Volume 667 Week 57 - Wednesday 20 October 2010 
Volume 667 Week 57 - Wednesday 20 October 2010 
[Volume:667;Page:14627] 
Wednesday 20 October 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax System Changes—Effect on Families 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House yesterday: “The reason that families should take some comfort is that by and large for the most part their wages are rising faster than the rate of inflation.”; if so what is the proportion of families that is expected to receive above inflation wage rises between March 2010 and March 2011? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and I will explain carefully to the member why the quote in the first part of his question is correct. Over the seven quarters from September 2008 to June 2010 Statistics New Zealand data which happens to be the same data used to calculate New Zealand superannuation shows the following: wages have risen 7 percent before tax which equates to 11 percent after tax. Interestingly enough over the same period prices have risen by 2 percent. Now for the purpose of the education of the Leader of the Opposition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That comment was unnecessary. The Prime Minister was fine until that point but he should have answered the question as a straight question. He does not need to educate the Leader of the Opposition at all. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday we had considerable discussion about members on both sides of the House not being seated when you asked them to sit. I think there were three times when you called “Order!” to the Prime Minister before he stopped speaking. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect I think the Prime Minister resumed his seat reasonably promptly when I got to my feet. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As we can all see 7 percent and 11 percent are higher than 2 percent so whichever way we look at it whether pre-tax or after tax wages have risen faster than inflation. I know that the Leader of the Opposition may not like the facts getting involved with a good story but that is the way they are. With regard to the second part of the member’s question I am not aware of any such projections. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise but I did not hear the last part of the right honourable Prime Minister’s answer. I ask him to repeat that. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: With regard to the second part of the member’s question I am not aware of any such projections. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table for example the BNZ predictions that show inflation will be hitting close to 5 percent by the beginning of next year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. I trust there is a document? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: There is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Talk about the facts getting in the way of a good story. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There will be no further comment. The honourable Leader of the Opposition saw me deal with the Prime Minister and I will deal with the Leader of the Opposition in exactly the same way. That kind of gratuitous comment will not be allowed. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister therefore telling New Zealand families that they are wrong when they believe that the cost of everything is going up which is leaving them less well off than they were a year ago because most of them have not had wage rises? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If New Zealand families are saying the cost of everything is going up then yes they are wrong. The price of petrol in the last 2 years of the previous Labour Government went up by 43 percent; it has gone down by 13 percent under this National Government. The price of vegetables in the last 2 years of the previous Labour Government went up by 21 percent and under this National Government it has fallen by 6 percent. The price of eggs in the last 2 years of the previous Labour Government went up by 19 percent and under this National Government it has fallen by 6 percent. Interestingly enough the price of cheese in the last 2 years of the previous Labour Government went up by 50 percent and it has now fallen by 3 percent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the House has heard sufficient answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If the Prime Minister is right why is it that Veda Advantage the country’s largest credit agency reports that “Tens of thousands of New Zealanders are finding they just can’t pay their bills” and that consumer defaults have leapt by a massive 18 percent since January of this year? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is because consumer defaults are a lagging indicator and unfortunately these people have to deal with the mess that the previous Labour Government left the country in. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a document from Veda Advantage showing that this is not a lagging indicator. This information is from January this year. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now listen. I say again to the honourable Leader of the Opposition that he is a very experienced member. He knows the rules of the House. When he seeks leave to table a document he does not make those sorts of comments. I ask him to seek leave properly. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement from Veda Advantage showing that tens of thousands of New Zealanders are finding they cannot pay their bills and that the rate of defaults is at an all-time high. It has risen by 18 percent since January. 
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. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Do wages always rise faster than inflation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No that is not always the case. I give the House just one example purely for the purposes of comparison. I have chosen the seven quarters from December 2006 to December 2008 in which after-tax wages rose by 6 percent and inflation rose by 7 percent. So in that period wages fell behind inflation leaving workers worse off. I contrast that with my answer to the primary question in which I said pre-tax and after-tax wages rose by 7 percent and 11 percent inflation was 2 percent and as everybody in the House knows seven and 11 are greater than two. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable member I say the habit of clapping endlessly is getting a little tiresome. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House when the last time was that median wages fell in New Zealand as they did in the year to June of this year? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The lack of economic knowledge on the other side of the House is becoming worrying but anyway— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was Bill English. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right away. He knows that he does not need to do that when he raises a point of order—in fact he must not do that. I have warned members and I spoke to the whips yesterday afternoon. After yesterday everyone is aware that there will not be a repeat of what happened yesterday and that includes the member who interjected. The Deputy Prime Minister will not do that sort of thing. However I do have to be careful where members have questions on the Order Paper. I do not want to punish other parts of the House through evicting a Minister who should be answering a question but I will do what I have to do. I will find another way of penalising Ministers if they think that the Speaker will not penalise them. If they want to keep the supplementary questions that they think some of their colleagues will ask them then they had better behave and so too had the member who raised the point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a straightforward point of order. It was a very straightforward question using your advice. It was a direct question and the Prime Minister abused— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member and I will hear the Deputy Leader of the House. 
Hon Simon Power 
: We are probably at the stage now where this issue needs a little more clarification. The understanding that we had through a discussion yesterday was that the matter of the straight question and answer without any reference to politics—oddly enough—would occur from the primary question and when supplementary questions followed there would obviously be a bit of toing and froing. If that matter is to be refined further then it would be worth letting the House know how well refined it is to be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am very happy to let the House know because it is clear that I was misunderstood. Where supplementary questions are perfectly clear and do not contain political statements or any such comment I expect to hear a straight answer. Where they contain political statements the member who asked the question should know not to expect my help if he or she gets a political statement in response. What is more if members who ask political questions interrupt the Minister’s answer by raising a point of order I will deal severely with them too because I will not accept a situation where members know that they are asking a political question and get their political statement away to the House and then interrupt a Minister who is giving a political answer. I will not tolerate that either. 
I do not want to rule out the questions that members want to ask but it should not be beyond the wit of members to know when they are asking a straight question. Ministers should listen and when they hear a straight question they should answer it. But if it contains political views or political statements or claims then the Minister is free to respond in whatever political way he or she wishes within reason. As long as it is not outside what is reasonable in the House the Minister is perfectly free to respond to it and a member who then interrupts the Minister will be dealt with severely by me because members should know when they have asked a political question. 
I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question so that everyone can hear it and if it is a straight question I expect a straight answer to be given. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When was the last time that median wages in New Zealand fell as they did in the year to June 2010 as reported by Statistics New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let us answer the question as we did last week. The member is quoting from the New Zealand Income Survey. It is exactly the same question that was asked last week. As I pointed out last week the New Zealand Income Survey is a very broad index which looks at all sorts of things including investment income. It does not look at wage income. The member knows this because he knows that by far the best way to measure median income in New Zealand is by using the quarterly employment survey. It has gone up by $31 a week. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can anticipate the point of order because a question was asked and even though there may be all sorts of issues around the question I do not believe the Prime Minister really attempted to answer it. The question was when did the median income for New Zealanders—if I remember the question correctly—last fall in a 12-month period as it did the member claimed to a particular date in 2010? The Prime Minister may not have that information with him which is a perfectly acceptable answer and I have no problem with the explanation that the Prime Minister gave. But there should be some attempt to acknowledge that he does not have that information because it was a straight question and I think that the House should hear that. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Last year which is the last period for which I have data some data showed it went up and some showed it went down. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do I take it from the answer that the only two times in the last 12 years that median wages have fallen is in the last 2 years under a National Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How have wages and prices moved over a longer period of time? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In recent periods after-tax wages have been struggling to keep up with inflation. For example the Statistics New Zealand data that is used to calculate New Zealand superannuation shows that over the 9-year period between 1999 and 2008 real after-tax wages rose in the entire period by 3 percent. This shows what a diabolical mess the previous Labour Government left New Zealand workers in. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it correct that the Department of Labour reported that last year more than half of New Zealanders did not receive a wage increase although prices kept on rising? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member again is quoting from the labour cost index. The labour cost index is again a measure that looks at a specific job not the movement— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Spare us the seminar. Give us an answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: You obviously do not understand it “Dazza” so I need to take you through it very slowly in words of one syllable or fewer son. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that if the member was addressing another member as “son” it might be an interesting claim but not factual. But he did say “you” and I think we can look at both of you and work out that that is impossible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s point is quite correct. The Prime Minister did refer to the Speaker then. At my age it is certainly not possible to be the right honourable Prime Minister’s son. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is not true and even though you do look a lot younger than me Mr Speaker I accept completely the point made by Mr Mallard. The labour cost index looks at a specific job in time. It does not look at changes that occur to jobs for a variety of reasons. For instance over the last decade the labour cost index on average has shown 40 to 50 percent of all people have had no change. That was exactly the same right through the period when the Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Labour Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it correct that the Minister of Finance showed in the Budget this year that in fact price inflation would be well ahead of wages right up to 2014 which is obviously another 3 or 4 years out? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot comment on the exact details; I do not have them to hand. But I can say that in the 9 years that Labour was in office wages rose by 3 percent on a real basis in total. Under a National Government they have risen by 9 percent in 2 years. That is why New Zealand workers are happy and why they do not want the “Goff-father”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I table an extract from the Budget showing that what I have just said was absolutely correct so the Prime Minister is aware of that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Normally I would not seek leave to table something from the Budget. However given the last comment made by the Prime Minister I will seek leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When he claimed that real after-tax wages rose in the period from September 2008 to June 2010 was he using the average wage for employed people for his calculations and ignoring the massive income reduction for the extra 61000 families who have unemployed members? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Of course the employment data shows those who are employed. 
Economy—International Reports 
2. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What international reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In recent weeks I have been able to speak to all three credit-rating agencies. At present New Zealand’s long-term debt is rated triple A by Moody’s AA+ by Standard and Poor’s and AA+ with negative watch by Fitch Ratings. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that these high credit ratings appear secure. All three ratings agencies note that the Government has a sound medium-term plan. They are also encouraged by the recent lift in national savings and the reduction in New Zealand’s actual and forecast balance of payments position. 
Amy Adams 
: How is the world economy performing this year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The performance of the world economy matters because New Zealand is a small open economy; it is essentially like a cork bobbing on the ocean. Although the world economy has been recovering over the past year growth slowed in most Western countries during the middle part of this year. This combination of relatively weak growth is placing severe pressure on Government Budgets. The average deficit is expected to be around 9 percent of GDP in developed economies—New Zealand’s is around 6 percent of GDP—and debt levels are rising rapidly. Fortunately the markets into which we sell our products increasingly in the Asia-Pacific area are growing stronger. 
Amy Adams 
: What feedback has the Minister received on New Zealand’s economic performance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: By comparison with any number of countries that are experiencing considerable difficulties the feedback was generally favourable. We have found that those who lend money to us and the credit rating agencies are particularly impressed with the tax switch which has allowed us to change the incentives in the economy by reducing income taxes and the company tax rate so that we can encourage savings investment and new jobs. That is generally opposite to the general trend where a number of countries are looking to lift personal tax rates. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of these reports who is correct: the Prime Minister who described New Zealand’s economic recovery as “aggressive” or Reserve Bank governor Bollard who described it in the Finance and Expenditure Committee today as “fragile”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will be well aware the Prime Minister was describing the movement of the economy from the bottom of the recession where there was aggressive recovery. The Governor of the Reserve Bank was describing what has been happening at the moment which is that growth has flattened because New Zealanders have reversed their appetite for debt built up under the previous Government and are now saving at a very rapid rate. As the member will know if he wants to encourage savings if one saves it one cannot spend it. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Has the Minister seen a report from the International Monetary Fund warning against Western Governments withdrawing stimulus before 2011 and another report from the International Monetary Fund and the International Labour Organization that concluded that growing inequality between the many low and middle income earners and the few high-income earners such as delivered in his tax package could hold back recovery with a fall in disposable income leading to a fall in demand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What has affected low and middle income earners in New Zealand has been the legacy of bad economic management. They went massively into debt— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question asked whether the Minister of Finance was aware of a couple of reports. The Minister did not even attempt to indicate to the House whether he was aware of those reports. He went straight into telling the House what he wanted to tell it. This is question time; the general debate comes after question time. The Minister is perfectly at liberty in the general debate to say what he wants but in question time he will answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been the habit in this House and a precedent has been established by previous Speakers that if several questions are asked then the answerer gets the choice of which questions they answer. The member also raised the issue of the impact of the recession on low and middle income New Zealanders and I chose to answer that question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we do not need to take further time on that. I accept the point that the Minister has made. It is not totally unreasonable. Therefore I think the Minister’s point is not unreasonable. However having said that I think it would not have been difficult to indicate whether he had seen reports and then gone on to make the point he wanted to make. I invite the Minister to continue. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen those reports and I have to say the Government’s policy fits pretty neatly with them. In this fiscal year of 2010-11 the Government is running a $13 billion deficit. No Government before has offered as much support to the economy. That is $13 billion we are borrowing and pumping into the economy for investment in infrastructure and public services. Our fiscal stimulus policy is working very well. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table a covering report from the International Monetary Fund entitled “IMF fears ‘social explosion’ from world jobs crisis” dated 13 September 2010. 
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. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the opening address by the managing director of the International Monetary Fund to the 2010 annual meetings of the Board of Governors of the World Bank where he warns against withdrawal of fiscal stimulus before 2011. 
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. 
Amy Adams 
: What are the implications of the global economy on this Government’s strategy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The implications of uncertainty in the global economy are that the Government should stick to its longer-term plan to lift the productivity and strength of this economy. In particular we need to focus on the public sector. There are severe pressures on public sectors around the world and we will see evidence of that in the UK in the next couple of days. The Government has borrowed $13 billion this year to help maintain public services. That makes the stance of groups such as the secondary teachers a bit difficult to understand. That group had enjoyed 3 previous years of 4 percent wage increases—4 percent in each of the last 3 years—with high job security. It is hard to believe that they do not understand that something has changed since their deal 3 years ago—that is a global financial crisis a significant recession in New Zealand and very large Budget deficits. But something has changed and the Government has no more money for secondary teachers. 
Inflation—Price Rises Contributing to Recent Surge 
3. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What were the main price rises that led to the 1.1 percent inflation surge in the September 2010 quarter and how has the Government acted to control those price rises? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 First of all it is not at all apparent that inflation has surged. The 1.1 percent inflation in the last September quarter is the lowest September increase in the last 3 years if the member had not noticed. It is certainly lower than the 1.5 percent inflation in the September quarter in 2008. As the member knows the Reserve Bank is responsible for the general management of inflation consistent with the policy targets agreement. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How much of the impact of the Minister’s 2.5 percent increase in GST costs was reflected in the 1.1 percent increase in prices in the September quarter and does the Minister then stand by Treasury’s Budget forecast of 5.9 percent inflation for 2011; if not is it the fragility of the recovery and persistent high unemployment that have led him to revise his estimates in the recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that Treasury’s forecast for inflation for the next 12 months is probably a bit high. The Reserve Bank has since revised its forecast down to closer to 5 percent. The important fact is that where GST is contributing to inflation over the next 12 months everyone who is on a benefit on national superannuation or on Working for Families has already been compensated for that increase in GST. Those who are working have had income tax cuts that are larger than the increase in GST. Therefore the GST impact on inflation will not erode their real wages. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How does he reconcile his claim that New Zealanders seem to be enjoying record wage increases with widespread job losses in the manufacturing retail and construction sectors; reports that median incomes which is where most people are are in decline; and reports from Veda Advantage that record numbers of New Zealanders are struggling to pay their bills? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do it by just looking at the facts. The facts are that real after-tax wages are rising. Inflation has been relatively low there have been two rounds of tax cuts and real after-tax wages are rising. If the member is so concerned about high inflation why is he advocating a policy for the Reserve Bank that would ensure higher inflation? 
Todd McClay 
: How does the latest inflation data compare with the situation historically? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In September 2008 when the economy had been in recession for 9 months under Labour annual inflation was 5.1 percent and real after-tax wages were falling. In the last 2 years consumer price inflation has totalled just 3 percent—less than half of the inflation rate in the last 2 years of the Labour Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How is cutting holiday entitlements firing workers at will with no reason given eroding the rights of worker representatives and the rest of his Government’s Draconian anti-worker agenda contributing to New Zealand families being better off and able to afford his Government’s price rises and extra GST; or were the thousands of New Zealanders on the forecourt of Parliament at lunchtime wrong? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I told members a moment ago that the time for the general debate is after question time. That question went on and on and on. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is not doing what the member alleges. It is bringing the employment trial period into line with just about every other developed country. I must say that it is getting very crowded on the left of the Labour Party. Phil Goff David Cunliffe and Andrew Little are all headed for that same little corner. 
Todd McClay 
: What do the Reserve Bank forecasts show for the inflation track over the next few years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the monetary policy statement last month the Reserve Bank forecast that headline inflation is likely to settle at around 2 percent through 2012-2013 after reaching a peak during 2011 primarily because of the GST increase. The Reserve Bank noted that a one-off GST rise and costs associated with the Canterbury earthquake will see an increase in inflation in the next year. 
Irrigation—Community Irrigation Fund Grants 
4. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What new initiatives is MAF taking to support water augmentation schemes around New Zealand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Today the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has announced five new schemes which are to receive Government support of $1.9 million from the Community Irrigation Fund for technical design work. They are the Lee Valley community water augmentation storage dam in Nelson the Hunter Downs irrigation scheme in South Canterbury the Maungaroa irrigation scheme in the Bay of Plenty the Mayfield-Hinds irrigation scheme and the Ashburton-Lyndhurst irrigation scheme in Rangitata. These proposals have the potential to grow horticultural and agricultural exports by more than $200 million a year. These initiatives show that the Government is committed to improving rural infrastructure and to helping rebalance the economy towards productive exports. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What changes has the Government made to the eligibility criteria of the Community Irrigation Fund that has enabled this support to be given? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister of Agriculture has been concerned that the criteria were too narrow and did not enable support for technical design work which is critical for getting projects to the point of consenting and securing capital investment. None of this design work could have been funded from this scheme without the changes initiated by the Minister. These changes have enabled the maximum benefit to be secured for the communities from the Community Irrigation Fund. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Will the Government reinstate the $80 million taken from the Drinking-water Assistance Programme put in place to help rural communities access safe drinking-water; or does he think that irrigation of dairy land is more important than rural New Zealanders getting safe drinking-water? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make is that this Government is committed to the productive investment that will enable the growth of our export industries. The difficulty with the policy of the previous Government is that it set a “Rolls-Royce” standard for drinking water yet the amount of funding that was provided from local government was less than 5 percent of what was required. This Government is committed to exports and growth. It is a pity that exports flat-lined from 2002 under the previous Government. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What steps is the Government taking to ensure community engagement and good environment outcomes with the Community Irrigation Fund? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The very purpose of the fund is to help local communities find local solutions to challenges over water management so as to grow our primary industries in a sustainable way. The Government has also initiated a nationwide dialogue on improving New Zealand’s freshwater management through the Land and Water Forum which begins tonight in Nelson and proceeds with 13 public workshops around New Zealand. This blue-green approach with both the Community Irrigation Fund and the Land and Water Forum is about growing the economy and looking after the environment. I know that concept is foreign to members opposite. 
Employment 90-day Trial Period—New Employment Agreements 
5. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is it Government policy for the 90-day scheme to be the default provision in all new employment agreements? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Government agree with Chief Judge Colgan who said in paragraph 48 of his judgment in the Smith 90-day case that sections 67A and 67B remove access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I agree with the judge’s judgment that actually shows the law is working and that protections are in place for employees who may have been treated badly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about a specific section of the judgment which the Minister has read. It goes to the question of those sections removing access to justice. The Minister did not address that question. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It may well be that we will need to have clarified at this point whether it is appropriate for a Minister to express a view—either in agreement or disagreement—on a judgment of the court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To the Speaker as long as the court is not being maligned that is a matter for the Minister to assess. It would be perfectly proper for a Minister to tell the House that in his or her view it is not appropriate to comment on a judge’s ruling decision or comment. That would be a perfectly appropriate answer. But where I think the Hon Trevor Mallard has a point is that although he cannot expect the Minister to say yes or no as to whether she agrees with a particular comment some reference to the part of the judge’s statement that the member was referring to would be helpful—even for the Minister to say she is not prepared to comment on it. But to ignore it totally—and there was only one part to the question—I do not think is reasonable. I ask the Hon Kate Wilkinson to reply and it may be that it is not in fact appropriate to comment on the judge’s comment. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I said although I am prepared to comment in a generic manner on a judgment I am not prepared to comment on the specifics because that case may well go to appeal. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: On the question of the appeal is it the Government’s intention to appeal the part of the judgment that says in paragraph 48 that sections 67A and 67B which she introduced remove access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: At this stage we have no intention to appeal the decision nor were we a party to the proceedings. 
David Bennett 
: What reports has she seen on how trial periods work overseas? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In the United Kingdom there is a very successful mandatory period of a year. In Australia it is a year for small businesses and 6 months for everyone else. It is worth noting that the Australian Council of Trade Unions supports a 90-day grievance-free period just like ours. I look forward to the day the New Zealand unions catch up with the rest of the world. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she satisfied to be the Minister in charge of legislation that a Chief Judge says removes access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am satisfied that the 90-day trial as introduced last year is working well. It has protections and we always intended that it have protections to avoid any exploitation and abuse. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she agree with the Chief Judge when he says that her legislation removes access to justice? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I agree generically with what the Chief Judge said. The legislation has protections those protections worked and the judge found in favour of the employee. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Whip—Maori Party) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Tena koe. I note that the question as written starts with “Will his amendment …”—I am assuming it is to the Attorney-General. I am asking about the ability of the member to ask a question on a document that Parliament has not seen at this point in time. I am supposing that the amendment referred to is a Supplementary Order Paper that Parliament has not yet seen. Therefore I question the relevance of the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises an interesting point of order and I might seek a little advice on it. Obviously the primary question has already passed scrutiny but I am aware of what has caused the member to raise the point of order. Normally matters that are before a select committee for example cannot be the subject of questions unless they have been reported back to the House. However the supposed amendment being referred to here as I understand it is not before a select committee so I do not think it would be covered by any issues there. I think the issue that is relevant here is the Minister has talked about a possible amendment to the legislation and there is no requirement for a Supplementary Order Paper to be lodged for it to be referred to in a question. It is my ruling that the question is in order. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Public Access 
6. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will his amendment to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to ensure that public access to the foreshore and seabed is free allow for mum dad and the children to go to the beach for a picnic a paddle and to build a sandcastle below the line of mean high water springs so that they won’t be charged for the privilege; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The bill as already drafted protects recreational activities in or on the common marine and coastal area. I refer the honourable member to clause 27(1)(c). Moreover clause 7 provides that the marine and coastal area encompasses the area from the line of the mean high water springs to the outer limits of the territorial sea. Although building sandcastles on the wet part of the beach is generally inadvisable I would advise the member not to build sandcastles towards the outer limits of the territorial sea. 
Hilary Calvert 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer the question at all. You asked us to make questions simple. The question was capable of a yes or a no answer. The Attorney-General has referred to something quite other than the amendment I asked about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think—[ 
Interruption 
] When the Speaker is on his feet there will be silence. We cannot be absolutely precise as to how Ministers will answer questions and I do not believe that the Minister tried to dodge the question. He argued in answering it that the existing clauses of the bill guarantee what the member’s question was asking about even without the suggested amendment that is being talked about. I believe that that is a reasonable answer to the question. I think it would be pretty unreasonable for the Speaker to rule otherwise. The member’s party has another supplementary question with which to test the Minister’s answer further. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to challenge your ruling but the Attorney-General has said that he is making an amendment to this bill. The Prime Minister has further said that that amendment can be made very simply by inserting the word “free”. My colleague is asking the Attorney-General to confirm that when those amendments are made they will provide for mum dad and the children to be able to go to the beach and have a paddle. We do not think it is unreasonable for the Attorney-General to confirm that that is the intention of making that amendment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the members of the ACT Party have a further supplementary question with which to test the Minister’s answer. If one wants to be pedantic the Minister could even answer that he does not yet have an amendment and just sit down. I do not know whether he has an amendment but if one has not been tabled the Minister can simply say that he does not have one and sit down. But the Minister tried I think in answering the question to assure the questioner that what the question was seeking an assurance on was in fact already assured by certain clauses in the bill that the Minister quoted. The member has a supplementary question with which to test that further. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Will his amendment encompass all activities of surf life-saving clubs including training days and fund-raising activities and will it cover the Kiwi Kids Weet-Bix Tryathlon; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: There is actually no amendment drafted but I say this to the honourable member: the bill as already drafted makes it clear that those activities are covered. 
Hilary Calvert 
: Will his amendment to ensure that public access is free encompass wahi tapu areas provided for in clause 77; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No; wahi tapu areas are covered by the bill in appropriate circumstances. There will be wahi tapu areas for the very good reason that there is justification for them in the particular circumstances in that area. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Can the Minister advise the House whether an ACT MP wanting to have a picnic in a wahi tapu would be out to lunch? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I can allow that question because it— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Far be it for me to deprive the House but it would not be reasonable if I were to allow the question because the Minister in answering it may make unfair comments about a third party—not the questioner’s party—and that would be unreasonable. I think the question was too far wide of order and too far wide of the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is not the problem with that that you are prejudging the Attorney-General’s response? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no; I am ruling out the question. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was an element of seriousness in the question. We have had to tolerate a diatribe— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. That is not acceptable—not acceptable at all. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Why is the Minister considering an amendment from the ACT Party when public submissions on the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill are yet to close and how appropriate is it for the Government to make decisions on proposed amendments while a bill is still before a select committee? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Actually I am considering promoting an amendment of my own to clause 27; it is not an ACT amendment. But I hear what the honourable member is saying. This is a complex bill it is before the select committee and any amendments should ideally be considered after the select committee has heard submissions. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does he consider that in suggesting that the current bill’s drafting does not allow free access for mums dads and kids to build sandcastles on the foreshore the ACT member herself is building a sandcastle on a foundation of quicksand and may disappear at the next election? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Having ruled out a question like that from the Labour Party I will rule out that question too. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I seek leave to table a document I procured from www.ehow.com entitled “How to build a sandcastle”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not do that. 
