that the $14 an hour that they are paid is enough and that it is tough for them if they have to face increased costs. We know of course that 2000 people a week have lost their job. That is 2000 jobs a week gone from the New Zealand economy over the last 12 months. 
In circumstances like those people would expect to have a Government and particularly a Prime Minister that cared. Yesterday the Prime Minister was asked in this House about the predictions for unemployment—about his commitment to supporting New Zealanders to keep their jobs and for those who have already lost them to get into a new job. I was just astonished at his answer. He was asked directly about unemployment and the answer he gave my colleague Annette King was: “Why should there be no road rage on my cycleway? I think it is a good idea.” I am not sure what road rage on cycleways has to do with unemployment but hard-working New Zealanders deserve better than that from the Prime Minister. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call in this general debate. As we are coming to the end of the year and building up to Christmas many of us take some time out and take a breather and start reflecting on the year we have had. We reflect on how good our year has been or how bad our year has been and where we want to go in the future. 
There were seven polls over this last year which I want to reflect back on—just seven polls. The first poll I will reflect on was on 22 February this year. It was the One News Colmar Brunton poll. National was at 56 percent Labour at 28 percent Key at 51 percent and Goff—who can guess what Goff was at? 
Hon Members 
: What? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Six! Goff was at 6 percent in February. I will read out the commentary of February as to what happened: “They have been in office for just over 100 days and already the country has given a big thumbs up to John Key’s new National Government. The first ONE News Colmar Brunton poll of the year shows National rating twice as high as Labour whose new leader Phil Goff is looking like the invisible man as he struggles to lift his party out of the doldrums. Key can hardly put a foot wrong right now. The Prime Minister breaks his arm and it turns out to be a boost for charity with his plaster cast selling on Trade Me … for 18-and-a-half thousand dollars … Even when he got roughed up … at Waitangi … the overall signs were of racial harmony with National and the Maori Party’s working partnership setting the tone. In fact right now the National camp has everything to smile about. … In fact the former defence minister is missing in action as far as the battle for recognition goes.” 
Poll No. 2 was in April. Key was at 51 percent and Goff—who can guess what Goff was at? 
Hon Members 
: What? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Six! He was on 6 percent again. What had National done in that time? Well we had talked about tourism and we had done stuff on roads on small and medium sized enterprises and on jobs and growth and we were pretty much on a roll. 
But when we go further and look at the poll in August the third poll we go to what does it say? National was on 56 percent Labour on 31 percent Key on 51 percent and Goff had gone up. Who can guess what Goff was on? 
Paul Quinn 
: Six? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Seven! He was on 7 percent—nearly double figures. Goff was on 7 percent in the third poll of the year. But we still had things to do. We still had the cycleway to push through the cycleway that New Zealand fell in love with. 
But no there is more. We have to go to the fourth poll of the year which was in September. Key dropped 1 percent and was then on 50 percent and Goff had gone up again. What was Goff on? He nearly made it to double figures—9 percent. And so it was that 9 percent was the high for the year. He was feeling good he was doing things he had made it to 9 percent. 
OK let us move on to my fifth poll for the year in October. National was on 59 percent Labour on 27 percent and Key had gone up wait for it 55.8 percent. 
Hon Member 
: What a high. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: What a high! But no Goff had dropped. Oh no he had dropped from 9 percent. What could he have been on? What was he on? 
Paul Quinn 
: Six? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: He was on 4.7 percent. His rating had halved—oh no! What had happened? Let us see what was said about Goff at 4.7 percent: “Goff does even worse on a question”—[ 
Interruption 
]—are those members listening? This is all real; they can read it themselves—“about personality scoring just 26 percent to Key’s 72 percent. Funnily enough Goff also scores worse on inexperience which is ironic given he’s been in Parliament five times as long as Key. … they think Key … is a friendly personable competent chap who’s doing a good job.” That was poll No. 5. 
Poll No. 6—we are nearly there; I know this is tough for the Opposition—was on 31 October. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I seldom agree with anything written by the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s conservative commentator Garth George so I was astounded to find myself in full agreement with his column last week in which he called Don Brash’s 2025 Taskforce report “economic and social bullshit”. He suggested that every copy should be recycled into toilet paper. I have the document here if anyone would like to use it for that purpose; it cost us as taxpayers only $150000. I also liked someone else’s description of the Brash “playgroup” spending their time photocopying old ACT policy leaflets and calling it a task force. 
“Planet Brash” is a strange parallel universe in which the reduction of the minimum wage to the same ratio as the average wage that prevailed in 1999—that is to less than $11 an hour—will somehow increase New Zealanders’ wages to the level of Australian wages. On “Planet Brash” the sick disabled and mothers of young children are forced to work for the reduced minimum wage and students are saddled with further debt through the reintroduction of interest on loans. On “Planet Brash” all businesses owned by central government that operate in markets where competition is actual or feasible are privatised. Well that one worked really well for the railways and Air New Zealand did it not? On “Planet Brash” water is not a public good; it is a tradable commodity to be hocked off along with local government trading enterprises to predatory big business. And the list goes on. 
The report reads like a cut and paste from Sir Roger Douglas’ unfinished business—the dream of a few extremist neo-liberals who would have our economy heading rapidly in the direction of Iceland rather than Australia. Even the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have rubbished it so why do they not just scrap the task force? The answer of course is that they have some particularly unpalatable policies of their own to deliver and they need Brash’s far-right rantings out there in the public domain to make their own social and economic policies appear more moderate. That will help the country to accept their policies and to be quite comfortable and relaxed as the Prime Minister often says about more punitive approaches to beneficiaries. 
Bill English hinted at some of these policies on  
Q+A 
 last month when he announced that National’s pre-election welfare policy which read like “Brash-lite” was back on the agenda now that the recession was easing. The jury is out on the question of whether the recession is really easing or whether we are just having a temporary respite from it but regardless of trends in economic growth it is undeniable that the unemployment rate is continuing to rise. Figures released by the Ministry of Social Development this week state that 57000 more people have been relying on the unemployment benefit since November 2008. 
So where will they come from the jobs that Bill English and Paula Bennett want to force upon invalids and sickness beneficiaries who are assessed as having some capacity for work? And where are the flexible working environments for single parents whose youngest children are aged over 6? These people will be among the most disadvantaged in the labour market: people with mental and/or physical impairments and people with childcare responsibilities. There will be no jobs for many of them to go to and Work and Income’s persistent efforts to force them to find work will in the current job climate be tantamount to harassment. Pushing more people into the labour market especially people who will be significantly disadvantaged in it will have the exactly opposite effect to the purported objective of the task force; it will drive wages down. 
Ten days ago I spent a day outside Work and Income’s Rotorua office and I met literally hundreds of poor disabled and mainly Maori whanau who were on benefits and were utterly disheartened by the approach of some case managers to their poverty and their need. They did not even want to walk in the door any more and that was even before we had any more bright ideas from Don Brash Bill English or Paula Bennett. Those people were totally disheartened by being disrespected when they went in to try to get a $20 food grant. 
So “Happy Christmas” to the poor and hungry of this country. The food bank is empty and “Scrooge McBrash” is creating a smokescreen for the more subtle methods of keeping the Christmas stocking empty for the apparently undeserving poor. There will be no Christmas bonus for them but $150000 of their money—and I include beneficiaries because they pay taxes through their benefits—has been spent on this sad sideshow while people go without food and children go without shoes. They are going without power and fuel. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 The Labour Party leadership at the moment reminds me a little of that old show  
Dad’s Army 
 with Phil Goff running around like Captain Mainwaring saying: “Don’t panic don’t panic! Everybody has undying loyalty towards me.” We can almost hear the sucking sound of the votes and the money disappearing from the Labour Party as a result. 
Meanwhile the Labour caucus is in fairyland as in that old fairy tale Snow White. We all remember the tale. There was a wicked stepmother. In this case it is Mr Cunliffe who stands in front of his magic mirror saying: “Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of them all?”. What does the mirror say? It says: “It is you Mr Cunliffe for you are the prince and the future of the party.” Mr Cunliffe smiles and he sits there with his seven secret dwarfs and his secret illuminati of Dyson Cosgrove and Parker who long ago formed a secret pact. We all know who “Dopey” “Grumpy” and “Sleepy” are obviously. 
Meanwhile we have Stuart “Mangrove” Nash a starter for “Bashful” if ever I saw one. At least that is what every female member of the Napier population tells me. Darren Hughes is known as “Happy” simply because he knows Mr Cunliffe will get rid of Mr Mallard and give him the position of shadow Leader of the House making sure he has the ability to do his job properly in silence. Over to the left we have “Mr Sneezy Hipkins” the man who loves Mr Cunliffe as he wants him to keep his seat but clearly Mr Goff does not want him to keep his seat. Mr Hipkins even put in his own personal blog that he would be surprised if the Labour Party ever caught the National Party in future. Then there is “Mr Doc” Grant Robertson “Mr I Don’t Worry About a Thing Robertson” who said: “I know how to do a coup because Helen Clark taught me but I do suffer a bit from premature excitement and I’m not very good at attending barbeques but can I be in the team anyway?”. 
What a collection of misshapen misguided and mistaken individuals. But “Hi ho hi ho it is off to caucus they go.” Every week they are knocked into shape and they tell Mr Goff not to worry because they are behind him—almost 100 percent sharpening their axes. Meanwhile like a forlorn lost child in the woods a little man waits and only yesterday Mr Cunliffe stood up after Mr Nash had brought him the mirror and said: “Mirror mirror on the wall who’s the fairest of them all?”. What did the mirror say? “You Mr Cunliffe are truly fair but there is another star rising in the north over there.” Mr Cunliffe screamed “Who’s that?” like a jilted lover at the mirror. 
“It is Shane Jones.” whispered the mirror. Yes it is my fellow front-row player on the Parliamentary Rugby Team the Hon Shane Jones the silver-tongued fox with the wit to match. It is just a shame that Labour has not worked that out yet and woken from its slumber. Labour does not recognise his massive talents. What a stroke of genius it was for Mr Jones to put forward the nationhood speech to get rid of the dark prince of the Labour Party and bring in the silver-tongued fox from the north. What wonderful genius that was! 
On this side of the House we care about what is important. We care about delivering the things people care about. That is why the people voted on 8 November last year for a John Key - led National Government. That is why today Labour is floundering and the people of New Zealand are flocking in droves to our side. Labour members are out of touch and out of reality. Soon Mr Goff will be out of a job and we can all live happily ever after. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. That last speaker Aaron Gilmore is the man who is known in his own party by the name “Shagger” largely because it reflects an interest he has in the way that sheep sound. That speech sounded like it was delivered by someone prepared for the knacker’s yard. He did not have either the wit or the courage to stand and deliver that speech other than by rehearsing hour by hour as he looked at John Hayes’ positive transformation and saw his own future. The beginning of that young man’s speech will be back to haunt him when he occupies the seat that will soon be left vacant by Mr Quinn when he leaves to try to fix up Maori rugby in 2011. 
This is the year when a number of holes have been dug as we arrive at the end of 2009. Of course the greatest hole of all was developed by the members of the Maori Party. They developed that hole not to prepare the hangi but to bury Hone Harawira. But Hone Harawira is made of harder stuff. As they put in red-hot rocks clay alluvial soil and peat a hand reaching for Tariana’s throat came from below. That is the first hole. 
National took a little lesson from a knighted former finance Minister as to how to escape from a hole because from the crypt has come Dr Brash. Dr Brash is in charge of one of three working groups: one on tax one on capital markets and Mr Brash’s group. The first thing that that party did to its own former leader was to move him to the side because it had paid its paltry debt to the ACT Party in putting up a series of totally unworkable ideas; ideas that will not only reduce the worth and day-to-day living quality of average people but also take us on a giant leap backwards. 
I come back to my relations in the Maori Party. That is the party that during the months of April and May said that to create a board to improve Maori representation in Auckland would be institutional racism. That is the group that said they did not want to be part of a tekoteko which kind of means an emblem. What do we find just the other day? We find a media release from Dr Pita Sharples to the effect that an independent statutory board will promote issues of importance to the tangata whenua and Maori. Prior to that he was saying that he agreed that such an initiative would represent crumbs at the second level that it was a nonsense and that the Maori Party had made it clear that it was not interested in being tonotono in being people who are subservient to the top table—unwisely describing so candidly his own relationship with the Prime Minister. Why after an entire year is that party unable to provide anything of any substance to the Maori families that are being diminished and ripped off as the dominant party prepares to privatise the accident compensation scheme; to the Maori families that have definitely been marginalised by the sweetheart deal with the large powerful selfish iwi leaders as reflected in the recent tawdry deal? Nothing has been put forward by that party. 
I will tell members something that is very very disappointing about Dr Pita Sharples’ representation model. We have to move away from that party and its cosy relationship with a tiny self-elected group of iwi leaders who believe they speak for all Maori. They have a mandate to speak for all Maori yet they refuse to. They continue to trot out excuses and very very tired arguments that reward only the corporate elite. That is not a Maori affairs policy. That is not a strategy to lift those members of our society who are in vulnerable circumstances. I will tell members something else: the model that the party is promoting is the model it had to accept because Mr Key as a consequence of giving it a sovereignty flag has required it to buy into everything else he wants. So this has been a year of trinkets and trophies for that party but no substance. It will be a sad reflection that a party that came in with an enormous amount of talent—and I do not mind saying that—has failed miserably. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Six:two! It has been a rough ride to the end of the year for lawyers in Manukau. A fortnight ago Dame Margaret Bazley released a damning review alleging that the justice system had been undermined by more than 200 corrupt lawyers who were gaming the legal aid system. The breaking news revelation was that Dame Margaret revealed that she had been told that up to 80 percent of lawyers at the Manukau District Court were in this category. Since then all hell has broken loose. Seventeen Manukau-based lawyers penned a letter to the  
New Zealand Herald  
and to the Minister of Justice Simon Power. Four members of the Legal Services Agency resigned and yesterday we learnt that its chief executive Tim Bannatyne had lost his job in the ongoing haemorrhaging of the legal aid system. 
The Maori Party welcomed the opportunity to look critically at the legal aid system to ensure that it is of the highest quality and that it is being accessed by those who need it most in a way that is cost-effective and sustainable. But we take seriously the challenge of John Marshall the president of the New Zealand Law Society that we must work together to ensure that the hard-earned reputations of lawyers for honesty and integrity are not scarred by the aftermath of such a critical review. The Law Society is concerned that some of the more inflammatory findings—including those for Manukau—are based on anecdotal evidence rather than on factual information so the society is encouraging lawyers to notify it about any unacceptable practices to lay a complaint and to provide a confidential report. I commend the courage and commitment of legal practitioners to work quickly to respond to the claims and to do all that they can to restore confidence in the wider legal system. 
This is a pivotal time for the legal profession as a whole to demonstrate what I know to be true: that the great majority of legal aid lawyers are people of the highest integrity and the utmost dedication. It is time also to gather around those working in the Manukau court to provide the support they need to provide the highest standard of service to their clients. No one could fail to be moved by the accounts of the 17 lawyers as they described the stress of the lives lived by their clients: the chaos of lives affected by drug and alcohol addiction by poverty and violence and by issues with communication. It makes for even more compassion when we hear the stories of what Dame Margaret experienced at courts including accounts of small children spending hours in crowded reception areas waiting for their parents to appear before the courts. We must do all that we can to support the people of Manukau and the lawyers who serve them to achieve the balance needed to ensure speedy and quality access to justice. 
Finally I have to air my heartfelt fear that I would be concerned if out of this whole episode legal aid is restricted to civil cases and criminal legal aid is thrown out. I have a longstanding passion for the vital difference that criminal legal aid can make. Back in 1973 my father John Hippolite and Dr Oliver Sutherland provided a paper  
Justice and Race: A Monocultural System in a Multicultural Society 
. The paper revealed that official statistics about interpersonal violence and ethnicity may often be biased as a result of the social and legal processes by which individuals come to official attention. This was ground-breaking analysis—one of the first reports that dared to suggest that Maori offenders are more likely to be detected and classified as offenders in our justice system. It came from a time when dad was chair of the Nelson Maori Committee and Dr Sutherland was secretary of the Nelson Race Relations Action Group. They were concerned about the numbers of young Maori appearing before the court and being sent to borstal without ever having the benefit of legal representation. 
That report informed policy on issues of racism in the court system and it established the very first system of criminal legal aid. We must not walk away from that legacy—a legacy that reminds all New Zealanders that even the most vulnerable of our citizens deserve the justice of having their day in court. Kia ora. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Yesterday we saw another great idea for a Tui billboard ad. Outside the Labour Party caucus room Phil Goff told the media in relation to his nationhood speech that it was not a Don Brash speech as “I’ve never believed in doing that sort of thing.”—yeah right! 
But what I really want to know is who the genius in the Labour Party was who after Labour had elected a unionist as party president who brought in several new MPs who had been unionists shoring up the left suddenly said: “I know what we should do. Let’s go after the right-wing vote. Let’s have a crack at the tub-thumping race relations issue in this country.” never mind that it hugely upset its own caucus never mind that it upset its own party membership and never mind that it drove the last nail in the coffin of Labour’s relationship with the Maori Party which Labour would surely need if it ever wanted to resume the Treasury benches. Even when Labour members were going into caucus yesterday we could see the stony-faced looks on the faces of Mr Goff’s colleagues. They were ready to give him a bit of a serve. I would love to have been a fly on the wall in that meeting. 
But how is this for equivocal support? Labour’s own president Andrew Little told the  
New Zealand Herald  
he had “personal concerns” about the speech and said that the speech had received a mixed response from the party’s rank and file. But I guess that sort of speech is pretty understandable from a leader whose own party is polling only around 30 percent whose own support hovers above the margin of error but only just and whose party has no credible policies. 
In fact if we really want proof that Labour does not have any credible policies at the moment we need only to go on to its website and click on “Labour Policy”. It will come up with the Labour Party’s 2008 manifesto the same manifesto that the electorate rejected when it threw Labour out of office last year. So what has Labour said about policies? On the foreshore and seabed it said that the caucus had agreed to a new position this year then Mr Goff declared in his speech last week that the present law was working well and should not be repealed. Let us talk about monetary policy. A 20-year monetary policy consensus was thrown out on the hoof. In relation to benefits for millionaires Labour says “Oh we do support benefits for millionaires but we don’t support benefits for millionaires.” I am not quite sure which one it is. 
It will make barbecue season pretty interesting this year. As well as Labour members sitting under a tree at a barbecue thinking up which Kenny Rogers song to trash at the next Labour Party conference and reading the Sarah Palin autobiography they might just be thinking “Hmm when shall I make my move? If I don’t make my move now someone else might.” And who might those aspirants be? I think straight off the hoof there might be seven. Might Annette King in her reflections over summer regret her public statements that she does not aspire to be leader? She will be thinking “Hell I can do a better job than this guy.” In fact she even said: “It wasn’t like ‘The King is dead long live the King.’ It was slower than that. You know the King is dead but the Prince isn’t quite ready yet.” 
Shane Jones must really be grappling with the nationhood speech. He is publicly supportive of Mr Goff and of his calling the emissions trading scheme deal with Maori cynical but he knows that his Government did exactly the same deal with exactly the same five iwi giving them additional benefits because of what they said were “unforeseen circumstances” in Labour’s emissions trading scheme. He knows that Labour’s relationship with the Maori Party is in tatters. Maybe he is thinking it is time to step up to take the reins and to heal those wounds as soon as possible. [ 
Interruption 
] Labour members are moaning but deep down they secretly want to be mentioned in this call. 
