Volume 685 Week 28 - Thursday 15 November 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 685 Week 28 - Thursday 15 November 2012 
[Sitting date: 15 November 2012. Volume:685;Page:6703. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 15 November 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House is in a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 27 November the Government will look to progress the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Advanced Technology Institute Bill and a number of first readings on the Order Paper including the Human Rights Amendment Bill and the Taxation (Livestock Valuation Assets Expenditure and Remedial Matters) Bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Can I just ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether any thought has been given yet to the date for the Alcohol Reform Bill coming back? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I understand that that matter is still under discussion at the Business Committee. 
Questions to Ministers 
Modern Apprentices and Trades Training—Numbers 
1. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: How many Modern Apprenticeships were being undertaken as at December 2011 and what percentage increase or decrease is this compared with December 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: In December 2011 10434 people were enrolled in the Modern Apprenticeships programme. This represents a 14 percent decrease from December 2008. However enrolments in full-time tertiary education are up and that is what you would expect in a recession when there are fewer jobs. In addition to that there are 10000 in Youth Guarantee and trades academies. Young New Zealanders have more choices for pathways to skills than they have ever had. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it correct that the number of Modern Apprentices peaked at 12933 in June 2009 and that it has now fallen to 10434—a drop of 19.3 percent in the number of Modern Apprentices under this Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That question shows the problems that bedevilled— 
Hon Members 
: Answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The way that question was asked about those numbers illustrates the problem with the system we inherited. The number of Modern Apprentices might have dropped but the number getting qualifications has gone up. In fact— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question. It asked whether that statement was correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not actually hear the Minister answer it. He got straight into how the question demonstrated—but I think if the Minister could answer it and then he can put it in context. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree with the numbers about how many people are enrolled but in fact the number getting a qualification has gone up. To illustrate the scale of the mess that we inherited in 2008 96000 registered trainees did not get a single credit—96000 of them. Completion rates have gone up from 35 percent to 71 percent. Twice the proportion are achieving qualifications even if there are a few less in the scheme. 
Grant Robertson 
: How is it contributing to meeting the skill and training needs of New Zealand to have 2500 fewer young New Zealanders undertaking apprenticeships now than 3 years ago? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because the skills and training needs of young New Zealanders are much broader than Labour’s branding exercise with Modern Apprenticeships. It was 10 percent of all trade training. The number of people getting trades and skills qualifications has gone up not down despite a recession and there are more pathways for younger people—better organised and better funded—than there ever were in the past. It has been a major step forward under this Government cleaning up the shambles that Labour left behind. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I think that is sufficient. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he think it is the Government’s role to provide opportunities for young New Zealanders to take on training; if so why is he walking away from apprenticeship schemes when youth unemployment is over 20 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is wrong. What—[ 
Interruption 
] Just let me explain the numbers. There are 10000 Modern Apprenticeships places. There are 235000 tertiary education places. There are over 100000 Training Opportunities Programme places. There are 10000 Youth Guarantee and trades academy places. Labour insists on saying that Modern Apprenticeships which is a fraction of the total training opportunities is the only opportunity. It is time that member did some work and understood— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Grant Robertson 
: Is it correct that since December 2008 there has been a 38 percent reduction in the number of building and construction trainees? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That may be correct because there has been a lot less building and construction. This member is showing how lazy and ignorant he is on these issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not think the question justified quite that. 
Dr Megan Woods 
: Why has the Government wasted the opportunity offered by the Canterbury rebuild to upskill young New Zealanders given that the figures show there has been a 43 percent decline in the number of building and construction trainees in Canterbury since it took office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is using specious figures related to the fact that there was an earthquake in Christchurch so there were no construction jobs in Christchurch so you could not train people on the job in Christchurch. On “Planet Labour” not only was there no recession there was no earthquake. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table statistics from the Tertiary Education Commission that show a drop in the number of Modern Apprentices since 2009 of 19.3 percent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table figures from the Tertiary Education Commission that show a 38 percent drop in the number of building and construction trainees since December 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! This is a point of order. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek the leave of the House to table information from the Tertiary Education Commission that shows a 37 percent drop overall in the number of industry trainees under this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Diabetes—Measures Targeting At-risk Populations 
2. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does the Government believe that it is acceptable that two out of three Maori and Pacific Island diabetics die from diabetic complications compared to one in three Pakeha diabetics; and what actions has he taken to reduce the inequities in light of fresh predictions that by 2020 one in six Maori and Pasifika adults will have diabetes? 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 No. No the Government does not believe that it is acceptable which is why improving diabetes care in primary care is a Government priority and has been included as one of the Government’s six health targets since 2008. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What specific long-term measures are being devised to reduce diabetes rates for Maori and Pacific people and those living in deprived neighbourhoods in light of the projections that the incidence of and the mortality rates for type 2 diabetes are expected to increase over the next 20 years with the biggest impact being on these groups? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: The Maori population is at greater risk of developing gestational diabetes. The ministry’s current project with a focus on gestational diabetes and health literacy particularly in regard to Maori may help Maori women and others to be better informed about screening for and management of gestational diabetes. This will be a long-term project and has had $121000 spent on it. The final report on this is due on 7 December and will be published by the end of January. With regard to Pacific peoples and the Pacific Innovation Fund $6 million was announced as part of the Budget this year to establish that fund and to administer it over 4 years. It will invest in long-term health initiatives that demonstrate innovation through application of new strategies models and methods of service delivery and in particular will look at things that are affecting Pacific people’s health like obesity and smoking. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister agree with Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare that screening for signs of pre-diabetes and insulin resistance related to obesity and management of these conditions is important; and what new programmes will be invested in to replace successful diabetes prevention programmes such as “Get Checked” Healthy Eating - Healthy Action and nutrition guidelines for school tuck shops all of which are programmes that have been scrapped by the Government? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: Yes screening is important. We have been working with the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Professor Sir Peter Gluckman who suggests that preconditions for obesity are set really early and that the best intervention point is maternal and newborn nutrition. I do want to acknowledge that the member has maintained that “Get Checked” was a successful programme and to disagree with the member. A 2011 review of recent studies on the “Get Checked” programme showed that it did not systematically result in improved management or outcomes for people with diabetes so we ring-fenced the budget approximately $8 million and asked district health boards and primary care to work together to design localised responses to best support people with diabetes. This Government is trying to work with programmes that are effective that do work and that are a good return on the investment of the taxpayer funding. 