Overseas Investment—Farms and Forests Awaiting Sale Consents 
7. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Land Information 
: How many farms or forests worth $1 million or more are currently the subject of Overseas Investment Office consent? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Twenty-two. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the Prime Minister’s stated concern about the sale of large tracts of dairy land to overseas buyers and the breadth of the Minister’s existing discretion to decline why did the Minister not decline the largest-ever at $34 million sale of some of New Zealand’s largest dairy farms to overseas interests just 2 weeks ago? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Because as I have said many times in this House I am bound to act within the law. The law as set out in the Overseas Investment Act 2005 which was written by Labour has criteria that must be adhered to. We would be able to be judicially challenged if we did not adhere to those criteria. The application the member refers to met all the requirements of the law. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does the Minister pretend that he does not have the broad discretion to decline farm sales now if he chooses to exercise his existing discretion? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: In fact the current law did not have enough criteria in it for Ministers to make some of those discretionary decisions and that is why quite recently the Minister of Finance announced two additional criteria which are to do with the economic interest test and the aggregation issue which I think was the other area people were concerned about. Once those criteria come into effect on 1 December Ministers will have more tools in the tool box to make those decisions. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has the amount of the land going into foreign ownership increased or decreased over recent years? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think I can best answer the question by giving the exact numbers. Between 2000 and 2008 while Labour was in power 650000 hectares of land were sold to foreigners— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —650000 hectares of land were sold to foreigners peaking in 2006 with in just 1 year the sale of 383000 hectares. I must say that in that 1 year Labour did decline one application— 
Hon Member 
: What? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: —it did; it declined 2.5 hectares. Since National came into power the total amount of land sold to foreigners has been less than 20 percent of that figure at just on 33000 hectares. 
Hon David Parker 
: Can the Minister not see that the way the discretion has been exercised by him and his predecessors proves the need to narrow the Minister’s discretion as proposed by Labour rather than just add two more criteria that the Minister can override? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I think the member is basically calling into question his own performance given that that discretion was— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We learnt. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Oh “We learnt.”! It took 9 years but “We learnt.”! I think the two new criteria that now come into effect on 1 December are absolutely vital to make sure the Overseas Investment Act works and as Minister I will continue working within the law to make sure it works. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why has the Minister agreed to the massive $34 million sale of dairy farms to Americans but is still delaying his decision on the Crafar farm applications by Chinese interests and is that because of politics and xenophobia; if not what is the reason for the delay? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: This question is really easy. The American application came to me from the Overseas Investment Office ready for a decision so we made the decision. The Crafar farm decision has not yet come to me so I have not. 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—Role of Unions 
8. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he still want to close the wage gap with Australia; and if so what role does he consider unions will have in closing that gap? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes unions will have a role in assisting to boost productivity in the workplace so that the economy can sustain higher wages. In fact the Government has committed about a million dollars to a productivity programme that has been started by dairy workers and someone else—I cannot remember which was the other union. Legislating for higher wages in the long run will not work. 
Metiria Turei 
: How will restricting union access to workplaces help to narrow the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has put a number of amendments before the House including one that does not restrict union access but changes the way that decisions are made about union access to the workplace—there is no doubt about that. We believe that package will assist with having a more flexible and productive labour market which is vital to closing the wage gap with Australia. 
Metiria Turei 
: Who exactly is pushing the policy to restrict union access to workplaces given that even Business New Zealand thinks it is a very low priority? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is one measure among dozens that the Government is taking that we believe in the long run will lift the strength of the economy. The amendments like the other ones in the industrial relations package were put forward by the National-led Government. 
Metiria Turei 
: Would it not be a quicker pathway to closing the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia if the Minister would agree to index the minimum wage to the median wage so that the lowest-paid workers in this country can share in the benefits of the productivity that he talks about and closing the gap between rich and poor—or does he consider that it is OK for productivity increases to enrich the rich and continue to impoverish the poor? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think that productivity increases historically have had probably the opposite effect in that they are the one way in which we can raise the living standards of those on lower incomes. The fact is we could just stick the minimum wage to $20 an hour I suppose and that would make some people better off. It would also drive hundreds if not thousands of small businesses out of business and exclude thousands of New Zealanders particularly young New Zealanders from the workforce altogether. We all know there are trade-offs around minimum wages and simply legislating for higher minimum wages does not get rid of the risk of businesses being unable to continue and of the effect of locking workers particularly young workers out of the workforce. That matters now because the number of young workers as a proportion of the total unemployed is higher than it has been for some time. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister not know that increasing numbers of low-wage workers ordinary New Zealand workers like drivers labourers and machine operators are heading to Australia because the minimum wage there is the equivalent of NZ$19.74 an hour and because unions have played a long-term part in strengthening working conditions for the lowest-paid workers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I am aware of some New Zealanders crossing the Tasman to an economy where wages are anywhere between 10 and 30 percent higher than they are here. That is a continuous challenge for New Zealand. We have taken some recent steps to help to close up that wage gap and to make New Zealand a more productive option. For instance people who drive trucks now pay a top statutory tax rate of 17.5c in the dollar which is quite low and it means that if they do another hour of overtime they keep 82.5c of each dollar paid for it. We believe that improving the incentives for workers right across the income range is important and we have taken probably the biggest step that a Government has for a long time to improve their incentives. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister not care that we are losing ordinary New Zealand working families who are trying to have an ordinary working life either to higher wages in Australia or to poverty here at home because of his Government’s failure to take basic steps to increase the minimum wage for the lowest-paid workers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course I care about that as the Government does and I think the member cares about it and maybe even the Labour Party cares about it. At the moment the biggest challenge in this economy is to undo the damage arising from the excesses of the last decade when too many of those families were reliant on jobs that were funded by debt and that is not sustainable. Too many of them were reliant on jobs that were funded by excessive Government spending and that is not sustainable. We are turning that round. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he think it is fair that the majority of caregivers who work in aged care and who look after some of the sickest and most vulnerable New Zealanders with complex health needs are amongst the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand and do not get any additional pay overtime or penal rates when they are required to work at nights or on weekends? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is probably aware of a court case in respect of the work at night but yes these people are among New Zealand’s lower-paid workers. I am quite surprised that after a decade of Labour’s being in office it did virtually nothing about that. In fact all the wage increases in health under Labour went to the highest-paid health workers not to the lowest-paid and I cannot understand the logic of that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he agree that when he took over as finance Minister New Zealand was in a reasonable position to deal with the uncertainty of our economic outlook? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not. The problem when we took over was that first the economy was in recession; secondly inflation was at over 5 percent; thirdly households had massive debt; and fourthly Government spending was out of control. The one factor that has worked for us is relatively low Government debt. The rest of it was a mess. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a statement of the Hon Bill English of 18 December 2008: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a press statement? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a report in the  
New Zealand Herald 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members know we are not tabling press statements or newspaper clippings. 
Conservation Director-General—Support for Vision 
9. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does she support the Director-General of the Department of Conservation and his vision for the future of conservation in New Zealand? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes and in the statement of intent I agree with the vision that “New Zealand is the greatest living space on Earth.” although I prefer to say that New Zealand is the best country in the world. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does the Minister agree with the Director-General of Conservation who said in the annual state of the environment speech that it is “a necessary investment in natural capital that sits at the base of our economy. Water soil air nutrient cycles climate regulation pollination—these and other services are the natural capital we need to survive and prosper.” contrary to the belief that “only rich countries can afford clean environments”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I will not go through point by point the director-general’s speech. But I can tell the member that I agree with him that conservation is good for business and business is good for conservation. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Does the Minister therefore not agree with the Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee that “it is only through a strong economy that New Zealand can afford the expenditure required to look after and improve our environment.”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think it is fairly patently obvious that we need a strong economy and under the current National Government we will get a strong economy—which we did not get under the previous Labour Government in 9 years. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Given her agreement why is she then giving the energy Minister who has the opposite intention the power to sign off on mineral exploration permits in the conservation estate? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the member is assuming far too much there. As the member knows it is proposed that access arrangements be by way of a joint decision-making process. No access can occur on conservation land without my signature. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I seek leave to table the speech given by Director-General of Conservation Al Morrison at Lincoln University on 7 October stressing the value— 
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. 
Jurors and Jury Duty—Legislative Reform 
10. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What changes if any is the Government making to the law relating to jurors? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am pleased to report to the House that the Government is making changes to improve jurors’ privacy and safety by removing the addresses of potential jurors from jury lists. These changes follow a recent trial during which convicted murderer George Baker who was representing himself memorised address details from a jury list and then corresponded with a juror. 
Simon Bridges 
: How will the changes depart from existing law? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Under the current law a jury list must contain the name occupation date of birth and full address of potential jurors. Amongst other things the proposed changes will remove the addresses of potential jurors from jury lists but it will allow the prosecution defence lawyer or a court-appointed adviser to defendants who are representing themselves to have automatic access to all address information on request and will prevent the accused from ever seeing potential jurors’ addresses by prohibiting the defence lawyer or court-appointed adviser from showing the address to the accused. These changes strike a balance between a juror’s right to privacy and safety and a defendant’s right to a fair trial. 
Education National Standards—Progress 
11. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Independent—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is she satisfied with the progress being made to implement national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes but as the member well knows there is always room for improvement. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Does she agree that national standards by definition must be consistent across all schools to have any validity; if so can she explain to the House what steps she has taken to ensure that parents can be confident that an achieved standard at one school will be the same as that recorded at any other school? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes the standards themselves are a set of consistent expectations in reading writing and maths that show that progress by a student against those standards will enable the student to achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. The standards themselves are consistent. I think the member is talking about the overall teacher judgments that will be used by the teaching profession to measure and report on progress against those standards. That is called moderation. The consistency will be supported by what is called moderation and that will be quality assured by the Education Review Office. The Ministry of Education is providing tools like exemplars to illustrate these standards; there are moderation modules for teachers; enhancements are being made to the student management system to support moderation; online moderation case studies of good practices are being provided; targeted professional development will be provided by the ministry; and there is an alignment of commonly used assessment tools. But at the end of it this Government has absolute confidence in the professionalism and expertise of our teachers to deliver those overall teacher judgments. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Could she explain to the House the rationale for sending all State and State-integrated primary and intermediate schools a letter on 8 October instructing them to put into their school charters new reporting targets for national standards by the beginning of the 2011 school year when the criteria for defining and moderating those targets have yet to be defined on a national basis? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I sent no such letter. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I seek leave to table the letter which was sent out from the Ministry of Education on 8 October to all primary and intermediate schools in New Zealand. 
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. 
Civil Defence—Disaster Preparedness 
12. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What is happening throughout New Zealand to assist the nation to “Get Ready” and “Get Thru”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Today Exercise Tangaroa is being held. Across the regions and nationally this exercise will put us to the test and will be used to assess the capability of civil defence. The exercise is a national multi-agency exercise led by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management and supported by 16 civil defence emergency management groups central government departments emergency services lifeline utilities and other agencies. It is important that New Zealanders are ready to “Get Thru”. 
John Hayes 
: What is happening in Wellington to “Get Ready” and “Get Thru”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The National Crisis Management Centre staffed by the ministry and others is busy coordinating the efforts of the civil defence management groups and their exercise activities. Locally Wellington civil defence like many other areas will use this exercise as an opportunity to sound their tsunami sirens. However there may be circumstances such as an inshore tsunami in Cook Strait where there may not be enough time to activate sirens so the message clearly is that New Zealanders have to be aware of the threats and be ready to “Get Thru”. 
Questions to Members 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Purpose 
1. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The purpose of this bill is to make students association membership voluntary beginning in 2012. No other group in society is compelled to join and pay fees to a union and students like all other members of society should enjoy freedom of association. This bill will achieve that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is the member aware that when the same provisions as in her bill were implemented in Australia 72 percent of students associations had total or near total cuts to services and is that the real purpose of the legislation? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: No it is not. We should not sit here and try to presume what might happen. Students associations will have the opportunity to listen to their entire student membership and to put in place the services that they really want. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Status 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 The bill was reported back from the Education and Science Committee to the House on 24 September and it will have its second reading in the House this evening. I think the member might be aware of that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can she confirm whether she has majority support in the House for the bill through all stages or just for the second reading? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: I understand I have the confidence of National and United Future to support the bill right through. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Potential Changes 
3. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
: Does she intend to propose any changes to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill as reported back from select committee; if so what? 
Hon HEATHER ROY (Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 No; I am happy with the bill in its current form. However all members of the House will have the opportunity during the Committee of the whole House to put forward any amendments they wish. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can she confirm that 98 percent of the 4837 submissions on the bill opposed it including submissions from every tertiary institution and does this not give her cause to change the bill? 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: I think that is probably a question best asked of the chair of the Education and Science Committee. However I understand that there were 4837 submissions including 4418 form submissions. Given the emails over the last 2 days that were facilitated by the New Zealand University Students’ Association where many people who were purported to have sent the emails did not actually send them it is difficult to say whether the form submissions actually came from those they were supposed to have come from. However I will say that around 300 of the submissions were substantive and of very high quality and provided the committee with evidence it needed. 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. There is no doubt that the vast majority of New Zealanders are better off for the tax switch that occurred on 1 October. More important than that the tax switch on 1 October was never designed to be a lolly scramble; it was designed to change the incentives in this economy. Those incentives really did need to be changed. I will briefly outline why those incentives in this economy needed to be changed so much. 
Since about 2004 this economy has been on a debt-fuelled consumption binge. In fact we released some figures the other day that showed New Zealanders borrowed about $6 billion against their houses in 2007 and spent that on consumption. To a large extent they were matching the behaviour of the Government of the day. It was running up Government spending at a very rapid rate through both increased transfers to New Zealand households and a massive explosion in the back-office bureaucracy of so many public services. Many New Zealanders thought that this sense of growth in the economy was sustainable but unfortunately they have been proven wrong. Too many of them were in jobs that were reliant on debt-fuelled consumption through the housing market through Government and through the retail sector. 
The effect of that over the period from about 2004-05 was that the export sector in New Zealand actually shrank. This great little trading nation managed to shrink its export sector during what was meant to be the best 10 years ever in Western economies. It is hard to understand how the economic management of the previous Government managed to do that. At the same time not only did the previous Government shrink our export sector and therefore our earning capacity but also it got to the point where it shrank after-tax wages in the best 10 years that the developed world has ever seen. That left a big mess. The New Zealand economy went into recession under Labour well before the global financial crisis starting at the beginning of 2008. The Government changed with an economy in recession household debt out of control and inflation running at 5 percent. 
The tax switch is designed to do something very simple: those things we want less of we are taxing more—that is excessive consumption and housing speculation—and those things we want more of we are taxing less—that is savings investment wages and income and the proceeds of exports. The tax switch is one measure but a very significant measure in rebalancing this economy. No more can we have lolly scramble after lolly scramble where the Government throws money at households covering up the underlying poor performance in the economy. When those households were getting their extra Working for Families it meant they did not notice that their real after-tax wages were actually dropping. The tax switch is designed to change the incentives in the economy. 
Over the next 4 or 5 years we will see this economy develop in significantly different ways from the last 10 years. The early signs are that the changes are making a difference to New Zealanders’ preferences. There has been a big swing round in savings behaviour for instance where New Zealanders are now being very careful with their spending which is why things are flat for retailers. While they are doing that they are paying off their credit cards they are paying off their overdrafts and they are paying down their mortgages. Those are all changes that needed to occur in this economy. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 That was Bill English once again seeking to blame the failure of this National Government on his predecessor Dr Michael Cullen. It is interesting is it not? The man that they called a failure they have just appointed to head New Zealand’s most important State-owned enterprise New Zealand Post—he is the man they called a failure. Listen to this this is Bill English in the  
New Zealand Herald  
18 December 2008: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook. In New Zealand”—it gets better—“we have room to respond. This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for”. Ten days into the National Government’s first term he was not talking about the National Government saving for the rainy day; it was the previous Labour Government which belies the constant criticism that it was the Labour Government that had been reckless in debt. I recall Bill English time and again saying when he was in Opposition that we did not have a debt problem. Time and again he said that we did not have a debt problem. Of course we did not have a debt problem because that Labour Government when it was in office put money aside so that we could come through this recession in better shape. 
Last year John Key promised that New Zealand would be coming out of recession “aggressively”. That was said by John Key. He said we would be coming out of recession aggressively in 2010. It is now 2010. Have we come out of recession aggressively? 
Hon Members 
: No. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. Alan Bollard told the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that New Zealand’s economy is very fragile. 
Things are not getting better; they are getting worse. Unemployment is going up; it went up by 20000 in the last quarter. Incomes are going down. The median income in this country fell in the last year for the first time in 12 years. John Key knew that when he would not answer the question. The median income in New Zealand has fallen for the first time in 12 years but Mr Key says to New Zealanders that they are better off. It may be that the average New Zealander is out of touch and that they think mistakenly that they are worse off. But John Key knows better than them. He says they are better off. I tell the House that the average New Zealander is not out of touch. John Key and Bill English are out of touch. Bill English says that he is better off but of course he is better off. Every person on those two front Government benches—each earns more than a quarter of a million dollars a year—is better off by hundreds of dollars a week but the constituents I represent in Mt Roskill are not better off. The person on the minimum wage who got $3.08 a week from Mr English is not better off. The money went on that Friday morning when they filled up the car with petrol. That is where their extra money went. The person on the average wage got $13.70 a week more and a lot of families in Auckland who got $13.70 have seen their rent go up by $23 a week in the last year. 
The Prime Minister talked about the price of fruit and vegetables. Do members know how much fruit and vegetables went up by in the September quarter? They went up by over 20 percent. I received a survey today that shows that two-thirds of New Zealand children are not getting the fruit and vegetables they need in their diet. If Mr English wants to do something for the ordinary New Zealander—not the person on the highest income—he should do something about cutting the price of the basic fruit and vegetables that our kids need but whose families do not have the income to choose to buy. It comes to a very sad state when yesterday the general manager of McDonald’s said that it was poor people in New Zealand who could afford bad food but could not afford good food. He was in favour of taking the GST off. 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 What a difference 2 years can make when a party is in Opposition! One of the differences it can make is a catastrophic catatonic loss of collective memory on the part of the Opposition. It is almost as if Y2K having missed its original date with destiny on 1 January 2000 found its way into Fraser House the Labour Party headquarters in Willis Street Wellington and wiped clean the entire C drive of the Labour Party. 
On the issue of rents price increases and real wages we have heard a tsunami of twaddle in the last 2 weeks as Labour members reel from their collective memory loss. It is not as if 2008 is ancient history. Dan Carter in 2008 was the world’s best first five-eighth. He is still the world’s best first five-eighth today. Babies born in 2008 are still learning to walk and talk. I have two mokopuna to prove it. This is not ancient history. 
Let us just try to recall where we were in 2008. First of all in an utterly perverse way New Zealand under Labour was and I quote “leading the world”. I call it the first-mover disadvantage because under Labour this country had achieved the remarkable feat of being the only developed country in recession before the Lehman Brothers crisis sparked the global financial crisis. But that is not enough—no no. On the issue of prices which is what the debate has been about in the last few weeks I note that Labour had inflation running at 5.1 percent. But no all of this has been utterly forgotten even though we now have 1.5 percent inflation which is less than one-third the level of inflation in the last year under Labour’s watch. 
In the last couple of weeks we have seen associated with that tsunami of twaddle a lurch to the left. 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh no! 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Well is it a lurch to the left? It is a lurch to the left rhetorically but is it a lurch substantively? Nobody knows. As we watch those members opposite butcher their way through various media interviews as they try to explain where they now stand as opposed to their record in Government we have to ask what this is about. I think it is very clear what this is about. 
There is a very simple fact and that is that we have a by-election coming up in Mana and the one thing that the Labour Party cannot afford is a meltdown in its core party vote in Mana. This rhetorical lurch to the left although I am sure it makes its core party faithful feel happy makes it very difficult for the rest of New Zealand to work out what is rubbish and where the future thinking of the Labour Party is moving. 
In all this there are four central realities. They are what is happening to real wages; what is happening to taxes and therefore after-tax real wages; what is happening to prices; and what the Government is doing to compensate those at the bottom of the income levels. Let us look at this in terms of real wages. 
We heard the reality from the Prime Minister earlier during question time. There has been a 7 percent increase in real wages compared with minus 1 percent in the last 2 years—7 percent compared with minus 1 percent in the last 2 years. As for taxes there has been a complex package of tax cuts compared with no tax cuts under Labour. There has been a cut in the company tax rate—it is now 28 percent—and that is designed to create opportunities for New Zealand businesses 96 percent of which are small to medium sized enterprises to employ more New Zealanders create jobs and create wealth for the future. Plus there has been a serious reduction in the taxes applied to middle-income New Zealanders. I am extremely proud to be a member of this Government. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour-led Opposition makes no apology for bringing forward policies that are in the interests of New Zealanders and we make that promise to New Zealanders. That is what Phil Goff did in the weekend. He showed New Zealanders that he is willing to take decisions that are in the interests of all New Zealanders and New Zealanders are starting to see that. They are contrasting that with this Government’s income tax cuts which the previous speaker was trying to defend 40 percent of which go to the top 10 percent of income earners and 70 percent of which go to the top one-third. That is the sort of unfairness that Labour stands against. 
I want to talk about what has changed. What has changed is the substantial change in the world since the global financial crisis. What has changed in response from National to those major changes in the world since the global financial crisis? 
Hon Annette King 
: Nothing. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As Annette King says nothing or virtually nothing—nothing of substance. One thing that has become abundantly clear since the global financial crisis is that we have huge trade imbalances in the world. China Germany and a few other countries are running enormous trade surpluses there are countries that have an enormous amount of spare cash and other Western countries like New Zealand various countries in Europe and the United States are running big deficits. Our assets if they are not properly controlled for the interests of New Zealanders are at risk of being sold to overseas interests in a way that would undermine New Zealand’s productive base. That is why Labour says that the current paradigm is wrong. 
The existing discretions for the Minister for Land Information to turn down land purchases are very large. I know because I was the prior Minister and I admit that I had the discretion to turn down more than I did. I was the Minister and I admit that I had wide discretion to turn down those sales and by and large I did not. By and large I did not and we were wrong; the discretions are too wide. The ministerial discretion needs to be narrowed so that land assets can be owned by New Zealanders for New Zealanders so that those land assets are kept at prices that New Zealanders can afford and so that there is a reason for young New Zealanders to stay in New Zealand to work hard and to save hard in the knowledge that if they do so successfully they will be able to move from being a sharemilker to a farmer. They will be able to save and have a stake in the New Zealand economy. We do not want to live in the kind of country that National is happy to see develop where New Zealanders increasingly have to inherit wealth or be overseas owners in order to buy our productive assets. This is partly an economic argument but is also an argument about the sort of country we want to live in. 
I ask why the Government would want to have the right to sell infrastructure assets. We do not think that is in the interests of New Zealand; we say that the Minister should not have the discretion to sell infrastructure with monopoly characteristics to overseas buyers. 
Government members do not know where they are. They said that Labour is Stalinist but there has been no change. They said that they could not understand the strategic asset sense but they have kept it. They were going to liberalise rules but 18 months after taking office they have neither liberalised them nor as they also said they would do simplified them. The Government is on the wrong side of this debate. Labour will govern for the interests of all New Zealanders—the many not the few. We do not want a country where only people who inherit wealth can afford to buy our productive assets; we want a country where those assets are priced for the benefit of New Zealanders not for the interests of banks selling at mortgagee sale and not for the interests of overseas owners. 
This Government inherited a good financial position. It had some of the lowest Government debt in the world. Its income tax cuts have been so over the top that not only has it had to borrow for them but it has Government debt going up to high levels. The Government inherited that good position but its debt position is getting substantially worse. The changes Labour proposes—and this is why the Government is so rattled—are ones that New Zealanders know are right. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 I was not aware that the previous speaker had been Prime Minister at any stage but it is now in  
Hansard 
 so I congratulate the Hon David Parker if I missed that. I say to Mr Parker that the New Zealand financial crisis began 1 year before the global financial crisis. The global financial crisis made the economy the status and the conditions that this Government inherited even worse but the recession in New Zealand started 1 year before the global financial crisis. As we know from 2005 in particular the tradable sector of the New Zealand economy—the real economy; the bit that creates real jobs—has been in recession since about that time and that recession is what this Government is all about changing. 
On 1 October there were tax changes when the biggest the fairest and the largest rebalance in 25 years of the New Zealand tax system kicked in for New Zealand PAYE taxpayers. On 1 October more money was left in the pockets in the purses and in the households of New Zealand families after-tax income. Yes it is a tax switch yes it is a tax rebalance and yes some things will go up. GST has gone up 2.5 percent and that was fully acknowledged all the way along—it is fiscally neutral if members like to recall. But the balance has changed. Incentives have moved to saving and to stopping consumption—ongoing outrageous consumption. I note that the Greens still vote against this but we have put consumption taxes up in New Zealand and we have incentivised savings. We have put the cap on savings rates at 28 percent. 
After 1 October 72 percent of all taxpayers in New Zealand faced a tax rate of no higher than 17.5 percent. Superannuation has gone up $11 per week. We have addressed very well throughout this Parliament how this Government has compensated superannuitants and those on various benefits for the increase in GST. It has kicked in and it has kicked in very very well. As we learnt today rating agencies around the globe have endorsed the actions and the policies of this current Government as we try to get this economy back on track after 9 long wasted years which were an absolute travesty. What does that mean? It means mortgage interest rates will stay lower for longer under this Government than they would have under the policies of the previous Labour Government. 
Let us have a look at Labour’s track record which my colleague alluded to previously. Its GST track record shows that it took GST from 0 percent to 10 percent and from 10 percent to 12.5 percent with no compensation. This National Government took it from 12.5 percent to 15 percent with compensation. Let us look at Labour’s inflation track record. When it left office there was 5.1 percent annual inflation—5.1 percent annual inflation. Do members remember the policy targets agreement which the Opposition said was not working? It was supposed to cap inflation at 3 percent. In fact it was well north of 3 percent for most of its tenure. 
Let us see what Mr Phil Goff and his fellow cosmonauts are up to at the moment. What are they suggesting? They are suggesting that we take GST off fruit and veges. Well OK let us have the discussion. But did members see Mr Goff on  
Q+A 
 the other day? He was all over the place. Interestingly the Leader of the Opposition hardly addressed his announcement on the weekend in his speech but Mr Parker did. Let us have a look at the previous Labour Government’s sale of New Zealand land: 650000 New Zealand hectares were sold. Six hundred and fifty thousand New Zealand hectares were sold under the previous Government; 20-odd thousand hectares have been sold under this Government. There was a real wage growth of 3 percent under the previous Government over 9 or 10 years—3 percent—and there has been a 9-ish percent growth under this Government after only 2 years. 
Mr Speaker I know you mentioned excessive clapping before but I cannot hold myself back because the good news just keeps on coming. This economy is moving away from a debt-funded consumption economy. On  
Q+A  
the other day when Phil Goff was asked what he would do about the corporate tax he had not even thought about it. He had not even thought about the implications of his announcement of the 25-percent threshold. 
This Government is doing all it can to stop to change course and to arrest the juggernaut of debt consumption unfocused spending and non-measurable outcomes of the previous Government. We have rebalanced the economy. We have put incentives back into this economy for families to make the decisions in their households to save to pay off their mortgages and to not increase debt. The macro statistics say it right now: “Good on you New Zealand.” Those families are doing the right thing. It makes it hard right now but they are doing the right thing for this economy in the medium to long term to remove their vulnerabilities. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party strongly supports the Fairness at Work day of action and the hundreds to thousands of workers who took part in rallies right around New Zealand. For these workers there has been no good news—as the previous speaker Craig Foss said—only bad news. They have witnessed a sustained and deliberate attempt by the Government to undermine and weaken unions to chip away at workers’ rights and to tilt the playing field in favour of employers. They have witnessed a sustained attack on workers’ rights: putting restrictions on the access of workers to union advice and support the totally absurd and unreasonable proposal that workers provide a sick note after 1 day’s absence and the fire-at-will provisions which will allow workers to be fired from their jobs without being given any reason. 