David Parker has not been an obvious candidate but after the  
Trans Tasman 
 newsletter gave him a comparably high rating calling him a high achiever maybe he will be sitting under the tree sipping his Central Otago pinot noir and thinking “Gosh I might have the right stuff after all.” But it is a left of left caucus so maybe former party president and long-serving MP Ruth Dyson is thinking about whether she has the numbers to take the party back to its spiritual base. What about Trevor Mallard? Trevor Mallard has been a very good shadow leader this year which is a pretty good achievement given that he is not the shadow leader. Or it might be a bolter. It might be one of the Clark clones like Grant Robertson or should he be using the barbecue season to sidle up to the people who are likely to be leadership aspirants and asking to be their deputy? But are Messrs Ryall and Gilmore right that the frontrunner is in fact aspirant No. 7 David Cunliffe? He knows that timing is everything in politics. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 Kiwi families are doing it hard this Christmas season. Unemployment is up rents are up and prices are up. But what do we hear from this National-ACT Government? With 16 days to go before Christmas Kiwi families are still waiting for a sign that this Government cares about the recession and has some ideas about what to do about it. 
In question time today we heard the Minister of Local Government reveal that this Government is stripping away—systematically stripping away—the protections against the privatisation of our local body assets. That is what this Government cares about. When it could actually be making a difference to Kiwi families when it could be caring about jobs what is it doing? It is pursuing a sneaky agenda to pave the way for our assets to be flogged off. The Ports of Auckland is worth $500 million and what is this National Government doing? It is paving the way for the Ports of Auckland to be flogged off to its mates. 
Why is that a bad idea? Why do Aucklanders care about the Ports of Auckland and why do they not want it to be flogged off by this National Government? Let me tell members why. There are three good reasons. The Ports of Auckland is a natural monopoly. If we privatise the Ports of Auckland we are almost certainly handing it over to foreign ownership and to rent seeking and price gouging. 
The second reason is the need for port rationalisation. The country is crying out for the Tauranga and Auckland ports to be rationalised. If members opposite insist on setting up those ports for privatisation they will never be rationalised. Thirdly Aucklanders are waiting and waiting for the Ports of Auckland to be developed and opened up for public access. If members opposite insist on opening them up to privatisation they will never ever be developed for public access and in the public interest. The red gates on the Port of Auckland will be slammed shut forever. That is why 78 percent of Aucklanders are opposed to the privatisation of the Ports of Auckland. 
But here is the lie behind this entire debate. All year National MPs and Ministers have been saying that there is no privatisation agenda yet what do we see? We see water infrastructure being opened up for private ownership for periods of up to 35 years. We see section 88 of the Local Government Act 2002 about to get the axe. That is the section that requires councils to consult the public before the contracting out of public services to the private sector. Now we see that the protections for the Ports of Auckland are about to be thrown overboard by this National-ACT Government. 
Here is the lie. Members on that side of the House are too gutless—too gutless— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: All right Mr Assistant Speaker I will say that they are too timid on that side of the House—too timid—to tell the people of New Zealand what they actually believe in. They are too frightened to campaign openly that they support a privatisation agenda. They have a Prime Minister who keeps a big smile on his face and says that there will be no State asset sales and that there is no intention to privatise. We have a Minister of Local Government who says that this is a “pretend debate” while he sets about systematically dismantling the protections of our assets. 
Rodney Hide is an extremist who can barely break the margin of error but at least he is transparent. He puts up crazy proposals to Cabinet week after week. They do not all get through but three have now: water assets can now be owned by the private sector for up to 35 years; section 88 which we have just talked about is to get the axe; and now the Ports of Auckland will be stripped of the protections that would give Aucklanders a say through a referendum before privatisation. For these policies it is not the crazy fantasies of Rodney Hide we have to blame; it is the National Government. 
Rodney Hide has worked out that he cannot get away with outright asset sales so his strategy is to weaken all the protections that have been put in place over the years. His agenda and it is the agenda of this National Government is to pave the way for privatisation. The Minister pointed out in question time that he was putting in place a 3-year moratorium so that assets could not be sold under the super-city. But at the same time he is stripping away the requirement that there should be a referendum. That is dishonest. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill 
Third Reading 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill be now read a third time 
. It gives me great pleasure to introduce the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. The Labour Party appreciates the support of the House in making sure that this bill can be considered for passing before the Christmas break. 
This is the first private bill that I have introduced as a member of Parliament. The bill has its origins with my predecessor former senior Government whip and Labour MP for Christchurch Central Tim Barnett. It is and has been a non-controversial bill. It has been given considerable scrutiny by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and changes have been made through the select committee process that are broadly in accordance both with the wishes of the bill’s promoters—that is the Methodist Church of New Zealand—and with the existing legislation that is specific to other such trusts and their operation. 
I take this opportunity to thank my colleagues on the Finance and Expenditure Committee as the bill has progressed through its stages. I also thank the Methodist Church of New Zealand which is headquartered in my electorate of Christchurch Central and Richard Cunliffe and Tanya Surrey who are lawyers based in Queenstown for the law firm MACTODD and who have acted on behalf of the Methodist Church in bringing the bill to my attention. 
The bill has a twofold purpose. First it provides an alternative process to that provided under the existing legislative framework the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 to vary charitable trusts relating to the Methodist Church. That is a cumbersome and expensive process and this mechanism will allow the Methodist Church to make changes to trusts in a much more straightforward and cost-effective way. Secondly the bill expands the purposes for which trusts’ funds and trusts’ properties relating to Methodist orphanages or Methodist children’s homes as they have been held in the past can be applied. These changes allow the Methodist Church to apply these funds and properties to provide care for children and young persons by means other than orphanages and children’s homes which are no longer held run and operated by the Methodist Church. 
Of the changes made in the process of the select committee considerations a couple are worthy of particular note. One relates to clause 18 where we sought to clarify that the trust funds and properties to which Part 3 applies could be used only for charitable purposes. That amendment also removed any doubt as to whether the funds could be used for non-charitable purposes unlikely as that might be given that we are dealing with one of our major churches. 
We also removed clause 21 and inserted a new clause 19A to provide that trustees can be appointed or removed by the Methodist Church only after consultation with those trustees. This changed an earlier provision under which trustees could have been removed by the annual conference of the Methodist Church. The precedent for that was based on section 20 of the Anglican Church Trusts Act. We were looking to accord the Methodists the same provisions as the Anglicans but it was noted by the advisers to the committee that neither the Presbyterians nor the Catholics had such powers under their church trust deed Acts. So we have opted to join the Catholics and the Presbyterians rather than going with the Anglicans. 
In conclusion I again thank my colleagues on the select committee for their support. I thank the House for its support in seeing this bill back in the House prior to Christmas and hopefully for the conclusion of its passage forthwith. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am also pleased to rise and take a brief call on the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. I certainly endorse and agree with everything that Brendon Burns the member who spoke before me has said about the bill. Considering a bill like this is one of the many occasions when this House acts in a very multipartisan and supportive fashion. It is one of those opportunities when select committees come at a bill strictly on its merits and without any political overtones and that makes it a very enjoyable process to work through. 
The bill really is a case study of a lot of what we do in the House which is working out where to draw the line so that people are given a path through what needs to be done in a way that properly protects third parties but at the same time ensures that it is no more onerous than it needs to be. The discussion we had at the select committee on this bill was very much along those lines. As Mr Burns has said the Methodist Church found that it had a number of obsolete trusts gifted to it for various purposes that could no longer be carried out. It could have gone through the very long and expensive Charitable Trusts Act amendment process but sought instead to come to the House as other churches have done before it to seek a streamlined process to allow that to be done without gobbling up too much of the money that had been left for charitable purposes. We certainly want to support the Church in that endeavour. All that was left for our committee to do was to ensure that it was done in the most appropriate way. 
I want to pick up on two changes that the committee suggested and discuss them further. The first of those concerns the oversight of the Attorney-General. The bill as it came to us after the first reading suggested that most but not all of the amendments that the Methodist Church might make would go before the Attorney-General to make sure that there was a final level of objective oversight. We felt it was appropriate that all changes should have that oversight. The Church indicated that it did not have any issue with that and saw very few cases where that would not happen anyway. But again I think it is an important step for us to ensure that there would be no situation where a change could be made without some sort of objective oversight on behalf of the House. I think that is a good change. 
The final change which Mr Burns referred to was to omit what was clause 21 and insert its contents changing the wording slightly as a part of new clause 19A. The movement from clause 21 to clause 19A is more significant than the numbering itself suggests. It brought the clause out of Part 4 and inserted it into Part 3 of the Act. The change means that instead of the Methodist Church having the power to amend appoint and remove trustees of any trust that the Church is involved with it makes sure that that power which is a very important and significant power in trust law is limited to the sorts of trusts that the Church has brought before us as problem trusts; that is trusts that the Church needs to get into tidy up and fix in an efficient way because the purposes are no longer practicable to be carried out. In that sphere we had no problem with the Church having that power. The committee did feel though that it was too wide to give the Church an overarching power across any and all trusts it may be involved with. We made sure it had the power in respect of the trusts it had presented to us. I think the change is an important one. 
I think the bill is now in a good state. We have certainly always supported the objective of the bill on the Government side of the House. I thank Mr Burns for bringing the bill and for his role in sponsoring it and I thank my fellow committee members for working very constructively on it. I am pleased to commend the bill to the House. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. Today is a great day. I feel particularly proud and as Labour’s spokesperson for interfaith dialogue I am quite humbled and privileged to stand to speak on the third reading of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. This is a time to reflect on Christmas and the Methodist Church’s generosity in giving. 
First of all I acknowledge the visionaries behind the bill the members of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa and in Samoan the Lotu Metotisi o Niu Sila. I acknowledge the huge contribution that the churches make—in this particular instance the Methodist Church—because essentially this bill is about pastoral care. The second person whom I acknowledge is the bill’s sponsor my colleague and respected friend Brendon Burns Labour MP for Christchurch Central who has given his unconditional commitment to the bill. I thank Brendon for the sterling work that he has done on this bill. Thirdly I acknowledge the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee who worked on the technical details of the bill. Fourthly I acknowledge the most vulnerable who will benefit incredibly from the generosity of this legislation; the Methodist Church of New Zealand; and all of the people who have committed to it. 
Brendon Burns and Amy Adams have already talked to the technical points in respect of the law in the third reading but I stand to take a call to acknowledge the huge contribution that the Methodist Church makes. From the latest census data we know that it is the fifth largest Christian denomination in New Zealand. I acknowledge the 53 Methodist Church communities around New Zealand and the pastoral care and the support that they give to the most vulnerable through food banks through supporting children and young people families and the elderly and through a lot of the op shops operated by the Methodist Church. 
I say today particularly—and I reflect on a former Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange who was a Methodist—that the many values and principles the Church displays with regard to looking after others and those most in need are to be cherished. I feel very privileged to be part of a historic moment acknowledging the wonderful contribution the Methodist Church makes in supporting the third reading of this wonderful bill. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I rise to take a short call on the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. The Green Party will support the bill and we acknowledge the work of Brendon Burns in bringing it to the House. As my colleague Kevin Hague said in his first reading speech an Act of Parliament should not be necessary to modernise and regulate the workings of the Methodist Church trusts but given the lack of progress in respect of updating the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 it is necessary. The Methodist Church is entitled to due process in order to allow the trusts to function and it needs to have the ability to vary the foundation deeds of an organisation that first began its journey in Aotearoa in 1822. I have always been suspicious of the three Ms of colonisation: missionaries the military and mass migration. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Maori! 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: Ha ha! It is clear from the recorded history of the Methodist Church that it has a long association with tangata whenua and recognises the paramount importance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
The Methodist Church today is a diverse church with a Treaty base a strong recognition of Pasifika peoples multicultural goals and interesting traditions of supporting communities. The Greens are aware of many organisations that have benefited from its generosity and community support and we are happy to see the Church become able to change its administrative framework as other churches have done in order to function under more appropriate and modern terms. Like my colleague Kevin Hague my reservation about the tradition of charity is no reflection on the often highly strategic support the Methodist Church has given to social services and projects for social well-being. 
My reservation about charity stems from a new rhetoric in the community and voluntary sector which is classically displayed in the latest copy of the Ministry of Social Development magazine  
Rise 
 where giving and philanthropy is elevated to a very high status and having less money or a less well-paid job is rationalised through a rhetoric of saintly generosity and warm feelings that come from giving up a living wage. As a lifelong volunteer I by no means belittle the generosity of spirit that basically runs our world. But I am suspicious of the new language around charity. Charity usually requires gratitude and will be available only to the deserving poor when the State steps back and encourages churches and charitable trusts to step into the breaches. Will the community and voluntary sector including the churches embrace the new rhetoric of support for the deserving poor? Will it cheer on Kevin Rudd as he requires bad beneficiaries’ money to be managed by social services and Government agencies that will decide when they can eat and what they can eat? This sounds ludicrous but imitating Australia seems to be very popular here at the moment. There is little power for the recipients of charity. 
Although we are supporting this bill for its practical intent I quote the Queensland indigenous activist in the 1970s on the subject of charity who said: “If you have come here to help me you are wasting your time. But if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine then let us work together.” That challenge is for the Methodist Church but even more it is for this House in dealing with both minor and major legislation intended to strengthen justice for all. We commend Brendon Burns for his effort and we support the bill. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand to respond to the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. In essence this bill is about changing with the times. The bill aims to provide an appropriate mechanism for varying charitable trusts of the Methodist Church where the original objectives or purposes are now impossible impractical or inexpedient to carry out. Heaven forbid that Parliament would stand in the way of the Church and its determination that any course of action would be impossible impractical or inexpedient. On any level it simply does not make any sense. But even more so for the Methodists. If we recall the origins of this Church in the mid-1700s it was the fact that the movement emerged from a group of students who sought to order their lives methodically to meet regularly for prayer and the study of the Scriptures. So when the Methodists tell us their trust provisions are no longer practicable we would do well to listen. 
But there is another even more noble reason for being pleased to speak to this bill today. If we think of the broader Methodist ethos from its first days in Aotearoa we see that it has been about a focus on social justice. Early Methodists campaigned against slavery they fought for prison reform and they advocated initiatives to improve literacy and health. The Methodist movement has been active in New Zealand speaking out against the sin of sweated labour racism sexism human rights abuses unfair trading practices Third World debt environmental pollution and other aspects. In my own electorate of Te Tai Tonga Methodists have been responding to many of the social service needs of the community since their arrival in our rohe. They have run orphanages and aged-care homes. They have moved to providing early learning adult learning and youth training centres. They run programmes for community social workers and provide advocacy and support. I want to acknowledge Te Haahi Weteriana o Aotearoa for the work that it has done in supporting those New Zealanders who are more vulnerable than others. 
I also want to acknowledge the initiative it has taken in trying to give life to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The Methodist Church describes itself as a Treaty-based Church expressing its governance in a bicultural power-sharing partnership between te taha Maori and tauiwi. Since 1973 Maori Methodism has been largely autonomous. Tangata whenua guide the Church through te taha Maori to understand exactly what a power-sharing partnership consists of. 
All of this background is a vital preamble to this third reading of the bill. This is an organisation that is truly trying to do its best by New Zealanders and in particular it is seeking to make amendments to enable the Church to provide more relevant and appropriate care for children and young people. The board is wanting to adopt simpler and more cost-effective provisions than those set out in the Charitable Trusts Act. It is also looking to use the trust funds or trust property for the broader purpose of the welfare of children in New Zealand. 
I am also aware of the recent information that showed that the number of families needing special grants to pay for school uniforms stationery exam fees and compulsory fees has soared in the past year. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that some 240000 children live in families that do not qualify for the additional help given to others in the form of the in-work tax credit. 
To bring all these points together: we have an organisation the Methodist Church that wants to improve upon its current provisions in order to meet the needs of some of the more vulnerable citizens across our community; we have another organisation the Child Poverty Action Group that tells us that for many thousands of children in this land there are day-to-day difficulties that cause them to struggle with the capacity to live a decent life; and we have another organisation the Maori Party which is dedicated to advancing social justice to eliminating poverty and to the pursuit of whanau ora. We believe that the intentions of the Methodist Church are honourable ones and we are happy to support this bill to enable the Church to fulfil its aspirations without hindrance. Kia ora. 
Bill read a third time. 
Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I move  
That the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for its consideration. New Zealanders are generous people. We all recognise the important work that so many charitable organisations do to help the vulnerable in our communities. 
I am sure that like me many members of this House have spent countless hours standing on busy street corners collecting money or helping out at fund-raising events. We do this willingly and we are happy to play a small part in contributing to the wonderful work that our charities do. Charities Commission data indicates that there are more than 23000 registered charities in New Zealand and in the last year the sector had an estimated total income of around $10.4 billion $2.4 billion of which came from donations. 
If there is a threat to this sector it is that New Zealanders have increasingly begun to show concerns about how much of the money they give gets to those it is intended for. Recent media reports have highlighted that it is not uncommon for professional telemarketing and street-collecting firms which are used by many charities to retain 75 percent of what they collect and even up to 90 percent. Although there is unquestionably a cost to raising funds the rights of consumers to be given accurate information must not be forgotten. 
Just yesterday in the  
Press 
 the “cynical marketing” award for the year was given by one commentator to the Epilepsy Foundation for reportedly raising $2.8 million in donations of which only $70000 went to people with epilepsy. Whilst shocking that story is by no means an isolated event. Stories like that have in my view damaged the fund-raising industry and severely shaken confidence in charitable giving. Many people have spoken to me of the reluctance they now have to respond to various forms of fund-raising as they feel they cannot tell the ethical from the disreputable. 
It is my hope that this bill and the debate and discussion that will come from it will help to draw a clear line between worthwhile and ethical charitable collection and the insidious practice of using the name of a charity to make a significant personal profit while passing on only a tiny portion of the donation and all the while leaving the generous consumer completely in the dark. 
I am aware that part of the issue of consumer confidence in this regard involves charities’ internal use of funds and some of the public debate has certainly focused on that. This bill deliberately does not seek to address that matter. Charitable organisations are regulated under the Charities Act and are subject to full financial disclosure rules meaning that there is already a process for public scrutiny of how their money it spent. On that point I wish to say that we must recognise that charities will quite appropriately have administration and fund-raising costs as part of providing services and those costs will vary depending on the scale and work of each charity. No one should be put off donating for that reason alone when the costs are at an appropriate level. 
Where fund-raising is carried out by the charity directly all costs associated with that fund-raising will be disclosed as part of the charity’s financial statements. However if a third-party business is engaged to do that work then no record of the amount retained by that company will be available for public scrutiny. 
I was moved to create this bill out of a fundamental belief that to ask for a donation to a charity without mentioning that one is not part of that charity but comes from a private company and without mentioning that the vast majority of what is donated will never make it to that charity is simply deceptive and wrong. Of course companies can charge for services they provide and I have no issue with the existence of a professional fund-raising sector but it is my view that their activities must be carried out ethically to ensure that consumers are not misled. 
It is not OK to withhold information simply because providing that information would mean that someone does not get the outcome he or she wanted. So I am unmoved by arguments that a disclosure requirement would mean that less money is raised. This sector must consider the rights of hard-working New Zealanders who are parting with their cash. Donors have the right to know how much of their money will go to the charity they are being asked to donate to. 
