Robertson Grant: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
Robertson Grant: Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) — First Reading 
[Volume:671;Page:17989] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson and as it is the first occasion on which I have spoken since you have moved to your new elevated status I will just acknowledge that. There is some confusion around the House about whether we are in fact blood relatives and I see that today you are wearing the clan tartan tie. But just for the record once and for all I say that we are not related although I do hold you in the greatest of respect. I thought I would just clarify that. 
I stand to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and following just one speaker on from Rahui Katene who spoke before I have to take up some of the issues that she raised. Standing here in urgency I question whether this is the best that the National Government can do and the question that I would have thought the Maori Party would be asking is whether this bill is the best that the Government can do for Maori. I ask whether it should not actually be bringing to this House something that will address the appalling rate of unemployment among young Maori. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Highest since the Second World War. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Unemployment among Maori is now the highest since the Second World War. Where is the plan to grow opportunities for Maori youth? Where is the plan for training? We have had $55 million taken out of training by this Government. Where is the plan to have young Maori in training? Where is the plan to support young Maori into university so that they can be the leaders of tomorrow? Where is the plan for Maori growth in business and for entrepreneurship for Maori—where is the plan for that? That is the question that I believe the Maori Party should be asking of the Government as we are here in urgency today debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). 
The other matter I will take up from Rahui Katene is a serious one and that is the question of funding for anti-violence measures in this country. I was the recipient of a letter as were many others in this House from Women’s Refuge. That letter told us that it was concerned that $380000 had been taken out of its budget—$380000. That is a cut. That is a cut to an organisation that I think every single member of this House would have respect for. The women’s refuge down in Christchurch at the moment is having to deal with more and more women coming to see it. I have had Women’s Refuge come into my office during the last year saying that it is full up and cannot take any more people—$380000 has been taken from that organisation’s budget. It is the end of the Te Rito programme a programme that Minister Turia used to champion but not now. I am sorry to say that it is not correct for Rahui Katene to stand up and tell us that there have not been cuts. Women’s Refuge wrote to this House. Annette King raised the issue with Paula Bennett and tabled that letter in this House. That is an issue the Maori Party and others need to answer. In this bill we have a provision about the Domestic Violence Act but it is not the kind of provision we should be seeing from this Government. It is not a plan to address the reduction of domestic violence; it is a tinkering change just as the rest of this bill is. 
We are here in urgency and I raise the issue yet again that the National Government has decided that amendments like those being made to the Wild Animal Control Act and the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area Act are the urgent business of this House. There is one thing I can say for the Government on this: at least this bill is going to a select committee. In this term of Government 17 bills have come into this House and have not been referred to a select committee—17. That number compares in the last three terms of the Labour Government with one bill in one term four bills in another term and five bills in another term. Doing that with 17 bills is to corrupt the democratic process. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What does that tell us? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It tells us that this Government does not want to hear from the public I say to Mr Horomia. That is what it tells us. It does not want to hear from the public. 
One of the first bills I debated when I became a member of Parliament was the bill that rammed through Anne Tolley’s national standards. That bill did not go to a select committee. I ask what could be more important to send to a select committee and get expert opinion and public opinion on than a fundamental change to the way our children are assessed and the way that children’s reports are given to parents. That is a major issue and this Government rammed that bill through under urgency. It did not send that bill to a select committee. But today we sit here under urgency debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This is meant to be a tidy-up kind of bill. It is as Sandra Goudie said earlier some housekeeping. Well as my colleague Steve Chadwick said that is right; Sandra Goudie is doing the housekeeping. She is polishing up the family silver before the National Government sells it off. That is what it is doing. That is the kind of housekeeping this Government has indulged in because this bill does not give us any kind of direction or any kind of plan for New Zealand. This bill is the priority. The choice that the National Government has made today is to bring this bill before the House. It does not provide any kind of economic plan. It does not help people who are struggling in New Zealand to pay their food bills to pay their rent to pay their power or to put petrol in the car. It does not help them at all. Here we have the National Government fiddling while Rome burns. 
If we look at one of the clauses perhaps we can see an inkling of a plan for the National Government. It is the clause that amends the Marriage Act. What this clause does is to allow a New Zealander who intends to marry outside New Zealand to apply to the registrar-general for a certificate that states that there is no lawful impediment to the marriage. This is another part of National’s strategy of running up the white flag because it knows that so many New Zealanders are going to go overseas and will need to get married overseas that it had better change the law to make it easier for them. That is it: run up the white flag on the economy. Bill English has given away catching up with Australia and now he will make it easier for all the people who have gone to Australia to get married over there. 
Hon Member 
: Low-hanging fruit. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: That is right—pick it off. This is the first step in giving up on catching up with Australia: New Zealanders can get married overseas far more easily. Well that is fantastic! On this side of the House we think that we should be working hard to keep people in New Zealand. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: And then they’re going to bring foreign businesses here because the workers are cheap. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Horomia is absolutely right. Because there is no plan for the economy only foreign capital will be in New Zealand and only foreign-owned businesses will be able to do that. On this side of the House we believe that New Zealanders should own their own future. We believe we should keep assets in New Zealanders’ control and build an economy that works for all New Zealanders not the economy that this Government is trying to build at the moment. 
There are a couple of interesting changes that I think the select committee will want to focus on. One has already been mentioned which is the amendment to the definition of a charitable purpose in the Charities Act so that it can include an entity that promotes sport if that purpose is expressed to be and is in fact the means by which a charitable purpose will be achieved. I say in this House that the Charities Act is an area where the last Government perhaps did not get all of the details right and a number of other changes to the Charities Act might be considered. But again we have a piecemeal approach to pick this one out. And why just sport? I can absolutely see why organisations whose prime purpose relates to sport would want to be included in a charitable purpose but I have been on the board of charitable organisations that have struggled with the Charities Act and have struggled to be able to get their exact purpose to fit. There should be a wider amendment here but it is a piecemeal picked-off one thing. 
There is also another reasonably significant change and that is an amendment to the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act. What it does is to make provision for the writ for an indicative referendum to be conducted by postal voting. That is probably quite a sensible amendment but it is a significant amendment. It is something that will merit debate in the select committee. I will pick up another one of Rahui Katene’s points in that regard. I sat on the Government Administration Committee for the last Statutes Amendment Bill. Although there are no objections to these clauses being put before the House what happens in the select committee process is that we have witnesses coming in we have evidence in front of the committee and decisions might be made that perhaps we should not carry on with a bill. Although we are supporting this bill on its first reading as we do with any bill that comes to this House when this bill comes to the select committee—if the National Government lets it go there—we will listen to the submissions and make our decision then on whether we support every single aspect of this bill. 
As others have mentioned there are some very small minor matters of tidying things up. I know my colleague Ruth Dyson will be delighted to see that the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act will now correctly spell Lyttelton which it has not previously done until now. So that is a change that I know she will be happy with. 
Overall there is very little in this bill at all that will give New Zealanders comfort that there is a Government in place that has a plan to make their lives better. It is quite the opposite in fact. We have a Government that has run up the white flag on its plan to catch up with Australia. The best it can do as my colleague Rick Barker said is increase the number of directors on the New Zealand Railways Corporation board from seven to nine. Increasing bureaucracy doing the opposite of what it says it will do—that is the mantra of this Government and that is what this bill shows us.