Economic Programme—Effect on Savings and Debt 
3. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on progress in lifting New Zealanders’ household savings and reducing household debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Treasury advises that after 10 years of households spending more than they earned savings turned positive last year with a modest savings rate of 0.2 percent of household disposable income. This is expected to steadily increase over the next 3 years to around 3 percent of disposable income being saved by 2015. This process may be assisted by the increase in KiwiSaver contribution rates on 1 April 2013. As a result of better savings behaviour household debt has fallen to 90 percent of GDP this year from a peak of 97 percent in 2010. 
David Bennett 
: How have increases in household disposable income contributed to the lift in savings and the reduction in debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Household disposable income measures all income received in households after tax and less interest on housing loans so the recent figures take into account three rounds of tax changes as well as a significant fall in mortgage interest rates. Treasury advises that between March 2007 and March this year household disposable income increased by about a third. That means that households are making prudent decisions to focus on repaying debt at a time when they have higher disposable income. In the short term debt reduction is reducing demand and consumption but in the long run it will give households the Government and business more choices. 
David Bennett 
: What forecasts does he have of reductions in Crown net debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Crown net debt is rising at the moment because the Government is running significant deficits but as we target a surplus in 2014-15 Crown net debt as a proportion of GDP will then start reducing. The economic and fiscal update in December 2008 showed that on the Government spending trajectory at that time net debt would reach 50 percent of GDP in 2020. Under the decisions made over the last 4 years in Budgets Crown net debt in 2020 is now expected to be less than 20 percent. In dollar terms this means that instead of the Crown having debt of $150 billion as forecast in 2008 it will have debt of $58 billion. 
David Bennett 
: What economic policies are helping to keep inflation low and assisting households to save more? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Households have done a very good job of saving in the face of reasonably difficult circumstances. A number of policies the Government has put in place are helping them to continue with their saving: first responsible fiscal policy which is helping to keep their interest rates lower than they otherwise would be; sensible monetary policy which gives them certainty about the future and helps to keep the cost of living low; tax changes that reward work and savings and discourage consumption borrowing and excessive property speculation; and policies aimed at giving businesses the confidence to invest and grow and employ more people. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did he really say at the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday that “Our problem is one of success.”; if so given that unemployment is at the highest rate since he was last the Minister of Finance and our current account deficit is the second worst in the world and set to get worse how much worse does it have to get before he will admit failure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We simply disagree with the member’s diagnosis of the issues. The fact is that in the face of a sharp recession and difficult global conditions New Zealand is on a track to 2 to 3 percent growth. The member’s attempts to sell snake oil on economic policy are not being bought by anyone. Most New Zealanders know that we need to stick to a pretty careful plan around increasing savings careful management of our spending avoiding unnecessary borrowing and doing everything we can to get people into jobs. If we stick to that plan we will do well. 
Hon David Parker 
: Why does he believe that implementing the same economic policies as he did the last time he was the Minister of Finance in 1999—the last time employment was this high—will produce different results this time? Or will he be happy with the same outcome as last time—a change of Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should be grateful for the hard work done by the Governments of the 1990s including by the former Treasurer the Rt Hon Winston Peters who left the economy in such good shape that a reckless Labour Government was able to enjoy the benefit of reducing debt and rising surpluses but unfortunately it squandered that decade and now we have got to fix it all up again. 
Economy Sustainable—Pure Advantage Reports and Government Policy 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Has the Government changed its position in relation to the recommendations of the Pure Advantage green growth reports given its rejection of Pure Advantage’s first report? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: No. The first report advocated shifting significant resources away from existing productive areas of the economy to subsidise the development of a small number of so-called green growth industries. I am happy to advise the member that the second report underscores the importance of a significant number of Government initiatives already under way and tends to reinforce the Government’s position that we need to pursue all our opportunities in a way that balances economic and environmental objectives. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Government now concur with Pure Advantage and with London School of Economics professor and world climate change expert Lord Nicholas Stern who say that there will be a $3 trillion clean-technology market by 2050; if he does why does the Government put open-cast mining ahead of forestry carbon sinks new renewables and negotiating a successor to the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the fact is that we need both and under this Government tree planting increased quite significantly after the chainsaw massacre that occurred because Labour messed up the Kyoto policy. It is a bit rich for the member to be saying that he is against open-cast mining at the same time as crying crocodile tears for coalminers who lost their jobs on the West Coast and who could get jobs in the open-cast coalmine if he and his fellow travellers would let it happen. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of the thorough analysis from leading economists including Vivid Economics the University of Auckland and Lord Stern which confirms the earlier findings of Pure Advantage will he now apologise to Sir George Fistonich Rob Fyfe Chris Liddell Phillip Mills Jeremy Moon Rob Morrison Geoff Ross Justine Smyth Mark Solomon Sir Stephen Tindall Joan Withers and Duncan Stewart for abusing their important contributions to the economic debate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No but the ongoing discussion after the first report has I think shown some benefits for the second report. But I might point out to the member that green growth is not just about groups of people getting together to write reports. It is about for instance this Government grappling with an issue that the previous Government completely failed to deal with and that is reform of the way we use water our most fundamental resource in this country. A 3-year collaborative process has yielded the Land and Water Forum report and over the next 6 months we will make some of the most important decisions in a decade about the balance of environmental and economic growth in this country. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister assure the House that he has read in full the latest Pure Advantage report; if so in what chapter does the forward estimate of the $3 trillion export market reside? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would say that the Minister probably has; I would have to say I have not. But I would have to say that if I did read it I would be very sceptical about consultants’ estimates of massive new industries that currently do not exist. The fact is that businesses are not stupid. Where they see opportunities in improved environmental management techniques or running their own businesses in a way that is more energy-efficient they will take those opportunities. I find that businesses in New Zealand because of our clean green image have a high degree of awareness of those issues. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How does Tim Groser dumping New Zealand squarely in the camp of climate science denying countries by refusing to even negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol enhance our clean green image? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because the clean green image is about what you do day by day week by week in the farms and workplaces of New Zealand and that is where our focus is. I do not think the Labour Party would benefit from a change from the moderate and sensible statements that we get from its current leader to extravagant exaggerated statements from the pretend leader. 