In creating this bill I have sought to highlight an issue that I believe needs to be addressed. Since the bill has been announced everyone I have spoken with about it including many many donors and a number of charities have without exception agreed that the problem exists and that it must be addressed. 
Where there have been reservations—and there have been only a few—they are focused solely on the issue of what the best method of dealing with it is. The Fundraising Institute of New Zealand which represents this sector has expressed to me a view that the answer should come from industry self-regulation and I believe it is appropriate for me to acknowledge that the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector the Hon Tariana Turia has let me know that her view is that although she supports the bill’s objectives she believes that the industry should be given time to see whether self-regulation can be effective. 
At this stage I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Consumer Affairs the Hon Heather Roy who has been very supportive of the goals of the bill from the outset and who has along with her officials assisted me greatly in this process. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague Aaron Gilmore with whom I had some helpful initial discussions around the formation of the bill. 
As I have already noted because the use of all funds within charities is already controlled under the Charities Act this bill seeks to address only that portion of the process from the time the funds are solicited to the time the funds pass into the charity. That is the domain of professional fund-raising firms that carry out this work as a profit-making enterprise. At this stage I should make it very clear that the bill will impose no restrictions on any fund-raising activities that a charity carries out directly through the use of its own employees or volunteers. 
Through this bill I am particularly seeking to target professional telemarketing firms and the so-called “chuggers” or “charity muggers” who approach and sometimes hassle passers-by on a busy street to donate regularly to a charity. I think few people realise that in fact those “chuggers” do not come from the charity but are paid on a commission basis of up to 90 percent of the funds collected in the first year. 
As the bill stands it has been drafted to provide a two-tier threshold of disclosure on third-party collectors who solicit funds in the course of trade so that if they are to retain more than 20 percent of any donation there will be a positive requirement to disclose that a portion is to be retained by way of fees. If the retention is to be greater than 50 percent then the actual percentage to be retained must be stated before a donation can be accepted. Donations of less than $20 made in person and by way of cash will be exempt in order to minimise confusion in small-scale street collections. I acknowledge that the obligation on those seeking to keep more than half the funds is onerous but I believe it is also appropriate and right that consumers should be made aware of that circumstance before parting with their hard-earned cash. 
I look forward to a comprehensive discussion at the select committee on the mechanics of the bill and an exploration of any and all other suggested ways to control the reprehensible aspects of the sector. I would like to make it clear at this stage that I am quite open as to the form that the actual requirements should take where any thresholds are set and how various activities should be defined. The fundamental issue for me and the test I will use to assess any proposals that come before the select committee is: “Is that fair on those who are donating?”. 
May I say at this point that one of the central motivations for me in this process has been to restore and protect confidence in those charities and fund-raisers that run highly ethical and appropriate campaigns. As we often see cowboys in an industry ruin the reputation of the whole industry. Through forcing disclosure of improper practices it is my hope that the many excellent and worthwhile fund-raising campaigns will not suffer from being tarred with the brush of disreputability. It seems to me that there is also the role of educating the public that direct giving is always preferable and that there is in particular the ability to take advantage of some of the initiatives this House has created this year such as payroll giving—and just last night we saw the exemption from gift duty that will be created for charitable giving. 
In essence this bill is about protecting consumers and restoring confidence in the sector of charitable giving through enhanced transparency and I hope to see full engagement of the sector in the select committee process. I look forward to hearing the remainder of the debate this afternoon and I ask other parties in the House for their support at this first reading stage so that this important issue can be examined in full at the select committee. Thank you. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill 2009—a member’s bill in the name of Amy Adams. As Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson it gives me pleasure to support this bill. We agree very much with the aims of the bill which are to provide increased transparency and public accountability for professional third-party collectors who are in the business of collecting funds on behalf of registered charities. Like Ms Adams I recognise the very important contribution that those charities make to our country and overseas and I recognise the very hard environment that they operate in particularly in tough economic times like those we face now. 
As I have said Labour supports this bill’s referral to select committee and will look forward to discussing the mechanics of it and perhaps some of its definitions. It is a good bill and it addresses an area of concern for the public and that is why we are supporting it. Currently damage is being done to the non-profitable and charitable sector by what have been referred to as the “charity cowboys”. That is what the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand has called some of the third-party professional collectors. We do not want to see the very many reputable organisations that are providing the overwhelming amount of what is collected to the people they are aiming to help being damaged by these cowboys. 
It begs the question of why this is not a Government bill because there is widespread concern about this issue. I note that all the Government is prepared to do in this space is direct “the Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector to offer support to the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand as it develops its fundraising Standards”. Those are the words of Tariana Turia in a speech made to the Charities Commission just recently. The bill recognises the right of people to know where their hard-earned money will go whether it is going to the charity of their choice or to the profit-making third-party collectors and that is important. 
The bill is consistent with very sound consumer principles such as transparency and informed choice. People will be able to decide whether they want to give to charities where a significant portion of what they are giving is being retained by third-party collectors. We also need to see a Minister of Consumer Affairs who is addressing matters that are important to consumers. There are many important matters on which consumers need to see action and frankly they are not. Such areas include improving consumer knowledge and protection especially given that the consequences of bad decisions and rip-offs are more significant in tough economic times when people are already struggling to make ends meet. 
We also need to recognise the needs of vulnerable consumers those who are poor or have low literacy or low levels of English and our elderly and our young people. We need to improve services and information that targets them including I believe access to advocacy. We need to see action on targeting exploitation. Here I am thinking particularly of loan sharks and truck shops. As Labour’s consumer affairs spokesperson members will be seeing action from me in these areas because these people are specifically and systematically targeting low-income people who cannot afford the sorts of rip-offs that they are promoting. 
We need to see continuing updating of our consumer law to take account of changing relationships: for example online selling. We certainly need to recognise and this is where I think Ms Adams’ bill is so important that an increasing number of consumers desire to spend their money or invest in things in an ethical and sustainable way and to use their consumer choices effectively. I think this bill is part of that. We want to see more action in the area of consumer affairs and at the moment we are not seeing a great deal from the Minister of Consumer Affairs. 
As to the specifics of the bill as I said at the start of my speech it aims to improve transparency and disclosure to the public. Currently there are no rules on what has to be disclosed except that no misleading or deceptive statements may be made as is clearly outlined under the Fair Trading Act. The bill will require professional third-party collectors to disclose to potential donors that a portion of the donation will be retained by the collector and that will apply only as Ms Adams has outlined if the proportion retained is more than 20 percent. This does not apply if the donation is less than $20 and made by cash only. 
I think it interesting that a distinction has been made between the proportion retained between 20 and 50 percent which will mean that the collectors have to simply disclose that a portion is being retained and withheld by them but not the amount and where the proportion retained is more than 50 percent the collectors will have to disclose to the nearest percentage point what percentage is being retained. I think that is a matter that should be discussed in the select committee. I do not quite know what the reasoning is behind that distinction and I think that in lots of ways 20 percent is a pretty significant amount to be retaining. Perhaps the answer is to make it a requirement to disclose for any amount over 20 percent what proportion is being retained. 
Public accountability is really important in the credibility of our charity and voluntary sector. It is important to give people the confidence to donate. We need people to donate to support organisations. As has already been mentioned many of the MPs in this Chamber take part in collecting for charity and we want to know that these are reputable organisations and that the money is going where the need is. 
There are a few examples I want to raise. The one that Ms Adams raised concerned Epilepsy New Zealand. Again I think it is pretty appalling so I will put that on the record as well: $2.82 million was gathered in donations through telemarketing and approximately $2.1 million of that went straight back to the telemarketers. In other words $70000 went to Epilepsy New Zealand. That was described by the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand as absolutely scandalous and I agree; 2.5 percent of what was collected actually went to where people thought they were giving the money. The recent telethon on TV3 for the benefit of KidsCan Charitable Trust was also in the spotlight for claims that less than 20 percent of the money raised was being passed through to the disadvantaged children that KidsCan Charitable Trust was actually collecting for. The trust has recently announced that in fact 80 percent was passed through to the disadvantaged children but I think a bill like this one would make sure that there was not that uncertainty and that there was not any room for people arguing that the money was not going where it should be. 
The show on Television New Zealand (TVNZ) that I think is going to be canned and it is a shame that Mr Hide is not in the Chamber because we all recollect his performance on it— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I am sorry; excuse me. I know I cannot comment on the fact. I was merely reflecting on how we enjoyed his performance. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot refer to the absence of any member from the Chamber and the member should not be trying to relitigate after I have already cautioned her. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I am very sorry. As I was saying TVNZ’s show  
Dancing with the Stars 
 was also caught up in controversy not just because Rodney Hide was dancing on it but also because only 60 percent of the money raised by it actually made it to the recipients. So probably hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders donated to that show but only 60 percent of the money raised actually went to the recipients that people were fund-raising for. 
These examples show the need for this bill. As I have already mentioned there are probably some areas we could debate in the select committee. Again on behalf of Labour I congratulate Amy Adams on this bill. I will finish by saying that the important thing here is that this bill means we support those genuine organisations that are doing the right thing and are supporting the people who need that support. We do not want to see the reputations of those organisations undermined by some of the examples I have just given. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: The next speaker will be Katrina Shanks. Before she begins I say to members that we are having 5-minute calls with a 1-minute bell. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. First of all I acknowledge the hard work that Amy Adams the MP for Selwyn has put into this bill. It takes a fair bit of effort to get a member’s bill into the House so I congratulate her on the effort she has put in for such a worthy cause. There are no greater causes than charities and the work that they do to support the most vulnerable and needy people in our society. I found it interesting when I was listening to Amy Adams give her speech because I did not realise that there are over 23000 registered charities in New Zealand and that an estimated total income of about $10.4 billion goes into those charities which is very very significant. Of that $2.4 billion comes from donations. That is fairly significant. We are talking about a big amount of money—$2.4 billion—that comes from donations. That is huge. 
Many of us in this House do a lot of work for charities. Not only do we fund-raise in terms of the Parliamentary Rugby Team and the netball team which I coach with Moana Mackey but also we do a lot of work for charities by going around New Zealand raising money and donating it to a good cause. Many of us in the House also stand with buckets on the corners of busy streets for long periods of time to raise money for causes and to raise their profiles. We do that to give those charities a bit more visibility than they would normally have especially when we advertise where we will be what we will do and what we are supporting that week. It raises their profile just a little bit more. I think that every member in this House does a fair bit towards charities. It is good to see that this bill will not affect the work we do in terms of going out there to hold our buckets because the volunteers in the street give a heart to communities as well. This bill will not affect the heart with which that money is given. When people walking by put their $10 in the bucket they will not be affected either. 
When we talk about charities it is important that charities have transparency and public accountability about how they raise their money because people give out of the goodness of their hearts. Transparency and public accountability is especially important for those charities that do not use employees or direct-marketing but use a third party to raise money. Telemarketers do a lot of good work for those charities but unfortunately they also come at a cost. This legislation which will go to a select committee will add some transparency and accountability into that process. In doing that we hope it will restore confidence to the public when they donate money so that they know how much money is going to the charity and how much money is going to the third party that is helping to raise that money. 
When we look at some of the specifics in the bill it is interesting to note that a third party collector means someone who is not an employee and who acts in the course of professional trade on behalf of a charitable entity. That is important because we do not want to catch the real employees and the charities within this provision but just the third parties in order to get transparency in this process. There have been many sad stories of big charities raising money and not a lot of it actually going to those charities. This bill will help that situation. Hopefully it will encourage more people to give money to charities and they will not be as sceptical about whether the money will actually go to the charity. 
Many of us do the Relay for Life. We run around and when we ask people for money we hear them saying that not much of the money collected goes to people with cancer. But actually it does so it is good that we will get some transparency in this area. It is my pleasure to support this bill’s referral to a select committee where members can have a very good robust debate on some of the clauses in this bill. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I am also pleased to take a call in support of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. In doing that I acknowledge Miss Adams’ work on this and also her good fortune in having it pulled out of the ballot—and that is to her credit. 
It is a shame that it is not a Government bill because the issue is important. But having said that it is important that the bill is here and it is important that it will be going on its way to a select committee where the really important questions will be raised. The select committee hearings will be an opportunity to acknowledge the work of the voluntary sector and the many people who day in and day out do this work for us. I do not think our social welfare system our child welfare system our alms-giving system and our system of community support could function without these agencies which simply front up to do a great job in our communities. Our communities would not survive and I do not even think that much of our welfare system would survive without them because there is a very close and important relationship between these agencies and Government services. 
The range of these agencies is very broad. There are services for children services for families and support services for the disability sector. There are people out there who rely on the small amounts of money they get from other people’s giving. Many of those who give are poor people as well. There are services for the aged. A number of agencies are out there doing work with this particular sector and they do it with love and affection in a very selfless way. 
I will also mention the refugee settlement sector and the voluntary agencies out there doing this work funded by charitable trusts which do a great job. These agencies are the really tireless workers for us and for our community and they give so generously. They really rely on something that is ingrained if you like in the New Zealand personality and that is this notion of giving. The resources they get by and large to do their work come from the generous giving of New Zealanders. 
I regret though if I may say that these groups rely too much on contributions from voluntary funds and that the State sector does not fund them enough. But that is a debate for a different forum. There can be another discussion about the balance between what the State provides and what voluntary agencies do. In my days as a practitioner when these agencies were really having difficulty I remember that they would often say “Let’s have cake stalls to buy our Skyhawks!”. We all remember seeing those signs yet these people do not do that. The people who stand on street corners with buckets and those who call for funds are the ones who bring in the funds to support this sector. Those people call on a very important aspect of the New Zealand psyche and that is in giving. I think we do it well. 
Therefore it is totally heartbreaking to receive the reports that we have seen in the recent period about the very small percentage of the funds gathered that actually get through to this sector. It is heartbreaking. I must admit that I was amazed when I read some of the figures and I read the amount that telemarketers and others were taking. It is important therefore that we regulate the sector to the extent that is possible without killing off both the collecting as well as the giving behaviour of New Zealanders. That is important. 
There are cases that other members have mentioned so I will not mention them. I turn to the bill itself. Amy Adams is right in focusing on transparency and disclosure and that has an important value. But I do have some difficulties about the percentages and I hope the select committee will visit that issue. I agree with my colleague Ms Beaumont that 20 percent is still a lot of money. If someone collects $10000 then a big chunk of that is gone with people not knowing that that will happen. I think we should have a general culture of disclosure without stopping those who collect in small ways like the collectors on the street who collect the smaller amounts of 10c or a dollar. Thank you very much. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am very pleased to continue the generally very agreeable nature of the debate that has been occurring on these last couple of bills and the Greens will be supporting the progress of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill to the Commerce Committee. We have some minor reservations but overall it seems to be a very very timely measure for at least two reasons. The first is that we indeed need to protect charities against falling victim to unscrupulous commission agents and perhaps more important we need to maintain public confidence that the money they donate will be substantially committed to the charitable purpose for which it is intended with only a modest and clearly indicated percentage being retained to meet the reasonable costs of collection or the commission. We have already heard some examples of the untenable rates of retention and I think “extortionate” would not be too hard a word to use about some of those examples. 
It is clear that charities of all sorts have not escaped the effects of the global recession. It has become much harder for organisations to raise funds for whatever purpose and competition for that diminishing resource can become intense. There are now over 23000 charities registered with the Charities Commission both small and large and according to the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand larger charities with very strong brands are tending to become larger while smaller charities are tending to move in the opposite direction getting squeezed out. Indeed they are struggling to survive making them much more vulnerable to the depredations of some of these much less scrupulous organisations that might offer them service. 
I was fortunate recently to be invited to the celebration of the reopening of a Plunket room in Sandringham after the group had lost its building to an arson attack some 2 years earlier. The local community did an extraordinarily good job of first extracting some $200000 from the local council and second raising a similar amount in both cash and kind through their own efforts all the while project managing the construction of what is now a superb facility that will serve that community for many years. The success of that particular venture was testimony not only to the hard work and perseverance of that community but also to the fact that they were part of a national organisation and that they counted among their number people with high-level professional and other expertise. This sort of expert professionalism is not always available to charity groups. Although they may have a deep and broad knowledge of the sector they are serving they may not be astute in contracting or managing professional or other assistance. So they along with donors are the most at risk from unreasonably high retention rates from organisations that can be fairly described as little more than rip-off artists. 
This bill proposes to amend the Fair Trading Act to require professional third-party collectors to disclose to potential donors that a proportion of the donation will be retained and this will apply if the proportion retained is more than 20 percent. It goes on to suggest that if the proportion retained is between 20 and 50 percent of the total donation then the collector must simply disclose that a portion has been withheld by them but does not have to disclose the amount. If the proportion retained is more than 50 percent then the collector must disclose the percentage being retained. In common with an earlier speaker the Greens are somewhat sceptical—we question whether those threshold levels are appropriate—but we are very happy to wait and see what submissions come to the select committee and what evidence there is to suggest that those thresholds are appropriate or indeed to set some other level. 
So with that aside we do look forward to this bill progressing. We compliment the member who has presented it. Kia ora. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to speak to the first reading of the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. ACT is very pleased to support this excellent bill. 
It is always of great concern when consumers are being misled and this can be the case when a charity uses a third party to solicit donations on its behalf. According to recent media reports most individuals who donate money believe that most of their donation will be used to fund the activities of the charity concerned. What they do not realise often is that a proportion of their donation can be used to pay for the third party’s services. Although the use of third-party collectors or agencies to solicit donations is neither illegal nor dishonest it can be misleading. Amy Adams’ bill attempts to improve the transparency of these transactions and ensure that people are aware of what happens to their donation. Mrs Adams should certainly be congratulated on this initiative. 
As others have said the legislation that is currently in place to ensure that consumers are not misled is the Fair Trading Act. Mrs Adams’ bill will add provisions to the Fair Trading Act’s unfair practices section that will require charities to disclose the portion of the donation to be kept by the collector when that portion is over 20 percent. Other speakers have already mentioned the thresholds. 
As Minister of Consumer Affairs I have initiated a project called One Law—One Door which is a simplification programme for consumer law with a goal of principle-based consumer supplier legislation that will see rationalisation of the 12 consumer laws that currently exist. Carol Beaumont might think this is nothing but in fact I spoke to a group of stakeholders last week and they signalled that this programme was the most significant thing that had happened in consumer law for quite some time—indeed for many years. Clearly Labour members do not think that regulatory form and having legislation that is clear enforced and enforceable is important at all but I assure them that it is. 
The Fair Trading Act of course is the pivotal legislation in my One Law—One Door project. For this reason the introduction of Mrs Adams’ amendment bill is very timely. The long-term view is for an enhanced Fair Trading Act that incorporates as many of the aspects of other consumer legislation as possible as well as additional enforcement tools that have been identified. That is something it seems to me that the Labour Party talks about quite often. 
Together with Mrs Adams we have discussed the interface between One Law—One Door and this amendment bill. Our conclusion is that there is merit in the proposed bill being absorbed into the One Law—One Door project and considered within the new approach to consumer law. So that should satisfy Mr Prasad’s concern that this bill is not a Government bill. In fact it is a very good initiative from Mrs Adams and will be incorporated by the Government. 