All that these workers are demanding is fairness in the workplace and to be given basic protections such as the right to appeal against unfair dismissal in the first 90 days of employment. How well I remember the front-page article in the  
Dominion Post  
about a woman with an unblemished employment record who left a well-paying job so that she could go to her dream job at Dunbar Sloane’s auction house. She worked like a galley slave for 2 weeks and then received a letter saying that she had been fired summarily with no explanation. That is what the workers were protesting about today. 
I will illustrate the unfairness of the working conditions of so many New Zealand workers by looking at aged-care workers. I have been talking to them all around New Zealand as part of the 3-month Green and Labour Party investigation into aged care. Aged-care workers provide more than 90 percent of the care in the aged-care sector. They look after some of the oldest most frail and vulnerable New Zealanders who have increasingly complex health needs yet the average wage for caregivers is $14.40 an hour. Many are on the minimum wage even after working for an employer for 10 years or more. That is grossly unfair. 
The vast majority of caregivers are paid no overtime no double time and not even time and a half when they have to work at weekends and at night. That is grossly unfair. Caregivers doing exactly the same sort of work in public hospitals are paid double time when they work weekends and nights but the majority of caregivers have no penal rates at all. One employer Oceania Group which has agreed to some minimum penal rates nevertheless requires workers to sign a document stating that if they work additional hours to the ones they are rostered on to they must agree to be paid at ordinary rates and not get any overtime. That is grossly unfair. 
There are no minimum staff to patient ratios in aged care and the sector is so short-staffed that most aged-care workers are grossly overworked. Many look after 30 to 40 residents on their own on a shift. Many have to do clinical work that should be the domain of other workers such as giving out complex medication such as morphine yet they are paid a pittance. 
Caregivers told us that they dread working the weekend shift because of the dangerous lack of staff. Some said the only way to care for residents safely in the weekends is to leave them in bed all weekend. 
There are no minimum requirements for staff training for caregivers; only about 20 percent of the workforce has any training or qualifications. Many start work with no experience of working with older New Zealanders and the only training they get is a quick walk around with the nurse. If they want to get training most have to pay for it themselves which is grossly unfair. They are seldom given any additional pay for the increased qualifications or experience that they accumulate which is also grossly unfair. 
We heard many shocking stories of abuse and neglect but many of them were caused really by the shortage of staff in the sector. We were told about residents who become incontinent because there literally are not enough staff on duty to toilet residents regularly. That is shocking. We were told of residents who lose their mobility because there are not enough staff to walk them regularly. That is shocking. We were told that many residents get left in front of the television all day or in bed all weekend because there are no staff to care for them properly. Many are put on antipsychotic medication to sedate them and make them more manageable. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 It is nearly 2 weeks since across-the-board personal tax cuts kicked in and by now people in my electorate the electorate of Waitaki and right across the country earning a salary or wage are noticing a boost in their pay packet. And they are telling me about it. They are coming into my office in Oamaru and telling me about the increase they are experiencing in their wage packets. I can tell members that they are pretty happy about it. 
People in my electorate are noticing a real lift in their income. We said we would do that—the National Government said it would do that—and we delivered. Even taking the rise in GST into account the average family in the Waitaki electorate and throughout New Zealand is about $25 a week better off than they were before 1 October. That is more money for the average family to save and more money for the average family to put against their mortgage if they have one or against their debt and the average family is doing just that. 
But the 1 October tax cuts did not benefit just the average family; people on the average wage are almost $15 a week better off and that includes the increase in GST. Those people also are using that extra money in their pockets to save to pay off their mortgages and to pay off their debt. People on superannuation people receiving Working for Families and those people on benefits had an increase of 2.02 percent to compensate for the rise in GST. National campaigned on that and it delivered. 
The tax cuts are part of the Government’s major reform of the tax system which will tilt the economy towards productive investments savings and exports which is of particular interest and importance to my electorate. The reform will tilt the economy away from the consumption borrowing and unsustainable Government spending that was the very hallmark of the big tax big spend Labour Government that New Zealand endured for 9 long years. 
The National Government is proving itself to be a good economic manager. Against the backdrop of the worst global recession since the 1930s it has maintained benefits maintained student support maintained Working for Families and locked in national superannuation at 66 percent of the after-tax average wage. National promised those things and the National-led Government has delivered. 
The Government remains focused squarely on building a sustainable long-term recovery. The recovery will be built on export and investment and not on the debt and spending we saw over the last decade under the unlamented previous Labour Government. 
So what is Labour’s track record? Phil Goff is just plain wrong in saying that New Zealanders were better off under Labour. In the few years running up to 2008 the rate of inflation was regularly above 3 percent and it peaked at 5.1 percent in the year to September 2008. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Oh yes! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Those Labour members do not like it. They do not like hearing those figures but those are the figures. 
David Bennett 
: Tell us again. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: The member would like to hear the figures again so I will tell him. In the few years running up to 2008 under Labour inflation was regularly above 3 percent and it peaked at 5.1 percent in the year to September 2008 with no compensation to anybody. 
Annual inflation to September this year was 1.5 percent under the National-led Government. When Labour left office the economy was deep in recession and the annual rate of inflation was 5.1 percent. There was no compensation for anyone and real after-tax wages were falling. In fact they fell by 1 percent in those 2 years while overall food prices jumped by 15 percent and house rents went up by 6 percent. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 This Government is out of touch. It actually thinks that things are getting better for ordinary Kiwi families. It thinks that wages are going up but Statistics New Zealand does not. Statistics New Zealand has told us that median wages fell $9 a week to June last year—$9 a week. That is enough to make a difference in most working families’ budgets but it is not enough for those National members. They live in a different New Zealand. They live in the New Zealand of cocktail parties European cars and money trading. [ 
Interruption 
] I drive a Toyota Prius—there you go. 
The Government is so out of touch that it is crowing about inflation. Its best line is that in the middle of a global recession it managed to get inflation down. I want to imagine for a moment the scene in the Beehive when Bill English called in the spin doctors. There is no good news. Unemployment is above 6 percent and is heading for 7 percent. Growth is going backwards according to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. Manufacturing collapsed by 26 percent in the last quarter. Confidence is down and business investment is negative. What can they do? Wayne Eagleson said they should say they are waiting for summer. John Key comes in and says that his sense is that they—meaning the peasants—will feel a little better now that summer is coming. Well that did not work. That was a joke that got laughed at in the media as it should have done. 
In came “Captain Panic Pants” who said they should make up some numbers and tell people that they are better off. So National took the GDP statistics and claimed credit for Labour’s 2008 tax cuts. It used a different series of data from Statistics New Zealand divided it by the square root of Bill English’s housing allowance and came up with some shonky numbers. It did that just to try to convince ordinary Kiwi families that they were better off. But the numbers do not lie. The median income earner the bloke or blokess in the middle went back nine bucks a week end of story. And that was before inflation. 
The spin doctors came in and said they should crow about inflation and tell people that at least they fixed that one. There is a problem with that conquering of inflation in the middle of a recession. It is a shame about the 160000 unemployed. It is a shame that growth was only 0.2 percent in the last quarter. It is a shame that Alan Bollard called the recovery fragile. It is a shame that New Zealanders have not felt the recovery in a supermarket queue near them. It is a shame that we have had 1.1 percent inflation in the last quarter alone and that is before Bill English’s 2.5 percent GST increase and the 5.9 percent inflation that Treasury says we can look forward to next year. Will this Government give ordinary New Zealanders in the middle of the income curve a 5.9 percent pay increase next year just to keep even? I do not think so. Wages are predicted to grow only 2 percent. Kiwis will be worse off and they know it. 
That is why they are pleased that Labour is taking a bold new direction in policy. We reject the politics of laissez-faire. We reject the idea that the Government can have no role in making conditions better for ordinary people. We reject the idea that we should be selling off our farmland acre by acre and farm by farm to those who are enjoying surpluses while we cannot. We want Kiwi sharemilkers to be able to own the farms that they are milking on. We want New Zealanders to own their own homes not to be forced to sell to foreign buyers. That Government is out of touch. It is a one-term National Government 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 If that was the bold new direction of Labour Party policy then we will be the Government for a very long time to come. The previous speaker David Cunliffe thinks he will be the leader of that party but he was the fourth speaker from Labour. He was the fourth cab off the rank today. He talked about median incomes. Labour has gone around and tried to find a statistic that suited it but that member does not even know what the median is. It is not the middle. The middle is not the median; the average is the middle. I tell that member to get his facts right. 
We need to look at this in a constructive way. This country is going forward by setting a positive direction. We can sit out there and try to tell New Zealanders what to do as the Labour Party does by saying that fruit and vegetables should be at certain prices or that we cannot sell any land to overseas buyers. However Labour sold land historically at such huge rates that no other country would even contemplate. New Zealand has a choice. It can either be dictated to by some people sitting on that side of the House or it can give the people of New Zealand the tools to make their own future. That is what we are doing. We trust our people and we believe in them. By giving them a taxation system that will encourage them to take risks to work hard and to be successful they will in turn grow themselves and grow the country. 
That is the political dimension that this House represents. On one side it is telling the people what to do making decisions for them and saying that we know what is best. On the other side it is empowering people to give them the ability to make the best of their opportunities and giving them the skills strength and opportunity to do so. That is what we have done with the tax changes. Those changes are about empowering New Zealanders. They show New Zealanders that if they get an education get a good job stay in this country and make it work they will get the rewards. That is the whole point. On the other side of the equation those members want to tell us what we can do. They try to keep everybody equal and not give us that ability to actually succeed. 
We have no problem sending out the right incentives and signals. We do not need an economy based on consumption and on trying to get by year by year or election to election as Labour did when it was in Government. We want an economy that is long term that grows that is successful— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Healthy. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: —and that is healthy and strong. That is what we will deliver through these tax changes. 
When we look at the situation Labour left this country in we see it left us in recession before the rest of the world. It left us with huge inflation rates. It left us with a situation where the Government was going into debt before the recession hit around the world. It did not leave this country strong. It did not leave this country viable to go through what happened. Imagine what would have happened if Labour had been in power in the last 2 years and had had to make decisions in some tough times. It would have been an absolute disaster for this country. 
We have been fortunate that we have made the right calls we have listened to what the right things are for our people and we have made the right decisions for this country. When we look at those tax changes we see that they will make New Zealanders better off. They are about the long-term gain and they are about providing those signals and incentives. 
I ask members to look at some of the expenses and price changes on comparable goods over the time that Labour was in Government compared with prices under National. Overall the inflation rate for the 2 years from 2006 to 2008 was 7 percent. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How much? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Seven percent. National’s average inflation rate is 3 percent in tougher tougher times. We have kept inflation down and we have kept interest rates down so that New Zealanders can progress and go ahead. 
But what is this? Labour members always talk about how vulnerable people are at risk because the big bad Tories are increasing the prices of food; that is what they always say. Well food prices under Labour increased by 15 percent in those 2 years—15 percent. Under National prices have increased by only 5 percent. National has delivered one-third of the increase that Labour did. We have looked after the vulnerable people. We have looked after those who do not have the income levels that one would expect or want in this country and we have given those people the chance to survive in these very difficult times. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 There is an old expression: “Lies lies and statistics” and I think we have heard some statistics that fit into the third category of that expression. The member who has just resumed his seat David Bennett said for example that average inflation was 7 percent over 2 years. He was trying to imply that that was average annual inflation but it was not. It was 2 years’ inflation rather than an average. He got that wrong. But then he is consistent with the approach that Bill English has been taking on wages. 
Bill English has been focusing on average earnings and if he was straightforward that would be fine. But he is pretending that average earnings for New Zealanders are going up. But they are going up only for some of the people who have jobs and 61000 fewer people have jobs than had jobs in the period he is referring to. So when 61000 fewer people have jobs including a disproportionate number of young people—Mr Assistant Speaker the member Sandra Goudie appears to be having a fit. Is she all right? 
Sandra Goudie 
: I’m just amused. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry; I seriously thought there was a problem. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I think she’s fine. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK that is good. She is normal. 
I go back to the fact that Bill English refuses to acknowledge that so many New Zealanders have lost their jobs. People who lose their jobs tend to be lower-income New Zealanders which artificially inflates the averages for those who are left in work. But even with that over the last year using the latest figures available the median person who is employed has had a wage cut—not a real wage cut but an actual wage cut—of $9 and that is something that should be causing a lot of anxiety in the Government. 
The previous speaker Mr Bennett from Hamilton bemoaned the state the economy was in when National took over. I quote for him what Bill English said on 18 December 2008 as he released the state of the economy and the forecast—it would be the half-year economic update I presume. At that time Bill English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook. We have room to respond. This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for.” That is what he told reporters. 
I agreed with Audrey Young when she said that Bill English was swallowing a dead rat because he had said for a number of years that New Zealand was paying off its debt too quickly and that there should be tax cuts instead of that debt being paid off. But it was good that for at least 5 minutes in 2008 Bill English recognised the truth of the situation. 
I would like to make reference to the policy announcements and the developments in terms of overseas ownership of land in New Zealand. I acknowledge some of the comments that have been made by members opposite. The Labour Government did sell off more land than it should have. 
David Bennett 
: 600 million dollars! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We were wrong in that area. I do not think that the figure the member is using is entirely accurate. It is certainly not accurate in a net term because quite a few of those sales were sales from for example the United States to Canadians. 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No those were net payments. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry; I accept the Minister’s word that that amount was net and that means that we were even more wrong than I was prepared to admit. We made mistakes in that area and that has hurt. It has hurt the ability of young sharemilkers to get on to the land because it has artificially inflated prices. It has hurt us in our balance of payments in that a whole lot of money from those profits has gone offshore. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 One of the great things about question time and the importance of question time is the way in which we can observe the Prime Minister educating the members of the Opposition because we need to continue to educate them about the real management of fiscal policy. It seems to be difficult to get through to them but we are doing our very best. Of course “Mr Goff-father” was nearly apoplectic about having to swallow some of that information because he was finding it difficult to understand I am sure. I was also intrigued by one of the previous speakers. He talked about a bold new direction and I find that it is interesting to have a bold new direction from the Opposition with talk of taxes going up more spending and policy that we discovered in the House during question time was taken directly from existing legislation. That is rather extraordinary: a whole new strange way of developing policy from existing law. 
This Government remains focused squarely on building a sustainable long-term recovery and I think that is what New Zealanders want to see: something that is really solid and steady as she goes. They do not want to have any major surprises; they just want to see us get through these tough times. They have been tough times and I think we all recognise that. The recession is one of the worst recessions since the Great Depression. I think that National’s position is exactly the right position that the New Zealand people want to see the Government take for a solid focused recovery and a sustainable long-term recovery. It is going to be patchy at times. There is an uncertain global environment and a need for businesses and households to look at and start to address their debt build on exports and investment and look at saving rather than spending. I think that the New Zealand public have embraced that and the New Zealand people have embraced that and that is where they want to see us go. Really it is the only way that we can go because it is the only way by which we are going to provide jobs well into the future. So we have to build that recovery steadily. That in turn will build incomes steadily and that is how we will be able to afford all the services that the New Zealand people expect. 
I pay a huge tribute to Prime Minister John Key and finance Minister Bill English for doing such an outstanding job in that regard because it has not been easy. This is quite a juggling act and something that we have been incredibly proud of. We are proud to be part of such a strong Government. It is not just a matter of shrugging off a global recession because the challenges we face are pretty difficult. We have had a long session under Labour that made the problem much more difficult than it needed to be. Turning that round will require a relentless long-term focus and commitment and we are certainly committed to that. 
What is the only way forward? The only way forward is to grow New Zealand’s economy through considered consistent reform and change. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this rubbish? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I would not like to take anything from Mr Mallard so I will not mention that he has just admitted during question time that he made mistakes in the last term of Parliament. The previous Labour Government allowed more sales of New Zealand land to overseas owners than ever in the history of New Zealand as I understand it. 
More broadly we have built our economic plan around six policy drivers. The plan is to strengthen our taxation system and— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this rubbish? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I say to Mr Mallard that we are taking a moment to further educate the Opposition because members opposite have difficulty in understanding and embracing the plan. It is to strengthen our taxation system; deliver better smarter public services; reform regulation; improve education and skills and that is something of course that we are trying to impart to the Opposition particularly at question time; foster business innovation and trade; and invest in productive infrastructure. May I say that the contractors are doing a magnificent job on the Kopu Bridge which is coming in under budget and ahead of time. It is just awesome to see that happening and the bulk of the New Zealand public are embracing it hugely. 
There has been a lot of third-party comment on the direction in which this Government is taking New Zealand. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. On a completely different note I would like to talk about how coming into Parliament means different things for different people. For some it is a family thing: their uncle was a politician and they want to be a politician. For others it is a career choice with good money and good perks. For some it is passion for a political belief: a union background the free market love of the environment or Maori issues. For others it is an honest and conscious decision to be of service to the public. Some people come via the party route—party activist branch chairman electorate secretary national council member member of Parliament. And a lot come straight out of the real world—thankfully. 
My own entry into Parliament came off the back of a massive protest march that I led from Te Rerenga Wairua to the steps of Parliament itself in 2004. That protest was a huge outpouring of Maori anger at Labour’s theft of the foreshore and seabed in the Foreshore and Seabed Bill and a conscious Maori decision to say that no longer will we accept being on the backbenches of a party that had taken Maori for granted for far too long. 
As an activist I felt a little at odds with my role in Parliament and indeed my role in the newly formed Maori Party. It took a while before I came to terms with what that role should be. I have been an activist most of my adult life a strong believer in the rights of Maori and a strong supporter of the rights of indigenous people all over the world and I like to think I am a person who is prepared to take a stand against injustice as well. That does not make me anything special—others who have been through this place and a lot more who would not even bother coming to Parliament have done far greater things than I have—but it does define who I am. In those early days I nearly lost touch with that background but as different issues came up and I became more confident about speaking in the House I soon realised that it was that activist background and the things I had learnt on the streets that guided my thinking on what I should be saying in here. When I balanced that background with the kaupapa of the Maori Party—mana atua mana whenua mana tupuna whanaungatanga kotahitanga manaakitanga rangatiratanga kaitiakitanga and te reo—I realised that those activist instincts that natural inclination to be staunch on Maori rights was right for me both in and out of Parliament. I realised that my role in Parliament was to continue that activist tradition to push boundaries to challenge accepted opinion and at all times to push the Maori view of the world. 
That decision to stand up for Maori rights has often gotten me into trouble with Parliament with the media with a whole heap of Pakeha people and occasionally with my own party leadership. It has given me cause to ask myself whether I should just quieten down play the game by the rules talk like a robot not make waves not push boundaries not upset people and basically act like a good MP. But the question I keep coming back to is: why should I? If I go quiet who carries the Maori flag in Parliament? Who pushes the Maori issues to the edge? Who speaks for the hearts and minds of the ordinary Maori? And who says it exactly how they mean it? I am not trying to big-note myself here but that is just how it is. That is my role; that is my role in Parliament. 
One of my early mentors once said to me that the role of the activist and the aim of protest was to wake people up to force them to think and to make them ask why people do things in a certain way in a different way. That role is as important to me in 2010 as it was when I first heard about it nearly 40 years ago. I know that it does not endear me to those who would rather have us be seen but not heard I know that it will not score me any points with the political leaders around this place and I know that it means a lot of doors will be slammed in my face around here some by my enemies and some by my friends. But at the end of the day when we wake up in the morning it is not the rest of Parliament we see in the mirror and it is not even our own party colleagues; it is ourselves. If we are not first honest to who we are then we are just dancing to some other bugger’s tune. 
I am happy with my life. I am proud to represent the people of Tai Tokerau I am proud to be a member of the Maori Party and I have no plans to buckle under to those who seek to shut me up. Kia ora tatou. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Preamble 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take part in the Committee stage of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I note that Christ’s College is an iconic institution at the heart of my electorate of Christchurch Central. It has a very proud history through somewhat challenging times over the decades including two world wars the Great Depression very recently the quake of 4 September and even more recently the severe aftershock of yesterday. Pupils and teachers at Christ’s College were among the many thousands of people who were rattled by yesterday’s force 5 quake but Christ’s College like Christchurch and Canterbury is coming through the quake and the aftershocks. Although we are shaken we are not stirred. 
Christ’s College as some members may know has around 150 trusts and about 20 or 30 of those trusts are at the heart of this bill. They deal with causes that may have been appropriate in the past but are no longer appropriate. To give an example a trust in the past may have donated funds towards the teaching of Greek but now there is not a large numbers of boys at Christ’s College who feel the same need to learn Greek. Such trusts were there to provide assistance to such boys should they wish to do so. I suppose it could be argued that we might use such funds and such trusts to send boys off to the Greek Islands and Athens to study Greek but that would raise a question as to whether that was a charitable purpose as the original trust deed intended. The bill is explicit on this issue and amendments are made to reinforce the fact that there should only be use of funds for charitable purposes. 
The point is that those purposes are not always easy to define. For instance if there were a trust to encourage democratic participation trustees might use that money to hire the Christchurch Town Hall at considerable cost to allow major public discussion on an issue of some public consequence such as say the Christchurch earthquake. The trustees would need to be sure that that was not only a charitable purpose for a particular individual but also a wise use of those trust funds. I guess trustees would also have to ask when after considerable expense that democratic purpose they were funding attracted only 100 people whether that would be a wise use of trust funds. Would it be a charitable purpose being served? If an intended beneficiary of those funds advised people in Christchurch who had quake claims that had not yet been addressed that perhaps they could resubmit them to the Earthquake Commission would that be a wise use of those funds when 100000 claims had already been lodged with the Earthquake Commission? Is that just a double up or is that double Dutch? 
So quite wisely the board of governors of Christ’s College has come to Parliament seeking a solution for a law change so that funds held in the 20 or 30 trusts covered by this bill which may in the past have been used for something like Greek or double Dutch—some language or strange practice that has been left behind by time or by wiser heads—can now be better spent. That is really the thrust behind this bill. I am pleased and the Labour Party is pleased that there have been changes made at the Government Administration Committee to tighten up the purpose of the trusts. This bill is about increasing flexibility for Christ’s College which is of course a private school in Christchurch. It is about making sure that there is better use made of the funds and better use made of the property than how they might have been used in the past and for what it is still vested for. That is at the heart of this bill. 
We are very keen to see that the bill allows trustees to vary the purposes of the charitable trusts in particular circumstances. Obviously at the select committee there was consideration of the wording of the legislation in the Charitable Trusts Act under which the trusts operate to describe the particular circumstances in which a governing body may vary the purposes of charitable trusts. This is an issue familiar to me because last year the first bill I had the privilege to introduce through this House was for the Methodist Church. It was in a very similar situation to the Christ’s College board of governors where trusts had been established back in the mists of time for particular purposes mostly relating to the care of orphans that were no longer a concern for the Methodist Church but the trusts were locked into those purposes. 
The only way to amend those trusts unless there is an Act of Parliament like this is to approach the High Court which can cost tens of thousands of dollars for a trust. As has been said when Christ’s College has 20 or 30 trusts locked up with assets and funds and it can no longer use those funds for something like teaching Greek it needs the flexibility to apply those funds across. The select committee was concerned about making sure that the governing body while it may vary the purposes of those funds would make sure that they were still used for a charitable purpose. The select committee reported back and recommended inserting into clause 5 in subsection 3 a requirement for trust property only to be used for charitable purposes even when there has been a variation. That is a welcome change. 
It reinforces the intentions of the original trustees those who set up the trusts who might have done so because they had sons at the school and wanted to recognise them or their sons had been lost in war. There is roll of honour for the two world wars and other wars for the former pupils to be remembered by their families and the trusts were established. That is quite a usual circumstance for the establishment of such trusts. So a particular purpose was defined and now as time moves on the board of governors wants the capacity to vary those trusts. That is why we have this bill in front of us. The actual bill is amending things that have been made redundant by the passage of time things that have become uncertain as to their application and things that have become impractical to implement. Clearly where a property is generating income that is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes sometimes we want to see the amalgamation of particular trusts’ funds into one fund and the devotion of that to new purposes. Although they will still be charitable purposes as amendments before the House suggest the trusts are able to change from their original purpose. That is important. 
This bill authorises the governing body of the college to apply property in certain circumstances for the benefit of the college but where there is still going to be some change. That is a very welcome move. I think there is flexibility carried through in this bill to make better use of property that has been vested in the board which is a very fine board. Christ’s College is a good school. It has a proud record and it has a number of former pupils who are familiar to this House. There is one well known to this side of the House in the form of one Michael Cullen. The school has a proud record and this bill gives it the flexibility to vary the purposes of those trusts in particular circumstances. I am pleased to see that the changes brought forward by the select committee and suggested to the House make sure that where there is variation to the purpose it still comes back to only charitable purposes. That is very very clear. There was a residual concern that although the purpose of the original bill was to devote benefits for the benefit of the college even with some extraordinary set of circumstances the benefits of the college were not in line with charitable purposes. That is why we have seen that amendment come through. So that is a very very welcome change by the select committee. 
The bill is now back before us in the Committee stage. It gives us the final chance for some scrutiny and that is important. I remember through the Methodist Church legislation some considerable scrutiny both at the select committee and back in the House and we made considerable changes to that legislation just to make sure that the intents of the original trustees were being honoured. This is very difficult legislation to deal with. We are dealing with issues from decades and decades before where people had a particular purpose and had very very carefully prescribed what that purpose would be and how it would be served by the establishment of a trust. We need to tread very carefully as a House when we begin to make amendments in that respect. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I hope that the Television New Zealand charter ensures that that last speech is played on public TV—played again and again on public TV. 
It would be an overstatement to say that the gallery is full for the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill but I am sure that former old boys of Christ’s College are fairly represented in the gallery for the momentous occasion of the Committee stage of this bill. Indeed at one stage I saw Rod Oram one of New Zealand’s most notable financial journalists up there; he was there for just a second. I thought “Well I did not know he went to Christ’s College.” I knew he had the accent but then I thought— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He’s still there! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No Mr Oram is not there now. Then I thought to myself that Mr Oram actually got that accent because he was born in England and that he was not a Christ’s College graduate. So I had to correct myself and say that not all of the people who are crowding the gallery today are former Christ’s College members. 
The governing board of Christ’s College came to Parliament and said that it needed to change the terms of its empowering legislation because the current legislation was too restrictive about the purposes to which it could put money donated to the school. Trust law requires that if a donation is given to an institution on trust it can be spent only for the purposes that are set out in the original donor’s intention. The purposes of the trust cannot be unilaterally changed by the trustee. The trustee—in this case Christ’s College—is bound to apply the money in those trusts to the purposes for which the donor of those moneys gave them. 