White Paper for Vulnerable Children—Child Protect Line 
5. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How will the new Child Protect Line discussed in the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children better protect New Zealand’s children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 As part of the Government’s white paper we will be introducing the new Child Protect line. It will provide a single point of contact to report any concerns people have about children and young people. Those with concerns about children who are not sure whether it is serious enough to ring Child Youth and Family will be able to ring this line with those concerns and seek advice. This is something that people said through the submission process they really wanted. 
Mark Mitchell 
: Who will be operating the phone line and answering these calls? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Child Protect line will have trained professionals answering the phone line just like we have now for 111 calls. As well as being able to report suspected child abuse or neglect people can seek help and referrals to a comprehensive range of social and parenting services. The new Child Protect line will also be able to escalate calls as necessary. 
Mark Mitchell 
: How will calls be managed through the Child Protect line? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This will make a real difference for children. At the moment for the calls that Child Youth and Family cannot deal with it tries to escalate them down to non-governmental organisations. The difference here is that you will have a line that is able to escalate up and as a consequence get the right people working with the right children. 
Visitor Visas—China Southern Airlines Frequent Flyer Scheme 
6. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What assurances can he give that international criminals will not be entering New Zealand through the China Southern Airlines frequent flyer scheme? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am confident that Immigration New Zealand can manage this scheme well because we have put a number of safeguards in place on top of the normal screening requirements. Visitors must still apply for a visa and meet the good-character and health checks. Any criminal conviction is likely to rule someone out. Applicants will have to show proof of having a return ticket to China. It will not be available to anyone who has not travelled overseas before. This also means that the programme will be closely monitored and reviewed monthly and it can be suspended at any time if there are concerns. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he possibly give that assurance given the serious concerns raised by somebody who might know—the head of Immigration New Zealand’s intelligence risk and integrity division—that the fast-tracking of China Southern Airlines frequent flyers sets and I quote him “a dangerous precedent” because international criminals belong to such clubs? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: As I mentioned in the primary answer I am satisfied that Immigration New Zealand has robust processes in place to manage the risk that the member is talking about. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has he as Minister learnt nothing from his department’s recent random check of 1800 recent student visa applicants from China only to find as many as 15 percent of them to be fraudulent—and still not found yet at this point in time? Has he learnt nothing to the extent that his department is now a tumultuous mess on these matters? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I do not agree with the latter part of that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So he has learnt nothing. Given that the New Zealand Police lists common Asian crime syndicate offences as “extortion drug trafficking identity fraud and people smuggling” why would anyone accept the assurance of the Minister or his Government that members of Chinese gangs such as Triads and other criminal syndicates will not be able to exploit the China Southern Airlines frequent flyer scheme to get into New Zealand which is exactly what the officials are now warning? How can he give that assurance in the light of that? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I believe I have given that assurance. Since that internal email was discussed amongst immigration officials they have advised me they have a very robust system in place and I am satisfied with their assurances that this will work as it is intended. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that Skycity Casino in Auckland has been pushing for this fast-track scheme for years and that its high rollers already operate under these new rules which means that a casino and a communist Government airline have under his deal with them now acquired privileges for their customers not available to any other group of people anywhere else in the world? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: No I do not agree with those stupid assertions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a supplementary question? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker it is not an assertion. I said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Sorry is it a point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking whether it is a fact that Skycity Casino has been involved in these negotiations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! But the member then added a view towards the end of the question and the Minister was responding to that. He disagreed with that. Given the fairly provocative I guess language of some of the questions I cannot rule him out from being a bit provocative in answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was nothing provocative in that question other than the facts. I asked whether Skycity Casino was involved in respect of these new rules. Were their high rollers now taking advantage of these new rules already— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: There is nothing provocative in a few facts in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Actually question time is not a time to lodge facts with the House; it is a time to ask questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That is new. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well for some members it might be. The member may recollect he made an assertion that this was a unique situation in the world and the Minister disagreed with that. The Minister is entitled to answer—so long as he answers—how he sees fit. It is not up to the Speaker to judge whether his answer is right or wrong. He did answer the question but whether it was right or wrong is another matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have got only five supplementary questions in any given day. The Minister put out a press statement yesterday saying that this privilege was not available to any other people in the world. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The House will come to order; it is not helpful. The member knows that is not remotely a point of order. The member is trying to interject debating material into the Chamber by way of point of order and that is totally outside the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not a fact that the Minister put out a press statement just yesterday saying that this privilege was available only to China Southern Airlines customers and no one else and why would anyone put trust in a Minister who seems not to understand that the China Southern Airlines - casino deal is a recipe for illegal activity including money-laundering warned of by the Department of Internal Affairs despite the fact that his department has on six occasions fined this airline since 1 July—in the last 4½ months? What does that say about his undermining of issues of border security? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I did bring in in July the airline carrier infringement regime. That has been extremely successful because it said to the airlines that they need to make sure that every passenger on board has the correct documentation. There have been over 300 infringements. China Southern Airlines has incurred eight infringements so far. When you think about the travel frequency between China and New Zealand I consider that to be not too bad—when you think about the over 300 infringements that have occurred across the rest of the airlines. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table a statement saying the waiver will not be available to non-Chinese nationals or to those who have never travelled overseas before— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Is this a press statement? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is the Minister’s statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we do not table Ministers’ statements. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He just said it was an assertion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no we do not do that. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is the announcement yesterday by China Southern Airlines that it will be bringing 250 travel agents to New Zealand from China in December a payback for the secret deal the Minister has done and will they qualify for fast tracking under the gold and silver visa deal? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the Minister hear the question? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I ask the member please—and for the House to be a little more quiet for the Minister—to repeat her question so the Minister hears it accurately? I thank Darien Fenton. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is the announcement yesterday by China Southern Airlines that it will be bringing in 250 travel agents to New Zealand from China for an event in December a payback for the secret deal the Minister has done and will they qualify for fast tracking under his gold and silver visa deal? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: No not at all. I refute any allegation of a payback. What I can say is we should all be embracing the fact that 250 high-level travel agents are coming into New Zealand to explore the wonderful opportunities in this country. We should all be embracing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was Skycity involved in consultations or negotiations on this arrangement? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Not as far as I am aware no. 