ACT supports the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill to progress to the Commerce Committee with a view to it becoming part of the One Law—One Door review after the public submission process is complete. The ACT Party not only supports this bill but commends Amy Adams for her work in ensuring that consumers are well informed and that charitable giving is transparent. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou e te Whare. Tena koe Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I congratulate Amy Adams on putting the bill forward; ka nui te mihi. There is an old saying by a great Te Arawa person that goes something like this: charity begins at home. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I thought it was Hone Harawira. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: That one is: charity stays at home. I absolutely agree that it is along the lines of recognising that famous saying from that famous Te Arawa person that ultimately charity manaakitanga demonstrated through the expression of aroha hospitality generosity and mutual respect is an important part of the New Zealand culture. It is also about whanaungatanga: understanding our interdependence with each other and recognising that people are our wealth. It is about kotahitanga: doing our bit to contribute to the collective well-being. 
The acts of charity that this bill addresses are however outside of the home. We are instead talking about the small to medium sized organisations that tend to employ third-party fund-raising professionals. We are talking about Barnardos New Zealand with a total income of $53 million coming in from general donations and another $53 million from parental contributions. We are talking about Plunket with an income for core child health services close to $39 million. We are talking about St John Ambulance with revenue of up to $150 million from the rendering of services with an additional $19 million from donations bequests and grants. These are just three of over 23000 charities registered with the Charities Commission. These are sizable amounts of funding that we are talking about and as such we believe it is essential that the public has confidence in the transparency and the accountability of the charitable organisations they support. 
Other speakers have already mentioned that the bill is a response to the recent media interest in charities where a significant amount of fund-raised income has been spent on the fund-raisers. Basically the bill requires professional third-party collectors to disclose to potential donors that a proportion of the donation will be retained by the collector. This as other speakers have said applies only if the proportion retained is more than 20 percent. 
The hub of the issue for the Maori Party is that although the proposed amendment to the Fair Trading Act may be helpful and would provide some transparency it does not assist donors to distinguish between different types of fund-raising and the associated costs or require disclosure from charities that employ fund-raisers. Most important we in the Maori Party believe that the bill is premature. We have of course had the privilege of being able to consult the very fine Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector— 
Amy Adams 
: Excellent Minister. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: —an excellent Minister from an excellent party—about this bill. We have become aware of the capability— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: She’s not Labour. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Thank goodness! We have become aware of the capability and awareness within the fund-raising sector itself and that there are some legitimate issues about the regulation of the sector from within. As I said we have been fortunate to have input from a fine Minister. 
We know too that the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand is currently drafting industry standards for its members to supplement its existing codes of ethics and conduct and these are very positive steps. Having standards in place will help to set firm guidelines for fund-raisers and the public about what is acceptable practice. We hope that as a result of such a move we are likely to see improved practice and the restoration of donor confidence. 
There is however a risk that although the cost of compliance might be minor some fund-raisers might not be prepared to continue to fund-raise for charities and that is a big concern for us. The groups I referred to before and the 23000 other groups do not deserve to be punished by one bad apple in the bag. Quite to the contrary we should all be doing what we can to support those vital services that are in many respects the heart-line of our communities. 
The Maori Party is prepared to let this bill go to the Commerce Committee to hear what the community and the voluntary sector have to say about it. But we do so I have to say with some reluctance. The last thing we want is to pile even more work on to a sector that is already flooded with more than enough paperwork to deal with. We have confidence in both the Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector and in the sector itself that financial reporting requirements are seriously under review. However consistent with our commitment to letting the public have a say we will vote for the bill today. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I firstly congratulate my colleague Amy Adams on what is not only her first member’s bill but I believe a very excellent one the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. 
I spent 20 years working in the sector that she— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I accidentally rang the bell. My apologies. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: I think Mr Deputy Speaker you owe me another minute. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It was the enthusiasm of the speech. My apologies. 
JONATHAN YOUNG 
: Exactly Mr Deputy Speaker. That bell means that I get to congratulate Amy Adams again and her name gets written in  
Hansard 
 as presenting a very excellent bill. 
As I was saying for 20 years I worked in the sector. I believe that this is a very important area because everything to do with giving in our country has to be based upon integrity and credibility. New Zealanders like to give people a fair go. It is our nature and it is why we give to charities and to charity collectors. New Zealanders have a giving spirit with 77 percent planning to make a donation to charity in the next year according to MasterCard’s September survey of 14 countries. In fact we are second in the Asia-Pacific region for our generosity beaten only by Indonesia; I must say that Australia is 11 points behind us. So we need to protect this attitude of generosity and giving. It is part of the Kiwi way of life where we like to help out each other. It only takes somebody to rip off somebody else to bring some disappointment and cynicism that stops that fantastic sense of community spirit and contribution. So I thank Mrs Adams for putting this bill together. I think it is timely. I think it is needful. Some issues regarding the financial reporting of it need to be worked through and I am sure that they will be. I think that those percentage figures are pretty close to the mark. I look forward to a select committee working on this bill. 
Over recent years the Charities Commission has been established as a central place of registration and financial reporting for charities. That serves to create not only necessary transparency and accountability but equally important credibility amongst our charities because those who register and those who are financially accountable are shown to be bona fide. That is very very important. There has been a big increase in charities seeking donors’ dollars. It is described as the “alms race” in New Zealand. Generally the scrutiny of the public has been focused on what proportion of donated funds ends up being spent on the purpose of the charity as compared with being consumed by administration wages and salaries of the charity. Like Government efficiency and productivity are required by charities. I implore and encourage charities to continue to work on this. 
I am extremely pleased to support this bill which Amy Adams has brought to the House because I believe that it brings the necessity of transparency and accountability to a new level regarding the use and the practice of professional third-party collectors. It requires them to step up to a level of transparency regarding the commission they receive from the proceeds of donated funds. I think there is an acceptance that any organisation will need to spend money to get money. That happens in the field of commerce. We need to understand it as people do it. It is unrealistic to expect a nil proportion to go towards the sustenance of an organisation and 100 percent to go to the purpose of the organisation. But there comes a percentage threshold that is unacceptable. This bill is working to find that threshold to find that level and to bring that accountability. I say to charities that employ the services of those third-party collectors to have care that they do not select people who will take such high percentages of commission because people are looking at the credibility and accountability of the charities in all of this. Please do not create self-injury by those things. 
As I close I say once again congratulations on what I believe is a well-balanced well-prepared bill. I believe it will help New Zealanders continue to be generous and will help charities function effectively in our country. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I will just take a quick call on the Fair Trading (Soliciting on Behalf of Charities) Amendment Bill. I am sorry to interrupt proceedings a little but the reason I want to do so is to say firstly it is a pleasure to stand and support my colleague from Canterbury Amy Adams on this bill. Mrs Adams is blessed both by her beauty and her brains or that is what her husband tells me. She has brought a wonderful bill to the House and I will touch on two aspects that I think have not quite been touched on but are important. 
It is important that some charities have the ability to contract out their fund-raising and hence can use different percentages of administration costs. It is important that those percentages are quite variable and there is a good question mark over whether the percentages are set correctly now in the bill. I think that this bill has wide-ranging support around this House and it is excellent to be able to split out some of the minimum disclosure arrangements. I congratulate Amy on having this bill pulled out of the ballot and I look forward to seeing many more such bills. I look forward too to this bill being passed through to the select committee and to it coming back to the House later on. Thank you. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I thank the House for its support this afternoon and thank members for their useful and well-thought-through contributions. I will not take a lot more of the House’s time but I will use this opportunity of the right of reply to address a couple of the things that have come up in the debate. I will start though by thanking all party members for their support particularly Minister Roy who has been very supportive as the Minister involved. I also say that I deliberately chose the Fair Trading Act for this amendment bill because that Act is a central piece of consumer protection legislation. As a lawyer I have always enjoyed the width and support it gives consumers and I am very pleased to see this bill going forward as an amendment to that Act. 
I will address firstly the issues raised by the Maori Party about industry self-regulation and Minister Turia’s view that the bill is premature and we should let self-regulation do its thing. As I said in my opening contribution I am very open to looking at that and at everything else in the Commerce Committee. My concern I have to say about self-regulation is that I have yet to be convinced about the way industry will ensure that all fund-raisers will buy into that. Certainly self-regulation works well in professions like law and medicine where people have to have a licence to practise but I am not sure how we can force every business that fund-raises to become a member of the Fundraising Institute of New Zealand and to comply with its rules. If in fact it can be shown that that can be done effectively then obviously I am more than open to that. 
Similarly Carol Beaumont and David Clendon in their speeches touched on the concern about where the thresholds would be placed in the legislation. I am certainly very open to that. I indicated in my first contribution that I like to think I am not one of those politicians who think they know everything. For me I recognised there was an issue that I wanted to see addressed and it was a matter of putting a stake in the ground in order to begin the debate. I certainly want to flag again that I will certainly be very open to a good discussion in the select committee about where those thresholds should be placed. It may well be that an amendment is necessary. So I want to make that quite clear to the House. 
In closing I say to members how much of a privilege it is as a member to bring a bill before this House to address something that I think needs to be addressed and to have this House work so well across party lines to address the issue on its merits. I thank the House for its support. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 New Zealand has a proud history of freedom of expression of listening to everyday New Zealanders and of empowering local communities to take responsibility for the places they live in. This Parliament has a proud record of inviting all citizens to offer their views on issues of conscience. We can be proud that we have encouraged every citizen to make their thoughts known to us before we make tough decisions. However since the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act was adopted in 1990 the city of Rotorua has been excluded from providing a full range of services to tourists and to visitors. You see Rotorua is and continues to be the pre-eminent tourist and visitor destination in New Zealand. Easter weekend is one of our busiest weekends; many many thousands of domestic and international visitors come to see us during this time. 
It is not a weekend where mums and dads want to buy cut-rate plasma screen televisions or the latest in trendiest school shoes for little Johnny. They can do that if they choose over many other days of the year. Largely local people choose to spend time with families or to get away from Rotorua because it is a busy weekend or they choose even to go out and fix a fence have a barbecue or mow the lawn—great Kiwi pastimes. It is a weekend where tourists from all over the world visit us experience the many wonders we have to offer eat and drink relax and do many of the things that people choose to do when they are on holiday which does include shop. 
The people of Rotorua want a choice. During the campaign last year Steve Chadwick and I both committed to represent the people of Rotorua and to work to offer Rotorua this choice—the choice to cater to the very many diverse requirements of visitors to our city over Easter. 
Parliament has dealt with this issue many times in the past and I believe that this could be the 10th time since 1990 that we will have considered Easter trading. Others before me have attempted to offer Easter trading on all days of that weekend including Good Friday but my bill does not do that. There have been attempts to bring the same rules to all parts of New Zealand for Easter weekend but again my bill does not seek to do that either. There have been attempts to compel leaseholders to open their shops and workers to work on these days; again my bill does not do that. What my bill does do is offer choice. It empowers local communities through their councils to decide for themselves what changes they might want in the towns they live in on Easter Sunday. It will allow councils bound by the provisions of the Local Government Act to consult the public to consider the views of their residents and to decide where there is a clear local desire to pass a by-law to cover trade on this day. For my part of New Zealand we would seek this change. 
However for the majority of towns and cities in rural areas there is little need to allow shops to open. In Rotorua there is a very clear need to offer local people choice—to offer the people of Rotorua the opportunity to decide for themselves whether their shops should open to cater to tourists on Easter Sunday. Any part of New Zealand that does not want different trading practices needs to take no action at all and current restrictions will remain in place in full. 
The current law is quite messy to say the least. The issues are well-rehearsed: Taupo can open on Easter Sunday yet 80 kilometres away Rotorua does not have that choice. Queenstown can open and caters to a thriving tourist clientele; just down the road Wanaka cannot. There is therefore no blanket ban on Easter trading in New Zealand. However we see arbitrary rules: some local communities can trade on Easter Sunday while others cannot. 
This is not a debate about whether Taupo or Queenstown Rotorua or Wanaka are the most important tourist destinations. All four clearly are important to the country and to their local communities. This is a debate about local communities such as Rotorua Wanaka and any other such tourist destination having a choice at a local level over what they want to do on Easter Sunday. As New Zealand’s tourism profile changes we need to have a law on Easter Sunday trading that is flexible enough to deal with changing profiles. My bill provides flexibility for local communities to determine for themselves whether to open on Easter Sunday as their needs change rather than have them come back to Parliament each time to ask for an exception. My bill will not compel shops to open in Rotorua or in any part of New Zealand. No provision in the current or future shop-lease agreement will compel any shop to open against the owner’s wishes. My bill will not compel any worker in Rotorua or in New Zealand to work on Easter Sunday should he or she not wish to do so; no part of a current or future employment contract would be enforceable against a worker who does not wish to work on that day. This bill will not compel any person—local tourist visitor or member of Parliament—to shop on this day; it will be their choice whether to do so. 
I have received many messages from groups and individuals over the last few months on this bill. Many people have been supportive but there are some people who harbour reservations. I respect all these views but the overwhelming message I have received is in support of local choice so that these decisions can be made locally. I have received many many messages from people and organisations who have asked that this bill be referred to a select committee so that their views can be heard and I respect those requests. These people have told me they support choice. They support local residents and local communities deciding for themselves what choices they want in their home town on Easter Sunday. 
I ask the House for support to refer this bill to a select committee so that all New Zealanders can have a say on whether choice is important to them. Voting today to refer this bill to a select committee does not mean that members are in favour of trading on Easter Sunday. It merely sends the message that they are in favour of churches union members chambers of commerce workers shop owners and individual citizens having a say on whether this bill should be amended adopted or rejected by this Parliament as a whole. 
One of the great attractions New Zealand has as a visitor destination is our nimbleness in catering for the different needs of international visitors. Many of our tourism industries are small operators working hard to make a living in difficult international environments. Small ideas can flourish into great successes stories that create jobs and help our local economies. Who would have thought 30 years ago that tying a rubber band to one’s legs and jumping off a bridge would be a major export earner? Who could have conceived 30 years ago that getting into a boat and watching whales would be a multimillion-dollar business? Rotorua is one community that needs the flexibility to be able to trade on Easter Sunday and to be competitive with other areas of New Zealand that already allow this. My community is asking for this choice. 
This weekend Rotorua celebrates a great milestone. Rotorua Regional Airport will become trans-Tasman when we welcome our first scheduled flight from Sydney. This is exciting for Rotorua and the Bay of Plenty. Air New Zealand will bring Australians to our city twice each week. Many more Australians will visit us and our Easter weekend will become busier and more important to our tourism operators and tourist shops. For 20 long years Parliament has told Rotorua that we cannot decide for ourselves what to do over Easter weekend. Parliament has told us that we cannot decide to work—open our shops and cater to the demands of visitors and tourists on this day. My hope is for MPs from all parties to understand that in Rotorua we want the right to choose for ourselves what we will do on Easter Sunday. We do not want to tell others in other parts of the country what they should do—that is a choice for them. We ask Parliament to support us. I ask the House to support my bill’s referral to a select committee. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I understand that the next call is a split call. Two members will have 5 minutes and there will be a bell at 4 minutes. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I will be voting against this Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I am proud to be a voice for the 267000 workers in the retail industry who are overwhelmingly opposed to having their guaranteed day off on Easter Sunday taken away. Retail workers have once again had to rally around to fight yet another attempt to take away one of only 3½ days in every year when they can put their families ahead of the firm. Their views are important in this debate because they not Mr McClay and not any of us will have to do the work if this bill passes and those workers are asking this Parliament not to agree that they should have to give up Easter Sunday. 
Working as a shop worker is not an easy life. Most retail workers are low paid and many are on the minimum wage. They can be required to work on any of the 7 days in any week or nights for that matter. They can also be required to work on the weekend and on most public holidays and I note that they get no extra pay for working on the weekend. Their start and finish times can vary enormously—the hours can be different every day—and they are highly casualised. A large percentage of the workers who work in shops are between 15 and 19 years of age. Many are in their first jobs and know little about their rights. This makes retail workers more vulnerable than most workers and with almost no power to negotiate on an individual basis or to stand up against big marketing and lobbying campaigns from business. They have little voice and as I said I am proud to speak for them in this Parliament. 
To suggest that this bill protects workers’ right to choose—and Mr McClay used the word “choice” a lot—whether they work on Easter Sunday shows an ignorance of the reality of the working experiences of many retail workers. The reality is that where a young worker is approached by the employer to work the disapproval and a fear of losing their job would be enough for most workers to agree to work on Easter Sunday. It is very easy for an employer to convey the message that saying no means letting down the firm and one’s workmates or it means that one’s next performance review will not be a good one. Shop workers often know that if they say no then some other poor worker will have to pick up the job on Easter Sunday. 
Easter Sunday is part of the only long weekend left where retail workers can expect the right—the right—to have time off to spend with their whanau to practise their religion if they are Christian as it is an important day in the Christian calendar or just to rest from the demands of their jobs. Shops can trade on 51 out 52 Sundays already—51 out of 52 Sundays—and on every public holiday except Good Friday Christmas Day and the morning of Anzac Day. As I said earlier there are just 3½ days in every year when shop workers know that they will not be expected to work. 
I am somewhat disappointed that we are debating this issue yet again in Parliament when it has already been debated many times as the member said and there have been many many reviews. Actually while I am talking about reviews I must say that the Government which that member is part of is currently conducting a review of the Holidays Act. The issue of Easter shop trading is included in that so if we are talking about people having a say and giving their views then that surely would be the place to do it. I urge the member to put his bill on hold until the results of that inquiry are known so that people know that that process is genuine. 
I have said before that New Zealand’s long and unregulated work hours need to be addressed but this bill only adds to the never-ending demands for work intensification and longer hours. I note that Caritas the Catholic social justice agency which is opposed to this bill has invited Mr McClay to sacrifice some of his Christmas plans to discuss this Easter shop trading bill. I hope that he takes up that invitation because he at least has a choice. If this bill is passed the workers will have no choice. Mr McClay likes to talk about choice so let us see what choice he makes. 
Today we have the chance to mean what we say when we express concern about community and family problems because we know that long working hours and the intensification of work are causing social problems. We have the chance today to put the interests of people and families ahead of the interests of firms and businesses and I think it is time to halt the increasing demand on workers for intensification of their working hours. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I too rise to oppose the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill which has been put forward by Todd McClay. It may come as a surprise to Mr McClay but my view is that people do not go to Rotorua on Easter weekend to go shopping. I think they probably go to Rotorua to do other things. Maybe they want to go to the hot pools or perhaps they want look at the amazing natural features—the lakes perhaps. There are many things to see and there is a very interesting history there. In fact if they really do want to shop there are at least two days on Easter weekend when they can do so. That is the first point. 
I do not think that there is really a problem to be addressed here. I think it is naive to say these two things: that this issue is about choice—that everybody has a free choice—and that shops will open on Easter Sunday only in particular areas where everybody agrees to that. I have to say that both those comments are very very naive. I noticed that during the debate on this bill Simon Bridges was interjecting “Mount Maunganui next!” and that is the reality. We know—and we can see it if we look at the history—that when shop trading hours were liberalised in this country within a very short period indeed shops went to full opening on Saturdays Sundays and evenings very very quickly throughout New Zealand. So I do not buy the argument that this is about choice and will happen only in certain locations. Shops with few exceptions now trade 361½ days per year. New Zealand has one of the most liberal shop trading regimes in the world. 