There are good reasons for those rules at law; otherwise the purpose for which donations are made could effectively be varied by the people who are trustees and put to some different purpose the original donor would not have agreed to. For this reason there are restrictions at law about changing those terms of trust. There are different ways that one can in some circumstances change the purposes of a trust. One can go to the High Court in respect of each trust and make an application to vary the terms of that trust if the terms had become redundant. There are provisions in the Trustee Act that enable an application to be made in respect of an individual trust so that the purposes to which that money can be put can be varied because the original purposes have become impractical. The term “impractical” does not mean that the trustees have just changed their minds to think that the money could be applied in a better way because that is not a legitimate ground. It has to be that the original ground has become impossible effectively to be carried out in accordance with the donor’s wishes because of some change of events in the meantime. That is the background to this bill. 
Christ’s College which is a venerable and old institution has had many donations over the years from some of its well-to-do former pupils who have wanted to put something back into the community via their donation to the school for a particular purpose. But that purpose has been frustrated as a consequence of some change in the intervening period. We have had examples of that. One of the examples we were given at the Government Administration Committee was about a donation for the benefit of the children of former servicemen in World War I. Not many servicemen from World War I are still alive; indeed there are none in New Zealand now. There are certainly no Gallipoli veterans left alive in New Zealand. I do not know whether there is even one serviceman left from World War I. It may be that before the last of them passed on from this world they left progeny who are still not of school age. But if there are children of World War I veterans that is not a very big class of beneficiaries these days. 
The Christ’s College trustees quite understandably said that they needed to vary the terms of that particular trust. I think from memory that some tens of thousands of dollars—it may even be over $100000—is now sitting by way of accumulated interest as well as the original trust fund and is available to be put towards some purpose. But the school feels that it cannot meet the terms of that trust; there is a need to vary it so that that money can be put to some other good purpose for the school. 
One of the things that we on the Government Administration Committee had to check—and I served on that select committee along with National members and other Labour members—was whether the range of new purposes to which those funds could be applied was too wide. That arose from our consideration which involved a consideration of the existing trust terms. I know that that matter was of concern to Jacqui Dean as well as to Grant Robertson to me and to others on the committee. We were a little uncertain in fact about whether we were convinced that in all of these cases the terms of the existing trust could not be adequately adhered to. In particular I was concerned about some of the trusts that were effectively for the benefit of pupils coming from lower-income families to the school. I took some convincing that there were not appropriate people in existence in the community or school who could have had those funds applied for their benefit. I do not accept that in some of those trust situations there were not appropriate people within the class of potential beneficiaries for whom the moneys in the trust could be properly and legally applied if those in authority at Christ’s College wanted to do that. For that reason the select committee has sought information from and asked questions of the representatives of Christ’s College about whether that might be the case. Those representatives conceded that that might be so in some cases and they also agreed to the insertion of a provision in the legislation to make it clear that before they could change the way in which this money was spent they had to be—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh Nikki Kaye was also on the select committee paying particular attention to this. I say I am sorry to the members of the extensive Christ’s College former community in the gallery that I forgot to mention Nikki Kaye; I am sorry about that. 
In any event we decided that it was to be made clear that the terms of trust could not be varied unless there was a need to vary them and where there was a need to vary the purposes of the trust the new purpose for which the money could be applied had to be as close as possible to the old purpose. Although it might be true that there are not many children of World War I veterans around there are no doubt relatives of people who have served in the armed forces in the Christchurch area and they could be the beneficiaries of some of the moneys of that particular trust. Similarly in respect of some of the sporting prizes that are now redundant because those codes are no longer popular there are now new sporting codes that have become popular in the intervening period and the moneys could still be applied to support a sporting code. 
I think that is the essence of what the preamble attempts to achieve when it states: “(2) Over time some of the purposes have become redundant uncertain as to application impractical to implement or the income derived from the property is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes …”. In respect of the amount being in excess of what is necessary for the purpose I would be very surprised if those in authority at Christ’s College could suggest that the money intended to be applied to people who were not of great means would be in excess of the amount that could be applied to that purpose. I would hope that those in authority at Christ’s College will see that if they have that sort of purpose then they might need to change slightly the class of people they are looking at applying it to so that beneficiaries do not necessarily have to be the children of old boys but could be other impecunious persons. None the less the money could be used for effectively helping people from lower-income groups rather than being applied to some building project or sporting project. 
Those are my initial contributions on this bill. I am sure that my colleagues will want to make some other more erudite comments for the edification of the many old boys in the gallery. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next member I will make a little comment. The Committee of the whole House has chosen to debate this bill clause by clause as it is wont to do. No one has transgressed yet but I should say that we will be pursuing the matter of relevance as we work our way through this debate. That is a general comment to the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will speak to the preamble to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill as my colleague David Parker did. I am not referring to his absence at all but I see that he has spoken and run away in a way that other people have done every now and again in the past. I will go backwards through the preamble to this bill after I have made some preliminary comments. 
The first of my preliminary comments is one of some regret. Traditionally Christ’s College has been known as a school that goes with form and takes a proper approach. I regret the fact that this bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner and not Brendon Burns who is the local member of Parliament. On the basis of form and an appropriate approach the bill should have been in his name. I accept that with one or two notable exceptions Christ’s College is the National Party at school and therefore—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh I accept that not all National Party members went to Christ’s College. 
Grant Robertson 
: Tell the Michael Cullen story. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think I am allowed to use all the words that Michael Cullen has used in relation to Christ’s College. He is an old boy but I think it is fair to say that the member is wearing a colour that is more appropriate to the political background of Christ’s College old boys than— 
Grant Robertson 
: You’re not referring to the Minister? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am referring to the member in the chair Nicky Wagner. Blue is the colour that they tend to wear. I think it is a pity that National could not see past a political bias in order to do what was good form and the proper thing and what was the generally expected thing and ask the local member for the school’s area to be the sponsoring member for this legislation. As people could see from the first of at least five contributions made by Brendon Burns in this debate he is absolutely across the issues in this legislation and has made a lot more sense of the bill than I have heard from others. 
My second point is that I am not at all convinced that the requirements of the preamble are met. The member for Christchurch Central has convinced me not to oppose this bill; he had to do some work in that direction. But if we look at subclause (5) it is clear that that subclause is not correct. It has been clear from the debate we have heard from the member in charge of the bill Nicky Wagner on the introduction of the bill and from David Parker as he has just discussed it. There is an alternative route and that is by a variation in the High Court. The suggestion that the objectives of this bill cannot be achieved without legislation is just wrong. I am not saying it is not appropriate occasionally—and we have done it in the past with I think Anglican and Methodist trusts—to use the House to vary trusts but I am not sure we should get in the habit of doing it. It means that Parliament is tipping over arrangements that have been entered into by people in the past when there is a method of doing so through an approach to the High Court—an approach that has not been taken up in this particular case. 
The next point I make is to have some discussion around subclause (2) of the preamble which suggests that “Over time some of those purposes have become redundant uncertain as to application impractical to implement or the income derived from the property is inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for the purposes for which the property was given to or vested in the governing body:”. I think the only “in excess” area I heard about was in relation to sports that were no longer part of the games played by the boys of Christ’s College. But I did not hear very good arguments right at the edge other than arguments of convenience. I am not sure that it is appropriate for Parliament to be the vehicle to tidy up trusts that are inconvenient to a particular school. I think it is fair to say that there is not much debate that these things need to be tidied up. We know as indicated here that some of the funds do not have enough money and some of them have too much money for their purposes. 
I sat on the Government Administration Committee on three occasions when the bill was being considered. On the second occasion the governing body of the school was brought back to have a discussion with the committee because at the time we were concerned that the bill as introduced was broader than it needed to be. I must say that like most people representing Christ’s College they were exceptionally polite they were well informed they had good legal advice and good legal advisers and they made a case that on balance convinced the select committee to proceed with the bill but to make amendments which I think were made unanimously. 
Mr Hayes took a leading role for the Government on this legislation and we thank him for the work that he did. We hope that he is not doing it in an attempt to line up one of his own schools for this sort of legislative change. It occurs to me as we consider the preamble that maybe as part of an education amendment bill we could work towards some sort of arrangement whereby if there is a big group of these schools we could consider them as a job lot. I do not know whether there would be a total level of trust. Scots College and Christ’s College might be a bit scared of being amalgamated as a result of that sort of legislation. If I were in charge of the bill there might be more danger of that but probably not quite as much as is indicated in the preamble. 
Returning to the preamble which is important I think it is fair to say that subclause (4) is absolutely accurate. In fact it could well be described as an understatement. It states: “The governing body wishes to have the authority to apply property in these circumstances to provide more appropriate and enhanced benefit to the College:”. I would say that from the school’s point of view there is no doubt at all that they want to have an increase in power of that type. It is also fair to say that subclause (1) is entirely accurate: “The governing body of Christ’s College holds property given to or vested in it for various purposes:”. There cannot be very much debate about that. Unlike subclause (5) it is a matter of fact. 
Sandra Goudie 
: You would think there couldn’t be much debate. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sorry what was that? 
Sandra Goudie 
: I’m fine; carry on. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is happy to carry on. The cat has a tongue. The member is very good at contributing. She appears to be able to sit down— 
Grant Robertson 
: Stand up. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —to stand up and to talk but not to do both at the same time. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I feel as though I need to enter into the debate at this point to bring some balance— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Is he a Christ’s College old boy or not? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I am a King’s College old boy actually—that is my point. My point is that I need to bring some balance to the debate. I am sure there are a few more private school old boys and girls on the Government benches than there are on this side of the Chamber and I will take it upon myself to bring a little more balance to the debate. We do not all turn out wearing blue. Some of us manage to pop up on the red side of the House as well. 
I am looking at the preamble. Recital (1) states: “The governing body of Christ’s College holds property given to or vested in it for various purposes:”. When I was at King’s College unlike with most boards of trustees in New Zealand there were no elections to the governing body and I think that is still the case now. The board of trustees did not really believe in democracy. In fact the college had a statement on its website saying that we all know that democracy can throw up interesting results and perhaps not the result that is best for the organisation. King’s College eschewed democracy and went for a straight appointment of the board. 
I have no idea whether the governing body of Christ’s College which is referred to in recital (1) of the preamble has the same system. I just tried to do a quick search to see whether the same system is in place at that college and I could not find any information on how the Christ’s College governing board is appointed or elected or on what the system is. If the member in the chair Nicky Wagner has any information to enlighten me on that point then I would sincerely appreciate it if she could get up and discuss it. 
The governing body of Christ’s College holds property given to it for various purposes. Mostly these are trusts and a lot of them are used for scholarships. The nature of the purpose of scholarships can change over time. 
Again I will reflect on my time at King’s College. It was in the mid-1990s and at that point in time— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh no! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It must make Mr Mallard feel rather ancient given—[ 
Interruption 
] Well private schools were doing quite well in the mid-1990s to be fair given the Government of the day. I do not know whether that makes Mr Mallard feel rather old knowing that I was at high school at the time. 
I was at school in the mid-1990s and at that time rugby union went from being an amateur sport to being a professional sport because of the way that rugby league had been siphoning off so many rugby union players. I know that the Chair is looking at me and hoping that I bring it back into the scope of the debate but this is to do with rugby scholarships to private schools like Christ’s College. All of a sudden there was a proliferation of rugby scholarships as the New Zealand Rugby Football Union sought to contract young rugby players and King’s College—and I am sure Christ’s College also—sought to get some rugby stock into the school that it had not been able to generate itself through its own processes. It looked to other schools to attract those players. Those scholarships suddenly proliferated in the mid-1990s. 
I wonder whether that was a case of a trust like the type of trust we are dealing with in this bill being used for a slightly different purpose. It is possible that that was not the case; that new money came in from another source. But I think the Government Administration Committee was quite interested in situations like that with regard to this bill. 
When one opens up the use of property given to or of trust money vested in the governing body of a school like Christ’s College for alternative purposes then it should not be used in a manner that is not quite becoming to educational purposes. In this case the money was used for the prestige of the school on the sports field rather than for what the original nature of the scholarship was. 
A number of scholarships are put in place for sporting purposes and of course there is absolutely no problem with continuing with that same use. But as recital (2) of the bill points out: “Over time some of those purposes have become redundant uncertain as to application impractical to implement”. It is important that while we widen the possibilities for the governing body to make use of that money we take care— 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I know that under the Standing Orders I am limited to four calls on any one part of a bill or clause. [ 
Interruption 
] Three is it? Well I will have to hurry up— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No it is four. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Four? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You are on your third. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am on my third; that is right so I might be hard-pressed to get through all of the things I need to raise. But I could not really go past the preamble without talking about some of the things that are referred to in it in respect of these trusts and give some individual instances. One of the gifts that have become redundant was the Duncan Rutherford Prize to provide a prize for the 200 yards “Lady Jane handicap” running race. I am intrigued by that and I would like the member in the chair Nicky Wagner to explain the title of the “Lady Jane handicap” running race. It is not the “Lady Jane” handicap running race; it is the “Lady Jane handicap” running race. I do not understand what the “Lady Jane handicap” was. There is $14000 of unspent income in this account. I am confused as to what the “Lady Jane handicap” was that was of relevance to the 200-yard running race. That is one I would like an answer for. 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s a staggered start. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I heard Mr Quinn say it was a standing start. Another one I have is the 1947 gift of the prize for fives. There is now $7000 unspent income in that account. We are told that that is redundant because the fives courts were demolished so fives is no longer played. That seems pretty poor planning at the school to demolish the courts. Maybe that is excusable but we could have some explanation of that. 
Another one I would like an explanation of is the Balfour Prize an 1880 gift of $100. This shows how from little acorns large oak trees grow. 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am struggling at the moment to work out how this relates to the preamble. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I do not think I need any assistance. I think the member is speaking about the trusts that exist and I think he is within the scope of the bill. But I am continuing to monitor. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Balfour Prize of a gift of $100—I presume it was pounds in 1880 but it is shown on our papers as being a gift of $100 probably £50 back in 1880—now has unspent income of $25000. I thought “How could that be?”. How could that be? Then I looked and I saw that it was a gold medal to be awarded annually to the boy passing the best examination in divinity in the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles in Greek—in Greek! I was convinced when I read that that there was a need for some change given that Greek is no longer taught at Christ’s College. I could agree with that change. 
Another one I found intriguing that the school had not been able to give out as a donation was the annual prize for coming second in the 120 yards hurdles—second! Now look ours is not to reason why. I do not know why the prize was second. I know that even at Christ’s College not everyone can come first. I wonder whether there was some sort of personal interest on the part of the donor who may be in the annals of history but who came second in the 120 yards hurdles. I would have thought that ever since that prize has existed there was someone coming second in the hurdles race. I would not have thought that Christ’s College could not spend that. 
I will now turn to a matter of some seriousness because there are a couple of examples that go the other way. For those ones that I made light of I can see why there is a need to vary the terms of the trust. But there are a couple that worry me. This was why the select committee said we needed to be careful. There is $245000 of unspent income in respect of the D and D Barker Memorial trust. The terms of the prescribed purpose of that trust state that it is a scholarship to be awarded to any boy who is or whose parent has been resident in Gisborne or the counties of Cook Waikohu Uawa Waiapu or Matakaoa and who is of New Zealand Maori ethnic origin. I find it very hard to accept that Christ’s College cannot find people of Maori ethnicity from Gisborne who are not worthy of that trust money because there are plenty of low-income boys in Gisborne who would benefit from a Christ’s College education. I for one would be disturbed if the money from that trust was not put to its proper purpose which is to bring boys from the Gisborne area who are from low-income families to help them get a good education at Christ’s College. 
I do not think it would be proper for Christ’s College to apply that for an alternative purpose because there is absolutely no doubt that the Gisborne area is an area of deprivation there is no doubt that there are many boys there of Maori ethnicity and there is no doubt that they would benefit from the high quality of education they would get at Christ’s College. So that is one trust fund that should not be applied in another way. 
There is another one called the Ernest Helmore Memorial trust. Again it was a generous bequest back in 1922. I will read out the purposes that were described to us at the select committee and the advice that we had from Christ’s College. The bequest was to assist parents in poor circumstances to send their sons to college or to keep their sons at college with the board to determine the selection criteria and the level of assistance. So there is a very very wide purpose already in terms of the criteria that can be used which the board can set. The purpose is clear: it is to assist parents in poor circumstances to send their sons to college. We are told that there is $99000 of excess income. The explanation we were given at the select committee was: “For any year in which there are no or few applications made and accepted the trust generates excess income”. I have to say that I do not accept that. I do not think the trustees of that trust or indeed the school are trying hard enough if they cannot find parents in poor circumstances whose sons would benefit from an education at Christ’s College. 
Although having made light of some of the awards—like coming second in the hurdles prizes for Greek or the game of fives when the fives courts have been demolished—I really think there is a serious issue that we got on to at the select committee. Although we agree with the preamble and other parts of the bill that will be covered later in this Committee stage we tightened up some wording to make it absolutely clear that the governing body needs to adhere to the terms of the trust where that is possible. In the two instances that I gave in respect of impecunious boys and boys of Maori ethnicity from Gisborne they can clearly meet that purpose of that trust. I will speak to some of my Maori colleagues from the Gisborne region—like Parekura Horomia Moana Mackey and others—and suggest that they tell some of their locals about this trust fund at Christ’s College that they should apply to utilise. That would be a good thing for those students and it would do justice to the original intentions of the generous donors who so many years ago gave money with the intention that it be spent for the benefit of low-income people who could otherwise not attend Christ’s College. 
I have some speaking time left but given the importance of this debate I will leave it to someone else rather than waste it with unnecessary comments on my part. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I feel somewhat strange in contributing to this debate— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Catholic. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes being one of five St Bede’s College old boys in the Chamber. 
John Hayes 
: What sort of saint was he? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He was a good saint I say to Mr Hayes. 
People have mentioned that Christ’s College has a long and honourable history and that is true; they struggle with first XV rugby as exhibited this season when St Bede’s College thrashed them. But I note that as an institution in Christchurch they are indeed a venerable institution. Although there is not so much religious but school rivalry especially in Christchurch we note that I think St Bede’s College holds the record for the largest number of MPs. I was not going to say the largest member although Gerry Brownlee is a former St Bede’s College old boy. St Bede’s College has the largest number of members of Parliament at one time in the Chamber. It used to be six when Mr Blumsky was a member of Parliament so I think we hold that record. I do not know that we hold the record for the largest number of all time but we do for the largest number at any one time. I note that across the Chamber Messrs Brownlee David Carter Dunne Cosgrove and O’Connor all come from that venerable—and far better school I would say—but rival school St Bede’s College. 
It is a pleasure that Nicky Wagner is in the chair as the sponsor of this bill. I am very pleased that she is here given that I would not have thought she would be available today after the hammering she took from Gerry Brownlee the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. I am told it was for her conduct in criticising the Earthquake Commission the Government. She suggested some rather bizarre behaviour that people in my province of Canterbury should engage in if the Earthquake Commission had missed them and that was to put “URGENT” in an email. I will come back to the bill Mr Chairman but I am pleased that Ms Wagner has recovered from her emotional experience with Mr Brownlee and is here today. 
This bill is technical. I note with interest that it mirrors very similar private legislation to expedite the handling of trusts by church organisations such as Presbyterian Catholic and Methodist churches and it promotes a tidy-up. I am not sure whether this is still the case in my electorate of Waimakariri around the Redwood suburb in my patch that there are a number of leasehold properties—or used to be anyway—that Christ’s College had ownership of. I assume not knowing the intricacies of this bill back to back that those properties will also be covered in the tidy-up of this trust legislation. Mr Parker I know has raised a number of interesting issues in respect of the beneficiaries of those trusts and who in the future may be able to benefit from the large moneys that Christ’s College has approved over many years. 
Members on this side will support this legislation. I do not believe there is any politics apart from interschool rivalry in the Chamber. The bill will receive I am told reasonably swift passage as we go through it this evening. 
The bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. I am trying to recall which is the older school within Canterbury. Mr Burns might be able to assist me as to whether it is St Bede’s College. I should know this. 
Colin King 
: It’s Christ’s College. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: By how many years? 
Colin King 
: By quite some time. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: He speaks possibly as a Christ’s College old boy. 
Colin King 
: No Lincoln. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Lincoln OK. That is another venerable institution in our province absolutely. Christ’s College is very old and venerable. The board has administered large— 
Colin King 
: I think it was 1851 or 1852. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am glad we have some positive stories in the Chamber—1852 or 1855 Mr King says. 
In a modern way the bill attempts to bring together the administration of property vested in the college for the intended purpose or purposes for which property assets were given or vested in the college. A number of the clauses and areas in the Act are obviously now archaic or redundant. The bill will allow a modern institution that administers millions of dollars I presume in respect of its own operations and the assets therein and to manage those in a contemporary sense. 
I will not labour the point in respect of support for this bill because as I said I feel slightly uneasy being of Irish-Catholic St Bede’s College stock in supporting— 
Grant Robertson 
: You’ve overcome it. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have overcome it well my colleague says. Yes we are a broad church. 
We support this bill. It will get its passage through today and I think it is pleasing that in Canterbury given the difficulties we have we have such great educational institutions whether they be Presbyterian Catholic or the second-raters—the Anglicans! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak to the preamble of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately I do not have stories to tell not being from Christchurch nor indeed being educated in New Zealand in my schooldays. However I can claim to be a Marist boy and I have not heard anybody talk about being a Marist boy yet. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I think it is Marist fathers. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Proper Marists. At school I was taught by Marist Brothers in Fiji who were all New Zealand Marist Brothers and taught us well. There were no discussions in those days about huge bequeaths or trusts that kept the school going. There might have been some old ones but the school that I went to and enjoyed my education in was funded entirely by contributions from former students. 
It is quite amazing to think that Christ’s College goes back to 1855 and over that period of time a huge number of trusts were set up as was the tradition in those days to assist schools in all kinds of ways. It is quite amazing to realise that in this particular case there are 148 trusts that are administered by the board of Christ’s College but 28 of them are unable to be administered because there are major problems with that in the contemporary environment. The bill attempts to address how the trust board may begin to modernise if you like the purpose of those trusts. It is important that we go through this process because when people make huge contributions to trusts of this nature for a particular purpose they need to be guaranteed that the purpose will be satisfied. Our own Charitable Trusts Act provides the framework within which that need operates. When there is a need to revisit matters we go through this process to ensure there is a smooth transition to a new purpose for the trusts to enable the resources of the trusts to be utilised. So that is what this bill is trying to do. It is important also to have the opportunity to have the full debate here so that— 
Paul Quinn 
: Come on Rajen you’re really struggling to drag this out. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I am still on the preamble. The member might take a call to enlighten me on some of this but there are quite a large number of matters to be addressed. Even in the first reading of this bill some of those concerns were raised and it is good to see that the select committee has worked its way through most of those. When the time comes to debate the other aspects of this bill we will talk about those specific things as well. 
As far as the preamble is concerned clause 4 raises some concerns for me in that the governing body itself is seeking to have the authority to determine the new purposes. That translates a little later on in the bill into not utilising the provision that some other trusts of this nature have where the Attorney-General still has a role. In this particular bill that is obviated; it is not included. We will debate that when the time comes to have a look at that particular section. But apart from that I am done speaking on the preamble. Thank you. 
Preamble agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Clause 4 Purpose 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I want to take some time to talk about the purpose clause of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill because this is where the Government Administration Committee did the majority of its work. As previous speakers have outlined we certainly understood as a committee why Christ’s College had come to us. It was in a position where it was not able to undertake a number of the activities it wanted to undertake. Money was locked up in trusts that the college was not able to use for the purposes it wanted to use them for or indeed the trusts had generated significantly more income than they needed to achieve their purposes. It was difficult sometimes for the committee to work through the reasoning behind that and I will highlight a couple of the trusts as examples. 
There is the T H Lowry gift which was to be applied for the encouragement of athletics and athletic sports in connection with the college. Obviously athletics is still a sport and it is still a sport that is competed in at Christ’s College so it would perhaps seem odd not to be able to fulfil the purpose of that trust. But the college was able to tell us that it has a lot of other income and funds available for athletics and the income from the trust was exceeding what it could spend in a reasonable way. This is the area that the committee struggled with because we felt that presumably there would be purposes related to athletics where the trust could be used in the future but perhaps not at the levels mentioned. 
A different example of a similar concern was the Ben Masefield Memorial gift which is an annual prize for the most promising under-17-year-old member of the cadet corps or air training corps as at 31 December in a particular year. Cadets are probably completely off the scene in high schools in New Zealand nowadays. Certainly they are in respect of Christ’s College so it would be very difficult to spend the— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Air training cadets. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Are air training cadets still going? Which schools still have the air training cadets? 
Jacqui Dean 
: Oamaru. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I ask the member whether that is in a school. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Yes. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I stand corrected by the member for Waitaki. Air training cadets are still in schools. The question is not so much whether air training cadets exist but whether schools still have them. I think we will find that Waitaki Boys High School and St Kevin’s College down there are probably not providing them just as Christ’s College is now not providing them. But we could check and I would be happy for Ms Dean to take a call at some point and let us know. I know she followed this bill extremely closely at the select committee so it would not surprise me if she would like to take a call. 
Those are just two trusts where the committee grappled with the fact that although we understood— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I think the member has covered the issue. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I thank the member for that. 
The committee felt that we needed to make some changes to the purpose clause to be able to accept Christ’s College’s point but also to ensure that integrity was kept in terms of how money was distributed. The way in which the committee did that was to replace subsection 4 in new section 5—which is set out in clause 5—which lays out the criteria by which the college can change what it is doing with these trusts. 
Subsection 4 states: “The circumstances are that—(a) it is impossible impracticable or inexpedient to apply the property for the purpose for which it was given to or vested in the College; or (b) the available amount of the property is inadequate to carry out the purpose for which the property was given to or vested in the College; or (c) the purpose for which the property was given to or vested in the College has already been carried out.” That was pretty much what the board of the college wanted when it came to us but we wanted to add into that some more criteria more guidance for the college. So we added subsection 4A. 
Subsection 4A states: “If the governing body is satisfied that the property given to or vested in the College is more than is necessary for the purpose for which it was given or vested the governing body may apply any excess property for charitable purposes for the benefit of the College …”. The key phrase is “for charitable purposes for the benefit of the College”. So this is to keep it inside the same boundary by saying that the property will still be used for charitable purposes and for the benefit of the college. 
The committee raised the question of what would happen one day if Christ’s College ends up with a commercial arm as part of its operations. Schools are evolving in all sorts of ways and that is possible. We asked whether we be comfortable with some of the proceeds of these gifts going into that kind of area. The committee decided that it was not and that the provision would be consistent with the Charities Act and we put it in that kind of language. So that was an important addition to this part of the bill. 