Teachers and Support Staff—Measures to Address Problems with Novopay Payment System 
7. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he take ministerial responsibility for the problems with the Novopay system; if not why not? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes in relation to my education delegation as having oversight of major information technology projects on a case by case basis. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Has he issued instruction for any additional transitional support measures to be put in place for those affected by the problems with Novopay; if so what was the nature of that instruction? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: As I understand the question I cannot issue instruction—the contract is with the Ministry of Education. But if it is whether there is a demand from me for more resources accurate pay on time as expected by the sector then the answer there is yes. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Has he issued any instruction to the Ministry of Education— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the member. Order! I say to the National front benches that I cannot hear the question with that level of interjection. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I might have to get the Attorney-General to look after the Minister again if the interjections keep going. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Has he issued any instruction to the Ministry of Education for which he has ministerial responsibility to ensure that additional transitional measures are put in place to support those affected by the problems with Novopay; if not why not? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: As I said yesterday if any individuals are suffering economically because of a missed pay or an underpay or they have not been paid yes the ministry has put in mechanisms for them to be paid via the school operations grant. They must contact the school payroll officer or the ministry and it will be addressed and their suffering economically will be made good. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Has he given instruction for any additional support to be provided to the schools that are now being asked to compensate for the problems with Novopay; if he has not done that why has he not done that? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: Again I do not issue instruction but the ministry is. The Novopay team is putting extra resources as requested—as demanded—by me into going around schools particularly those that are having difficulties particularly with workshops around the end-of-year process which are extra resources and facilitation to help the implementation of Novopay. 
Chris Hipkins 
: In light of his delegation as Associate Minister if he is not giving instructions to the Ministry of Education to fix these problems who is? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: There are three parties to this: there is Talent2 the Novopay engine itself and the ministry. I have responsibility for oversight of major technological projects within the ministry. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question—maybe slightly pressuring but direct. It was not answered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not disagree. The member asked “If the Minister is not giving instructions to the ministry to make good some of the underpayments in this system then who is giving the instructions?” and the Minister did not answer that. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: I interpreted “instructions”. I have demanded of the ministry that it gets this right on time and accurately and that Talent2 get it right on time and accurately. It has not been delivered as expected. It is not satisfactory. It will be delivered I am assured by those in the ministry and at Novopay. 
Community Environment Fund—Regional Environment Centres 
8. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What recent announcements has she made in relation to the Community Environment Fund? 
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This week I was pleased to announce that 12 regional environment centres from around New Zealand will receive more than $1.4 million from the Government’s Community Environment Fund to provide practical ways of caring for their environment at a local level including courses on composting and growing vegetables; working with children; and community planting days. Environment centres play an important role in promoting environmental action in their communities and I am proud to say that this Government has nearly doubled their funding from that received under the previous Labour-Green Government. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What are some examples of work the environmental centres do? 
Hon AMY ADAMS 
: Environment centres provide advice and information and a wide range of services to their communities particularly around awareness raising waste reduction and recycling. One example is the environment centre in Nelson which I visited recently. It runs a waste education service programme delivering education to schools and early education centres. Another is the environment centre on Auckland’s North Shore with its Kaipatiki Project growing about 20000 new native plants every year and with 600 volunteers contributing. I am very pleased that the National-led Government has now contributed over $2.8 million to these centres and their work. 
Economy Sustainable—Pure Advantage Green Growth Report and Government Policy 
9. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with the Pure Advantage report released today that “green growth represents a huge opportunity for all Kiwis to prosper”; if so what will he do to put New Zealand on a green growth pathway? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As the Prime Minister said yesterday there are a number of aspects of the latest Pure Advantage report that the Government is interested in looking at because it may agree with them. The report underscores the importance of a significant number of existing Government initiatives already under way—for example the focus on energy efficiency water reform and investment in research and development. These are all elements of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. But I might also point out to the member that many New Zealand businesses are already on a green growth pathway because they invest large amounts of capital and considerable expertise week by week in changing their business in a way to make it more efficient or to deal with the environmental impact of their business. We do not discredit them. We give them credit for that. This issue is owned not just by people sitting around in groups coming up with strategies. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with the first line of the Pure Advantage report that “Earth’s resources are finite.”; if so what does he think this means for economic policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well what it means for economic policy is that we need to acknowledge scarcity and that is why we have things like prices and that is why the Greens advocated the emissions trading system as they did which was a system with the logic that dealt with scarcity by setting prices. I am not quite sure why the member then went on to advocate printing money which is exactly the opposite. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree therefore that the challenge of achieving prosperity within these global resource limits or the scarcity that he refers to is what is leading to a boom in green industries such as renewable energy and that this in turn creates the opportunity to grow a lot of jobs in New Zealand and we should embrace that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The fact is New Zealanders do embrace any viable green industry. The Greens carry on as if this is something that they thought of but actually every day thousands of New Zealanders are acting as environmental managers making decisions that trade off the prospect of income growth or reduced costs against environmental impacts. I would put in that category farmers people who drive trucks who worry about their stock effluent local councils making rules about putting underpasses under roads and businesses that are trying to reduce their energy bill. This concept is not owned by the Greens or the Pure Advantage group. It is inherent in the New Zealand character and the Greens should show more respect for that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that this is not a question about the Greens or Pure Advantage; rather it is a question about Government leadership? And does he agree with Pure Advantage when it says that there is an absence of a cohesive long-term green growth policy from his central government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No and a couple of examples I would point to include the fact that New Zealand’s proportion of renewable energy is now higher than ever because we made the electricity market more competitive and stopped semi-subsidised programmes that were going ahead. The second is the example I used earlier and that is water reform which is probably the single most important environmental reform of the decade. Alongside that I would actually put the regulation of the exclusive economic zone which the Labour Government had a decade to do did nothing and in fact opposed it. It has been the responsibility of this Government to express what every New Zealander would like to see expressed and that is their sense of stewardship for the oceans. In fact I would say this Government has a much better record on this than either the Greens or Labour ever had. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with Pure Advantage which has identified our natural biodiversity as one of the main competitive advantages of our $20 billion jobs-rich tourism industry and why therefore is the Government cutting funding to the Department of Conservation which is the prime protector of that biodiversity? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Funding is not being cut to the Department of Conservation. It is getting pretty much the same revenue as it has had and it is being treated in exactly the same way as most other public services. But again I point out to the member that although the Department of Conservation has a role in biodiversity protection a whole lot of other New Zealanders do too. In fact the Department of Conservation is getting ahead of that member’s perception because it has understood that in order to protect the most biodiversity possible it needs to work with those thousands of New Zealanders who have the same values and want to participate want to protect biodiversity and have plenty of skills to do so. It like the Greens does not have a monopoly and a sort of moralistic superiority about green stuff. Every New Zealander is interested in it and more of them would like you to show respect for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! If the Minister could just be a little careful. The Speaker should not be brought into the answer like that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept that this is not an issue about anyone not having respect for what ordinary New Zealanders are doing and that the issue is about Government leadership and the problem with the Government leadership is that it has been promoting mining extraction and motorways and those kinds of priorities for the Government are completely at odds with the green growth agenda? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister has shown a fine sense of balance in its leadership. Yes we have advocated responsible mining. We are advocating roads of national significance. Alongside that we are bringing in wide-ranging reform of the way we use water in New Zealand. We are regulating our exclusive economic zone and we have any number of other environmental initiatives including the home insulation scheme to which we committed $300 million. Compare that with the record of the Labour-Green Government that preceded us and its record is pathetic. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept the findings of the Pure Advantage report that New Zealand’s environmental performance is declining and that we slipped from first to 14th place in the recent Yale Environmental Performance Index; if so why does his Government keep promoting policies that are not only leading to record high unemployment but also degrading the environment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said before the Government has a very balanced approach to these issues. It is actually the Greens and Labour who promote policies that destroy jobs. We promote policies that create them. But alongside that we are promoting policies that underpin the sustainability of those jobs. For instance the water reforms that we are talking about will underpin the sustainability of our whole primary production sector and therefore the sustainability of the jobs in that sector. In that sense the Government is taking a balanced approach and actually many New Zealanders support that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given his previous commitment to the use of pricing around scarcity why has the Government changed the emissions trading scheme to effectively completely undercut a price on carbon and hence remove that price signal through the economy; and secondly will he commit to putting a price on the use of water so that we are able to use price signals to drive efficiency in the commercial use of water in irrigation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The biggest influence on the price for carbon units has been a recession which has led to a significant reduction in the growth rates of carbon emissions. The Greens should regard that as success not failure. I know that the Greens would like us all to suffer for environmental advancement but sometimes it is reasonably easy and in that case it is. In respect of a price on water we are interested in that discussion. I think the whole policy establishment has learnt a lot from the Greens’ advocacy of the emissions trading system. The Land and Water Forum has shown some interest in the issue but not come to conclusions. I would expect that over the next 6 to 9 months we will have the support of the Green Party in advancing water reform which may include developments in the pricing area. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Does he agree with Pure Advantage that there is a huge economic opportunity to invest more in passenger transport walking and cycling; if so why is his Government spending 85 percent of the budget available for new capital projects on a few State highway projects and less than 5 percent on making it easier and safer for people to walk cycle and take better buses and trains? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I suppose the main reason is because on our planet there are people and most of those people travel—in fact over 85 percent of passenger trips—in cars. They need roads so we are going to make sure that the road network is more efficient. The Government has actually invested a large amount in cycling in public transport— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: KiwiRail. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and in fact as the member has pointed out $750 million into KiwiRail for all the reasons that the Greens would advocate. So again I think our record is coherent and balanced— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Sensible. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and sensible. If the member has got some good ideas rather than some fluffy ones— 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Mad ones. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: —and mad ones then we would welcome hearing from her. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Does not the fact that State highway traffic volumes have not grown for the better part of the last decade while passenger transport volumes have been increasing at nearly 10 percent a year indicate that New Zealanders do want smart green transport options and is it not time to revisit this Government’s decision to prioritise billions on a few very low-value State highway projects such as the Kapiti Expressway the costs of which are five times greater than its economic benefits? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think if you actually look at what has happened with investment the Government has continued with the large-scale public transport investments that the previous Government initiated and that is very evident in the Auckland public transport network. But not everyone goes on public transport. If New Zealanders want green transport options they will get on the trains and the buses. More of them are doing so and the investment will tend to follow that. But actually 90 percent of them do not get on a bus or a train; they get in the car. We are not willing to ignore those people. We think that as citizens they have a right to the public investment as well. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the latest Pure Advantage report  
A race has begun. And we are in it 
. 
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. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table this internal report on the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway which shows that the benefits— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The source of the report? The member said—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member said that it is an internal report. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: It is an internal report to the New Zealand Transport Agency showing the benefits— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Member 
: Who wrote it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gather the Transport Agency wrote it. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: It is a report to the Transport Agency by some consultants who were working for the Transport Agency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: By whom? 
Julie Anne Genter 
: The Beca Group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a report by the Beca Group to the Transport Agency. 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. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I seek leave to table the State highway traffic volumes from the New Zealand Transport Agency that show that the volumes have not grown in over a decade on the route of the Kapiti Expressway. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hospices—Boost Hospice Care Funding and Liverpool Care Pathway 
10. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What is the Government doing to ensure the ongoing provision of hospice services in our communities? 
Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced that the Boost Hospice Care funding will be rolled over for a further 2 years. The current $15 million per year funding boost will now continue until 2015 to secure this vital service for our communities. Hospices provide terminally ill people and their families with the services and support they need. In many communities hospices provide palliative care in people’s homes as well as at in-patient facilities. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What is the Boost Hospice Care funding? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: The Boost Hospice Care funding was introduced in 2009 and gave hospices an additional $60 million over the 4 years to June 2013 to help them expand care and services and meet financial challenges. This increased the proportion of average hospice funding provided by the Government from 50 percent to 70 percent. The funding rollover I announced yesterday will therefore bring this Government’s total additional investment in palliative care to $90 million. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Is she aware that the Ministry of Health plans to cease funding the national coordination office of Liverpool Care Pathway based at Arohanui Hospice which ensures consistency of palliative care in hospices and the over 300 other settings including hospitals and rest homes in which palliative care is delivered; and will she work with the ministry to reverse that decision? 