I will give a small history lesson because I have had a long association with the retail industry and with retail workers. The history is that in 1990 most shops could not trade on any Sunday and they were unable to open on nine of the 11 recognised public holidays. Now they can trade on 51 out of 52 Sundays and on every public holiday except Good Friday Christmas Day and the morning of Anzac Day. That year was the occasion when Rotorua went from not having any of those things to gaining all of that time for shops to be open. We are still arguing about whether shops should also be able to open on Easter Sunday. 
Frankly I will have no difficulty at all voting against this bill. It will not be as members opposite try to argue just about unionists. It is not. As my colleague Darien Fenton has said churches oppose these changes as does Family First which is not normally an organisation I have a great deal in common with. Many many people and organisations oppose this change and it is because Easter is a very significant holiday in New Zealand. It is significant for a range of reasons. It is significant because it has religious significance for many. Its family significance is very very important as is its community significance. Let us look at the number of events whether they be anniversaries reunions or sporting events that take place over Easter weekend. That is because the holiday provides an opportunity for many workers and many families to get together. 
Retail workers are a not insignificant proportion of our workforce. As Ms Fenton said there are 267000 retail workers. Mr McClay says that they cannot be forced to work. That might be technically true but often they are vulnerable workers. That is partly because many of them are young and many of them are in very casualised situations but it is for other reasons as well. In many shops the staffing levels are very very tight. There is not a whole pool of people who could be there working. Secondly many of those workers get a lot of pressure direct or indirect to work because if they do not they are not team players and because they recognise that if they do not it will put pressure on their colleagues. So there are a lot of dynamics in shops as I am sure Mr McClay would discover if he took the time to talk to retail workers. Retail workers have consistently fought against further liberalisation of our shop trading hours. That is because they want to spend time with their family and friends and take part in community events. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 Good on Todd McClay for bringing the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill to the House. Good on Todd McClay for standing up on behalf of the people of Rotorua whom he proudly represents in this Parliament. Good on Todd McClay for having yet another crack at getting some sense into an Act that is widely acknowledged as being full of anomalies and making little sense in today’s retail domestic and international tourism environment. Good on Todd McClay for bringing this legislation to the House. 
I fully support this legislation and I will tell members why. It is because my community of Wanaka is also one of those tourism destinations in New Zealand that relies on trading over Easter to make up to 20 percent of its annual retail figures. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Up to 20 percent. That is significant for retailers in Wanaka who despite being in a tourism area have to get through a tough winter environment and the tourism shoulder seasons which can see retail being a difficult area to be in. This excellent bill of Todd McClay’s has been thought through and it is well considered. He has drawn on attempts to bring legislation through the House in the past and it is eminently sensible. I tell members that that is because it is about choice. This bill leaves the decision about Easter trading to the local authority in that area. Who better to know the needs of a community and a retail sector than the local authority in which it lies? 
I will refer to a previous submission from July 2006 and I know that the feelings have not changed. The submission was on behalf of Clive Geddes the Mayor of Queenstown Lakes District Council. I believe that Mr Geddes is well placed to make a submission on this bill because in one of his towns there is the ability under the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act to trade over Easter under a previous iteration of this legislation yet in another part of his local authority area—in the town of Wanaka which is equally a tourism destination—there is not the ability to trade over Easter. Has family life been destroyed in Queenstown because its businesses can trade over Easter? I believe not. 
I know that community very well. I know the chamber of commerce in Queenstown quite well and interestingly enough people in Queenstown like to work. In Queenstown there are a number of young people and not so young people in the retail sector. Some of them are in permanent jobs and some are in temporary jobs. They like to work. They welcome the opportunity to work some extra hours. As we all know young people like to work during the day to make money in order to have a great time at night which of course is what they do in Queenstown. Life is fantastic for the workers of Queenstown because the have the opportunity to make a contribution to their town. They work during the day over Easter and they sure as heck party at night. That is one of the things that makes Queenstown one of the great places in New Zealand. The great shame is that people in Wanaka just over the Crown Range do not have that ability because of a strange anomaly within the law. So when Clive Geddes the Mayor of Queenstown Lakes District Council makes a submission it is from a man who knows what he is talking about. 
I hope that this bill gets sent to a select committee for good consideration. I know that this bill has the support of the chamber of commerce in Wanaka. The members of it are most anxious to have the ability to open at Easter. The Warbirds over Wanaka International Air Show comes to Wanaka every second year. We also have the Race to the Sky. Up to 100000 people come into Wanaka over the course of the Easter weekend. Those people want to shop and they want to have the ability to shop. I hope that this bill has a successful passage through the House so that they can do so. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I congratulate Todd McClay on his first private bill the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I know we sit at the back and poke fun at each other but he has had the luck of the draw. This is also my first speech on a conscience issue and I want to take it seriously and talk about the reasons why I will not support this bill. 
I remember very well bringing up my children in a community in New Zealand where we had the time to spend at least one and a half days a week with our children to go to the beach. We could rush around for 4 hours in the morning and buy whatever we wanted but we could spend the rest of the weekend with our children taking them to the beach and having barbecues. We could provide the best environment that we could in order to ensure that our children were the best that they could be. They could grow up with their parents around them. Those were great times. I have spoken to many people around the country who ask why we went as far as we did to open up the weekends for one reason only which was for trade. They ask why we did not balance the interests of our families and our children with the interests of commerce and the interests of our community. Unfortunately my conscience will not allow me to vote for this bill because there is no balance in this measure. It does not take care of the interests of very young people. 
We can go further and contemplate for a while and ask ourselves why it is that day in and day out when this House is sitting and when we are elsewhere—in our electorates and in the communities that we visit—we are told about the difficulties that our families are experiencing. People tell us about the level of violence in our community. Young people tell us how disconnected they feel from their parents their elders and their communities. They say the level of abuse is very high. 
Simon Bridges 
: They blame Labour. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member might like to follow up on that because it is a serious issue. This bill is quite an anti-family measure and my conscience will not allow me—with the greatest of respect to Mr McClay—to support it. 
When we ask parents and when we look at all of the research what do we find? The member has not read the research findings clearly because the one thing that families tell us time and time again and that we find in research report after research report is that families require more time. Family members say they require more time to spend with each other doing the kinds of things that give our children the best start in life and forming relationships that are enduring yet members come here and complain about the breakdown of relationships and about parents being disconnected from their children. Well I will not vote for a measure that would jeopardise the interests of families. Our children and our families feel disconnected and our youth are disconnected. If we really wanted to address their needs then we would look at some of the drivers of that. Members opposite often speak about the drivers of disconnection and one of the major drivers is a lack of time. Yet we want to take away the one Sunday—the one that is left; the one little bit that is left—that gives at least some families the time to have a longer period in which to bond and do the kinds of things that they need to do. 
This bill takes that time away from our children from our families and from our communities. It does all that in the name of choice of commerce and of sales. Mr McClay bases his argument on freedom of choice and he also bases it on Rotorua. His bill does not make a case for Rotorua only; his bill would actually take away from all of our families those things—[ 
Interruption 
] The member might like to think about that because the bill is not all about selling in Queenstown or Rotorua. If the member wants to have an exemption for Rotorua then let him try it out. Let the member put forward an option that says we should have a referendum in Rotorua and put a 70 percent threshold on it. Let us do that if that member agrees. But no the chambers of commerce and business interests are to decide. I am not prepared to support a measure that takes time away from our families and our children. Thank you. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 It seems that a bill of this nature has become something of a hardy perennial. By our count this is something like the eighth members’ bill to come before the House since 1996 proposing to amend the shop trading hours Act. As a former owner and operator of two retail stores I can understand and even have some degree of sympathy for those who would wish to open their doors for business on 1 more day of every year. The case for allowing this to happen on Easter Sunday however is far from compelling and the Green MPs collectively and individually will be opposing the progress of this Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I bought my first store in 1980 which happened to be the year that Saturday trading became allowable and was introduced generally whereas formerly retail shops for the most part were obliged to be closed from Friday evening through to Monday morning. Clearly with more lenience some economic and social benefits have flowed from those extended opening hours. But one must get to the point where one questions how much is enough or indeed how much is too much. It is my view that if a business cannot be viable on the 361½ days of the year that most shops can currently legally open then one must question whether 1 more day will really add sufficient value to that business to warrant the change. 
This bill proposes to allow territorial authorities to determine by way of by-laws whether retail shops in their districts or parts of their districts may be open on Easter Sunday. This proposed by-law mechanism would not require territorial authorities to consult with their communities as they would currently need to do under Part 6 of the Local Government Act 2002. Nor do the provisions of this bill propose any safeguards protecting workers from being required by their employers to work in retail shops whose management decides that they will open on Easter Sunday other than perhaps for a few employees who may be in the position to be able to negotiate some specific arrangement into their employment agreements. Close to 270000 people are employed in the retail sector in New Zealand most of them on very modest rates of pay—indeed many of them are paid scarcely above the minimum wage—so there is quite a lot at stake in this matter. In common with most low-paid workers there is a significant discrepancy between their rights in principle and their ability in practice to exercise those rights. We have heard much about the matter of choice but to suggest that a casual worker will have a choice of whether or not to work on Sunday is somewhat naive. The choice typically will be for the worker to turn up at work on Sunday or to not bother coming in again. 
The Green Party policy is that Easter Sunday should be a public holiday to ensure that workers who are required to work on that day receive a day off in lieu and this issue is not addressed by the bill. Easter Sunday is one of the remaining 3½ days of the year when family life cannot be impinged upon by work commitments or a commitment to consumerism. There are of course already numerous exceptions to that rule: people in the service industries and in emergency services utility operators and others who are obliged to continue to work or to make services available on 365 days a year. However extending that out to the entire suite of retail therapy opportunities would seem to breach quite a significant dam as these holidays stand as quite significant symbols of resistance to a culture of unbridled consumerism and consumption. There have unquestionably been economic benefits from allowing longer trading hours but so too have there been costs. The time available for people to engage in voluntary activity in their communities has been much reduced and this has put pressure on schools service clubs and sports clubs to achieve their goals. New Zealand already has a culture of working excessively long hours: 20 percent of us work more than 50 hours a week and 40 percent work more than 45 hours a week. We believe in enabling a much better work-life balance and in increasing opportunities for parents to spend time with their children and for people to be active in their communities. We have opposed all seven previous bills that have sought to liberalise Easter Sunday trading and we will continue to resist this eighth attempt to breach that barrier. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 Listening to this debate has been very interesting but also not surprising. As soon as I saw the Shop Trading House Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill on the Order Paper with the word “choice” in the title I thought: “Here we go. The politburo over there will all be voting in accordance with the whips’ directions.” I will be very interested to see whether any Labour members exercise their own brains do their own thinking and vote on this side of the Chamber but I very much doubt it. I will be disappointed though if all the National members without exception troop through the Ayes lobby. I suspect that some National members will exercise a conscience vote. They will make up their own minds and vote No. And surprise surprise the “watermelons” on my right are all voting collectively as Mr Clendon said. They are all following the herd as well because we cannot have choice—no no no. We must have the politburo laying down the rules on how it is done headed by the former unionists over there. Some of those members should get back into the workplace. I have a lesson for them. I practised employment law— 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Not very well. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: —and it is not 1950 I say to Mr Prasad. Not every worker—and the only people who use that term now are in the Labour Party—is a family man with three kids. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hesitate to do this but there is a convention in this House that members refer to other members by their correct names. My colleague sitting next to me was not referred to by his correct title of Dr Prasad; it was something else. The member has been here long enough to know that he should refer to the honourable member by his correct name or title. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is correct. The member David Garrett referred to is Dr Prasad and in future he should refer to him by his correct title. That would be helpful. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Dr Prasad. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Mr Garrett. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Astounding! The workforce is no longer made up of dads who support three kids and go home on the 5 o’clock tram; it is made up of single people and young couples who are childless and wish to make as much money as they can for a house deposit. It is made up of students who want to work for their education. This legislation gives people choice not just to consumers— 
Darien Fenton 
: Rubbish! 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Not all union members are clones who follow the leader. Some of them are but there are many union members who will be quite happy to work an extra day. In my experience in bottle stores and in other working environments there is often a queue to work on public holidays. If no one wants to work employers have to pay extra. That is called the market. That is how it works. [ 
Interruption 
] Those members are absolutely terrified of the market. The Opposition says: “We can’t have any choice. We must impose it from the top. We must have one rule for all.” That is how it goes at the politburo level I say to Dr Prasad. 
It just so happens that I will reveal ACT’s hand in advance. I have proxies for the other members of the ACT Party all of whom have decided individually to support the bill as I will. It is no surprise that over there in the politburo they are all against it. ACT is in favour of the bill. It is a measure that allows choice to both workers and consumers and ACT is in favour of anything that does just that. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 A tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker kia ora tatau katoa e te Whare. Ko tenei take he take nui i te Ao Maori otira he take nui hoki i te Whare Paremata i te mea e toru hipa noa atu pea o tenei momo take kua tae ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata. Ara he korero mo te wa o te Aranga o Ihu Karaiti. Kati ko ta te Pati Maori i tenei wa he noho totara wahi rua. Ko etahi kai te whakaae atu ki tenei pire ko etahi kei te ki kati engari ko toku ngakau kei te ki me tautoko ake i ta Todd McClay korero. Ae no roto o Rotorua te mema nei he mema kua whakaara ake i tenei take mo te painga o Rotorua. No reira moku ake kua tautoko i tana i tenei panuitanga tuatahi. 
Ko te aronga o tana ngakau mo te ahuatanga o nga mea turuhi nga pakihi o roto i te taone nui o Rotorua. Ko tana i te tuatahi ko tona aronga e hangai tonu ana ki a Rotorua engari a te wa pea kai tena kai tena kai tena taone kai tena taone tona tikanga. Ma ratau ano ra tera e wetewete. Ko te mea pai o tenei ki a au nei i te tuatahi kai tena taone kai tena taone te tikanga ka tahi ka rua ka riro ma tena kaunihera ma tera hapori e whakatau ae kao ranei ka mutu o roto i a au o Te Arawa o Rotorua ko te tumanako ma Rotorua tonu e whakatau i te tikanga mo Rotorua. 
Ko te mate ke o enei momo pire he painga ano o roto he kino ano ra roto. Na ko te wahi o Te Aranga ki te ao Maori he wa whanau tera he wa hura kohatu he wa whakakotahi i te whanau. Tera korero tera ka mutu kai te rongo ake ki nga korero a etahi o te Reipa e mea ana kei wareware te ahuatanga ki nga kaimahi i roto toa. Ka mutu ko roto o Rotorua ko te hunga me ki e hapai nei i te mahi turuhi. He mea tera mo te pukoro o te tangata. No reira kua tukituki nga take e rua a ko te ahuatanga o te whakata te whakakotahi nei o te whanau. Ka mutu ko tera e pa ana ki nga pakihi. Kei te rongo ake i te korero o te Reipa kua raruraru pea kua herea pea etahi o nga kaimahi o roto i nga mahi turuhi. Te tikanga a-Maori nei kua hiahia ki te haere ki te hura kohatu engari tera pea ko te rangatira kei te ki kao me noho ki te mahi. No reira kua ahua raruraru i reira. 
No reira a kati kua rahi tenei me te mohio ano hoki kua tata ki te tina. Me penei rawa te korero kua noho totara wahi rua te Pati Maori engari moku ake kua tautoko ake i tenei panuitanga tuatahi anake kia kite mai ai kia rongo ano hoki i nga hiahia o te hapori. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and greetings to us all the House. This matter is of great significance to Maoridom and to the House of Parliament as well because there have been perhaps three or more instances in the past when a bill of this type involving the Easter break has come before Parliament. At this time however the Maori Party is divided. Some agree with this bill while others disagree but my heart tells me that I must support Todd McClay’s address. Yes this member is from Rotorua. He raised the matter of how Rotorua will benefit from the bill. For me personally I will support what he has stated in this first reading debate. 
While the focus of his attention is primarily on aspects of tourism and business in the city of Rotorua eventually each individual town will decide what is best for it. They alone will determine that. For me the good thing about this is that first each town will have the right; second it will be left to each council and community to decide whether it is yes or no but for me of Te Arawa and Rotorua hopefully it would be left to Rotorua to determine what is best for it.  
The problem with these types of bills is that there are both advantages and disadvantages in them. To Maoridom the Easter break means family and unveiling time and also time for the family to come together as one. That is that aspect. Hearing some Labour members saying not to forget those who work in shops is another. As well there are those in Rotorua who champion the tourism industry. That of course is a source of income for the pocket. So the two purposes conflict in respect of having time for a break and bringing the family together and the matter relating to business. I have heard what Labour has stated about how some workers in the tourism industry become somewhat troubled or constrained. Traditionally Maori would want to go to an unveiling but on the other hand the employer may perhaps demand that they remain at work. So there is a dilemma.  
So leave it at that. Knowing that the dinner break is almost upon us this is enough. I say again that the Maori Party is divided on this but for me personally my support is for this first reading only so that the wishes of the community are again seen and heard. 
] 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to rise and speak in favour of the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. It is an interesting bill. I have searched my conscience and tried to put aside ideological considerations and considerations of party politics and what the party rulebooks or constitutions might say and get down to what works what communities will find works and what is good for them. It seems to me that that is exactly what this bill is about and what it does. It gives the power back to communities and to councils to do something and to exercise their judgment on whether to have shops open on Easter Sunday. 
As I said in my maiden speech I am generally socially conservative but I do not think I am unthinkingly or uncaringly so. I also said that I think we very much need to do what works not what sounds good in theory. I want to say in this debate—perhaps there has not been so much talk of this; it has been more unionist-type argument—that I have sympathy for the arguments based on a special time for family on special religious days and for example the real significance in the Christian faith of Easter Sunday. As I also said in my maiden speech my father is a retired Baptist minister. I am sure that I will attend an Easter service in this coming year. But I nevertheless— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Son of a preacher man! 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I am the son of a preacher man; he was the only one who could ever teach me. 
I nevertheless say to this House that although I would not accept a carte blanche liberalisation of the law—including for example Good Friday and Christmas Day—I think this particular bill getting away from the ideology offers choice and will work. Significantly it will allow for different positions in different circumstances and localities even within cities. In places like Tauranga where I am privileged to be the MP we may see Mount Maunganui open to trade whereas other parts of the city—such as the aptly named given this bill Bethlehem—we may not. As I said it is not laying down a carte blanche ideological position; it is about choice flexibility and differing positions in differing circumstances and locations. 
In considering this bill and how to vote I consulted with quite a number of people. I wanted to exercise my conscience and I also wanted to know what the people of Tauranga thought. I can tell members that retailers in for example Mount Maunganui have been influential in shaping my views. They said to me that they wholeheartedly support this bill. They said that it is still summer at Easter at the Mount and many tourists both domestic and international still want to shop and get out for the crafts the eateries and so on. They say that of course this should be optional; it will be for both the retailers and for the customers. They say that they will make very strong efforts to be family focused and to have things for families because not only will that be great for their businesses but also it will be good for the community to have people and families given something to do to get out and to enjoy what Mount Maunganui’s shops and retailers have to offer. 
As I said this will be optional for customers. They can choose to go to the coffee shops and the crafts markets or they can choose to go to church and to spend time with their families at home. I like that very much. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. I find I am in an odd position in Opposition as the ex-MP for Rotorua. 
Paul Quinn 
: Ex! 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: Yes absolutely; I lost Todd won and he is bringing this bill into the House but I always supported Easter trading. I supported it because I was the MP for a vibrant and very alive tourist diamond of New Zealand. 