We also added subsection 4B which states that in exercising the powers I have just outlined: “the governing body must apply the property for a purpose that is as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given to or vested in the College.” Again we were trying to make sure that although it is quite clear as David Parker said earlier that there is not much Greek divinity or other such things being taught— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Divinity? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Divinity is probably still taught but not in Greek; that is the issue. We certainly understood that it would not be possible to do that but we thought that it was in the spirit of the gifts that were given to the college that we should have a clause that obliges the college to put the gifts to purposes as close as reasonably possible to the original purpose. 
So those are the amendments we made to new section 5(4) in clause 5. I think it is worthwhile outlining them because as I think I said in my second reading speech on this bill private bills often sail through. This is an example of the committee taking its job seriously and recognising an issue. The governors of Christ’s College were extremely cooperative and understood what the committee was trying to do and therefore they have gone along with this change. Private bills will not necessarily be waved through the House and the amendments made are an example of that. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I take pleasure in speaking briefly to the purpose of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill and I will pick up the point that my colleague Grant Robertson made. Bills that come before this House that are small are primarily technical and like this one have only one submitter—the board itself whose trust deed is to be amended by this legislation was the only submitter according to the report back from the Government Administration Committee—provide an occasion when the Committee of the whole House should take its responsibilities very seriously and ensure that the proposed changes do not just receive a sign-off from it. 
I have thought about this legislation quite a lot. Even though it was proposed in good faith the select committee has done good work on it and I think has amended it to restrict quite a lot the ability of the board to change the scope of bequests. If people leave in their will an amount of money to the school for a specific purpose and actually specify in that bequest the purpose for which they want to leave it we can take it by implication that they do not want it to be spent on anything else. For example people might say they would like to bequeath a lot of money to Christ’s College for political education on the ways of the labour movement in New Zealand. That is a possibility. At a future time the school might decide not to run a course on that any more; it might decide that it does not want it to operate at Christ’s College in the same way that it no longer teaches divinity in Greek. Where does the authority come from for a group of people to say that because they do not teach that any more they will use the bequest for an entirely different purpose? 
That is actually the nub of what this legislation does. When a purpose is no longer in operation is no longer fashionable or the school does not pursue it any more we as a Parliament have taken it upon ourselves to change the purpose for which a bequest grant or donation can be used. Obviously it is quite an extreme position that one would literally alter the nature of the purpose but that was actually proposed in the original version of the bill. I commend the select committee for the way that it considered the responsibility of Parliament. David Parker has contributed to the debate already tonight and I commend his chairing of the select committee and also the other members who I understand contributed in a bipartisan way—only two parties are represented on that committee—to make sure that this bill received the rigour of scrutiny that it deserved. 
Later on in this debate when we look through clause 5 we will see that unanimous amendments have been made. In new section 5 subsections (4) (4A) and (4B) are entirely new. I want the Committee to give particular attention to that area because that is where the select committee by unanimous agreement said Parliament was potentially handing over too much power and it might well be an abrogation of the responsibility that we have as a Parliament to ensure that the original intention of the donation gift or bequest to the school is carried out. The select committee has narrowed the ability of the board to entirely alter the purpose of a donation so that it cannot be used for a different purpose. It is very similar to the way that the powers of an enduring power of attorney are able to be applied: so that the specific purpose the understanding and the intent of a person—whether or not it is stated—are carried out. I commend the select committee for its diligence and I look forward to the bill progressing later on this evening. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 5 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Procedure 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House for the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill to now have its third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Third Reading 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This amendment bill amends the 1910 Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act to authorise the governing body of the college to apply property in certain circumstances to the benefit of the college as long as it is for a charitable purpose even though the property is not applied to the original purpose for which it was given to the college. Established in 1856 Christ’s College is one of New Zealand’s oldest schools. Over the years the college has received numerous bequests from various donors; many bequests are small. The college holds these funds in trusts to be applied for a specific purpose but often the original purposes have now become redundant are difficult to implement or the property generates too little or too much money for the purpose. Presently if the funds cannot be used for the stated purposes they remain in the school’s accounts and despite the best intentions and desires of the donors can do nothing to benefit the school or the students. This problem of trusts is a common problem for long-established organisations and legislation has been passed by Parliament on several occasions to deal with the issue. The most recent was the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act 2009. 
I particularly thank the members of the Government Administration Committee and its chair the Hon David Parker for intelligently and methodically working their way through this bill and dealing with issues quickly and efficiently. The select committee recommended that the bill with amendments should proceed which was good news for the board of governors of Christ’s College as it faced the clean-up of the 4 September earthquake. Several of the college’s neo-Gothic buildings were damaged although all those that had been strengthened to 67 percent of the building code were unscathed. We people from Christchurch understand how important earthquake strengthening is and the percentage of strengthening. We discussed the earthquake damage at the second reading and tonight I will update the House on the progress of restoration and rebuilding at the school. 
According to the bursar of Christ’s College Colin Sweetman the repairs are progressing well. The college has been fully operational since the beginning of the third term and all the cosmetic work has been completed in the classrooms and the day and boarding houses. Work is now progressing on the exterior repairs to chimneys and gable-ends as recommended by the engineers. Repairs to chimneys and gable-ends being stone will inevitably take some time and require skilled workmanship. The college is also addressing the earthquake strengthening of the Cranmer Centre which is in the historic buildings that once belonged to Christchurch Girls’ High School and are now used by Christ’s College. It is working with both the council and the Historic Places Trust to restore this complex of buildings. Other strengthening and refurbishment work in the college is now out for tender and it plans to start that work immediately after the college finishes for the year. It will be a big job and the college will be extremely busy for probably the next 6 to 12 months but everything is under way to ensure that its wonderful neo-Gothic buildings—an important part of the architectural history of Christchurch—can be used and enjoyed for many years to come. 
The select committee found that the amendment bill was generally consistent with the law relating to charitable trusts but suggested some improvements. It suggested that the bill use the wording from the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 which has an established body of case law supporting it to avoid ambiguity. It also suggested the inclusion of a clause that would allow the governing body to use excess income from trusts for other purposes which again is consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act. The committee wanted to make sure that the term “for the benefit of the College” was not interpreted too widely. The funds can be used only for charitable purposes so to remove doubt the committee included a clause to spell that out. The select committee and the Christ’s College board of governors have worked well together on this legislation and have done an excellent job reshaping the bill. The board of governors has always made it clear that it wishes to meet the objects of the trusts as closely as possible and that its approach to any variation of purpose would be as sympathetic to and consistent with the original as possible. It also assured the select committee that before exercising this power it will complete a detailed review of each of the trusts to ensure that the original purposes cannot continue to be fully met. 
This is good legislation. It gives the college more flexibility but it also safeguards the management of those trusts and will ensure that the school and the students will receive benefits from those donations made over the past years in the most appropriate way. During the debate on the 1910 Act which we are now amending the Hon Mr Jones said in the House that he hoped that the gentlemen entrusted with the charge of those endowments would realise the responsibility that rested on them. Well 100 years on we can see that Parliament’s trust has been well rewarded. The gentlemen of the board have governed prudently and well and the college has prospered. In 2010 the warden of the school is the Bishop of Christchurch the Rt Rev Victoria Matthews and the chairperson of the board is Mrs Mary Ross. Under their leadership I believe that the board of governors both male and female will set the college on the right path for the next 100 years. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak in the third reading of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I should just note that the previous speaker Nicky Wagner moved that the bill be heard a third time rather than read a third time. I am sure the House will take that in the spirit intended. In the first reading debate of this bill Labour made it clear that we had some concerns about the lack of checks and balances in respect of trust deeds in this bill. I am pleased that the Government Administration Committee under the very able chairmanship of the Hon David Parker has brought through some amendments to this bill that put in place the sorts of checks and balances that we as a Parliament would want to see. I want to discuss some of those and maybe one or two matters that we have left with the trustees to exercise some discretion on. 
Under clause 5 the House is supporting inserting a new subsection to allow trustees to vary the purposes of charitable trusts in certain circumstances though these differ from those set out in the Charitable Trusts Act which is the legislation that governs all trusts operating in this country. The committee was assured by the board of Christ’s College that in exercising its powers to vary the original purpose it will complete a detailed review of the trusts to ensure for the avoidance of doubt that the original purpose cannot continue to be met fully. 
That is an assurance the House would want. Trust deeds are sacred instruments. They endure for a very long time. I should note that this bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910. Here we are a century later dealing with a venerable institution and trying to assist it to I guess ensure that it proceeds into the next century in an appropriate and fiscally responsible fashion. I welcome that change because it is important that we signal that we want to see it made very explicit to trustees that where they make changes they have to be in situations where the original purposes where money was donated—often in situations such as families trying to honour somebody who had passed away—are honoured by the changes we make. 
The other thing I note is new trust purposes. There was a concern in the select committee and appropriately so that because the original bill talks about allowing a new purpose for a trust to be for the benefit of the college although almost all of the college’s activities are indeed focused on its educational outcomes there could be situations where the benefits might go to the college rather than to a charitable purpose. That is why an amendment has been brought forward by the select committee. 
I compare this bill with the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill. There have been a number of bills amending trust deeds and trust legislation pertaining to the four major Christian Churches in our country—Anglican Presbyterian Catholic and most latterly the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill of last year. In that bill we introduced an amendment that required the oversight of the Attorney-General where variations are made to original trust deeds. That has not come through in this bill through the select committee process. I guess we are putting some trust in the board of governors and the trustees of those trusts at Christ’s—and there are 20 or 30 of them affected by this bill. We know that in almost certainly every instance they will honour the intent of the original trust direct the finds towards a charitable purpose and make sure where there is a variation from the original trust because of passage of time that the original intent is still kept to—obviously for an educational and charitable purpose. It is really good to see that those amendments came through the select committee process. 
One of the things that came to my mind in question time today was in relation to a question to Minister Tolley about national standards. Christ’s College as a private school is not affected by national standards. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What? What do you mean not affected? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: No private schools are spared national standards. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Really? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Yes it is an extraordinary thing is it not that all State schools are affected by national standards but private schools are not even though I know that a number of principals at private schools still question the value of national standards and shake their heads over why on earth national standards are being introduced without any attempt to pilot them in the State schools where they are being included. But that will not affect Christ’s College and this bill does not touch on that as has been noted. 
I was very pleased to visit Christ’s College last year with Phil Goff. One of the things I was very impressed with other than of course the wonderful neo-gothic facades of that institution which mercifully has come through yes with some damage but still standing was the broadband infrastructure of that school. I hope that as the trustees look at the future purposes they might direct funds towards those funds will no longer be used for such perhaps archaic past subjects as Greek. I will not say divinity as other members may because obviously that is still a very important framework for the school. It is very proudly a Christian school and that is part of its whole ethos. 
There is a fantastic infrastructure for Christ’s College by way of information and communications technology. It probably has the best broadband connections. While I was there with Phil Goff students were online with Scion forest research institute in Rotorua asking scientists about particular issues on forestry. It was fantastic to see that sort of engagement. It is probably already well ahead of many schools and I hope the Government’s initiatives on broadband will see every school in the country with the same sorts of connectivity. It is hugely important if we want to be a knowledge economy to provide that. I hope that Christ’s College having had the foresight and the funding to put in place that infrastructure might look towards continuing the advances it has provided to its students in terms of broadband. It is a fantastic technology for students to tap into at that sort of level. It will equip them very very well for the future. That is really important. 
I wrap up by saying that this bill has obviously been through the select committee process. The refinements that have been attached require that where there are variations to trusts trustees take note of the need for there still to be charitable purposes. I suppose there is a measure of trust provided. There is not a requirement for the Attorney-General to provide oversight as has applied for some of the church trusts. The trustees should take the sanction of Parliament that we have provided to them in a unanimous bipartisan way as a signal of the faith that this Parliament has in the fine institution of Christ’s College. That will ensure that the moneys that are now freed up—and we are talking about many hundreds of thousands of dollars across these 20 or 30 trusts so it is not inconsequential; it is a powerful sum of money—will be used for the best purposes: that is the future education of pupils at Christ’s College. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill is an excellent bill and I commend it to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 The previous speech was a bit disappointing in some ways because Jacqui Dean was such a contributor in the Government Administration Committee to the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I say in all sincerity that she certainly made a contribution in starting to ask some of the questions about whether we were— 
Jacqui Dean 
: I think I said it all in my speech. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well we did not hear from the member in the Committee stage apart from an interjection here and there. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I said all I needed to say. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: She appears to want back the call that she gave up so quickly just before. 
I am very pleased to rise in the third reading of this bill. The Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill came before the House because the governors of Christ’s College had a problem. They had an issue in relation to trusts and as they say it “property” vested in the college. Either the purpose for which the property was vested was redundant they were uncertain about how to apply it it was impractical from their point of view to implement it or the property was generating income that was either inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary for those purposes. We took that request from Christ’s College at face value when the board came to the committee; they wrote a reasonable letter and we began our deliberations. 
In beginning our deliberations we began to wonder. We thought we were giving quite sweeping powers to the Christ’s College board because really as my colleague Ruth Dyson mentioned in the Committee stage we were giving the board carte blanche to take what someone had given for a very specific purpose and then do something quite different with it. As anyone knows who has been part of gifting money to institutions it is extremely meaningful. In my own case at my old high school my family has given a leadership prize. My father who was the chair of the board of governors of that school thought we should do that. He has now passed away and if my old school were to say that it did not think it really needed to give that prize any more because it had lots of other ways of recognising leadership I would find it difficult. I think in all seriousness that we have to recognise that the families who have given this money have given it for a particular purpose. 
In many many cases it was not possible for Christ’s College to actually contact the benefactors—or the settlors as they call them in legal terms—to find out whether they were comfortable with the change. I respect the fact that the Christ’s College board was not going out of its way in any way whatsoever to cause discomfort to those who had given money but we should bear that factor in mind when people give money. 
The committee began its work to find its way through how we could create an environment in which we were able to allow Christ’s College to sensibly and appropriately use the money that was given to it but also to retain the integrity of the original settlors. That led us to amend the bill. Basically we amended the bill to ensure that it was consistent with the Charitable Trusts Act. We took the wording directly from the Charitable Trusts Act and placed it within what was subsection (4) of new section 5 when we debated it at the select committee. The amendment was really about making sure that the board had to fulfil certain criteria with regard to things that were redundant or inappropriate and I think that that was a useful addition by the committee. 
The committee obviously also recommended inserting the new subsection that allows the governing body to use for another purpose excess income from trusts that generate more income than required for the donated purpose. Again that is useful and important because a number of the trusts that have been mentioned today generate excess funds. 
We also wanted there to be a new requirement for the purpose of the trust to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which it was given. I will give one example that I think is interesting; my colleague Mr Parker referenced this particular gift in one of his interventions earlier. The Barker memorial gift was for a scholarship for a boy of New Zealand Maori ethnic origin who is resident in Gisborne or any of the counties of Cook Waikohu Uawa Waiapu or Matakoa. The board of Christ’s College came to us and said that the last act of the trustees in setting this scholarship up was to prescribe very narrow residency requirements and as a result the trust had more income than was required to satisfy the narrow purpose. When the board says “more income” it means it: $245000 currently sits unspent in the trust. 
As my colleague Mr Parker said members of the committee really did feel that it would be possible to meet the requirements of the trust as they are written and find someone in the Gisborne or East Coast area who fulfilled these criteria. It may be that we have some form of shorthand there and in fact the gift is extremely specific about the regional arrangements. But I hope that now that the committee has made these changes it will be possible for the college to apply this scholarship perhaps to someone from the North Island or simply to Maori students because that was the original purpose. If it is not possible to use the funding for exactly that purpose any more we now have a requirement placed in the legislation through the select committee process for the new purpose of a trust to be as close as reasonably possible to the purpose for which the property was given. 
In this House National has been making new policy to provide for more places in private schools for people on scholarships. There are mixed views I would have to say on this side of the House about whether that is a priority use of money but here is an example of a college that has a gift that can specifically be applied for by people from the Gisborne area who are of Maori origin. It may well now be possible with the change that we have made to expand that gift slightly and still keep to the purpose of that particular trust. 
The committee regarded that change as one of the most significant things that we did. We wanted the college to be able to continue to apply the trusts and the gifts it received for sensible and appropriate purposes but not for just any purpose. As I have said in earlier interventions the governors of Christ’s College were very amenable to this. They were not setting out in any way to use the money inappropriately; they wanted to make sure that they could have some more flexibility in the use of those trusts. 
In some of the time remaining to me I will reflect on the broader matter—and I seek your indulgence on this Mr Deputy Speaker—of members’ bills coming to this House. There are two points about this matter. One is the fact that this member’s bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner who is obviously an MP resident in the Christchurch area. It is convention as I understand it that bills like this come to the House in the name of the electorate MP for an area. My colleague Brendon Burns has supported this bill and I think that that is good but it is interesting to note that this has happened; obviously as time wears on we will watch out for that. 
The second thing I mention in relation to members’ bills is the question of how we treat them when they come into the House. I think that from time to time when they come in we think that they are just bills from an organisation and we ask why we need to put them under the kind of scrutiny that we would perhaps put a Government bill under or some of the other bills coming up later on the Order Paper in the name of members. This bill indicates to us that we must be vigilant— 
Hone Harawira 
: We must be diligent. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —and that as well—and make sure that we look at each bill on its own merits and suggest and make the appropriate changes regardless of whether it is for a private entity or as part of a Government bill. 
With that I say that I am pleased to have been part of this process. I am glad that the college will now be able to use these gifts for appropriate purposes with some flexibility whilst still retaining the integrity of the gifts. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party certainly concurs with the point made most recently by my colleague Grant Robertson about the need for vigilance on these kinds of bills. I must say that the Green Party has followed the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill with more interest than was originally anticipated because it contained some issues that required serious attention. 
The bill will empower the board of Christ’s College to alter the terms on which property has been entrusted to it. As such it closely mirrors private bills to expedite the handling of trusts by various church trusts such as the Anglican Presbyterian Catholic and Methodist churches. In all those previous cases the Green Party supported legislation through the House. 
The tests contained within this bill closely resemble those found within the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 particularly Part 3 but unlike previous legislation this bill at least in its original version did not contain sufficient checks and balances when changes to trust deeds were to be made. For example the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Act 2009 provides in sections 10 to 13 significant public accountability measures and section 12 provides oversight by the Attorney-General. This bill in its original version had no such similar protective checks and balances. However those shortcomings have been rectified in the course of the select committee process and we are now able to support it. 
We think it is important to ensure that any changes in future to school trusts are robust and transparent and I think that has now been attained. This is an example of the select committee process working well and we are therefore able as I think we indicated in the second reading debate to switch our policy and support the bill at its third reading. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I am a little bit surprised that Government members have not taken a few more calls on the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill given that one of their colleagues introduced the bill. That was breaking with convention. I heard Sandra Goudie interject during the previous speech: “There is no convention in Parliament” which was an interesting statement to make. But the Government is breaking with convention in having someone other than the local member of Parliament introduce a private bill. Given that that member is one of their colleagues I am really surprised that Government members are not taking more interest in the bill. The bill has obviously attracted endorsement from all parties in the House. It is sensible legislation and I congratulate the governors of Christ’s College on bringing it to Parliament through an MP who is resident in the Christchurch area. 
The bill amends the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Act 1910 to remove difficulties in administering property vested in the college when according to recital (2) of the preamble the intended purpose or purposes with which the property was given to or vested in the college have by the passage of time “become redundant uncertain as to application impractical to implement” or where the property generates income that is “inadequate or in excess of the amount necessary” for the original purposes. 
The select committee took its task very seriously gave the bill the scrutiny required and came up with some appropriate amendments I think to narrow down the powers of the governing board of Christ’s College so that the changes it makes to the purposes and use of the available property or trusts are also narrowed down somewhat. I think that that is a sensible restraint on the powers of the governance board in terms of changing the way it uses those funds which have been granted to the college by people who might now be long past and of course have no ability to have a say in those changes and who potentially could disagree with the types of changes that the board might want to make. The legislation just limits the board’s powers ever so slightly and I think that is a sensible move. 
I agree with the comments of my colleague Grant Robertson that we should not just allow these private bills to pass through without some comment. It is good to look at them seriously and to give them the same scrutiny we would give to any other bill. Again I refer to the fact that Government members have taken less and less interest in this bill as it has continued through its stages and now they seem to have tired of the whole thing altogether. 
Jo Goodhew 
: You should not assume. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I can assure the junior Government whip that I have one eye on the clock and I am certainly aware that we are getting closer and closer to the dinner break. I can assure her that I will not go on too long in my speech lest she be concerned that we give this bill too much scrutiny. We never know; in the third reading debate it is probably a little bit late to discover something massive in the bill that we might want to change and too late to make any amendments but it is still important to give a bill like this the type of scrutiny that it needs. 
Perhaps one of the reasons why Christ’s College turned to a National MP was as some kind of vote of thanks for the Government’s spend-up on private schools—a spend-up that was to the detriment of public schools it is fair to say. Perhaps that is why this bill is in the name of Nicky Wagner; I do not know. But it does reinforce the stereotype—one that I have been working hard to try to break with my colleagues on this side of the House—that not all private schools and graduates of private schools have National-leaning tendencies. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What does that have to do with you? 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: My colleague Ruth Dyson wonders what that has to do with me. She obviously was not here during the Committee stage when I confessed about my background of having been privately educated. 
This is a sensible bill; it has been sensibly amended by the select committee. Opposition members feel that it is an important enough bill to have the appropriate level of scrutiny and now I believe that my colleague Ruth Dyson has a few words to say on the matter. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak in the debate on the third and final reading—and in what may be the last contribution—of the Christ’s College (Canterbury) Amendment Bill. I will make a couple of points. 
Firstly I acknowledge the Government Administration Committee for its rigour and the way it undertook its consideration of this bill. My colleague Grant Robertson referred to the responsibility of people who are left alive to ensure that inheritances are as much as possible used for the purposes for which they were left. I think that is a serious responsibility for us to take. The bill as it was originally introduced was not quite tight enough in that regard so I acknowledge that improvement. 
I also acknowledge Grant’s father who as many of our parents have done left a scholarship for leadership skills. I think that Mr Robertson’s father made an important contribution for future generations and it was a really good tribute to him to have that acknowledged during the discussion in this House. 
I understand that the select committee had more advisers on the legislation than it had submissions. There was only one submission but two sets of advisers: one from the Ministry of Education and one from the Ministry of Justice. I guess the clerks were from the Government Administration Committee so the select committee was certainly well served. 
That is a very fine thing and it is why we have ended up with this bill which amends a 1910 Act to ensure that the property held by the school in trust is able to be used for slightly broader purposes than were originally intended. That is a sensible resolution; it means that under the Charitable Trusts Act the trustees will not have to apply to the High Court to approve a new trust process for any variation. This bill will now give the trustees flexibility which we are confident they will use wisely in the best interests of the school its pupils and its future. I commend the progress of this bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sittings of the House 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am feeling for my colleague Paul Quinn who is about to begin speaking on his member’s bill and I wonder whether the House might rise now to allow him to start later on. I seek leave for that purpose. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. When this bill was reported back to the House from the Law and Order Committee there was some publicity about it; I advise the House and Mr Assistant Speaker Barker that at the appropriate time in the Committee stage I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper. I acknowledge the fulsome apology that I received from the Parliamentary Counsel Office whose staff acknowledged that the oversight was in fact theirs. I think that that is honourable and I thank them for acknowledging their position. 
I also thank the Law and Order Committee for taking its time and giving this bill its due consideration. When the bill was reported back I noted that the select committee report contained a couple of minority views. I must admit that I was somewhat surprised at the inclusion of the minority views because when I made my oral submission to the select committee not one question did I get from members of the Opposition—that is from Labour members and the Greens. In fact at the end of my verbal presentation there was unanimity in support for this particular bill. So I am surprised. 
When I sat down and examined the minority views it is fair to say that I saw that they focused on three particular areas. One area is criticism of the bill in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The second area is criticism in terms of United Nations edicts and issues about international law and of course there were also various submissions from the boffins who hide away in ivory towers paid for by the Government and from the Mandarin chardonnay socialists who masquerade as independent advisers. 
I do not take much notice of UN edicts and I am more concerned about New Zealand law than I am about international law. That said I note that in terms of the two countries that we consider to be the guardians of democracy—namely the United States and the United Kingdom—both of those countries in fact have laws that reflect my bill. So if those countries can have that then it really must stand in good stead that we have a similar arrangement. 
Let us turn to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. There was much ado about the Attorney-General’s report and of course section 12 of the Act guarantees that everyone is entitled to a vote. But there is a caveat in the bill in respect of section 5. Section 5 notwithstanding what is stated in a provision in the Act enables the legislation to be overridden in respect of the reasonable limitation of that right if the test stands up. That is where I disagree with the Attorney-General’s report. 
But I will go back to the report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System because that is where the current law has its genesis. The change was brought about by the royal commission on the premise that—and this is in my view I think it is fair to say—the commission took the position that people get sent to prison for misdemeanours. This is where we differ. 
The commission then went on to say that “punishment for a serious crime against the community may properly involve a further forfeiture of some rights such as the right to vote.” and having made that statement it then pulled a figure out of the air and made a term of 3 years the bar or test. If the members of the Opposition would like to go and read the royal commission report which I have studied assiduously they will find that the basis for the 3-year term that it mirrors the period of living overseas continuously after which people lose their right to vote. I find no connection between people losing their vote having lived overseas continuously for 3 years and prisoners losing their vote having served more than 3 years in prison particularly when we think about why supposedly people overseas should lose their vote. The reason it is claimed is that such people are not informed about the politics of this country. Well I say that it is time that we dragged ourselves into the 21st century because people read web pages every day. They read newspapers and they keep themselves fully informed so they should be allowed to vote. The point I am making— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Isn’t there a scaffold you should be knitting under? 
PAUL QUINN 
: —I will get to Mr Hipkins in a minute; he should hold on—is that the 3-year term was a line in the sand and from my point of view that line in the sand should be measured from the day a person goes to prison. This side of the House will promulgate that argument. 
Let me take a step back and remind members of the House that the cornerstone of our justice system is the fact that we are judged by our peers—that is the cornerstone of our justice system. Let me tell members that I do not see boffins in ivory towers as my peers. I do not see Mandarin socialists as my peers. I see the ordinary people on the street as my peers and I tell Mr Hipkins that I have spoken to 50 people at an assembly of Grey Power and all those people supported this bill. 
I conclude by saying that the people support this bill and that is why I am proud to stand and lead the second reading debate. Thank you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I consulted the whips and suggested that we move an extension of 10 or 15 minutes for the previous speaker Paul Quinn because his speech was so good. 