Hon JO GOODHEW 
: From memory I am aware that the roll-out of the Liverpool Care Pathway was over a predetermined number of years. I am aware that the funding is coming to a close and that there has been a very clear signal sent to the group that actually coordinates it centrally that this funding will come to a close. Nevertheless I do want to take this opportunity to say that it has done a sterling job and that its success has shown that this Liverpool Care Pathway is in fact working very very well around the country and that is where it needs to be—around the country rather than in head office. 
KiwiRail—Partial Sale of Hillside Workshops and Rolling Stock Replacement 
11. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Does he stand by all his statements about manufacturing in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: Yes. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he stand by his statement on 3 May 2010 regarding the future of Hillside: “There will be lots of work for these guys there’s no doubt about that because they do a lot of things well and there’s a big rolling stock replenishment and replacement exercise that’s coming down the pipeline”; if so what does he have to say today to the 90 Hillside workers who have lost their jobs because of his Government’s directives to the KiwiRail board? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The job losses are not the result of the Government directives. In fact this Government has already invested three-quarters of a billion dollars in KiwiRail. The only directive to its board is to ensure that we have a sustainable rail system. So it has taken a decision recently around the Hillside works. It is very unfortunate for those workers who have lost their jobs but as it has turned out those jobs were not sustainable and we are doing everything we can to ensure that other Dunedin businesses can take those workers on so that they can get another job. 
Clare Curran 
: Why did he not support the recent proposal for Hillside to produce 100 rail wagons at the Dunedin factory in the light of the serious flaws and faults revealed in the Chinese wagons? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because those decisions are correctly made by the people who understand the procurement of railway equipment and the board to which they are accountable. 
Clare Curran 
: What action has he taken to give Government leadership in procuring New Zealand - made goods where that would lead to more jobs less unemployment and a reduced Government deficit? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As has been Government procurement policy for some time now we generally expect Government agencies to achieve best value for money. We do expect them to look very carefully of course at the local options for achieving that. That has been the policy for some time and remains the policy. As I have said we have invested three-quarters of a billion dollars in this entity to ensure that we have a sustainable rail system that does continue to employ thousands of people. KiwiRail is doing a competent job of executing a turn-round in that organisation. 
Dr David Clark 
: Was the bar set lower for this Government to intervene on behalf of casinos and Hollywood than on behalf of local manufacturers like the Hillside workshops; and was that because the Hillside workers do not have highly paid private lobbyists acting on their behalf? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No that is not the case. The fact is we subsidise both industries fairly extensively. At the same time as putting three-quarters of a billion dollars already into KiwiRail in fact over the last 3 years we put three quarters of a billion dollars into the screen industry—when you look at all the Government subsidies across New Zealand On Air etc. So in fact the member is wrong. The Government subsidises both industries to about the same level. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table the document released today by KiwiRail titled  
Hillside Workshops—Consultation Document 
 which outlines how the 90 jobs nearly 80 percent of the Hillside workforce— 
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. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 In the light of answers given by Mr Guy the Minister of Immigration today to question 6 I seek leave to table Wednesday 31 August 2011— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! What is the document? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is  
traveltrade 
 and it is an article confirming that China Southern Airlines— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please tell the House the source of the document. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Yes.  
Traveltrade 
 is a magazine exclusive to the industry—I will give you the date; Wednesday 31 August 2011—confirming that Skycity is in conversation with China Southern Airlines and the casino is in talks about making the visa process easier. 
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. 
Vehicle Licensing Reform Project—Submissions and Purpose 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 My question is to the Associate Minister of Transport and asks: what progress can he report on the Government’s Vehicle Licensing—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member asking the question. Could the benches on my left on this occasion please be a little more reasonable with their interjections. Scott Simpson question No. 12. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 Thank you. Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The senior Opposition whip should know better than that. 
12. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: What progress can he report on the Government’s Vehicle Licensing Reform Project? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 There has been a fantastic response to the public consultation on vehicle licensing reform. Over the 6-week consultation period some 4600 submissions were received. I want to thank the public for those and assure them that they are being carefully considered and that they will go into the mix in the final decision that the Government makes in due course. 
Scott Simpson 
: Why would the vehicle licensing systems in New Zealand benefit from reform? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well the current system is many decades old. A huge amount has changed technologically. We have one of the most—if not the most—frequent vehicle inspection regimes in the world and I am confident that for Kiwis we can save them time and money while also maintaining and perhaps even improving safety outcomes. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
KiwiRail—Partial Sale of Hillside Workshops 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I have received a letter from Clare Curran seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the KiwiRail decision to sell part of Dunedin’s Hillside railway workshops. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving administrative responsibility of the Government. However the business of the House should not be set aside just because an announcement has been made. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. There will be other occasions on which this matter can be debated. Members may raise such matters of concern to them during the general debate or in the upcoming financial reviews in select committees. The application is therefore declined. 
Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move that the Lawyers— 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How is it in order for the Minister responsible for the bill to walk out of the House before you give the call and then to have a substitute Minister be responsible for the carriage of the third reading? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not a bad point the member raises. That is a sloppy performance. There is nothing wrong with another Minister taking charge of a bill. However the Minister responsible for the bill should not be in the House at the time. If the Minister responsible—[ 
Interruption 
] We need to sort out what is going on here. If the Minister responsible for the bill is going to take the call I will call the Hon Judith Collins. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill amends the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. It is wonderful to be so wanted by the Opposition to constantly be here and I have to say the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill is an excellent bill to remind the Opposition that this Government has brought to Parliament a bill that has been asked for by the profession. 