When I first got into Government Rodney Hide’s bill carried over from Patricia Schnauer was before us and I supported that bill too. I have to say I came in for a lot of challenges in my party at that time and over time we changed clauses in the bill. I have heard lots of debate including comments just now from Simon Bridges that there are workers’ protections in this bill and that it is great that they have choice. In effect they do not have much choice. I really believe that that is the position we are in. I put in a clause to strengthen worker protection after Rod Donald’s garden centre amendment to Easter Sunday trading and I was very clearly shown that it did not protect workers who were coerced to work. 
I really believe here and now that whatever the outcome of tonight’s debate—and I think this is the most muddled debate; I think we have debated this issue seven times in the House—the issue will not go away. It will keep coming back to the House but I believe it has to come back as a Government bill. Government members are now in the perfect position of having the Prime Minister as the Minister of Tourism. Herein lies another hook. If workers were given the protection of Easter Sunday being made one of the annual public holidays and were given time and a half and a day in lieu we would not be coming back to debate this issue in this House every time there is a new Parliament. 
I do not believe that a member’s bill will ever really make the cut. I fought very hard for a bill such as this one and members who were around in the last 9 years know that I did. I think I did quite a good job but one would have thought during the election campaign that that was one of the reasons why I was an abject failure and why Rotorua would toss me out. And Todd was going to do it—he was going to come in on his white charger― 
Todd McClay 
: A blue charger! 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: ―a blue charger; that is right—and fix it once and for all. 
I wish Todd McClay good luck because I think the debate is still very divided. Workers are saying: “You may think that you put worker protections in here but actually there is coercion that we don’t feel comfortable with.” That is absolutely what the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and the National Distribution Union have told me and so have workers. They say that if they dare suggest that they want to have Easter Sunday off they will be told: “There are plenty more workers in this labour market especially in the time of a recession and you will be down the road sunshine.” I do not think there is adequate protection for workers in clause 10 of this bill. 
Darien Fenton 
: Very weak. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK 
: It is weak and if it gets through tonight then that is one thing that the Commerce Committee or whichever committee it goes to will absolutely have to work on. I believe John Key has the perfect tool. He has a working party looking at the holidays now. If that came back tidied up we would all be very relieved. We could get on with other great noble members’ bills in this House. The way to tidy it is to do it through that working party review of the holidays we have now make Easter Sunday a public holiday pay people properly for it and give them time off. 
I am still the buddy MP for Rotorua and I am still “hanging around” Todd. I support this bill and I am proud to support it. It was just good luck that it was drawn in the ballot; it was not good management by the member for Rotorua. I wish Rotorua good luck. I have just returned from there and the people of Rotorua are waiting to know that this House will support them and get the bill referred to a select committee. They have gone trans-Tasman and they want to see a vibrant retail sector and a vibrant service sector. There is that hook for the service sector—pay them properly and they will be there when they choose to work. I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am so glad I got an opportunity to do so. There is a way of fixing it. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to support the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. To the former MP for Rotorua Steve Chadwick I say thank you. What a wonderful thing it is that we can work in a cross-party way. I just wish that she could convince more members from the Labour Party to vote for this bill to be referred to a select committee. 
I start with a terrible quotation which seems still to resonate with visitors who come to our shores. When they return to their home countries it is a bit of a joke to them and it is a reputation that as a nation we have not yet dispelled. It is one of the reasons I support this member’s bill from my colleague Todd McClay and what a fantastic member for Rotorua he is. I know that right from the beginning he lobbied me. He put members’ names on a huge wall in his office and he ticked them off as he went about lobbying other members of this House. The quotation is “We went to New Zealand but it was closed.” What a terrible quotation that is. It has been told to me many times and it speaks volumes. However compared with the 1980s when I first arrived in New Zealand things have changed quite dramatically. Retail shops are staying open for longer and in most cases the streets of Auckland and other parts of New Zealand look quite vibrant alive and filled with people unlike back in the early days of my arrival when the city looked quite dull and dead after 5 o’clock. 
In the last 20 years Parliament has made numerous attempts—I think about nine—to repeal this law. It is time to support this member’s bill being referred to a select committee to gauge public opinion through the submissions process so that the people of New Zealand can have their voices heard talk to the select committee and decide. 
For me this bill is not about whether it is right or wrong to allow people to trade on Easter Sunday. People already do. I remember when garden centres were breaking the law to trade on Easter Sunday. Since 2001 garden centres can open on Easter Sunday but hardware stores still cannot. I know quite a few DIY mums and dads whose voices get rather loud over this issue. It is about recognising that there should be a choice and that through choice the law becomes fair. Retailers and customers should have the choice to decide whether they want to trade on Easter Sunday. 
And that choice should be fairly distributed across New Zealand. At the moment the current law allows shops in Queenstown and Taupo to open but not shops in other places including some of New Zealand’s most popular “other” destinations like Rotorua Mount Maunganui and Wanaka. At the moment dairies can open but only to sell food and household items for use on that day. My parents used to own a dairy a long time ago and I remember working at that dairy. My parents used to feel rather guilty opening up shop on Easter Sunday. I remember my mum wondering whether she was breaking the law because she had seen television stories about garden centres apparently defying the law to stay open and we thought the law applied to dairies as well. There was a lot of confusion for us as migrants. We did not understand why shops had to close on Easter Sunday. 
Rotorua is a key destination for Asian visitors to New Zealand and hundreds of thousands of them come to our shores each year. Rotorua is always included in their travel itineraries. Although souvenir shops can open on Easter Sunday many others that provide important services to our tourists face restrictions. I know that a lot of local Asian retailers in Rotorua who would benefit greatly from tourism dollars would jump for joy if they could open on Easter Sunday. It is not about forcing them to open either; it is about having a choice. It is all about choice. 
For me personally Easter and Christmas are the two days when I make sure I am at church with my family but after the church service the day is often spent pottering around the house doing chores. It would be good to know that if I wanted to drive down to Rotorua with my family for a wee break over Easter I would not come back saying “I went to Rotorua but it was closed.” Having that choice would not change my life but for those who count on a hike in the tourism dollar during peak holiday periods it could mean the difference between make or break. We need to give them a break and give them the choice to say yea or nay. Thank you. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: There is one speaker left who is the proposer of the bill in reply. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Seek leave. It will be granted. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to take a call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: A 5-minute call? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: A 5-minute call if that is OK. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is not. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I open my speech by thanking Gerry Brownlee. Although we do not agree— 
Moana Mackey 
: Yeah that’s enough. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is enough. In the interests of democracy I thank him for allowing me to take a call on the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill. 
Firstly I acknowledge all speakers. Although I do not agree with the members on the other side of the House and the ACT speakers I acknowledge that it is very important to have the debate on this issue. I also acknowledge Steve Chadwick and commend her for her speech because although I do not agree with her on this issue I know that she has brought this issue to this House many times before. I think the last time that a similar bill to this one was before the House a number of Labour members argued that it should go forward but that we should have in place rights and protections for the workers who work on that day. 
Paul Quinn 
: Select committee. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: No no. That bill went to a select committee but let us get real. In terms of the numbers in this House—and they are not the numbers that we wanted—to support this bill’s referral to a select committee on the basis that there might be some worker protection and workers’ rights given the history of this Government in dealing— 
Paul Quinn 
: Trust us. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: My friend opposite says to trust those members but we need only look at the 90-day legislation and at the cuts to KiwiSaver and the accident compensation scheme. Nicky Wagner is probably another victim of the cuts to accident compensation. 
I acknowledge Steve Chadwick. I know that she supports this bill. Her view is not the one that I or many of my colleagues take but she has the integrity to stand in this House and talk about the rights of workers in New Zealand. 
Members opposite talk about choice. They talk about whether workers will sell their fourth week’s holiday because they think that it is a completely equal relationship in the workforce do they not? It is completely equal! The employer comes in and says: “Look by the way I have no power over you but would you like to sell your fourth week’s holiday or would you like to work on a public holiday?”. It will have nothing to do with the fact that workers may want some extra leave because their child has extra needs or whatever. Members opposite think that that is a completely equal playing field. That is where members opposite miss the plot completely. 
It is not an equal power relationship. I can vouch for this because before I came to this House and before I worked to represent workers and to see that their rights were respected I was a nurse. Everyone knows that the people working in hospitals and in health care are in the one area of work where we cannot tell—and I can see Gerry Brownlee nodding furiously in agreement—those people to go home. We cannot tell nurses doctors and midwives to go home or say that they are not needed at the moment because the market does not need them. We know that is ensured. But when we look at the retail sector we know that there are very few days now in our year when workers have that time with their families. 
We know that given the choice people are very very on to it. Retailers and consumers know that if the shops are shut on a particular day then that day is when people can enjoy being with their families. Retail workers can also have that day off to enjoy with their families and the shops can sell their wares on other days. 
We absolutely acknowledge Steve Chadwick who is supporting the bill because we are very pragmatic— 
Paul Quinn 
: And Shane he is coming with us. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: It is a conscience vote; I would not know. We see—I am rather disappointed about it and I will put it on record—that the Maori Party members who are there to advocate for workers’ interests have chosen to split their support on this bill. But I am proud to say that I do not support this bill. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The hour of debate before the dinner break and now this last 20 minutes have been interesting and I thank all members for their contributions. I start by saying on behalf of the people of Rotorua who for 19 years have been asking this Parliament for the right to have a choice that we respect all views in this House and of those people who have told us that they cannot support the bill. Indeed that is why it is important that it is a conscience issue: Easter trading and particularly trading on Easter Sunday is an issue that the House has had difficulty with for many many years and on all sides of the House there are very wide views. 
I shall pick up a couple of points raised. I must for a moment pay a compliment to the previous member of Parliament for Rotorua Steve Chadwick who held the Rotorua seat for 9 years. Mrs Chadwick on two occasions brought a bill before this House—a member’s bill and a local bill—to deal with this issue for the people of Rotorua. I commend her for that and I thank her for pledging her support for this bill today and for the people of Rotorua. I tell members that while looking at the bill before I put it into the ballot I did a lot of research read all the other bills and looked at what others had tried to do. I can say that Mrs Chadwick’s bill was probably the closest to something that I thought the House would be comfortable with. Indeed she herself has said that there are great similarities between the bill we face today and vote on and her bill. 
Mrs Chadwick spoke about worker protection and of course that is very important. I accept that workers must be protected. But I would argue to the House that the worker protection put into this bill is near-on compatible with and identical to that in Mrs Chadwick’s bill only a few years ago. At that time a number of Labour members saw fit to support the bill to the select committee so as to have the opportunity to debate to listen to people from all around New Zealand from all walks of life—union members church officials men and women in the street business owners workers—and to see what they think. If there is work to be done on worker protection then the committee is the very best place to do that. 
I challenge members opposite to think for a moment about the people of Rotorua the people of Wanaka and the people of any other part of New Zealand where people want a choice. I ask members opposite what is wrong with backing New Zealanders to have a choice. In fact let us go a little shorter than that and ask what is wrong with backing New Zealanders to come to this House to a select committee to put forward their views on what should happen to this bill. 
Mrs Chadwick is right to say that this bill has been around for a long time and I tell members that it will be back again. It is about local choice and backing local communities. I ask members opposite who say that they cannot support the bill to think about these Kiwis these mums and dads and these workers and to listen to them. I challenge them to stop listening to the unions and to listen to the workers and allow them to put forward their views to this House. There is quite some subtle difference. A union is represented by a number of people who have paid a percentage of their salary to the union. In Rotorua shopworkers in a number of stores pay 10 percent of their salary to the unions. If members are so worried about their rights they should give back some of that money. They should not be taking that 10 percent and then saying they are really really sorry that those people cannot work on a certain day. 
But it is worse than that. Members are saying they do not care what workers say they know better than workers. I ask the members opposite to back New Zealanders and to listen to workers. If people come to Parliament and say they do not want this legislation then the House will listen—it is a conscience issue. 
I will tell members one thing about Rotorua. I have known for a long time and Mrs Chadwick has known for a long time—in fact I heard her echoing this earlier—that the people of Rotorua have wanted this choice for a long time. Both Mrs Chadwick and I campaigned on this as most candidates in Rotorua have. We are both committed to working as long as we are in Parliament to bring this choice to the people of Rotorua. But I say to members that if this bill does not go to the select committee it will be because of a lack of support and understanding for the people of Rotorua on the opposite side of the House from Labour members who would rather listen to their unions than back people to come to this House so that after hearing from them we can make up our minds. 
I make a pledge on behalf of the people of Rotorua that if this bill does not go to select committee we will be back. Rotorua wants this provision and it has wanted it for a long time. But there is something that Labour members should not do in 2 years’ time. Labour members who have not supported this bill to select committee should not show up in Rotorua and ask people for their vote. It will be too late; it will be all over. People in Rotorua backed me a year ago to come to Parliament to fight for them. I will continue to fight for them. I commend Mrs Chadwick for going against the majority of her colleagues’ views on this issue by supporting this bill. But let me say on behalf of the people of Rotorua who have supported me to come here to ask Parliament for a choice and to send this bill to select committee that if this bill does not go to a select committee it will be the fault of the members opposite and they need not bother to campaign in Rotorua in 2 years’ time; there will be no place for them. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the Shop Trading Hours Act 1990 Repeal (Easter Sunday Local Choice) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 59 
Adams 
Dean (P) 
Joyce (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Auchinvole (P) 
Douglas (P) 
Kaye 
Smith N (P) 
Bakshi (P) 
Dunne (P) 
Key (P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Bennett D 
Finlayson (P) 
King C (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Bennett P (P) 
Flavell 
Lee 
Tolley (P) 
Blue 
Foss (P) 
Mapp (P) 
Tremain 
Boscawen (P) 
Garrett (P) 
McClay 
Turia (P) 
Bridges 
Gilmore 
McCully (P) 
Upston 
Brownlee 
Goudie (P) 
Parata 
Wagner (P) 
Calder 
Groser (P) 
Peachey (P) 
Wilkinson (P) 
Carter D (P) 
Guy (P) 
Power (P) 
Williamson (P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hayes 
Quinn 
Wong 
Chadwick 
Henare (P) 
Roy H (P) 
Woodhouse 
Coleman (P) 
Hide (P) 
Ryall (P) 
Teller: 
Collins 
Hutchison (P) 
Sharples (P) 
Goodhew 
Noes 62 
Anderton 
Delahunty 
Jones 
Pillay 
Ardern J 
Dyson 
Katene 
Prasad 
Ardern S (P) 
English (P) 
Kedgley (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Barker 
Fenton 
King A (P) 
Robertson G 
Beaumont 
Fitzsimons 
Laban (P) 
Robertson R (P) 
Borrows 
Goff (P) 
Lees-Galloway (P) 
Roy E (P) 
Burns (P) 
Graham (P) 
Locke 
Sepuloni 
Carter C 
Hague (P) 
Lotu-Iiga (P) 
Shanks (P) 
Chauvel (P) 
Harawira 
Macindoe (P) 
Shearer (P) 
Choudhary (P) 
Hawkins (P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Sio (P) 
Clendon 
Heatley (P) 
Mallard (P) 
Street 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hipkins 
Moroney (P) 
Turei   
Cunliffe (P) 
Hodgson 
Nash (P) 
Twyford (P) 
Curran 
Horomia (P) 
Norman 
Young 
Dalziel (P) 
Hughes 
O’Connor (P) 
Teller: 
Davis (P) 
Huo 
Parker (P) 
Mackey 
Motion not agreed to. 
Reports 
Complaint Regarding the Medicines Regulations 1984—Consideration of Report of Regulations Review Committee 
No member having risen members’ order of the day No. 3 for consideration of the report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint regarding the Medicines Regulations 1984 was discharged. 
Briefing from the New Zealand Baha’i Community—Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the briefing from the New Zealand Baha’i community be noted 
. The issue that we are here this evening to address is a report back from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee following a petition to the committee by members of the Baha’i community in New Zealand. They had expressed concern about the detention of members of the Baha’i community in Iran. 
One of the things that is quite important to explain to the House is that the Baha’i faith was established in Iran in the 19th century by the prophet Baha-ullah and herein lies the problem. The followers of Islam recognise only the prophet Muhammad. Baha-ullah lived after Muhammad and this is the core of the problem. Iran is essentially an Islamic State and those of the Baha’i faith cause some dissension with the Government. Nevertheless the committee investigated the issues that were raised with us by the members of the community here and we sought comment from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We learnt that successive New Zealand Governments have raised human rights issues regarding the Baha’i community with the Government of Iran on a number of occasions. The Iranian Government maintains that Baha’i is not a religion but a political group and that in Iran there is no difference between religious minorities regarding their standing before the law. 
The committee was concerned that there was some evidence that members of the Baha’i community in Iran were being held in circumstances where it was not immediately clear that they were receiving the same treatment as all other people held in prison in Iran. Clearly there had been some postponing of trials and retaining of Baha’i members in custody. We were told that the New Zealand Government had made representations to the Iranian Government and that the New Zealand Ambassador in Tehran had called on Dr Tahereh Nazari director-general of human rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and made a démarche on 3 September 2009 citing New Zealand’s concerns about the treatment of the Baha’i community in Iran and the imprisonment of seven senior Baha’i members. The committee considered that the persecution of the Baha’i members was a serious human rights issue in Iran. We noted that the New Zealand Baha’i community and the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’is of New Zealand regularly express appreciation of the support of the New Zealand Government on this issue. 
The committee thought long and hard about the recommendations that it might make to this Parliament and they are three. The first is that the Government takes the opportunity to discuss these issues during the political and economic cooperation consultations between New Zealand and Iran and raises New Zealand’s concern about human rights violations and the treatment of the detained Baha’i members of the Yaran. Secondly the committee felt that the Government might consider co-sponsoring the Canadian resolution on human rights in Iran in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. Thirdly the committee felt that New Zealand should lobby other countries in support of the Canadian resolution. Thank you. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the briefing from the New Zealand Baha’i community which was received by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee of which I am a member. The chair of the committee John Hayes has just spoken about the concerns that the New Zealand Baha’i community brought to our committee about the condition of Baha’is in Iran. They raised with us specific cases of family members of Iranian Kiwis from the Baha’i community who live in New Zealand. They also spoke about others of their faith who are imprisoned or have lost jobs and who have suffered over a long period of time. 
That has not happened just during the period of the Islamic Republic in Iran which was established of course after the return of Ayatollah Khomeini in the late 1970s but prior to that. There has been a long period in Iran where Baha’i followers have not been considered either under the Shah’s regime and under the Islamic republic as full citizens of that country. That is very sad because it gives the impression to non-Muslims that Islam is an intolerant faith. Actually that is far from true. Indeed during the Middle Ages the Jewish community was driven from Spain by the Catholic rulers of that country and found refuge in the Ottoman Empire ruled from Constantinople. That showed that at that time an Islamic State was a more welcoming place for diversity than Christian Europe. Similarly during the time of the Abbasid rulers of Baghdad during the Middle Ages when Baghdad and Cordoba were two of the greatest cities on earth that Arab Islamic State was marked by tolerance of its many different nationalities and religions. Indeed during the Ottoman period in the Balkans people could practice both Orthodox and Christian faith. The only penalty was that they paid taxes whereas Muslims did not. That was quite an incentive of course for many Bosnians to become Muslims. 