Here is the history of the Electorate (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill: it is no more than a political pamphlet. It came to the Law and Order Committee and we asked every submitter the same questions apart from that genius Paul Quinn whose fingerprints and history—along with those of the incompetent Sandra Goudie and the incompetent Judith Collins—are all over this parliamentary stuff-up. Thanks to that member who sought to restrict or expunge voting rights from every prisoner; thanks to the National Party member and chair of the select committee Sandra Goudie; and thanks to that other belated genius David Garrett or whatever his latest alias is—he no longer is with us—this bill comes into the House doing exactly the opposite of what that genius over there wanted to do. It allows the worst criminals who are currently barred from voting to vote. I congratulate that member. He has made history as probably the most incompetent member of this House. 
Here is what we asked the submitters. We asked whether this political pamphlet would deter offending. We asked academics we asked experts and we asked ordinary people. Even that hypocrite Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust—the man who gave a reference to David Garrett to get him permanent name suppression and get him off a charge—did not bother putting in a submission in support of this legislation. That is how stupid this legislation is. Even that hypocrite did not submit on it. We asked every person who came before the Law and Order Committee whether it would deter offending change prisoner behaviour stop recidivism or aid in the healing of victims. I think that you may have an idea of this matter Mr Assistant Speaker Barker given that you sat on the committee. Every submitter—apart from I think the member Paul Quinn over there and that rocket scientist of the blogosphere David Farrar—admitted that we were right and that it did not do any of those things. There was no international evidence that it would assist victims or anything else but we were told that we should give it a go anyway. 
It gets better—it gets even better. I put on the record that Labour members walked out of the committee on the first day and the reason we did that was that Sandra Goudie stopped the Ministry of Justice officials from advising—[ 
Interruption 
] I say for the benefit of Mr Henare who should be bouncing in a public bar in Porirua that Ministry of Justice officials are the ones who run elections. A number of members asked the Department of Corrections officials whether they knew anything about electoral law and whether they had any expertise in electoral matters. The answer was no. Members asked those officials whether they had ever been asked to advise on electoral matters and the answer was no. They were asked what role the Department of Corrections has had in electoral matters. The answer was that they handed the ballot box around the clink to allow those who were eligible to vote to put their ballot in the ballot box. 
We questioned the expertise they had. Department of Corrections officials run prisons; they do not run elections. Ministry of Justice officials do not run prisons; they run elections. We asked the chair and we demanded that the Ministry of Justice officials who run elections be lead advisers or co-advisers. The chair refused and Mr Young wherever he is; David Garrett; and the other National geniuses on that committee—Mr Calder was one—voted down the fact that Ministry of Justice officials should even be advisers to the committee. The expert advisers on this matter were barred from being advisers to the committee. It would be a bit like asking the Ministry of Health to be the sole and lead adviser on a tax bill. I think there would be a problem with that in terms of expertise. I think there would be a problem. 
One of the reasons we have this stuff-up tonight is that the Department of Corrections advisers were not the appropriate advisers. The member should not blame the Parliamentary Counsel Office because that is gutless. It is absolutely gutless to blame the Parliamentary Counsel Office because it takes the instructions of committee members and ultimately takes instruction from the majority of the committee which is headed up by Sandra Goudie that rocket scientist! The Parliamentary Counsel Office did not get it wrong; the Department of Corrections got it wrong—but I do not blame that department. I do not blame the Department of Corrections. It advised the committee that what Mr Quinn was promoting was contained within the bill. But the problem with blaming Department of Corrections officials is that they admitted they did not have the expertise to deal with this bill. If we had had Ministry of Justice officials this thing would not have happened. 
We come folks to the best bit of all. At the conclusion of the deliberation on this bill a member on our side of the committee moved that in order to avoid this sort of parliamentary embarrassment in future we do a unique thing: we require that a select committee appoint the appropriate expert advisers on a particular bill. Guess what! Mr Young Mr Calder Ms Goudie and the other National members voted against appointing the most expert department to advise on a bill. How stupid is that? I say to Mr Quinn: “Congratulations!”. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: New career. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes he has a new career. It may be on  
Jeopardy! 
 another game show somewhere or another comedy show. He may well feature on  
7 Days 
 this week as the genius that he is. He came out after the select committee process and did not even know whether a Supplementary Order Paper would be necessary. 
That was the gestation of this bill but let us get to the principle. The truth about this bill which every person who came before the select committee—including David Farrar although he supported it—agreed on is that it will do nothing to help victims. This bill will do nothing to stop recidivism. It will do nothing to stop reoffending and there is no evidence that it will. This bill will do nothing to change prisoner behaviour. Every submitter bar the member Paul Quinn admitted that this bill was simply a political pamphlet. He woke up one morning took the wet towel off his head sat up took the pills and thought: “Hang on here is a good idea.” He thought it would get him on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I say to that member that he may well be on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
tomorrow but it will not be for the reasons and the motivation that he wanted. 
That member is incompetent. He has done what no member in my living memory has done. I worked here some 20 years ago and have been a member of Parliament for the last nearly 12 years and I do not think I have seen such an incompetent display from a member with a member’s bill. Nor have I seen such a total breach of every parliamentary protocol by a chair of a committee in order to shut down truncate and stifle any debate. That member Sandra Goudie wears this like a badge of honour. She should have acted appropriately in a parliamentary sense and allowed debate and for the appropriate advisers to come in on the debate. The reason she did not do that of course was that the advisers would have said quite rightly that this bill is piffle. She now stands in the long line of Madame Tussaud’s parliamentary wax museum: Sandra Goudie Mr Quinn and that other great genius Judith Collins who was so embarrassed that she immediately moved to tell everybody—but did not bother to tell Mr Quinn—that there would be a Supplementary Order Paper and that National would correct this bill. 
Where is Simon Power “The Invisible Man”? 
Hon Member 
: Over there. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I do not mean in the Chamber. Where is Simon Power “The Invisible Man”? This is Justice and Electoral Committee legislation yet the Minister of Justice has transferred it like “three strikes” and a few other things. Transparent? He is so transparent that we cannot see him. He is not here in terms of this legislation and we all know why. The reason is that he is a learned lawyer I am told and deep down he knows that this is no more than a political pamphlet. 
I challenge those members who were on the committee to tell us a couple of things. I ask why they blocked the Ministry of Justice officials from giving us advice. That might have saved Mr Quinn’s scrawny hide and possibly his reputation. Why did they do that? I ask why they voted against a resolution that said it would be a good idea if when we get legislation we match it up with the expert Government department officials as advisers. I ask why one would vote against that. We will let Mr Calder and Mr Young answer those questions. Mr Young is like a ghost on the committee. He sits there like a statue too meek and mild to open his mouth but when Ms Goudie nods he puts up his hand and votes the right way. They all go in like sheep. 
They were aided and abetted of course by the former member that genius David Garrett. What great credibility this legislation will have in the  
Hansard 
! Mr Garrett supported it. He was a lawyer. He thought it was brilliant. What great support it will have! I say to Mr Quinn that if he is so smart and he thinks this is wonderful legislation then he should give us some explanations. He stands condemned for being incompetent and his select committee members stand condemned on the same charge as does the chair of the committee. 
None of the submitters could give us any reason to support the bill. When we look at it we see that there is no analysis. There is no analysis on the front end of this bill. There is no evidence; there is no justification. Paul Quinn woke up one morning and thought he would get on the front of the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Well by God he has done that. That will happen tomorrow. That member will be in the “Wally of the Week” column for a long time. He has wasted the time of this Parliament wasted taxpayers’ money— 
Louise Upston 
: Do you know anything about the bill? Why aren’t you talking about the actual bill? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh there is a squeeze box going on over there. Why does the member not tell us why she wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money before a select committee promoting this bill? The member is incompetent. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to make a brief call— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to gain some advice. As I understand it it is traditional that at the very least the members of the select committee that considered the bill actually speak on it in the second reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No that is not a point of order; the member well knows that. Any member is entitled to get up and speak regardless of the position. The member knows that that is not the case. 
JO GOODHEW 
: This bill makes it clear that our democratic rights as citizens include obligations to obey the law. People who break the law and are sentenced to prison have not met those obligations and while they are in prison they should lose their right to vote. That is my contribution to the debate on this bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 The people of Timaru who are very interested in the position that the previous speaker Jo Goodhew has taken on certain events that have occurred there will find that speech very interesting. I was very interested in the reaction of Government members during the contribution of my colleague the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I saw all the heads go down as they realised that they have been made fools of by this legislation. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government has decided to back this silly bill. This is so political. Here we have a bill called the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill. Which select committee would we refer it to? Would we refer it to the Justice and Electoral Committee or would we refer it to the Law and Order Committee? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think I would go for the Justice and Electoral Committee. I ask the member who is interjecting in reply to my questions which would otherwise be rhetorical why the choice would be the Justice and Electoral Committee over the Law and Order Committee. Why would we choose the Justice and Electoral Committee over the Law and Order Committee? Could it have something to do with the terms of reference of the different committees and who chairs them? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: And who the Minister is. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Oh yes; and who the Minister is. Who is the Minister responsible for the Justice and Electoral Committee? Could that be Simon Power the Minister of Justice? Who is responsible for electoral law reform? I think that might be Simon Power the Minister of Justice. OK well let us look at the Law and Order Committee. Which Minister is responsible essentially for the work that goes through the Law and Order Committee? I think it might be Judith Collins the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. OK; that is good. 
Then we have the issue of the terms of reference of the particular committees. What are the terms of reference of the Justice and Electoral Committee? Who are the advisers to the committee on justice and electoral matters? They might be the Ministry of Justice officials. OK so we have got that sorted out. Who are the advisers to the Law and Order Committee? That might depend on the bill. If it is a police bill then it might be the police and if it is a corrections bill then it would be the Department of Corrections. OK. So we have different Ministers and different advisers. 
Who are the chairs of the relevant committees? Whom is the Justice and Electoral Committee chaired by? It is chaired by Chester Borrows. Chester is actually quite a good chair do members not think? I think Chester Borrows is quite well regarded. He has spoken openly and has some good views. He has the advantage of having been a police officer and he is also a lawyer. He has the benefit of both sides of those debates. He is an excellent member of Parliament and I find him very very good to work with. Now who is the chair of the Law and Order Committee? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: The rocket science woman. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The rocket scientist. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The genius. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The genius we hear. It is Sandra Goudie. If we wanted to have a piece of political puffery would we want it presided over by Simon Power Ministry of Justice officials and Chester Borrows or would we like a piece of political puffery presided over by Judith Collins Department of Corrections officials and Sandra Goudie? Which ones would members choose to preside over a piece of political puffery? This is where the politics of this whole process began. 
The choice of select committee—the bill went to the Law and Order Committee—was absolutely deliberate and it was obvious. The Department of Corrections told the select committee that it had no expertise in providing advice in this area. No one can blame the department because it was upfront about that. The second point is that it is unacceptable to blame parliamentary counsel. We cannot blame parliamentary counsel because they can operate only off the drafting instructions they receive from the select committee and that advice comes from the Department of Corrections which told parliamentary counsel that it was not in a position to advise in this area. If the Ministry of Justice had been allowed to give advice it would have picked up on this problem—the ministry has the expertise in this area—and we would not have the nonsense we have today. 
This bill extends voting rights to the most serious offenders in this country who are currently locked up behind bars. If this bill were to pass in its current form then the worst criminals who are in jail at election time next year will be allowed to vote. [ 
Interruption 
] That member can blame whomever he likes. He should look in the mirror he should talk to Sandra Goudie and he should lay the blame where it belongs. That choice of select committee was the reason why we have the problems we have today. 
For a bill to be referred to the Law and Order Committee there has to be a reason that is related to law and order. The bill would have to have a deterrent effect and it would have to change prisoner behaviour—one or the other but preferably both. That would be the reason for sending a bill to that committee. In respect of this bill not one element of evidence produced anywhere in any of this debate or at the select committee showed any deterrent effect. If we say: “I am sorry but if someone goes to jail for this serious offending or for this minor offending that person will not be able to vote.” will that seriously put people off offending? I do not think so. Will it change behaviour if we say: “We will not let you vote at the next election.”? 
The member who resumed his seat earlier did not tell us how many prisoners currently vote. Do we know how many people this bill will affect? Does the member know how many people who are in prison currently vote? 
Paul Quinn 
: You didn’t give me an extension of time. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member sat down before his time was up. I want to know whether that member knows the answer to that question. I suspect that he does not know the answer to the question. How many people does he expect will be affected by this bill should it pass through the House? How many people who are in prison currently vote? I am absolutely prepared to stop speaking and hear the answer to my question. I would like to hear the answer to the question. How many prisoners currently vote? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He doesn’t know. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The member does not know the answer to my question. There is not one word in the report back from the select committee not one word on how many prisoners currently vote. We have no idea how many prisoners will be affected by this bill. 
One of the issues that we raised in the report back related to a person who serves a 2½ year sentence. We want to ask a question. Somebody who has served a 2½ year sentence and who is in prison on the day that the election is held will not be able to vote but somebody who is let out the day before the election will be allowed to vote. What is the sense in this? What is the point of this? What message are we trying to send? 
I heard Jo Goodhew say that the Government is sending a message that people will not be allowed to vote if they offend. Actually no; that is not what the Government is saying. It is saying that as long as the offender is not in prison on the day that the election occurs then the offender can vote. What about the person who gets home detention and the person who does not get home detention for committing exactly the same offence? I know of a case in Christchurch of two kids who were up in court in a relatively short space of time. One went to prison and the other got home detention. Yet this bill is giving different rules. One offender will be able to vote and the other offender will not be able to vote. Until the Government puts some numbers on the table this is meaningless political puffery; it is nothing else. 
I think that this Government has some serious explaining to do. It is not good enough just to blame the officials when the Government deliberately set up those officials to fail by choosing the wrong committee choosing the wrong Minister choosing the wrong advisers choosing the wrong situation and choosing an environment that produces no deterrents—not one ounce of deterrence—and no change to prisoner behaviour except for the very small number who I presume will vote on election day and will not be able to do so in the future. I think this bill is a complete waste of Parliament’s time and I regret that we have to even debate it. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Repeatedly through my colleague Lianne Dalziel’s speech Mr Quinn indicated that he wished to have an extension of his speaking time. I indicate to him that if he wished to seek leave to obtain that the Opposition would not object to him having an additional speaking slot— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I say to the member that that is not a point of order. I tell the member that he cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. The member cannot use the point of order process for trying to indicate; there are other means of doing it. The member can send him a note. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to members that when I was speaking there were interjections. If the Speaker is speaking there will be silence. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not wish to trifle with your ruling but I think the point of order that Mr Hipkins was making—and you yourself have said that you like to see things flow and have flexibility—was of the best intentions. The member had indicated and Mr Hipkins was quite happy to facilitate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is trifling with my ruling. The member knows that when a matter has been dealt with it is closed. We are not going to have things relitigated here. Once a decision has been made the decision has been made. It is not subject to a second opinion; that is it the matter is closed. When the member says that he is not trifling with the Speaker’s ruling he is doing exactly that. His statement that he was not doing that does not fool the Speaker into believing something different. The member was seeking to trifle with my ruling. The matter is closed. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Last evening I made the comment in the Chamber that some bills that come before this House are important; they are profoundly meaningful and significant. Others verge on the ridiculous. I think there would be no prizes for guessing where the Greens locate this Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill on that spectrum. 
The effect of passing this bill would mean that any person imprisoned in New Zealand would be taken off the register of electors and therefore deprived of their right to vote. The rationale appears to be that all convicted prisoners should suffer further punishment on top of the punishment of being imprisoned. The bill the discussion and even the debate such as it was offers remarkably little in the way of justification of any evidence or of arguments why these steps should be taken—why this would be a good or a desirable change to make. There has been no evidence provided that this bill would reduce crime that it would facilitate reintegration or that it would provide any service or succour to victims of crime. 
There are on the other hand very compelling reasons why we should leave the status quo or why any change that was effected ought to expand to broaden rather than reduce the opportunities for prisoners to retain the franchise. Clearly the Greens will continue to oppose this bill in its entirety. The bill will do nothing to make our society safer. If anything it will make it more dangerous by further marginalising prisoners and by making more difficult their reintegration back into society and their acceptance as part of that society after they have served their sentences. 
The balance of submissions was overwhelmingly opposed to this bill. The point has been made that the mover of the bill supported it as did one other—shall we say well-known—character; the majority of submitters were clearly offended by it. 
This bill constitutes an unjustified violation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as was confirmed by the Attorney-General. It is contrary to article 25 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of which New Zealand is a signatory and which we have ratified. The bill is completely out of line with international law relating to blanket restrictions on the rights of prisoners. This bill if enacted would put us offside. It would violate our obligations under international law. It would lead to criticism by the United Nations and other international forums. 
The mover of the bill in his opening remarks referred to people in ivory towers critiquing the bill. Perhaps the Human Rights Commission dwells in an ivory tower though I think not. Its submission spelt out very clearly the major flaws in this bill and the constitutional violations. 
Paul Quinn 
: They’re chardonnay socialists. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: I am sure they are. The right to vote the commission said is considered fundamental to representative democracies. In Western democracies it said it is well recognised that the right to vote applies to all citizens subject only to the narrowest exceptions. The commission went on to say that the bill is inconsistent with international standards and made the very valid point that if passed it would impact disproportionately on Maori both men and women and would therefore contribute directly and indirectly to discrimination that could not be defended as reasonable. The bill is inconsistent according to the commission when we consider that the aim of the penal system is to rehabilitate offenders because the bill will do nothing to rehabilitate offenders. It is at odds with the concept of democracy. The commission’s final statement was that the bill undermines the tolerant inclusive society that New Zealand prides itself on being. 
The New Zealand Law Society perhaps also trapped in the same ivory tower was similarly scathing of the bill. It called it an unnecessary and retrograde step. The society insisted that the current law maintains the correct balance between the maintenance of a free and democratic society the right to vote for all New Zealanders and the removal of certain rights from prisoners. We have achieved that balance. Despite the mover’s assertions to the contrary it was not an arbitrary decision to settle on 3 years as being the minimum imprisonment time after which prisoners lose that vote. The decision was thoughtful; it is a measure that has been accepted and practised for a very long time and we ought not to meddle with it. 
This bill reflects a punitive irrational approach to the rights of prisoners. If enacted the bill would be counter-productive. It would alienate prisoners and recently released inmates further from society despite the major objectives of the Department of Corrections and the corrections sector which are to prepare and facilitate the reintegration back into society of those who have offended. 
A number of community law centres also made a submission—and I think that no one even stretching the longest bow could suggest that people working in community law centres lived in ivory towers. They have day-to-day contact with real people the real world and real problems. Their submission was based on their experience in working with offenders and with victims. It was highly critical of this bill and it demanded the bill’s rejection. 
We can think of the practical issues involved. The Electoral Enrolment Centre put in a submission but quite appropriately took some care to take no political position and to make no political statements. It noted that even the current system of deregistering prisoners is labour-intensive and time-consuming and often fails to the extent that the necessary documentation is not completed. The report back from the Government majority on the select committee noted the issue. It said that the committee had considered some changes to the process of deregistration and had decided essentially that that was too hard a project. They put it in the too-hard basket and that decision was made under the current situation where only a relatively small number of prisoners are deregistered or reregistered. 
There is a pious hope expressed by Government members that the Electoral Enrolment Centre will work with the Department of Corrections to develop a procedure to encourage prisoners to re-enrol upon release from prison and members expect the introduction of a re-enrolment procedure in due course. But that is undoubtedly a kick for touch—it is too hard and the department has chosen not to go there for obvious reasons. About 9000 people are released from New Zealand prisons every year. We can imagine the logistics of processing that number of prisoners every year in order to remove them from the roll and to put them back on the roll. Many of those people go into prison with drug and alcohol dependency and with literacy problems. Significant numbers of them find it difficult to get accommodation when they come out of prison. The reality of getting those 9000 people a year back on to the electoral roll would frankly not happen. We would build up an ever-increasing pool of people who were permanently disenfranchised permanently removed from the business of voting and one step further away from integration into a fair and a safe society. 
This House needs to have real debates about real issues in relation to the Department of Corrections imprisonment and a fair society. The department’s budget as noted by our own Minister of Finance recently is fast becoming the largest single department in terms of expenditure. The current year’s budget sits at $1.16 billion of which about $750 million—some 65 percent—of that vote of over a billion dollars is spent on prison-based custodial services. We spend a massive amount of money to lock people away. 
By comparison we spend less than 12 percent of that budget on reintegration and rehabilitation services. Some $138 million is all we can find to reintegrate prisoners and rehabilitate people who have offended. It seems we would prefer to spend huge amounts of money on concrete steel and prison guards than relatively small amounts of money on endeavouring to ensure that we do not have that inexorably growing rate of recidivism and the appalling blot on our social profile from that high and ongoing rate of imprisonment and society. 
We can do better than that and we need to do better than that. This House needs to turn its mind to the real issues about the corrections system crime and punishment and meeting the needs of society. This bill does nothing towards that end. It is a waste of this House’s time and the Greens would like to see it sent away and given the send-off it deserves. Kia ora. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to support the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. The ACT Party commends the sponsor of this bill Paul Quinn for bringing it to the House’s attention and for his intelligent contribution which was far different from the contributions of members opposite—apart from the previous speaker David Clendon from the Green Party. That member gave the bill proper consideration. The ACT Party will very proudly support this bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Huri rauna kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. This bill the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill to remove the right of anyone in jail to vote is a direct attack on the democratic freedoms of people we should be trying to help. It is an assault on the intelligence of ordinary New Zealanders. It is another in a raft of misbegotten panicked pieces of legislation that are driving this country over the precipice into the mindless depths of right-wing insanity. 
Even the Law Society did not like the bill for heaven’s sake! It opposes the bill on the basis that it contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Law Society called it retrograde legislation that would erode the free and democratic nature of New Zealand society without justification. The Law Society called the bill irrational and arbitrary. It said that the bill was unreasonably impairing the right to vote that it was out of due proportion to the objective of punishment and that it was out of line with international law. 
The Human Rights Commission said the bill would “impact disproportionately on Maori … and therefore may amount to indirect discrimination which could not be defended as reasonable.” The commission also said the bill was inconsistent with the aim of the penal system to rehabilitate offenders. 
Those basic human rights come from a long history which goes back to the New Zealand Constitution Act of 1852 which actually disenfranchised prisoners back then for “any treason felony or infamous offence within any part of Her Majesty’s dominions”. That history also includes a declaration from the 1975 Electoral Act Committee which said “there was no justification for taking away an elector’s political rights if detained in a penal institution.” Three years later in 1978 New Zealand ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That was followed by a statement made by the Centre for Human Rights which said “excessive limitations on the voting rights of convicted criminals are not permissible.” In 1992 the Solicitor-General said that the removal of voting rights for more prisoners was a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and that imposing limits on that right was unjustified. 
Now in 2010 we find that our current Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson has attached a note to this bill to alert Parliament to his view that this bill will strip individuals of a fundamental right in a way that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society. He is a colleague of Mr Paul Quinn. 
Everyone knows that Maori make up 50 percent of an already overstretched prison population; a gross overrepresentation in sentencing incarceration and recidivism rates that are a damning indictment on our society and on our justice system in particular. This bill will make that even worse by further isolating and segregating prisoners from society and adding another punishment to the one already handed down by the judge. 
One of the submissions received by the Law and Order Committee was from a woman who reported on a recent ruling in the United States Court of Appeals. It stated that the removal of a prisoner’s right to vote was a breach of the Voting Rights Act and that it discriminated disproportionately against ethnic minorities that are overrepresented in the prison population. She also said that this proposed bill would contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in respect of both the right to vote and freedom from discrimination. I pick up on a comment made by Labour members because I think I might have the same example. That woman provided a local example where two young men were convicted of the same offence. One was from Fendalton—or depending on where he lived “Fendolton”—and the other one was from Aranui. To no one’s great surprise the one from Fendalton got home detention and the one from Aranui who was convicted on the same offence was sent to jail. 
By way of context this bill says that people who get home detention can vote but those who get jail cannot vote. Fendalton of course is one of the wealthiest suburbs in Christchurch with a Polynesian population of just 3 percent. Aranui is one of Christchurch’s not-so-wealthy suburbs with a Polynesian population of 40 percent. So there you go! When they get convicted of the same offence poor brown people go to jail and rich white folks do not. Now thanks to this bill poor brown criminals will lose their right to vote whereas rich white criminals will not. 
Finally I draw on a review from the Ministry of Justice last year that confirmed bias against ethnic minority and indigenous peoples at every stage of the criminal justice system from stop and search to arrest charging prosecution mode of trial conviction pre-sentence reports sentencing incarceration and parole. That review found that over 40 years of international research had failed to provide a successful blueprint for addressing ethnic disparities. It also found that a comprehensive policy approach was needed to address the direct and underlying causes of ethnic minority and indigenous offending. This bill will achieve absolutely none of that. 
Every intelligent commentator every human rights ruling every valid piece of research and every anecdotal piece of information we have to hand both local and international tell me that this bill is not only bad legislation it is dumb legislation. It will disenfranchise Maori voters it will do nothing whatsoever to protect the citizenry of this nation and the Maori Party will be opposing it at every single stage. Kia ora tatou. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 The social contract that undergirds every stable society must balance human rights with human responsibilities or said essentially in order to participate in the process of selecting our lawmakers who shape our society one ought not to be a serious lawbreaker. That was said simply for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is absolutely remarkable to be here in this House tonight to hear the appalling contributions from National members on this bill. When I stood in this House to give my very first speech I looked across at the Government benches and said that despite our political differences I know that the members over there are here to do the best they can. They are here because they have things they believe in and they have come to Parliament to put them in place. Well tonight a member who entered Parliament at the same time as me has put forward as his political epitaph because he will not be here after the next election a bill that is a disgraceful attack on democracy; it is petty and it is meaningless. It is unbelievable tonight to feel that National members will not get up and even give proper speeches as to why they are supporting this bill. 
This bill went to a select committee and was made worse. This was an appalling bill and it was made worse at the select committee. The committee managed not only to attempt to take away the vote from people sentenced to less than 3 years in prison it actually succeeded in opening it up. We often hear from members on the other side of the House about how members on this side of the House seem to be sympathetic to the William Bells of this world and those sorts of criminals. Now the Government has produced a bill that will open up the vote to those people. It might be a mistake. Government members might blame the officials but they cannot blame the officials when they did not even bring in the Ministry of Justice officials the people who are the actual experts on this to advise them. But that simply typifies the approach of the National Government on these issues. 
This kind of legislation is the simple stuff the meaningless stuff. The hard work of the criminal justice area in trying to make sure that we rehabilitate people and reintegrate them into society is not what we hear from National. We heard Judith Collins celebrate the fact that we are building another prison. She said that it was great for the economy. This Government is short-sighted on law and order and this is a short-sighted bill. 