Part 1 of the bill restores the title of Queen’s Counsel to the office currently known as Senior Counsel and in general restricts eligibility to that rank to barristers in sole practice. The first New Zealand appointments of Queen’s Counsel were made in 1907. From 1915 to 2008 each Queen’s Counsel was required to practise as a barrister sole. In the Government’s view the restoration of the Queen’s Counsel title reflects the public purpose and the status of this position while the return to the key eligibility criteria of practice as a barrister sole protects the independence and objectivity of Queen’s Counsel. Those people who were appointed Senior Counsel in 2008 may retain that title or convert to the title of Queen’s Counsel. In addition Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel may continue their practice arrangements including practising as a partner in a law firm established between 2008 and the commencement of this legislation. They will not be required to change to practise as a barrister sole. The bill also preserves the power to appoint other lawyers including litigators in law firms as Queen’s Counsel in recognition of extraordinary contribution to the field of law. 
 Part 2 of the bill contains a number of comparatively minor technical amendments to the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act. These amendments cover incorporated law firms and conveyancing practices they address the circumstances for the exercise of a power of attorney that could arise when a sole practitioner is an undischarged bankrupt and they clarify the time requirements for lodging an application seeking a review of the decision of a standards committee by the Legal Complaints Review Officer. 
During the Committee of the whole House five further amendments were added to Part 2 of the bill. Most of these amendments address improvements proposed by the chairperson of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal and I thank the tribunal for these proposals. The additional amendments to the provisions for the disciplinary tribunal clarify that lawyers who surrender their practising certificate during a complaints procedure continue to be subject to the disciplinary regime of the Act. The amendments streamline the notice requirements for decisions on complaints while ensuring that relevant parties are given notice of these decisions and they reduce the quorum from five to three members when considering interim name suppression applications. A separate amendment enables the dean of the law school at the Auckland University of Technology to join the deans of the other law schools as a member of the Council of Legal Education. This is a welcome addition to the council. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee received and heard six submissions from professional organisations interested groups and individuals. I thank the submitters and also thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its examination of this bill. 
This bill has received quite a lot of condemnation from members opposite based really on the return to the name Queen’s Counsel. This is actually a move that has been made because the profession asked for it. I have to say that when the name change to Senior Counsel was first made by the previous Labour Government it was done despite the concerns of the profession at the time. In fact it was a petty and childish change which the previous Labour Government thought was part of its republican movement. Frankly nobody else cared about it except the people who had the office the Queen’s Counsel who took their position and their obligations very seriously. They did not ask for it to be changed. This Government has listened to them along with other parties in the House who are supporting this bill and what we have said is that actually there is something much greater and more important here. 
One of the parts that is so important is that the Queen’s Counsel must be independent. They must be independent from firms wherever possible. Of course there is a grandfather or grandmother clause in this particular situation and that is because every small law firm every small litigant and everyone who is not a big corporate client should be able to access the very best legal representation they can. Quite often that is going to be found with the Queen’s Counsel. It should not be the preserve of only large law firms to be able to get in the best legal counsel. Every small litigant should be able to access it no matter how or where they come across it. They should not all have to go to big law firms to get the legal advice they need. 
I understand that some members might think that it is all right to have only big law firms who can access the top legal providers. Well I do not think it is and nor does this Government. It is part of access to justice to have the Queen’s Counsel independent from firms so that in fact every litigant should be able to get the very best professional advice they can rather than to have to go through a big law firm. 
Charles Chauvel 
: As long as they can pay $900 an hour. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Chauvel says that lawyers are charging $900 an hour as Queen’s Counsel. Actually that is true. There are also lawyers who are doing work pro bono as Queen’s Counsel and they do. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry that Mr Chauvel does not think they do. But actually big law firms also do that. Many big law firms will charge at that rate for particular work. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How would you know? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Chauvel asks how I would know. Well I understand that that is how Mr Chauvel liked to charge when he was in a big law firm. So he should know well about that. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Nobody ever complained about me Judith. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: He says nobody complained about that. Well I am not so sure and I am sure there is the odd department around that might be able to find the odd complaint. I see a former Minister of Corrections sitting over there and laughing about it and so he should. Mr Chauvel has rights to raise these points but actually this is not the way in which to bring about republicanism. We must make sure when we make changes to institutions that we are doing so for a good reason. I would say to Mr Chauvel that it was a childish thing to do to come down to the House and say they have to change the name because it is going to become more of a republic. What a silly thing to do! What about the tradition of law? Why is it that only some traditions are sacred? How about other traditions? Next thing Labour will be trying to get rid of the prayer in Parliament because people want to change the tradition. How about traditions in other cultures? Do we do that? No we should respect them wherever we can. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It would be better if you lived up to the words of the prayer. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: But having said that I think that Mr Goff is right. People should live up to the words in the prayer as much as they can and I am sure that he wants to be able to do that now. But anyway I commend this bill to the House. I thank the parties that are voting for this bill. I thank the select committee. I think this is a good bill. The profession will be very pleased with it. They have said to me that they have been looking forward to this. They want to make sure that the independence of the Independent Bar is maintained. They were very concerned that it was going to be put at risk by the fact that only big law firms would be able to access the best and the brightest and be able to get that assistance for their corporate clients. I think it is important. It is an access to justice issue. 
I commend the bill to the House. I believe it is an extremely important proposition that all clients all litigants should be able to get the best. They should not have to go through big law firms and put up with the outrageous fees that I have seen coming from them. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member I would like to advise members that electronic devices not used in debate should be placed on the drop-down work surface so that they do not interfere with the Speaker’s view of the House—the member on my right. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 One of the many problems with the previous contribution is that the Minister of Justice who herself was not a terribly successful lawyer in practice now seeks to educate the House about access to justice. She who is dismantling the legal aid system and making it harder for families to get access to the Family Court has the temerity to come into this House and talk about trying to make access to justice easier for New Zealanders. Well I say to you Mrs Collins that your true colours are on display today well and truly metaphorically as well as figuratively. 
 The reality of what the Minister said can be deconstructed very easily in this way. To somehow pretend that restoring the title of Queen’s Counsel to practitioners in New Zealand will make lawyers cheaper to access because they will not just have to go to big firms is patently ridiculous. The ability to charge for legal services at the Bar when one has the title Queen’s Counsel is absolutely superlative. It will not make one cent of saving to any consumer of legal services in New Zealand to see the title Queen’s Counsel restored and we should be very clear about that right up front. 