So Islam is not by nature a religion that is intolerant but its practice in Iran in the Islamic Republic towards the Baha’is certainly infringes human rights. It is very important that New Zealand a country with a proud tradition of human rights—indeed as all members of this House know the very first country in the world to give women the vote—a small country far from Iran but nevertheless the home to some people of the Baha’i religion sends a message to Iran. Although we admire the material progress that the Islamic republic has made particularly in its redistribution of wealth to the poorer sections of that society—it has made tremendous progress in that area and in education and health—nevertheless in the area of human rights particularly pertaining to the Baha’i community serious questions were raised in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and serious questions have been raised at the United Nations and globally. They are legitimate questions. The declarations of the Islamic republic whose re-elected President Ahmadinejad says he is a great proponent of human rights—indeed he has spoken on this very subject at the UN—about the equality of peoples particularly of all peoples within Iran constitute a very important promise to be kept. 
We have listened carefully to the evidence brought before us. We have recommended as Mr Hayes has said that these issues are raised with the Iranian authorities. I understand the deputy secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade has been in Tehran in the last few months meeting with the Iranian Foreign Ministry and the human rights commission raising our concerns yet again. I know that when Phil Goff as our Minister of Foreign Affairs visited Tehran he raised those issues with the Foreign Ministry of the Islamic republic. I know that in the past—in the last 7 years for example—at the United Nations when Canada moved a resolution on human rights in Iran New Zealand has been a co-sponsor of it. I understand in the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly we are considering attaching our name again to the Canadian resolution. I urge the Minister of Foreign Affairs the Hon Murray McCully to ensure that that happens because we did it under a Labour Government for 7 years. 
We ought to send a strong message to the Islamic Republic of Iran that the Baha’i community in Iran must enjoy the same civil and religious rights that other Iranians of different faiths enjoy. President Ahmadinejad spoke about the small remaining Jewish community and its place in Iran. There are many members of the Arab minority who are Sunni rather than Shi’ite Muslims. They have a guarantee under the constitution of the Islamic republic of full rights. It is only the Baha’is the 350000 or so Iranians of the Baha’i community who appear to not enjoy any of those rights. This Parliament is sending a message by tabling this report. We are saying to the Islamic Republic of Iran to please consider its actions in regard to the Baha’is that these actions in our view contravene human rights that the Baha’i community in New Zealand is especially concerned about friends relatives and co-members of their religion and that they be treated equally. This document has the full support I believe of all parties in this House. Speaking as a united voice in this Parliament we say to the Islamic Republic of Iran to please respect the human rights of its citizens of the Baha’i religion. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I would like to endorse the comments of John Hayes and Chris Carter on this matter and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that considered the briefing from the Baha’i community. It worked quite well and came to consensus conclusions. Many MPs around the country will have been lobbied by members of the Baha’i community. They are a very active community and are very strong in defending the rights of their co-religionists in Iran. The Baha’i faith is quite strong in Iran. In terms of the total Iranian population it is not large—about 350000 people—but I think it is the largest religious minority. 
As John Hayes pointed out it has a particular problem because it came out of Islam and its members are considered heretics by some of the more extreme orthodox Islamic leaders. Those leaders do not accept the Baha’i faith as a religion; instead they define it as a political movement and the Baha’i people suffer discrimination. It is not just informal discrimination but also systematic discrimination in the workforce in getting places in the education system and in certain social services provided by the State. We were told that about 220 Baha’i are imprisoned in Iran including seven of their leaders called the Yaran. Seven top leaders have been imprisoned there for over a year and there has been a particular international campaign to get them freed. The charges against them are quite extreme; they include “espionage for Israel insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the Islamic republic.” These charges carry the death penalty. Even one of their lawyers has suffered. He was in prison for quite a while in the aftermath of the big protest that took place in Iran following the June presidential elections—the disputed presidential elections. That lawyer Abdulfatah Sultani has now been released but the seven Baha’i leaders are still in jail in Iran. 
As John Hayes and Chris Carter indicated we advocate that New Zealand continue to take up the case of Baha’is at bilateral meetings with the Iranian Government and in the United Nations where motions are put up regularly particularly by the Canadian Government. Post our report coming out the meeting that John Hayes talked about took place in November at the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly. It discussed and passed a motion expressing deep concern at the serious ongoing and recurring human rights violations in Iran. It urged the Islamic Republic to end the harassment intimidation and persecution of political opponents and it pointed out that five people were sentenced to death in the aftermath of the protests. I do not know whether any of the protesters have been executed yet but a lot of executions go on in Iran. It executes large numbers of criminals each year. Unfortunately it is one of the leading countries for executions. 
The motion that the UN carried also talked about increasing discrimination against persons belonging to religious and ethnic minorities. Some of the ethnic minorities there are Arabs Kurds and Azeris. I disagree a bit with Chris Carter that the Baha’i are the only religion persecuted in Iran. In fact some other religious adherents such as Christians are persecuted too. It is to a lesser degree than the Baha’i sure but it has been a fact including in some of the refugee cases in New Zealand that Christian converts from Islam going back to Iran could suffer persecution. A motion in the Iranian Parliament is seeking to determine that apostates—that is people who have converted from Islam to Christianity—could be subject to the death penalty. That has not gone past the first reading in the Iranian Parliament yet but it just shows that there is a prejudice and climate of persecution against more than the Baha’i. That being said though the Baha’i are the main targets. The other thing the motion at the UN pushed for in November was the right of UN inspectors to look at the human rights situation but that request was turned down as it has been for several years. 
The whole question about the Baha’i is relevant to the general and growing opposition to what is essentially authoritarian rule and rule from a grand leader like the Islamic leader Khamenei. Those demonstrations are still continuing and about 6 months ago this Parliament after those demonstrations took place in June and there was persecution of those demonstrating endorsed unanimously a motion I put forward to convey the concern of this Parliament to the Iranian authorities. It was very good that we moved that motion but since then the situation has not really improved. Human Rights Watch put out a report on 11 November that talked about the fact that there are credible verified reports of torture rape and ill treatment in detention and show trials without due process and that thousands of people are arbitrarily arrested and they disappear or are held incommunicado. Journalists human rights defenders students and other groups have been targeted and people have been beaten and shot for their protests—not a very good record at all. 
Then just recently over the last few days protests have re-erupted led by students in the main from their university bases in Teheran but also in other cities. They had coordinated demonstrations across the country on 8 December to mark the anniversary of the killing of three students by security forces back in 1953. The fact that the students went back to that date is quite interesting because since 1953 they have suffered after the overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeq who was the first real democratically elected leader of Iran and who was overthrown essentially by the American Central Intelligence Agency. There is a lot of history and documentation of that. The Shah ruled that country with an iron hand tortured and executed people and refused to have any opposition. Now under the Islamic Republic there has been repression as well yet the students went back to mark a particular series of protests back in 1953. But the revolutionary guards who serve the regime plus the military have surrounded campuses over the last few days and have prevented the students from getting out to join others in the community in protest. The authorities have even gone to extreme lengths over the last couple of days to shut down the whole mobile phone network and the Internet to stop students and other protesters communicating with each other. 
There are very brave people in Iran despite all the repression. They are standing up and demonstrating knowing that they could be arrested could be tortured could be killed etc. So I think that it is very relevant we are having this discussion tonight and I support the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 It is a special pleasure to speak on the report of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on the briefing it received from the Baha’i community in New Zealand. In doing so I pay tribute to the late Murray Smith a Baha’i and a member of this House from 1972 to 1975. He passed away recently. 
Hon Member 
: The member for Whangarei. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member for Whangarei yes. I place on the record of this House the nature of Baha’i community members in New Zealand their essential characteristics and the real concerns they have about the persecution of their members in Iran the birthplace of their religion. I choose to bring this to the attention of my colleagues in Parliament because I know they are intolerant of religious persecution because New Zealand is a key player in the interfaith world and because I have known the Baha’i community in New Zealand for 45 years. 
New Zealand has a large Baha’i community. It is an active responsible productive hard-working intelligent spiritual honest and inclusive group a group of accepting and proud New Zealanders. Many are Iranian Baha’is who escaped the persecution in their homeland in order to lead a better life away from Iran but for whom escape cannot be entirely celebrated because members of their families still remain in their home country and are persecuted. In a country like New Zealand where we tend to take religious freedom for granted it may be difficult for us to imagine persecution on religious grounds—especially the State-sponsored religious persecution that other members have referred to—yet that is exactly the situation faced by the Baha’is in Iran. Baha’is in New Zealand number about 3000 to 4000 and they are perhaps the most diverse community of any in this country comprising people of many different ethnicities nationalities and religious and socio-economic backgrounds. They work consistently and constantly towards the creation of a more harmonious New Zealand society and they are one of the prime actors in promoting the concept of unity and diversity through their race relations work which is something I found particularly helpful to my work as the Race Relations Conciliator from 1996 to 2001. 
The Baha’i faith is the world’s youngest independent monotheistic religion. It was founded in Iran in the mid-1800s and is now practised by around 6 million people around the globe. It is geographically more widespread than any other religion except Christianity according to the  
Encyclopaedia Britannica.  
Baha’is constitute by far the largest religious minority in Iran with approximately 300000 adherents. Their teachings emphasise equality unity justice and peace. They insist on obedience to Government and non-participation in partisan politics. They condemn violence and any form of subversive activity and they strongly encourage a spirit of service to the whole community regardless of religion race gender or socio-economic background. Yet the Iranian authorities have viewed the Baha’i faith as an apostasy that is turning away from the religion of Islam and they have treated it as a threat since its very beginning. 
In the early years more than 20000 Baha’is were killed for no reason other than being Baha’i. The present regime officially recognises Christians Jews and Zoroastrians as religious minorities but does not extend the same status to Baha’is. Instead they are regarded as unprotected infidels. More than 200 Baha’is have been executed since the 1979 revolution. In 1980 the clergy moved to destroy the Baha’i leadership. On 21 August of that year all nine members of the Baha’i national governing council were arrested and they disappeared without trace. It seems certain that they were executed. The following year eight of the nine Baha’i elected to replace those who disappeared were also executed. In 1983 the Iranian Government formally banned all elected Baha’i religious institutions—a ban with which the community immediately complied as a sign of goodwill in order to demonstrate their obedience to the Government. 
In 1991 a memorandum was prepared at the request of the Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the Iranian president Hashemi Rafsanjani. That memorandum includes statements such as: “The government’s dealings with them must be in such a way that their progress and development are blocked … They can be enrolled in schools provided they have not identified themselves as Baha’is.” but they are required to identify themselves. “They must be expelled from universities either in the admission process or during the course of their studies once it becomes known that they are Baha’is.” It goes on: “Deny them employment if they identify themselves as Baha’is. Deny them any position of influence such as in the educational sector etc.” This policy remains current and is being applied with increasing intensity throughout Iran. Indeed it has given birth to a number of other policy documents calling for all Baha’i to be identified and for their activities to be monitored. It smacks of some other persecutions that we can all identify. 
As a result of such policies Baha’is are routinely arrested detained and then released having paid sometimes exorbitant bail. Baha’i students are denied access to tertiary education and may even be denied access to kindergarten and to primary and secondary education. Baha’i businesses are being denied licences and may be subjected to arson. Cemeteries are being desecrated property confiscated bank loans refused and employees sacked. 
Early last year the Iranian regime imprisoned seven unofficial leaders of the Baha’i community. They have now been held for more than 18 months without access to legal counsel without formal charges being laid and in seriously substandard conditions. In February of this year news media reported that the seven would be tried on charges of espionage for Israel insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the Islamic Republic. I add my caution to what the Hon Chris Carter said which is that this is not a commentary on all Muslims; this is a commentary on a particular regime. Later an additional charge was announced: spreading corruption on Earth a charge that may result in the death penalty. Trial dates have been set and repeatedly postponed. At present there is no trial date. 
I have been reliably advised that there is abundant documentary evidence to confirm not only that this persecution is taking place but also its scope intensity and almost routine nature. This evidence has been accepted as genuine by the United Nations Amnesty International the International Federation of Human Rights the Muslim Network for Baha’i Rights Human Rights Watch Nobel Peace Prize laureates and numerous Governments around the world including New Zealand’s. Still these actions continue despite the fact that Iran was one of the first signatories to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is also a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Its actions are also in clear violation of its own constitution and of the Holy Koran. 
I think this Parliament would agree that such actions are unacceptable and constitute a serious breach of human rights. They are a travesty to everything that New Zealand parliamentarians believe in and because New Zealand has always stood firm and spoken out when it has needed to I commend to this House the three recommendations of the select committee. This issue affects us all not just because it affects some of our compatriots but because we are responsible world citizens and advocates and upholders of human rights everywhere. It has been my pleasure to speak on behalf of the Baha’i community in New Zealand. I have heard these comments from them for a number of years now and this is the first opportunity I have had to formally put this on the record of the House. Thank you. 
Motion agreed to. 
Report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on Change in the High Country: Environmental Stewardship and Tenure Review and Related Briefing—Consideration of Report of Primary Production Committee 
No member having risen members’ order of the day No. 5 for consideration of the report of the Primary Production Committee on the report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on change in the high country: environmental stewardship and tenure review and related briefing was discharged. 
Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report November 2009—Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s financial stability report November 2009. 
 It is great to have an opportunity to talk on this report because it contains a quiet revolution in monetary policy in New Zealand—a very quiet revolution that has gone largely unnoticed but is actually changing some of the policy fundamentals in our country. The Reserve Bank is leading that revolution. I will note very briefly some of the key points that came out of the financial stability report before I get into some of the detail. 
The Reserve Bank pointed out that the global financial system has stabilised but is still quite fragile. Lending standards for residential borrowers have eased but the Reserve Bank is encouraging banks not to return to some of the earlier mortgage practices of lending that created some of the instability in house prices. The Reserve Bank also has been urging the large commercial banks not to restrict their business-sector lending unduly. There has been a problem with businesses in New Zealand gaining access to the credit they need because the banks have really dried up on providing credit to the business sector. The Reserve Bank also pointed to one of the problems we have in New Zealand which is one of the most dangerous parts currently and that is the level of indebtedness in farming. If there is a subprime mortgage crisis equivalent in New Zealand it will be in the farming sector. The Reserve Bank also pointed to the need to lift savings in the medium term. New Zealand obviously is highly dependent on inflows of foreign capital and we need to increase savings to reduce that. And it talked about a new prudential liquidity policy which I will come back to. 
This report is interesting in a number of ways and I want to start with the first one which is about the New Zealand dollar. The Reserve Bank states very clearly that the ongoing strength of the New Zealand dollar is a major problem for our economy. In the view of the Reserve Bank the dollar is rather overpriced. The reasons for this are multiple but they are linked to the fact that investors or speculators are driving up the value of the New Zealand dollar in part because they see New Zealand as a safe place to invest money and partly because we are a commodity producer. A number of commodity producers around the globe have had their exchange rates go up as commodities have recovered and international speculators have bought those currencies. In particular we have seen it in Brazil another commodity exporter. The problem of course with the overvalued New Zealand dollar is that it is extremely damaging for the tradable sector in New Zealand—that is domestic producers who compete with imports and the export sector. The higher the value of the New Zealand dollar the harder it is for the tradable sector. If we do not have a healthy tradable sector we cannot afford to pay our way in the world and in the long run we will have to borrow money which is of course what New Zealand has been doing for many years. 
There is a very interesting discussion within this report about some of the options around how to deal with the overvalued New Zealand dollar and I want to touch on just a few of them. One of the options Brazil has introduced is a small tax on incoming foreign capital. It is a 2 percent tax. The idea of it is to restrict some of the speculative foreign capital inflow going into the Brazilian currency in order to try to restrict the high level of the Brazilian currency and there is a discussion of that in this document. It is one of the options on the table for us. Another option on the table is a level of quantitative easing. The quantitative easing in the United States is undoubtedly part of the reason why the US dollar has been falling as the US Government has effectively been printing money. One of the policy options on the table for New Zealand to bring down the New Zealand dollar is to engage in some quantitative easing. It has risks in terms of inflationary risks but it is one of the policy options on the table. Another policy option on the table that we need to discuss and it is unfortunate that we are not having this debate very widely—it is only within very narrow circles—is the sterilising of capital inflows. As capital inflows come into New Zealand it is entirely possible to establish a policy that says that 50 percent or more of those foreign capital inflows must be deposited with the Reserve Bank at relatively low interest rates with the result that it becomes extremely untenable for those foreign capital inflows to come into New Zealand. So that is another one of the policy tools on the table. 
I think that perhaps one of the most interesting policy tools on the table with regard to the New Zealand dollar is that which has been promoted by the economic consultancy Business and Economic Research Ltd which is to announce that the New Zealand Government has a maximum level that it wishes the New Zealand dollar to go towards and if the New Zealand dollar goes over that level then the New Zealand Government will simply start printing money and of course will devalue the currency. The idea of this is that if it is announced and the New Zealand dollar does then go over the target level we actually do start printing money and bring down the value of the New Zealand dollar. We will have to do that only once before foreign currency investors get the message that the New Zealand Government is not willing to tolerate the value of the New Zealand dollar going over a certain level. It is a very interesting proposal that Business and Economic Research Ltd has been promoting and I think it deserves proper discussion and debate within New Zealand policy circles. So far there has been reasonably limited discussion on it. 
The other part of this report that I think is quite fascinating and revolutionary in its own way is the discussion of the Reserve Bank policy mechanisms. We are now seeing open acknowledgment by the Reserve Bank that monetary policy does not work. One of the paradoxes is that when Phil Goff came out and said that he was breaking the consensus on monetary policy the Government reacted with horror but in fact the Governor of the Reserve Bank has already broken the consensus on monetary policy. One of the extraordinary paradoxes that is not understood within policy circles and certainly is not understood more broadly within the New Zealand community is that the Governor of the Reserve Bank has already decided that monetary policy as it has been exercised for the last 20 years does not work so he has changed it. He has done it very quietly he has done it within the legal framework and he has done it rather carefully. 
What he has done is look at the crossover between monetary and prudential policy objectives. Monetary policy objectives are obviously around the stability of prices. Prudential policy objectives are around the soundness of the banking sector. Basically what the Reserve Bank has done is say that there is a crossover between these two objectives—monetary and prudential policy objectives—which is around leaning against assets booms. In particular of course the asset boom that has been of most concern in New Zealand has been the housing asset boom but it is only one potential type of asset boom. There can be all sorts of asset booms and we have had many of them over the years. What the Reserve Bank is saying is that we can lean against these asset booms to achieve both objectives. I should explain how that is done. For example if the housing asset bubble is a driver of inflation it is a monetary policy concern. The way in which it works is that as households feel richer as their houses become worth more and more then those people tend to spend more money. Because their houses are worth more they spend more money so they drive the inflationary cycle. At the same time the housing asset bubble is a soundness issue. It is a prudential issue because these housing asset bubbles threaten the stability of the financial system. 
So the bank is proposing to introduce a series of policies that are basically counter-cyclical that have both monetary policy objectives and prudential policy objectives. In the time I have here I will not go into them at any length but they are around bank liquidity policies—that is making the banks seek longer-term funding. They are around counter-cyclical bad debt provisioning—that is making the banks provide for bad debts on the up-cycle of the boom rather than doing it just on the downward cycle. And they are looking at capital adequacy ratios—at varying capital adequacy ratios or at least setting a capital adequacy ratio that acts in a counter-cyclical way against a housing asset bubble which would achieve both monetary policy objectives and prudential policy objectives. 