If members on the other side of the House who often lecture Labour members about democracy are truly committed to democracy then upholding democracy for the people in society whom we might not always think of in a positive light is the true test of whether we are committed to democracy. The true test of being committed to democracy is to say that even if people have committed some of these crimes we still fundamentally believe that they have a human right to vote. If we want people to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society we need to give them a chance to be involved in society. Virtually every person who is covered by the extension of this law the 2000 or 3000 people who are sentenced each year to less than 3 years in prison will end up back in society. We are not talking here—though with the mistake that National has made it almost is—about people sentenced to life imprisonment. That is already in the law. Every single one of the people to whom this extension applies will be back in society. What we should be doing is working out how we reintegrate those people into society and how we contribute to rehabilitation. Instead we have petty spiteful legislation that does nothing to make our communities safer. There is nothing in this bill to make our communities safer. Should that not be the aim of criminal justice policy in this country? Should not the aim of any law covering this sector that is brought forward to this Parliament be about making communities safer? Instead we have a petty bill that will do nothing in that respect. 
The bill does not address serious criminals; that issue is already dealt with in the law. This is a petty spiteful attempt to try to curry favour with a populist issue. It will do nothing for our communities. The bill is wrong in principle. It is wrong in terms of all human rights law globally and in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We saw why in the Attorney-General’s opinion this bill is unacceptable in New Zealand. We can look internationally and see that in virtually every jurisdiction where this issue has come up decisions have been made to go in the opposite direction to New Zealand. There is even a statement in the Department of Corrections report that this will look bad for New Zealand internationally and that it will damage New Zealand’s international reputation. Paul Quinn does not mind about that; he does not care about trampling on New Zealand’s reputation. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He’s damaged. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He is damaged I say to Mr Cosgrove. He does not care about New Zealand’s reputation. He does not care about international law and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights beside Paul Quinn? Which will we choose between—Paul Quinn or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Tonight National is choosing to ignore international human rights law and New Zealand human rights law. Practical differences actually making communities safer have all been ignored tonight to allow Paul Quinn to put up petty spiteful meaningless legislation in this House. 
Not only is this bill wrong in principle it is wrong in practice. My colleagues have already talked about the fact that it creates massive inconsistencies among people who are sentenced to home detention people who are in prison on the particular day on which an election is held and people who are held in prison on remand—all of those inconsistencies are created by this legislation. Yet Mr Quinn seems to think that the bill can just sail through the House. No evidence whatsoever has been provided to the committee or to the House that this bill will have any kind of positive impact on recidivism which is one of the arguments that are put up. No evidence whatsoever was supplied to the committee on that. Internationally the evidence is in the other direction. If we want to address recidivism and to stop people committing crimes we need to work with those people to rehabilitate them and include them in society. But this bill does not just take away people’s rights to vote it takes people off the electoral roll. How farcical is it when it is so difficult in this country to get people enrolled that we would put through a bill that takes people off the electoral roll. 
This bill is a practical mess. If it passes its second reading tonight it will need massive changes at the Committee stage. Mr Quinn himself or National members need to respond to those who have highlighted that this bill will allow the vote to offenders who are currently serving prison sentences of more than 3 years. That shambles has to be sorted out. We have all of the inconsistencies but overall we have an in principle problem with this bill. 
If members of this House are committed to democracy standing up for democracy means standing up when democracy challenges us. It does not mean taking simplistic petty approaches and saying we will cut off the vote for these people and take away their democratic rights. If people are truly committed to democracy then this is the moment to stand up and say that this bill will not support democracy. The bill has nothing going for it: it does not make our communities safer it will make New Zealand an international laughing stock it goes against our own domestic New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is impractical. There is nothing going for it whatsoever. But much much more than that this is actually an attack on our democracy and an attack on our communities. 
In this House we should be debating criminal justice law that is about reducing crime and about attacking the causes of crime. In this House we should be debating how to rehabilitate people how to reintegrate people into society and how to stop recidivism. They are hard conversations; it is difficult law to make. But what we have seen consistently from National members is simplistic approaches support for the “three strikes” law and now support for this law. The Government supports the building of more prisons rather than stopping people from getting into prison in the first place. 
We need proper criminal justice law in this country and it is not coming from that side of the House. This law is one of the worst examples of that. Members on that side of the House know that and they should not be voting for this law tonight. We need proper conversation in this country about criminal justice. This bill has absolutely no part in that whatsoever and it should be voted down tonight. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 The philosopher Isaiah Berlin referred to the positive conception of liberty: not “freedom from” but “freedom to”. Imprisoned one loses the freedom of movement the freedom to associate the right to freedom of speech and many other “freedoms to”. I believe that the freedom to vote is an integral part of an individual’s liberty and an individual’s “freedom to”. The loss of freedom to vote upon going to prison is perfectly consistent with the loss of the aforementioned freedoms concomitant with a sentence to a term of imprisonment. Thank you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I find this debate slightly hard to believe. I am not surprised that the mover of the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill failed to read the amendments made by the Law and Order Committee and has the bill doing exactly the opposite of what he claims it does. I have worked closely with Mr Quinn and no level of incompetence on his part would surprise me. 
But what I do not understand is why Simon Bridges who everyone knows is a lawyer of some repute— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: No he’s not! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He is. He was Crown prosecutor in Tauranga and he used to have potential. How can that member sit there with his gob shut and let this go on? Why does Simon Bridges not get up on to his hind legs show a bit of integrity and tell Paul Quinn that the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill is not on? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Because he’s weak. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no there are a number of reasons for that. I challenge that member to get up in this House. In fact I would let him take part of my call if he was prepared to stand up and say he supports the dog’s breakfast that is this bill. Not only was it wrong to do what Paul Quinn tried to do but Paul Quinn could not even do what he tried to do. 
We had a discussion recently about the All Blacks and people who were nearly All Blacks and a team has just been named. I agree with the New Zealand Rugby Union councillor who said that if Paul Quinn had been 2 inches taller he would have been an All Black. He was missing just the top 2 inches. We see in this bill evidence that the member is missing the top 2 inches. Not only did he bring in a bill that was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act against international conventions and designed to embarrass New Zealand around the world with its lack of integrity and its stupidity but at the Law and Order Committee he moved an amendment that went from not allowing people to vote to allowing the worst criminals to vote. He is the joker who says it does not matter how many prison officers one kills one can still vote. That is what Paul Quinn’s legislation does. He has tipped it totally on its head. He has made it absolutely the opposite of what he claimed it would be yet he has come to the House proud of his work. It is a good day’s work for Paul Quinn to get something absolutely wrong. 
I will focus on another member and that is Jonathan Young. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am one of the people who were privileged to be in the House with Jonathan Young’s father. He was a man of enormous integrity who valued Parliament as an institution. He was what might be described as an old liberal. He did what was right and what was fair. He worked through things case by case and he was a good debater. He respected this institution. I saw him get up and give a 60-minute speech on a first reading—a 60-minute speech on a first reading. He would never get up and give the sort of rubbishy 1-minute speech that his son I can tell is embarrassed to give. 
Hon John Carter 
: Yes he did. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member was not in the House with Venn Young. 
Hon John Carter 
: I was so. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In 1984? It was 1984-87; he retired in 1987 I think. 
Hon John Carter 
: Venn was here then and I remember the same 60-minute speech. I was in Parliament then. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sorry is the member right? It was 1990? I apologise—he was here till 1990. He made a hell of an impression. 
Paul Quinn 
: Get it right. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Ha what a dag! Paul Quinn has never got anything right in this House—never got anything right. He introduced a bill tried to fix it up and made it worse—he made it worse. 
I might as well explain something to the House as I have explained to a number of my colleagues. I now invite Paul Quinn to every meeting I can in Hutt South. For every single meeting that is on in Hutt South I try to get an invitation for Paul Quinn. It is really important that we get the National Party represented there so people can see the sort of talent that it has! I do it regularly. I think it is fair to say I am becoming a bit transparent. People are telling me not to suggest to anyone else that Paul Quinn be invited to the meetings. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: And that’s just the National Party whips. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is not the National Party whips but it is the National Party Hutt South executive—what little exists of it. This bill is absolutely typical of Paul Quinn. 
I will go back to Simon Bridges. I ask him whether he supports this bill in its current form. He does support the bill. He is supporting the bill in its current form which would give William Bell the vote which would give cop killers the vote and which would give the vote to people who kill prison officers. I ask Mr Bridges whether he supports the bill in its current form. 
Simon Bridges 
: With the Supplementary Order Paper that is coming. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There he goes. He is a bit like the man who chases around after the night cart. He is a bit like the man who chases around after Paul Quinn tidying up what comes out of the horse’s arse. I have never seen legislation put together in a way that more resembles what comes out of the back end of a horse than the legislation that this member Paul Quinn has brought to the House today. But is that something that surprises us? Is anyone in the House shocked? Is anyone here surprised? There is not a whisper—not a whisper. There is not a whimper from the Government. None of the Government members say they are surprised that Paul Quinn has made a cock-up of this size. There is not a member on the Government benches who thinks that Paul Quinn is capable of putting together a decent bit of legislation that at least says what he means. What he means is bad enough but what he does is even worse. Do members know the sad thing? He is actually one of the Government’s better members. Sandra Goudie chaired the select committee and Paul Quinn makes her look good. 
Another area of constitutional outrage is the fact that those members could not get decent advisers at the select committee. They would not get the justice people. Paul Quinn drove the select committee not to hear from people who knew about justice. Paul Quinn stopped the justice people who knew about this bill from giving advice. Why? Because he is embarrassed. He is a sad man. He is a sad man and he is very very embarrassed by this. He does not care about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He does not care about justice issues. 
There is a sort of debate going on about the National Party list. I know National has a couple of good new Maori candidates and is trying to get one of them down to work in the Wellington area. Paul Quinn is resisting that like nothing on earth and I am not surprised. Tau Henare might well laugh. Tau might well laugh. He might be involved in trying to get that decent candidate on to the list for the National Party in Wellington. But I welcome my opponent. It is great to have Paul Quinn running against me. Every now and again I get scared that a competent Tory might decide to run in Hutt South but I say this bill alone will be enough for me to run every single meeting in the next campaign. This is the guy who tried to do something stupid and ended up with something worse. He tried to do something stupid. No one had any idea at all that worse could be done but Paul Quinn managed to do that. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I start my speech by thanking the honourable member Trevor Mallard for his very kind words about me. He is right: I was a great criminal lawyer. It is good to hear it from someone of his stature a senior member on the other side of the House. I appreciate those kind words. 
The member has challenged me effectively to come to the party and defend this bill and I say to him in all due modesty that I gave a superb first reading speech in this House that set out very clearly the rationale for this bill. If I may say so I encourage the member to read it. He will see some very good reasons why this bill with the Supplementary Order Paper that is coming will make a great deal of difference morally in this country. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Question agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 64 Noes 54. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I regret that I inadvertently cast an incorrect vote for United Future. It should have been one vote opposed. My apologies to the House. I seek leave for it to be changed. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is seeking leave for the vote to be amended. Is there any objection? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: What could be the debate about this? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is a question of whether there are instructions on this particular vote because it is quite a technical vote on the amendments being agreed to by the select committee. My understanding is that Mr Dunne actually would prefer to vote against the amendments. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I will just deal with this matter very quickly. The member knows the answer to his question before he asks it. When the proxy is given to a whip to cast a proxy vote the House and the Speaker accept the word of the whip. There can be no other way for that to be done. If the member wishes to say that that is how the vote is to be cast the member’s word must be and has to be always accepted. That is the way it has always been and it will not change. Leave has been sought for the vote to be amended as agreed. Is there any objection? There being no objection the vote will be amended. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; United Future 1; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time 
Name changed to Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I am very proud to be the sponsor of this bill. Since I became a member of Parliament in 2002 compulsory membership of students associations has been an issue. In fact the issue goes back much further than that. When I did a quick search on the Internet I found media releases as far back as 2000 calling for voluntary student membership. I hope those who campaigned so hard then are listening today because their efforts their lobbying and their campaigning have not been in vain. 
This is the fourth bill on voluntary student membership to come before the House. It is not an issue that will go away and only full voluntary membership of students associations will solve the principled human rights issues and practical accountability and responsibility issues that compulsory membership violate. These issues were all traversed in detail at the select committee hearings. I thank the Education and Science Committee for its hard work and especially the leadership of chair Allan Peachey. I thank the officials to the committee and especially those who took the time to make submissions both written and oral and from both sides of the debate. Prebble’s Rebels ACT on Campus and Young Nats past and present deserve a huge thank you for keeping this issue alive over a large number of years. Their efforts and dedication to the cause are rewarded in this bill. 
I also thank Sir Roger Douglas for his Midas touch in the drawing of members’ bills. Although this bill was originally drafted by me and put into the ballot in 2006 it was drawn out of the ballot in his name last year. He shepherded the bill through its first reading and the select committee hearings and handed it back to me when I was no longer a Minister. An issue this important should not be left to the luck of the draw but fortunately we got there in the end. 
By the beginning of 2012 it will be illegal to compel students to join a students association in order for them to be allowed to study at a tertiary institution. That is called freedom of association and is the principle my bill is based on. As a society we prize freedom. Freedom means choice and choice is the most fundamental principle of a free and democratic society. That is why the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 protects the rights of individuals to determine whom they associate with and which political ideas they associate with and to do so without compulsion or undue influence. 
Section 17 of the Act guarantees the right to freedom of association. Compulsory membership of students associations is simply not commensurate with that section. Over time attempts to soften compulsory membership by introducing conscientious objection and referenda provisions have failed to resolve the major conflicts of compulsory membership with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the financial interests of students. It is extraordinary too that many years after trade union membership was made voluntary for workers without the sky falling in universities and polytechnics seemingly bastions of freedom of thought speech and inquiry have maintained compulsory membership of students associations. Now this relic of a bygone era is finally to be bid farewell. 
A high level of accountability is essential with any form of public funds. However students associations have consistently shown that they lack the accountability necessary to manage the sort and scale of funds that compulsory membership gives them. Lack of democratic accountability in the form of low election turn-outs means that democratic processes have failed to ensure that mainstream interests are represented. Likewise poor financial accountability has been the norm rather than the exception. Often the only tangible checks and balances on an association’s expenditure is a treasurer’s report at executive meetings and a yearly audit. Too many of these audits show deeply worrying trends of financial mismanagement and fraud and we do not have to look very far for the evidence. In 2003 the office manager of the Massey University Students Association was jailed for stealing $203000 of students’ money. In 2005 the Victoria University of Wellington Maori Students’ Association treasurer was jailed for stealing $161000. In 2007 the president of Victoria University of Wellington Students Association spent $22000 on upgrading the association’s van without authority. In 2009 the manager of the Christchurch Polytechnic Students’ Association was jailed for the theft of $175000 of students’ money. Whitireia Polytechnic Students’ Association has allegedly lost $750000 of students’ funds over several years.  
These are just a few examples. Students who provided the funds for all of that did not get value for money and they certainly did not when a Victoria University of Wellington Students Association official spent $6000 of their money on calling a psychic hot line in 2007. I suspect that she did not get much value for it either. For compulsory bodies with large-scale incomes the current law represents a completely insufficient level of financial accountability. We will hear no doubt from Labour and the Greens today that my bill will be the death of student unions. They will cite the conscientious objection provision as a substitute for choice. But they will not say that it is virtually impossible to invoke it because union officials have the power of yea or nay; mostly they opt for nay. They will tell us that referenda provisions mean that students determine their own destiny but ignore the fact that a consistently low voter turn out at students association elections further emphasises the lack of representation of students’ views.  
The thing that I find quite pathetically sad is the talk by the bill’s opponents of impending doom: the death of students associations. It is sad because they have such little faith in what they themselves offer. This bill is not about killing off students associations; it is about empowering students and providing the incentives to deliver to students the services and facilities that they—not just a select few—want. One submitter summed it up this way: “A move to genuine voluntary membership (where you have to pay a fee to belong and the student association is disadvantaged if it does not persuade you to join) will eventually result in student associations that are more accountable and responsive to their members rather than treat them as ATM machines. They would focus on making sure the association provides benefits to members who join that the advocacy is focused on issues of importance to their members and that members are regularly engaged and communicated with.” 
I fully support the free rights of students who choose to join a students association and for that body to campaign and lobby and to charge a membership fee. The rights of that association however should not extend to compelling others to join charging them a levy or actively misrepresenting them. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill will allow students to decide for themselves whether an association is a club that they want to belong to. It will align the rights of students with all other sectors of our society. Freedom of association means real choice. It means students will also have the freedom to dissociate. I thank those parties—National and United Future—that are supporting my bill tonight and I commend this bill to the House. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It was a privilege that I enjoyed to chair the Education and Science Committee hearings into the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and I notice in the gallery this evening a number of people whom I met during that process arguing both in favour of and against the bill. I say to those people how much I enjoyed the meetings and discussions I had with them and what a high level of respect I developed for their commitment and their ability to put their arguments in a reasonable and logical way. 
Clearly some of the submitters will be disappointed in the outcome. Of course this was always going to come down to the view of National. ACT went into the hearings clearly very very strongly in support of the bill and obviously its opinion did not move. Labour and the Greens were equally adamantly against the bill and did not move. But many of us were involved in resolving the balance between the right that students like any other New Zealanders have to freedom of association against the benefits that were being argued to derive from compulsory membership of students associations. 
I was quite intrigued by the argument put up that the best way to guarantee freedom of association was actually to maintain compulsory membership. It was a view for which I could not find any substance in political theory or in common sense though I admired the effort that was being made to advance it. But at the end of the day the decision to support this measure comes down to the fact that those of us on this side of the House believe very very strongly in freedom of association and individual responsibility. I have every confidence that the good students associations will not only survive but thrive. Some of the associations that I visited were in fact prosperous successful businesses. They have the potential to remain prosperous successful businesses. They will just have to operate in a different environment and I wish them well in that endeavour. 
I conclude by thanking all the members of the select committee for their contribution; the advisers who were very patient and long-suffering; and all the submitters for their reasonableness their consideration and their thoughtfulness. I repeat what I have just said: it was a pleasure to get to know many of those young people. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Labour opposes the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill on the grounds that it will destroy students associations. It will destroy the representation advocacy and services that tertiary students have received from students associations for many years and as a result it will undermine the educational success and campus experience of many students. It is interesting to me that in her opening remarks Heather Roy decided to congratulate and thank various members of ACT on Campus and the Young Nats. That really indicates where ACT is coming from on this bill. It is ideological. It is a straight-out ideological decision that they are making. It is actually a tribute to the success of students associations over the years on issues like fees loans and allowances that those on the far right of the political spectrum are so threatened that they will come back to this Parliament time and again to try to ruin those students associations. 
But it is to the National members of this House that I will address my remarks now. Although perhaps many of the National members of this House share some of those ideological views many of them do not and I know that many of the National members who sat through the submissions were looking at this bill from a practical point of view. They were looking at this bill for what it will actually mean for the experience of students on campus. Anyone who sat through the submission process cannot have failed to realise the impact that this bill will have on the practical experience of students. We can take it from the individual case of the student from Hamilton who lived in a flat that burnt down. His insurance company was going to do nothing to help him when the insurance company of the person who owned the flat was taking him to the cleaners. It was the intervention of the Waikato Student Union that enabled that student and his flatmate to continue being students at university. The student who showed up and spoke to us via video conference at the select committee made it clear that he was not a particularly ideological person. He was just a normal student—I think he was a science student actually—and he said that most of his friends had very little idea about the value of the student union until that day. But after that day they knew the value of the student union because the student union at Waikato University made sure they could carry on studying. That is the kind of advocacy and representation that this bill will kill off. 
But we can take that advice from a much higher level. Of the tertiary institutions that came to the select committee all bar one I think said “Please do not pass this bill.” Those were the vice-chancellors and chief executives of the polytechnics and wananga and they said they valued what students associations did on their campuses. They valued the services the representative function and the advocacy that students associations provided. If Parliament passes this bill those tertiary institutions told us it would fundamentally undermine the campus experience and the students associations’ role on campus. Those representatives of tertiary institutions were not great ideological radicals. They were people who were thinking about what worked practically on their campus. 
If we must talk about dollars and cents to convince National we heard about that too. The tertiary institutions know there is no way they can provide the services representation or advocacy as cost-effectively as students associations do. An excellent submission from the New Zealand University Students Association drawing from work by PricewaterhouseCoopers was able to show the dollar value of free student labour via students associations and the cost-effectiveness of students association work and what that meant. The tertiary institutions under a funding squeeze from this Government are looking at this legislation and saying that they will not be able to provide those services. Those tertiary institutions that know the value of students associations are saying to National “Do not pass this bill.” 
But those practical implications seem to sail right over the heads of National members—except that they have not. National members know that people came to the select committee with ideas to improve the current law. Let us remember that we are not standing here tonight to debate a bill that will amend a Labour law. We are debating a bill that will amend a National law. The existing law is one that National passed and it put in place a very good accountability mechanism which stated that if students wanted to they could have a referendum if they could get 10 percent of students to agree about whether an association would be compulsory or voluntary. That choice for students is already in the law that National passed yet tonight we have come here and National is supporting taking away that choice overriding its own law because of the ACT Party’s ideological commitments not because of the practicalities of what is good for students or because of what tertiary institutions are saying to this Parliament that they want but because National will support the ideological views of the ACT Party. 
Students associations have been part of some of the main innovations on campuses in recent years and going back 20 30 and 40 years through innovations such as Student Job Search and the New Zealand Uni Games. When we watch the Commonwealth Games we see people cycling around the tracks who owe the fact that they have got there to their involvement in university sport supported by students associations. Student newspapers student radio and student health and counselling services are on campuses only because students associations have been there. Hardship funds subsidised bus transport and bookshops—you name it students associations have been at the core of creating those services on campus and tertiary institutions know they cannot do it. 
At universities it may well be that students associations will survive and obviously we have seen at Auckland University that they can survive but what form do they survive in? They survive in the form that the tertiary institution is prepared to put up with. They do not survive in the form where students control student affairs. That is what happens now but soon it will be up to the tertiary institutions. I remind Heather Roy that in 1994 I think Michael Laws brought a bill to this Parliament to make student association voluntary. [ 
Interruption 
] Earlier on Ms Roy said that it was the year 2000 when she first noticed that legislation. One of the reasons Michael Laws’ bill did not pass was a strong campaign that said things such as “Do you want the vice-chancellor to choose the music for orientation?” That is the choice. It is about whether students want to hand over all of the student services to those tertiary institutions—and that is at the universities where they might survive. It is at the polytechnics that do not have the infrastructure and do not have the funding at an institutional level to keep those services going that students will suffer. Those polytechnic students associations will not be able to keep themselves going. 
It is a bizarre belief that with the passing of this bill suddenly students associations will simply be able to carry on as they were recruiting members and everything will be fine. Students will be facing high fees at the start of a year—and under this bill we do not even know whether they will be able to use the student loan scheme to pay for their student association fees—and those students will be put off from enrolling and once they are put off in that first year it will be very hard to get them in the future. When we look across the Tasman 72 percent of students associations had near-total or total cuts to services once the equivalent of this bill went through. We know what will happen to students associations if this bill passes. 
What really disturbs me is that there was an opportunity in this process for change to be made. There were good submissions that suggested for instance tidying up the questions surrounding conscientious objection and looking at a better accountability mechanism. They are the issues that Heather Roy raised in her speech. Why did National members not pick up those ideas? They were on the table. We heard at the select committee some excellent submissions from people who said they wanted students associations to survive not for an ideological reason but for the practical benefits that they provide but National members decided not to pick those up. That is a great shame because it means National has simply bought into the ideologies of the ACT Party. 
Labour has already stated in the minority report that if we are returned to Government we will repeal this legislation. We still have a chance in the remaining debates to stop this bill and even to stop the worst effects of the bill. We have a Committee of the whole House stage when there will be amendments. The National members who sat through the select committee process and who heard about the value of students associations to individual students and to tertiary institutions have the opportunity in the Committee of the whole House process to adopt some of those changes so that students associations can continue to provide the support the advocacy the representation and the services that have made a fundamental difference to the lives of students for well over 100 years in many cases. This is not just about universities. It is about polytechnics and people who come into tertiary education without the awareness of everything that will happen to them. Those people become part of a community and it is that community that students associations hold together. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to speak during the second reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I will make just one or two simple points. Whole blocks of the tertiary sector both polytechnics and universities currently have voluntary student membership and there is no evidence whatsoever that the outcomes of those voluntary student membership arrangements have lowered academic achievement. I put it on record that I am not against students associations but I am against compulsion and actions that take away freedom of choice from individuals. I commend this bill to the House. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I personally find the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill an odious piece of legislation and I say that for two reasons. One is because I think it risks ripping the life soul and vitality out of many of our tertiary institutions. I am talking not about the great big ones such as Auckland University which has enough funding with which to continue providing services by itself but about the smaller ones that depend so much on the student services that are provided by student unions. 
The other aspect I find odious is that we could have got legislation that worked. We and National could have worked together to develop legislation that protected the student unions but also in a sense given a nod to the freedom of choice that members opposite are so absolutely keen to bang on about tonight. That possibility was sunk by the actions of ACT at that time and I will get to that in a minute. 
I benefited from the students union when I was at university not only because of the fees that I paid but also because of the fees that were paid by those students who had gone before me. So I enjoyed the university gym I enjoyed the student newspaper I enjoyed the health services and I enjoyed the ability to have really good advocacy on campus—all of those things that go into making up a university life. This is about the richness of university life. It is ironic that some of those very people supporting this bill were involved in student politics; Hekia Parata for example was involved in senior student politics and Steven Joyce cut his teeth on student radio before going on to make millions out of radio stations elsewhere. Those members began in the students union. 
The argument that making students unions and students associations voluntary will not affect those unions is absolutely false. One needs only to look at Australia’s experience and I will read from the very good report that the Australian National Union of Students put out. They appeared before us in the Education and Science Committee as well. I quote: “the idea that voluntary membership legislation will lead to self-funded voluntary student organisations that can maintain a comprehensive range of campus life student support and representative functions has proven to be fallacious. Even the strongest organisations such as the Western Australian Guilds still require university funding and are drawing on historic reserves. The actual outcomes since the passage of the Australian VSU legislation fall into three broad categories: General collapse of student campus life support structures and representative functions University takeover of major service providers and subsidised from university revenue …  [and] University funding to maintain comprehensive student service and representative bodies through a service level contract …”. In other words the legislation took away student ownership of these services and pushed the ownership of the services to the university itself. It did not save any more money because the university itself now has to subsidise the very services that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It costs more! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —exactly—students were providing themselves. As Mr Mallard said it does cost more because it does not have the benefit of all that voluntary student participation that happens in a students union. 
This bill is a major step backwards and it has nothing I repeat nothing to do with freedom of choice. This huge issue of freedom of choice is not supported by the evidence. I will look at some of the evidence. The Law Society for example appeared before the select committee and although it did not make any definitive comment on compulsory membership of students unions it did recognise that there are grounds for limitation of the right of freedom if it fits the purpose and the criteria that can be met. The general impression from that submission was that this issue would fit those criteria. 
Let us look at the whole idea of choice. This bill is not about choice for students; the reality is that the current law gives students the choice to have voluntary or universal membership through referenda of students. If 10 percent of students sign a petition then the referendum needs to take place. This bill ironically will take away that right and students will no longer have the ability to vote whether they want a students union—it will be legislated for them. So this bill takes away their very freedom to decide whether they want to be a member of a students union. 