These are minor revolutions in the way that monetary policy is being conducted in this country. They are happening in a very quiet way but for those people who are watching this space they are a very significant change. Of course the Governor of the Reserve Bank as usual talked about how we need to change the tax treatment of investment properties which is something the Green Party wholeheartedly endorses in order to send capital into the productive sector rather than the non-productive sector. There is a lot else in this report. I recommend that people read it. It is a fascinating report. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I would like to compliment the member who has just resumed his seat Dr Russel Norman on a very insightful speech. I remark to the House: who would have guessed that we would be here on a Wednesday evening almost in the dead of the evening debating somewhat uncharacteristically the presentation of a select committee report to the House because we are a little short of members’ bills. 
In this space we just happen to have tripped across something that is actually truly remarkable. My colleague and friend Russel Norman said that there is a quiet revolution going on and so there is. It is a revolution that has lined up an intriguing cast of characters. We have the Governor of the Reserve Bank and his staff who are straining at the leash of convention to do what they know to be right in the midst of a world environment that is changing. We have Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition which has just ended 20 years of consensus on a monetary framework that no longer works. And we have a Minister of Finance and a Prime Minister who have openly declared that nothing can be done even though their loyal civil servants are already busy doing it. That is a truly spectacular turn of events. 
For the ladies and gentlemen who might be listening in I want to unpick a little bit of that background in “plain English” and try to make it understandable because whether or not we know it we are actually watching history being made before our eyes in a really fundamental way. Firstly what are the problems we are seeking to solve? What is wrong with the old consensus? There are basically two things. 
The first is that the people who make stuff sell stuff and export stuff that allows us to enjoy the standard of living we do and to which we aspire are being creamed by the system as it stands. They are being creamed because they cannot plan a business at the start of the year at 50c kiwi against the US dollar wind up at the end of the year at 80c and still be running the same business model. It would be somewhat less bad if the exchange rate was steady and high but for it to be high and volatile is a nightmare combination for Kiwi businesses. It means that New Zealand workers are losing their jobs it means that New Zealand entrepreneurs are being denied fair profits it means that our Inland Revenue Department is losing revenue and it means that the Government’s options are being constrained. We all lose. 
All sides of this House ought to be united in saying that this is not good for any of us. If New Zealand which is a great producer of protein and a few other things wants to stride the world stage then we have to fix this because we have to export to prosper and we are killing our exporters. We are killing our productive economy with exchange rates that are too high and too volatile. 
The second problem is that we have all suffered from the housing bubble where too much domestic capital is being sucked into the property sector because of preferential tax treatment and because Kiwis look a little bit askance at other forms of personal investment. Some people were burnt in the 1987 stock market crash. Some people invested in Hanover Finance and a few other finance companies—more fool them—and they have been burnt by the non-bank finance sector really badly. People do not know what else to invest in other than their homes. The problem with that is we spend all our money bidding up each other’s house prices and mortgages and our businesses our entrepreneurs—and we would expect the National members to be arguing this but they are not—are starved of the capital they need to grow their businesses so that we can improve our current account. 
OK—those are the problems. How do we fix them? Well the first recognition is that it is bunkum to say that nothing can be done. If nothing can be done then we may as well join John Key and Bill English and beg for statehood of Australia. If we want to be proud New Zealanders and to have a country in which smart kids can grow up and get good jobs we need to grasp this issue with both hands believe in ourselves and back ourselves. 
As my colleague Dr Norman has said the problem is complex but it is not hopeless. We know that there is a complex feedback effect between high real interest rates that suck in the hot money of the carry trade through the banking system which has made billions out of it and has forgotten to pay a bit of tax—but hey what is a couple of billion between friends? Those banks have essentially funnelled that carry trade money into our property market accentuating the problem that it is nearly all going on housing. So the first step is recognition of the problem and belief in ourselves. The  
Financial Stability Report 
—this eminently conservative document I am holding—has recognised the problem and the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee of Parliament which we are debating tonight has picked up those problems front and centre. 
The Reserve Bank has gone further. The bank has stuck its neck out and said we need to have a mix of new prudential policy evolved monetary policy and new tax policy to fix it. The Governor of the Reserve Bank is saying what the Minister of Finance is not prepared perhaps not courageous enough to say. The Governor of the Reserve Bank is saying that we need a capital gains tax. Of course Labour’s position is that we oppose having a capital gains tax on the family home but we are willing to talk about options to end the preferential treatment of real estate. 
The Governor of the Reserve Bank has gone further. He has said that the Reserve Bank will move on broader monetary and prudential policy evolution in concert with the new global consensus—the new global consensus. Post - Basel II post - global financial crisis post-Davos and post-G20 central banks and economic policy makers around the world know what Bill English apparently does not. They know that the old framework is so so 2007. It is so pre-global financial crisis. You know it is so pre-Paula Bennett. Bill English has not woken up to smell the coffee and everybody else around Wellington is wondering why not and asking what is wrong with him. 
What is wrong with the Government that it cannot see the obvious when it is in front of its face? I hope that the Government members are just a little bit embarrassed because it has taken the Leader of the Opposition along with our colleagues in the Green Party—and I might say ACT whose members have been pretty useful about drawing attention to the shortcomings of the current situation—to take a stand and say that we need to do something. There is no perfect answer. There is no monopoly on truth but we have to ask the hard questions. 
I turn to the report—and you know it is wonderful. Let me read a couple of quotes: “The governor briefed us”—“us” being the Finance and Expenditure Committee—“on the introduction of prudential liquidity policy”—a new prudential liquidity policy—“by the Reserve Bank noting that there is ‘a zone in between prudential policy and monetary policy’.” It talks about the authority of section 68 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which allows it to “[lean] against” the housing boom and develop a “monetary policy objective that supports both macro and prudential policy tools.” The Governor of the Reserve Bank is evolving policy that supports both macro and prudential policy tools. 
For mum and dad at home this is probably not the time to go into the detail but that is about how banks are allowed to re-lend the stuff they borrow what capital adequacy ratios for different classes of assets there are and how that changes across the business cycle. To be really crude about it when a market is running hot we tighten up the lending constraints so that the banks cannot lend as much so easily and when the market is down we loosen them off so that the banks can lend more providing a buffer for the real economy. The best part is that the buffer also acts against the carry trade—the hot money that provides that complex interaction that kind of makes it really hard in an open small economy to run a sensible monetary policy. 
Why is it that the currency of little old New Zealand the kiwi dollar is the second most highly traded currency per capita anywhere in the world? Is it because we are so intelligent? No. Is it because we are so good-looking? No. Is it because we have such a well-run economy? No. It is because we are a speculator’s dream and it is killing us. We are a speculator’s dream because we have a Government that is so pure so hands-off that our currency is a one-way bet for speculators. 
Here is the irony: the last time the Reserve Bank actually played in foreign exchange markets it made a profit of $600 million and the cheque could not have come at a better time for Bill English. Here is the ultimate irony: the Reserve Bank is moving the Opposition is moving and Treasury is moving. It made nearly $1 billion from the last time it intervened but the Minister of Finance is wedded to an old orthodoxy that no longer exists. Would someone shake Bill English and tell him it is the 21st century. 
Motion agreed to. 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. Leave is denied. 
Reports 
Complaint Regarding the Resource Management (Forms Fees and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2009 (SR 2009/73)—Consideration of Interim Report of Regulations Review Committee 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of the interim report of the Regulations Review Committee on the complaint regarding the Resource Management (Forms Fees and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2009. 
 I am pleased as a member of the Regulations Review Committee to have the opportunity to discuss this report which at the time of the increase in filing fees for the Environment Court was a particularly controversial matter. Before I go into the detail of the complaint that was heard by the committee and the subsequent report I would like to give some context to this complaint for the benefit of the House. On 2 February 2009 Cabinet made the decision to increase filing fees for appeals in the Environment Court. That decision was swiftly put through the motions and the regulations were gazetted on 9 April 2009 coming into force on 7 May 2009. Those regulations essentially provided for an increase for filing fees for appeals under the Resource Management Act from a modest $55 to a whopping $500. 
At the time of the increase Labour the Greens and a significant number of community organisations expressed concern and outrage at the potential impact of this significant and hefty fee. The House will see from the very short time it took for this change to occur that very little consultation occurred before this change occurred. These concerns were deeply held and for very good reason. They were translated into two complaints which eventually came before the Regulations Review Committee. As the House will know the committee has the role of scrutinising all regulations that are gazetted. Those complaints come from Dr Russel Norman and also from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. 
I want to acknowledge those groups in particular the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society for voicing the concerns of many community groups about the impact of these changes. But those groups may not have known the parliamentary procedures and processes that were available to them to make this complaint so I acknowledge the fact that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society took the complaint on behalf of many other community organisations. 
The grounds for the complaint were clear well articulated and quite simple. The concerns of both groups were that this increase could undermine the rights of the public participation which is already enshrined in the Resource Management Act. There was concern that they would act as a barrier to representation in the courts and reduce access to justice. There was also a concern that it would put the Environment Court out of step with courts that held equivalent powers. For instance the District Court does not hold such weighty filing fees. There was also a concern that it undermined the position of the Environment Court as an informal and accessible court. I want to highlight that again. The major concern of both the Regulations Review Committee and of the complainants themselves when considering this complaint was whether this will become a barrier for people to access the court that is there for their use. Of course there was the additional complaint that it would be unfair to community groups who are there to represent community interests. Those concerns were significant valid and they deserved a full hearing of the committee. 
Now that we have touched briefly on some of the main concerns of the complaint and the background to it it is useful to go back to one of the key criteria as I mentioned for the committee itself when assessing these claims. It relates to the word “access”. Has this change impinged on community groups’ ability to access the courts? Access to the courts is one of the key criteria that departments have been asked to consider when making a policy change like this. It is not just some airy-fairy point that has been brought up by a range of groups. It is enshrined in the procedures that departments followed. In fact I think it was highlighted particularly well by a Cabinet paper that was provided to the Minister of Justice. It was a comment from the Ministry of Justice on Resource Management Act reforms. In the paper it stated that some of the principles when assessing filing fees were that filing fees should not prevent citizens from having access to appropriate dispute resolution. That was one of the basic principles outlined by the Ministry of Justice that should be adhered to when considering fees. 
An interesting test is to ask whether the Ministry of Justice feels that the changes made by the Minister for the Environment were counter to that principle. The Cabinet paper produced by the Ministry of Justice clearly shows that it did. It states in paragraph 37 of this document released under the Official Information Act that the Cabinet paper of the Minister for the Environment “justifies the increase on the basis that it may deter vexatious litigants. The Ministry does not consider that court fees are the appropriate tools to do this. There is no evidence that higher fees will deter vexatious litigants and generally vexatious litigants are more prepared to pay fees than other court users. The High Court already has powers to declare litigants vexatious and a legislative provision like this would be a more effective tool.” 
I do not think it could be articulated more clearly. Not only did the Ministry of Justice perceive that the Minister for the Environment had inappropriately used a hike in fees to deter vexatious litigants; it was its view that that was inappropriate and would not work. It was always maintained by officials from the Ministry for the Environment that deterrence of vexatious litigants was not the key reason for that increase. But when we held the officials to account during the hearing of the committee I think it became quite transparent that that was not the full story. I want to refer to the transcript of the committee when a very simple question was put by the committee to the officials—I will just read it briefly—“Could you please explain the major policy reasons which this fee increase is based on?”. 
There was a long silence before officials stated: “I think the rationale was quite clearly articulated in the paper that the Minister took to Cabinet.” I will jump down to the next question. “OK so the recovery of costs was considered. So the one in the Cabinet paper was that a reference to vexatious litigants?”. “Yes.” was the answer and further on. So we have acknowledgment there that vexatious litigants did drive the reason for the increase. Later on the question was put: “Would you argue then if one ground would be to create a deterrent for vexatious litigants that $500 therefore in itself is a deterrent and that if actually that $500 was a deterrent to a vexatious litigant could it not equally be a deterrent for a small community group?”. The answer from officials: “Potentially.” 
I think we have there a very clear admission from officials that if one of their main goals was to deter a particular group there was no way they could ensure it did not deter everyone vexatious or otherwise. In fact as the Ministry of Justice pointed out itself vexatious litigants are more likely to get around such a deterrent where other smaller community groups may not. 
One particular issue that the Regulations Review Committee was faced with was that it had to base its decision on existing evidence. Given that this decision was gazetted only earlier in the year the amount of evidence to date was always going to be limited. But I think that the Regulations Review Committee made the right decision by recommending the following: “That the Government uses its best endeavours to find ways to monitor over the next 12 months any deterrent effect the increased filing fee may be having on people or groups who might otherwise have commenced appeal or inquiry proceedings in the Environment Court.” 
The onus is now on the Government to ensure over the next 12 months that appropriate monitoring mechanisms are put in place to ensure that we have a good understanding of the effect of this change. I have to acknowledge my significant concerns over whether this will be done in good faith given that the officials already had enough evidence from other Government departments and from community groups of the impact this would have and that advice and information was still ignored. My only hope is that in 12 months’ time we will have the evidence to demonstrate the true impact of this change. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very pleased that we led the complaint against the Resource Management (Forms Fees and Procedure) Amendment Regulations 2009 which increase the filing fee for appeals or inquiry proceedings to the Environment Court by 900 percent from $55 to $500. Our complaint to the Regulations Review Committee covered four areas most of which were touched on by Jacinda Ardern. For instance the increase was contrary to the objectives and intentions of the Resource Management Act. The Environment Court is designed to be accessible to the broad community because of its purview; the issues it considers are of serious consequence to the whole community. 
Unlike say the District Court where an issue might affect one or two parties Environment Court decisions affect whole communities whole cities and whole ecosystems. Therefore there is public interest in having maximum access to this court. Mediation is a core function of the Environment Court and I will talk in some detail about the numbers on that. Mediation is an important process in all kinds of disputes before a tribunal such as the Environment Court and access to mediation is extremely important for effective resolution of issues that affect the whole community. As a result broad participation by the community as a whole is what is needed to ensure that the Environment Court process works and that the objectives and intentions of the Act are upheld. The Ministry for the Environment agreed with that in the select committee report. It “accepted that access to the Environment Court is amongst the objects and intentions of the Resource Management Act.” We are very pleased about that because the select committee report goes on to show real concern that the filing fee increase seriously infringes on those objects and intentions. 
We note the recognition of the waiver process that is available and the select committee report dealt with that. But the waiver process requires people who are engaged with the Resource Management Act and the Environment Court to know that it is there to know that they can ask for it and to not have to rely on court officials to advise them of it because they may not be advised of it. Unless people know that the waiver process is available and how to use it they simply will not be able to use it and will be shut out from engaging in this process. There is certainly no information to show that the waiver process is working effectively; we could not find any. There is no evidence to suggest that the waiver process would be effective in ensuring that people get access to the court. We also note that legal aid and the environmental legal aid options do not provide for filing fees. People who want to access the court and who might rely on sources of funding other than private funding will not be able to use that funding for the purpose of getting a foot in the door. This is where our concern is. Essentially this filing fee hike of 900 percent shuts out people from even getting a foot in the door. It is not just us who are concerned about it. 
We raised the issue of vexatious and frivolous claims and the purpose of the filing fee in trying to prevent such claims going to the court. This was an issue raised by the Minister’s technical advisory group and the Cabinet paper. They said that the increase in the filing fee was proposed to act as a deterrent to frivolous or ill-merited appeals; therefore that was the justification for the 900 percent rise. The Ministry of Justice which understands these issues very clearly expressed strong concern about the increase. It said that it would be “inappropriate to use filing fees as a means of discouraging litigants. There is no evidence that high fees discourage vexatious litigants.” I accept that from the report it is clear that the officials at the time said that that was not the justification for raising the fee but it was the policy intent behind all of the initial documents that led to the decision to increase the fee so I find the claim that that was not the reason disingenuous. I think it is clear from the evidence that the fee increase came as a result of wanting to discourage vexatious litigants with there being no evidence that it would do so. However there was clear evidence that it would discourage legitimate and poorer claimants from being able to access the court. 
What has essentially happened with the filing fee increase is that rich vexatious litigants have access to the court and poor legitimate ones do not. Which organisations are they? The poorer legitimate organisations that will not be able to access the court now are those that have the public interest at heart in the main. Those most affected by this are the mums and dads who are concerned about the impact of a development on their community and on their environment such as the impact of a development on local schools and all of those kinds of issues. Those affected include the environmental non-governmental organisations and particularly Maori organisations and I will talk about them in just a moment. 
I said earlier that mediation was an issue here but we know that 1 percent of resource consents are appealed to the Environment Court. So it is not a huge number about 500 per annum and only 10 percent of those go on to hearings because 90 percent of the appeals to the Environment Court go to mediation. There lies the success of the Environment Court and the success of access to that court. People can have a place in which their disputes can be resolved in a win-win situation to the benefit of all but not now because those legitimate appellants will not have access to the court because of this fee hike. 
I am very concerned about the impact of this on Maori and I am deeply disturbed by the fact that the Maori Party’s vote allowed this regulation to proceed and the fee to be increased. I would be very interested if the Maori Party made a statement in the House at some point about why it thought it was important to do that because we know that the Resource Management Act itself makes particular recognition of the principles of the Treaty and of the right of Maori iwi and hapu to engage on issues of importance to them in a Treaty and tikanga Maori context. The Act is designed to be accessible to them. Maori have fought for much longer than a decade to have real access to the courts under the Resource Management Act and to have the effective relationships under the Treaty that the Act provides. They have had to use every possible means available to them to do that whether through their local authority iwi management plans or cultural assessments and assessments of the environmental effects on any particular development. Maori have engaged and engaged in an effort to protect their rohe their people their waterways and their land and that engagement has been demanded of Maori by Parliament and the community which are continually telling iwi hapu and whanau that we must engage in all of these processes if we are to be taken seriously and if we want to foot it with the big boys and be part of New Zealand society—and Maori do. They take up that challenge and they work very very hard. They pay huge amounts of their own private money to access these things. They drive themselves really into the ground at times trying to fight to prevent the discharge of contaminants into their waterways so they can save their tuna and their food sources or to fight huge developments that will have a significant pollutant effect on their communities their children and generations to come. 
Maori engagement with the Resource Management Act and with these processes is extraordinary for its strength and for its perseverance. But a filing fee of $500 supported by the Maori Party is the best possible way of kicking the stool out from under Maori. It is the best possible way of shutting that court door and locking them out from the processes that they have worked for decades to try to be part of. This will be a key means along with other changes like securities for costs which were introduced by this Government for shutting out iwi hapu and whanau who do not have access to huge economic resources but do have access to heart commitment whanaungatanga kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga. They will be the ones who will not get access to the courts because of the filing fee that has been hiked up 900 percent by the National Government and the Maori Party. 
What justification could the Maori Party in particular have for locking out our own people from a court process that we have fought for years and years to be fully engaged with? What justification can there be for the destruction to rohe kai moana beds waterways and all of those areas that Maori have fought to try to protect against development pollution and degradation and now will not be able to? All those kids will now not be able to access their conservation areas or their wahi tapu—it is particularly a concern on the protection of wahi tapu—because the filing fee hikes supported by the Maori Party and the National Government prevent them from accessing the courts. It is a disgrace. 
Motion agreed to. 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to now adjourn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.