Proponents of the bill say that students are being compelled against their will to belong to a students association. They make some sort of analogy with a trade union or a professional organisation but I think this logic is not correct. Students are not employees. They are not compelled to belong to a students association to be allowed to take part in tertiary study. They are compelled to contribute to a necessary and relevant cost of that study. I thought the submission from David and James Caygill was very compelling. They believe that a better analogy is not a trade union or a professional organisation but a tax payment. I quote from their submission: “Taxpayers cannot escape their liability to pay taxes by arguing that they do not benefit (or do not wish to benefit) from particular areas of public expenditure. Likewise students should not be able to escape making a fair contribution to services and facilities from which most benefit by arguing that they themselves do not.” 
We are talking here about students’ ability to benefit because they all benefit from making a contribution. What happened when Australia made student unionism voluntary? There was a 72 percent decline in services; either whole services disappeared or there was a massive decline and the return on revenue dropped to about 7 percent of what it was before. The same thing happened at Waikato University. In 1996 the students union at Waikato University was made voluntary and there was a collapse in the money that the students association was able to collect. It went from $730000 down to $3400. It basically killed the students union. It killed the students association’s ability to perform the type of thing that it was supposed to. 
I will finish with a point that I began with. This legislation is really about ideology; it is not really about a good outcome for students and for universities. It is the politics of keeping a coalition together not the politics of a good piece of legislation. I know that many National members wanted to make this legislation durable. They know that when Labour comes back into power we will overturn this legislation but there was an opportunity to improve it and to make it much more durable. Instead the leadership coup in the ACT Party happened at that time and Heather Roy was suddenly given this legislation to coax through the House. She had to put it through because otherwise she would have had no credibility and the ACT Party would have had no credibility at all. So she went on  
Close Up 
 to say that her primary purpose in political life was to put this legislation through. That was the reason that National got behind the wagging tail—that is what happened. It was not about good legislation and it was not about the benefit for students; it was about ideology. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. The Green Party can see no justification for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and we agree with the majority of the submitters that the likely outcome of this bill will be damaging to our tertiary education sector. This bill takes us backwards. This bill is an ideological problem in search of a solution. Impacts on students on the sector and on the economy will be severe. 
With very minimal student or institutional demand this bill will damage students. There has been hardly any demand from any students whatsoever. We heard from a tiny ideological minority who could not convince other students—their colleagues and their peers—through the current arrangement which is a petition or referendum. So that minority has used the ACT Party to use National as a vehicle to achieve its minority ideological interests. 
We will be voting against this bill because of what is in this bill but also because of what is not in its explanatory statement. We believe that the underlying objective of this bill is to weaken students associations and to undermine their membership and financial viability and in doing so to reduce student democracy student participation and a student voice on university and polytechnic boards. 
This bill also serves another purpose which is a smokescreen—a smokescreen to cover the other changes in the sector. This Government has made studying less accessible less affordable and in some cases downright impossible as it has shut the door to students who have the grades and the money to study. Surely when facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression we want more people to become skilled and we want more people with qualifications. But this Government is cutting tertiary education funds and making tertiary education less accessible less affordable and in some cases downright impossible. 
This bill is convenient in the short term because students’ attention—rightly so—has been focused on protecting their existence. The bill is convenient to the Government in the long term because it will reduce students’ organisation and ability to critique Government policy. The irony of this bill is that it will take away the right of students to choose the membership system that is best for them. It will take away the compromise agreement reached in 2001 which let students choose whether they wanted to have voluntary or universal union membership via a petition and a referendum. 
The bill aims to uphold a very debatable very controversial interpretation of the right to freedom of association. The majority of students associations operate under a compulsory membership model whereby students can—but we heard that only a tiny tiny fraction actually do—choose to opt out of their student association membership. If there has been a problem to be fixed then surely it could have been fixed by simply making that opt-out provision clearer more accessible and easier to understand. If there has been a problem with corruption and misspending then we could have dealt with that. If there has been a problem with bad decision-making then we could have dealt with that. This has been a massive missed opportunity which is something that frankly occurs all too much in this House as well. The tragedy is that we could have tweaked the system but instead we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 
It was a privilege to sit with the other members on the Education and Science Committee and I acknowledge the other members because they went into the process with a real sense of what I thought was critical engagement. There were some good questions. We heard from some 180 oral submitters and received more than 4800 written submissions. About 98 percent of the submissions were opposed to the bill. 
We heard from a tiny and ideological minority who supported the bill. The presented a grim economic view of the university as being simply a place where students go to maximise their employment outcomes—where students go to sit to listen and to go home again. They presented us with a university without the people without the culture and without an atmosphere. 
We heard also from students associations institutions and city officials. We heard from cultural clubs sporting clubs and support networks. We heard from a broad range of people. We did not hear from student radicals or students alone; we heard from real people with real concerns about this bill which have unfortunately been ignored. The overwhelming majority of the submissions opposed the bill and cited the considerable expected negative impact on students associations’ ability to effectively deliver services advocacy and representation. Tertiary education providers will not be able to provide those services with the same level of skills and of cost and in light of current budgetary constraints they will not do as good a job in providing them. 
We heard from students that they do not have $100 or $200 burning a hole in the pocket at the beginning of the year to join a voluntary association. Students especially in their first year do not know what to expect. They do not know what they will need down the line and they already have to outlay thousands of dollars on books bonds and rent. 
I ask the National members on the select committee what they told their caucus. I ask them why they could not convince their caucus to oppose this bill for the practical reasons we have discussed tonight. Or did the Minister for Tertiary Education decide? I ask whether the Minister said that they had to support as a smokescreen this bill to reduce representation. The options that students associations have now are to slash services sell assets or sign service agreements with the institutions. 
We heard from university associations like the one at Waikato which went down the path of having a voluntary model. It told us that it has been spending the last 10 years recovering from the lean years under a voluntary student membership. We heard about the assets that were flogged off after being built up over decades by the student body. 
This bill will mean that across the country we will see the slashing of services. We will see the slashing of university sport which will lead to fewer Olympians. We will see cuts made to magazines radio legal advice and welfare and to minority groups like UniQ Pasifika groups cultural clubs and groups supporting sexual abuse survivors. This bill will impact on students. It will impact on their pass rates at the same time the Government is making tertiary success one of its priorities. The bill will affect students’ advocacy and representation. 
Tonight National members have said that we are fearmongering and spreading doom and gloom but we are not talking just about predictions. Across the ditch there was an experiment. When Australians introduced this legislation in 2005 it was found that it was a catastrophe and that is why they are undoing it now. That is why they are undoing it now and the Australian Government has had to stump up with $120 million. Across the ditch we saw them sell off assets and that is what will happen here as this bill proceeds. Those assets have been built up by students who have slowly squirreled away a tiny amount of money every year to build up their asset base. But those assets will be flogged off. 
We will see service agreements being signed by tertiary education institutions with students associations. We heard from institutions from across the country—from polytechs and universities—that they appreciate the work and the support of students associations and often they will sign a contract with them. In Auckland which is the only university at the moment with a voluntary student membership model we heard from the president who said that the association survives despite—not because of—voluntary student membership. But we heard that the association’s independence has been irredeemably compromised. The university has already used the threat of pulling the funding to the association to keep it under the university’s thumb and to make sure that the association does what it wants. 
A key question for the Minister for Tertiary Education now is whether he will cap student levy funding and whether he will further weaken students associations. I ask the Minister how much money has been put aside for the transition and whether that discussion has even been had. The irony of this bill is that the services still have to go on. Someone has to provide them but they will happen without students having a say—without their representation. 
We agree with the submitters’ concerns that the impact on student association membership and funding levels will be catastrophic. It will have long-term impacts for our universities our economy and our democracy. We are sowing massive uncertainty in student bodies for next year and the year after. How will people join their students associations? Will they do it at the beginning of the year? Will they need ID? Can they put the fee on their student loans and pay only once at enrolment time? None of these questions have been dealt with. 
Probably one of the biggest costs of the process over the last few months has been the opportunity cost. We could have done good work. We could have made the great work that the associations do better. We could have worked out the opt-out provision clause. We could have made provisions on the better use better accountability and transparency of student money in decision making. We have heard about a whole bunch of new tools that we could be using to encourage democratic participation. But instead why are we doing this? We are doing this not to save money and not to make a university a nicer place a better place or to get more pass rates for our students. What we have is a thinly veiled effort to establish a way to shut down youth voices youth representation student voices and student services and to make being a student in New Zealand just a little bit harder. 
I thank all the submitters who did great work throughout the long but very interesting submission process. I thank them for the hours of work that went into it but I lament all the other things the Government has been doing that students could have been campaigning on this year. In summary I support the right of students to choose the system that works best for them and not what the ACT Party says is best for them. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I call the next member I just mention to those in the gallery that we welcome their interest in the debate but theirs is a passive role and they cannot participate. I ask them to respect that convention of the House. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Every once in a while a debate occurs in this House in which key concepts emerge that are crucial to the expression of the democratic process. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is one of those opportunities. It is a chance to revisit the theories around the very nature of democracy the enactment of universal freedoms and the notion of political participation. The title of the bill prompts us to consider the notion of freedom and where it fits in this case in tertiary education institutions. It asks us to consider the place of freedom within a democracy such as freedom of speech press religion or association and how government properly respects such freedoms. It seeks public response to this issue. 
I come to this bill mindful of a political sideshow that has been capturing the interests of the media over the last week. Last Tuesday a rookie MP from the ACT Party used her maiden speech to call for a reduced emphasis on government and a call for simpler legislation. She then proceeded to contradict those two core principles by demanding from Government an immediate assurance that it would insert the word “free” into the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. Notwithstanding the obvious oxymoron of juxtaposing the word “free” alongside the word “public” the maiden-day initiative was an appalling attack on the parliamentary process. In demanding an amendment to a bill that has only just entered the select committee phase the new MP chose to override the vital role that the public play in commenting on legislation. It is exactly this same attack that continues unabated in the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. 
I want to make it absolutely clear that the parliamentary process is intricately tied to the notion of the people’s voice. It is the opportunity for the citizenship to have their say and express their views about any legislation before the House and we must protect that right as a basic axiom of democracy. For example the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill is at the very starting point of the select committee process. It is an opportunity for the select committee to call for public submissions to hear evidence on those submissions and subsequently to recommend amendments to the House. It should not be overridden by any politician or any political party. For the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill the select committee process was absolutely fundamental to how we should perceive the significance of the proposals debated tonight. I ask why we should set ourselves a lesser target for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. We must resist at every opportunity political parties that seek to override the democratic process and interfere with the parliamentary process. 
People have spoken with a clear voice of opposition to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. There were 4837 submissions and 98 percent of them opposed the bill. Let me share some of the voices of the people with the House. Towards the southern end of my electorate of Te Tai Tonga Te Roopu Whai Putake the Otago University Maori Law Students Association opposed the bill on the basis that it “attacks the Maori student voice and their ability to have democratically elected collective organisations on campus by removing the existing right of students to determine how to organise themselves.” 
In the centre region of Te Tai Tonga the Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre opposed the bill promoting support for students associations and noting particularly that Maori student ropu had an understanding of and facilitate te ao and tikanga Maori. 
For the sake of completeness at the northern end of my electorate Ngai Tauira the Victoria University of Wellington Maori Students’ Association also opposed the bill stating: “It is our belief that until Maori become a normal feature of the tertiary environment then Maori students associations will be necessary to ensure equity and support of our students in the tertiary environment.” 
As the member for Te Tai Tonga I have to say that those three organisations alone provide a compelling case for opposing the bill. But the Maori Party extends past the boundaries of Te Tai Tonga of course so just for the record I have reviewed the evidence from across other electorates as well. Te Mana Matauranga o Te Waiariki opposed this bill declaring: “We believe that this bill is unnecessary as the status quo works.” 
In the Tamaki Makaurau electorate views were just as strongly held. Nga Tauira Maori the Auckland University Maori Students Association opposed this bill noting that “The bill adversely affects the ability of Nga Tauira Maori to exercise tino rangatiratanga kaitiakitanga and manaakitanga which are guaranteed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” 
The advice of Te Mana Akonga the National Maori Tertiary Students Association was: “In our extensive consultation with Maori over this particular issue it has become abundantly clear that iwi support Maori student ropu on campus.” 
A worrying comment has appeared in some of the contributions of members that might imply that a considerable number of the 4837 submissions received were of a pro forma template nature. I want to share the words of the people as they appeared before the Education and Science Committee because it provides such a clear picture that the majority of an overwhelming number of submissions opposed the bill. The reality is that there is a need for students associations—a fact emphasised to the committee by John Kingi a welfare officer for the Auckland University Students Association. He opposed the bill saying: “Often times we are forced to turn away students who may require some assistance as we simply do not have the capacity that universal associations do to meet the demands of students.” 
Finally I return to the notions of democracy and freedom that I spoke of earlier. Benjamin Franklin once said: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” We must not allow the democratic process to be manipulated so that the lamb does not even get to have a say and the wolves determine what is on the menu with no regard for the voice of the people. 
The people have spoken with one voice on this bill. The Maori Party will stand with Te Mana Akonga the National Maori Tertiary Students Association; Te Mana Matauranga; Te Tapuwae o Rehua research centre; Ngai Tahu Maori Law Centre; Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa; Te Toi Tauira mo te Matariki the national forum for supporting Maori students and staff in tertiary education; Te Ropu Takawaenga Maori o Nga Kura Matauranga o Aotearoa the Maori Liaison Tertiary Association of New Zealand; Te Toi Ahurangi komiti Maori within the Tertiary Education Union; and Te Kahui Amokura the Maori committee of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee amongst a cast of thousands who petitioned Parliament to throw out this bill. 
We support the position of students that the legislative framework allows students themselves to be the collective decision-makers on whether their associations should be voluntary or compulsory as well as enabling choice regarding their individual membership of an association. We value students associations and their representatives including Maori student ropu and their representatives in playing a strong advocacy role within tertiary institutions and the wider sector for high-quality academic standards adequate Government investment and course fee maintenance or reductions. 
Students associations also provide a range of important services to students like welfare and academic advocacy faculty and class representatives financial assistance legal help counselling services student social events student clubs student societies and student sports and recreation facilities. In effect if this bill goes through tonight it will kill student associations. That will be the practical effect of this bill. 
I was interested to hear the ACT member cite one reason for destroying student unions being the fact that some people and some student unions have misused student money. If that reasoning was carried across into other areas then the ACT Party should be destroyed because its leader misused taxpayer money repeatedly. Companies should be destroyed because some company directors have committed fraud. We have to be consistent so that is the effect and that is what we should be doing 
As a student I benefited from student unions; so has my husband and our children. Students associations have improved the lives of students—no argument. For all of the reasons I have outlined we stand with the associations to oppose this bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I am dismayed that I have to take a call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This bill should not be before Parliament; we should not be dealing with it. I am very interested to know what John Key would have to say about this bill if he had the time to come to the House and take a call on it. The reason why I wonder that is that John Key is a pragmatist. He has built his reputation on being a pragmatic chap who does what is necessary and what is right and he is open to anything that works. If ever there was a time or a need for pragmatism this is it. 
This is not a pragmatic bill; it is ideology pure and simple. It was introduced to the House by one ideologue who I do not think was particularly interested in it and then it went back to the original drafter of the bill another ideologue who is not representing the voice of students. We have not had a great outpouring from university and polytechnic students crying for this bill to be put through the House. This is a sop from the Government to its minority support partner and to the tiny number of students who belong to ACT on Campus—I think the entire number of them are in the Speaker’s gallery this evening. 
How will a new student respond to the environment of a voluntary students association? That is the question we really need to think about. What will this mean in practical terms for students? New students arrive at university and they are hit with a bill before they even arrive there. Part of that bill may be an option that they may or may not want to take up: their students association levy. They have no idea what the students association is. They have course fees they have living costs and they will probably have to borrow against their loan for living costs. They are facing years and years of debt. They will try to find any possible way to keep down that debt. They have no idea what the students association does because the students association does not have the resources to market to potential students use and should not be wasting its resources on that. 
We will see students who have no idea about what choice they are making. They will have no idea. They will not be making an informed choice. They will turn down that option and students associations will find it very very hard to recruit new members before they have even had the chance to go to them and tell them what services they provide. This is the death of students associations. It is the death of organisations that provide a vital service in universities. 
Even the tertiary institutes the universities and the polytechnics hate this bill. They do not want this bill. They are opposed to this bill. They value what students associations bring to the tertiary environment. They do not just value it; they see the services that the students associations provide as absolutely necessary—so necessary that the universities will step in and replace some of those services if the students association folds. That is very noble of the universities but it presents a number of problems. 
First in most practical terms are the costs for students. Students—who are already facing massive costs who have a lower potential to earn and who have low incomes—will be hit by a higher cost. They might be able to turn down the students association fee but they will get a much much higher student services fee because the university will have to step in. It will have to step in to make sure that students have representation and advocacy. Many students associations support the health care services on campus; a university will have to step in and do that. A students association can do it for a lot less than a university can because it relies on a volunteer base and on people who are paid a lower income because they appreciate the experience that they get from working at a students association. The university will not be able to do that. It will have to pay a proper wage and that will drive up those costs. 
Second students will have no say on the setting of that levy and on how that levy is spent. I know that not too many students bother to make it to their annual general meetings but they have that option available to them now. They can have a say on how that money is spent. That say will be taken away from them when the university has to take over running those student services. So students will not only have to spend more they will have their rights and their say on how their money is spent taken away from them. All of that is for choice and freedom of association! What ideological claptrap we are hearing from the ACT Party. 
The other problem with the university taking over is that it presents it with a massive conflict of interest. The advocacy services and the representation that students associations provide are absolutely vital. If students find themselves in a disciplinary process up against the academic council or any of those sorts of processes they will need representation. Who does that work at the moment? The students association does it. It is a free service that is provided to its members. The university or the polytechnic will have to step in. That presents a massive conflict of interest because not only will they be providing the advocacy for those students but they will be the other party in the disciplinary process. Students associations are completely independent and that independence brings a robustness to those processes that will be completely lost if this bill goes ahead. 
It is ideological claptrap—nothing more nothing less. The National Party has bent over backwards to let the ACT Party have its say. Let us be honest: it is to restore a little bit of mana for Heather Roy within the ACT Party. That is what this bill is all about. 
Where are the pragmatic amendments? The National Party says it is a party of pragmatism under the “Lone Ranger” John Key. Maybe that is the problem. John Key is the pragmatist but everybody else is not and they actually favour this ideological approach. Where are the amendments? Submitters who came to the Education and Science Committee and spoke against the bill offered up a number of amendments that would have lightened the touch of the bill a little bit and made it a little more sensible. They would have made it a little bit more usable and it would not have had that same kill-off aspect that it does for certain associations at the moment. They offered up ways of introducing more accountability and transparency. They offered up options for clarifying objection to membership. Where are the amendments that could have been offered up by the select committee? Where is the pragmatism? What happened to those very sensible ideas that were promoted by people who submitted on the bill? 
The committee received 4837 submissions and 98 percent were opposed. I would have thought that John Key would come down to the Chamber stick his finger in the wind and say: “Do you know what? The political winds are blowing against us here chaps. I think we’d probably better get onside with the students.” But no the pragmatic National Party is bending over for the ideological ACT Party. 
What is the sum total of this bill? It will increase costs for students. That is about it. It will take away their voice. It will take away their ability to group together collectively and to have a voice in Government decisions that affect them. It will take away their advocacy services. It will take away some of the fundamentals that students hold dear such as their ability to go to events at a reasonable price the ability to use the gym at a reasonable price and the ability to use student clubs and societies sports drama and debating clubs. Those will all be gone. So too will counselling services legal help and financial assistance. It is true. I am a former students association president and I really appreciated the ability to support students in hardship. That service is under threat thanks to this bill promoted by the ACT Party and the National Party. 
Labour has a very clear position on this bill and I will spell it out. The only sensible part of this bill is that it will not be enacted until the beginning of 2012 which is after the next general election. If Labour is in Government then we will repeal this legislation. We will be on the side of students. We will be the people of pragmatism and common sense which is sorely lacking from the Government with this absolutely ridiculous bill. This bill is a fundamental attack on students’ rights. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the constitution and rules of the Otago University Students’ Association including section 5 on the question of membership and the ability to object to membership. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Are these documents in the public domain? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: They are documents of the association. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being considered. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: How many of these do you have? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: A few. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: If you want to table them I ask you to seek leave to table them all together. What are they? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Leave is sought to table the constitution and rules of the Auckland University Students Association the Waikato Student Union the Massey University Students Association the University of Canterbury Students Association the Lincoln University Students’ Association and the students association of the Auckland University of Technology; and the students association rules and constitution of Tairawhiti Polytechnic the Eastern Institute of Technology the Wellington Institute of Technology WelTec the Student Association of Nelson-Marlborough Institute of Technology SANITI and Tai Poutini Polytechnic. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It has been disappointing that the National Government which is breaking one of its election promises by supporting this legislation does not feel that it should be making speeches longer than 20 seconds. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You’re making it up. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I will get to that I say to Dr Smith. One of the most depressing things about being in Opposition is seeing how quickly National Governments can tear down institutions that have taken decades if not a century to build up. We do not know the value of some of these things until they are gone and once they are gone—I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am facing a barrage from the member Louise Upston who is not in her seat. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I will decide the level of interjection and when it is at a level where I have difficulty hearing and I find it intrusive I will act. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to make a few comments about this bill because I am sick and tired of seeing National and ACT members destroy institutions like students associations and early childhood education because they can afford alternatives and because their supporters can afford alternatives. 
I come back to the member Heather Roy who said in her speech that she opposed compulsory membership because it was against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Where was that respect for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act when she gave a speech tonight on Paul Quinn’s ridiculous legislation which is thoroughly against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? The Attorney-General says it is against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is making New Zealand an international joke. Heather Roy had no credibility when she spoke in favour of that bill and voted for that bill and she has no credibility when she now claims that somehow because of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we should be getting rid of compulsory membership of students associations. 
The other issue is that there is no demand for this bill apart from a small minority. Ninety-eight percent of the submissions to the Education and Science Committee opposed the bill. Paul Hutchison the National member went to the New Zealand University Students Association conference on 5 July 2008 and promised that National would not make any changes to students association membership—he promised that. National went to the last election promising that it would not do this. 
Apparently we have such a huge problem with students association membership in our universities that Parliament needs to intervene yet the supporters of voluntary student membership cannot even get the 10 percent required to force a referendum. If they cannot get the 10 percent to force a referendum it is a bit rich to come to Parliament and claim that the majority of people in New Zealand think that there is a problem that needs to be fixed. 
Let us be clear that this bill is being passed by a party that got 2 percent support at the last election. Is it not funny that the 2 percent support it got at the last election is also the level of support in the submissions to the select committee? Most New Zealanders did not want this they did not think that they were voting for it and it is a sop to the ACT Party that it even being passed in this House. 
People who have spoken very briefly in support of this bill do not even seem to understand what students associations do. They do not understand what they do at all. These organisations are run by students for students. What can be more responsive to the needs of students than an organisation they control they elect the executive for and they run? Why does the ACT Party think it knows better in terms what students want and what students need than the students themselves? 
I do not know when the members who have spoken in favour of this bill actually went to university and when they were last involved in a students association but since National was elected in the 1990s it has become very expensive to be at university. The subsidised services are very useful. Counselling services are very useful for many students and support services in terms of educational support and hardship are valued by students. There are also health services and if one goes to the doctor a couple of times one has already paid back the cost of the fee at the beginning of the year. Once these services are gone we will not get them back. Student unions have spawned a number of leaders sportspeople—as my colleague said—writers journalists community leaders in the non-governmental and Government sectors Mana by-election candidates and politicians. 
Let us be clear: this is the issue. The National Party and the ACT Party cannot beat students associations democratically on campus so they have to intervene in this House—they cannot get the numbers democratically in the institutions to do it any other way. 
Why do National and ACT not like students associations? Because students associations speak up for students and National and ACT do not have policies that are good for students. If they do not like the people opposing them they can just obliterate them—get rid of them altogether—then maybe the annoying nuisance of those students who are paying high fees and facing hardship because of Government policies will just go away. 
This bill is not about choice. I see that Tim Macindoe is in the House. I am very pleased he is in the House because his university Waikato University in his electorate actually voted to get rid of compulsory student membership then brought it back because it was such a dismal failure. How can Tim Macindoe say that this is about choice when his university made a choice? Those students had a vote. They voted democratically that they wanted compulsory student membership and Tim Macindoe is voting tonight to override their choice—their choice. [ 
Interruption 
] They voted I say to Mr Macindoe. They said they wanted it. Well Tim Macindoe and the National Party say that they know better than the students who democratically voted to bring back their students association because it completely fell apart. 
Mr Macindoe is from the party that promised at the last election that it would not do this. There is a little bit of a pattern with the National Party—the party of choice! This is not choice. Choice is saying to students associations that they can have a referendum about whether to be voluntary or compulsory. That is choice. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: They’ll have the choice to join. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No they will not have a choice. This bill says that they have to be voluntary. Even if they want to be compulsory they cannot be under this bill. How is that choice? That is not choice at all and it will be very very damaging. 
We could have made a whole raft of changes to this legislation if it was about accountability. If the National and ACT members thought the conscientious objection provisions were not strong enough they could have been changed. If they are finding it so hard to find 10 percent of students who want to have a referendum they could make it 9 percent. A whole raft of things could have been done at select committee but they did not do any of them—they did not do any of them. 
Universities may be able to keep running some services in some form or another but they will not be run by students and they will be more expensive. Students associations are incredibly cost-effective organisations. They run on volunteer hours. They are run by people who enjoy being part of a university community and are happy to provide services more cheaply than is normally the case because they see the value of contributing to that university community. Now that will not be the case. 
Universities which have already had their funding cut under this Government—in fact all tertiary institutions have had their funding cut under this National and ACT Government—will have to find other ways to provide those services and they will be more expensive. They will not be run by the students. The tertiary institutions themselves have said they do not want to do this. They said: “Please let us keep our students associations.” In some cases students have voted democratically to say they want to keep compulsory membership of their students associations. National and ACT say they know better. National promised it would not do it at the last election. 
Two percent of the population voted for this bill at the last election but it will be foisted on 100 percent of students—100 percent of students. I repeat: Paul Hutchison when speaking on behalf of the National Party on 5 July 2008 at the New Zealand University Students Association conference promised that National would not support this legislation. He promised that National would not support this legislation. This bill will kill students associations. 
I point out the difficulties for small provincial polytechnics which are finding it hard enough already. In my own home town of Gisborne Tairawhiti Polytechnic is being forced to merge with another polytech not because it wants to or because it is a good idea but because it has had its funding slashed to the bone. Our students association at Tairawhiti Polytechnic is gone. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.