While I am on this point I think it is interesting that we have the legislative history of this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill before us. For the last 4 years the Government could have at any stage made appointments to senior rank in New Zealand for our legal profession. Under the existing legislation the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act there were very clear guidelines in place that lawyers could follow to apply to be appointed Senior Counsel and in order to do that the Attorney-General would have to agree to hold an appointments round. Well for the last 4 years the Attorney-General in that National Government has refused to do exactly that. 
Guess who has suffered as a result of that. Not the Government but actually the New Zealand legal profession. Every year that Chris Finlayson has spitefully refused to hold an appointments round just because he does not like the name that the previous Labour Government attached to our most senior lawyers—Senior Counsel rather than Queen’s Counsel—our legal profession has missed out. Its members are the ones who have suffered because every Australian state and territory for the last 4 years has held a Senior Counsel appointment round and those Australian lawyers are eligible to be admitted in New Zealand and to practise in our courts. We have seen the Canterbury earthquakes occur over that time. Well it is those Senior Counsel from Australia whom the big insurance companies have been instructing to give the big opinion work not our lawyers. They have been missing out because this Government has just spitefully and stubbornly refused to hold an appointments round under the existing legislation. 
That is how much the Government cares about the legal profession and about top-class access to justice in New Zealand and I hope no listener is fooled by the honeyed words that we heard from the previous speaker. There are a couple of major issues with what the Parliament is doing today—[ 
Interruption 
] I cannot quite hear the Minister for Social Development but the— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: I said talk about showing true colours. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well if that member were honest she would not have that hair colour but we will not even go into that. The issue here is threefold. The issue is threefold. Apart from the matters— 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Get personal. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Well I am only following your lead Ms Bennett. I am only following your lead and that of the previous speaker. 
But the reality is that the problem of this legislation is threefold. First of all it is an archaic title. Every other common law jurisdiction apart from England has abolished reference to Queen’s Counsel. They have cut the apron strings they have gone ahead and they have said: “No we want to call our senior lawyers by an appropriate title that reflects the way in which our modern society functions.” It is true as was mentioned in one of the debates that the Queensland Government is thinking about going back to the title of Queen’s Counsel. Well what a great slogan it would be for this Government to say: “Where Queensland goes we go.” I mean I am not quite sure whether anybody is going to be inspired by that example. I am not quite sure why we would take the same leap backwards into the past that the conservative Queensland Government has taken and I hope that we do not see members opposite following it in other areas of retrograde social policy where it has actually been treading the boards. 
Apart from the title of Queen’s Counsel to which we object there are two other major reasons why this is a bad idea and they are these. First of all the move to restrict the appointment of Queen’s Counsel just to practitioners in independent barristerial practices is bad because it will shrink the diversity of our senior profession. It is a self-evident fact—and any lawyer will tell you this—that if you want to have a career and a life particularly if you are a woman practitioner it is much easier to try to do that in a law firm a Government department local government or a university than it is to go to the Bar and here is why. At the Bar you have to support yourself at all times. You cannot pool your risk you cannot join a partnership and you cannot be employed by anybody. So if you want to take parental leave or any other sort of leave you really need to either save to do that until you can afford to go off for say parental leave purposes or you just do not. That is the reason why despite the fact that we have had so many great female lawyers come out of our law schools over the last 25 years we have a senior profession that is basically still male-dominated. 
What this move will do is simply consolidate that because by saying that in order to be recognised as one of our most senior lawyers—i.e. as a Queen’s Counsel—you have to be only a barrister practising independently well essentially what you are saying is that the economics are going to be against women in practice. I just want the women on the Government benches to know that if they have not worked it out already because that is what women lawyers all over the profession are saying. The Minister may think she is doing a terribly clever thing here to curry favour with the senior ranks of the Bar but I can tell members opposite that it will be pretty drastic in terms of its consequences for diversity in our legal profession. 
The other reason why it is wrong is this. The appointments process that was set out in regulations made under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act—which are still in force—for Senior Counsel was a very open one and it was well understood. It was set out in a set of regulations and then in guidelines that were published under regulation 5 of those regulations that were issued by the Solicitor-General. People knew what they had to do in order to be appointed. There was not an old boys’ network running. There was not some secret mysterious process as has occurred in the past. The great fear must be that with the ending of the title Senior Counsel the reversion to Queen’s Counsel and the repeal of the relevant legislation we will go back to that process shrouded in mystery where essentially it is people well known to the Attorney-General and only those people who can really hope to be appointed to that most senior role of Queen’s Counsel in our legal profession. That is the other great shame of this bill. 
I put forward an amendment at the Committee stage that would have fixed that up. It would have kept the open appointments procedure. But that was voted down by National and its allies. It is a great shame because that along with the requirement that lawyers practise not in firms but only at the Bar will again contribute to a great shrinking in diversity at the senior levels of our legal profession. If anybody thinks that is a good thing then I challenge them to get up and explain why. 
Part 2 of the legislation does do some worthwhile things. As we said at the Committee stage and at the Justice and Electoral Committee we are supportive of the changes that are made in Part 2 in terms of the way in which rules relate to incorporations of firms both of lawyers and of licensed conveyancers in terms of the disciplinary procedure and in terms of having the dean of the Auckland University of Technology law school represented on the Council of Legal Education. But because the provisions of Part 1 are so bad so retrograde such a backwards step and such a reversion to an old closed regime—the way that New Zealand used to do things in the 1950s; the great leap backwards taken by National today—this Labour Opposition will not be supporting this bill. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 What a disappointing contribution that was from Mr Chauvel—and I will explain why—for a number of reasons. I will begin with one of the points that he was speaking about right at the end and that was the fact that he regretted that his amendment had been voted down. The reason his amendment was voted down was that the officials advised us that it was an amendment that would have caused contradictions with regulation-making powers and for that reason it would hardly be an appropriate thing to write it into the law. 
Disappointingly Mr Chauvel began with a really outrageous attack on the Minister of Justice. He then launched a snide broadside at the Attorney-General before making a pretty silly and totally inappropriate and sexist remark about the member for North Shore. I think he also said something about the Minister for Social Development but I did not pick it up and I know that she is sufficiently bouncy to let that go. 
The really important thing is that he studiously avoided engaging with the purposes of this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. He made the point that he feels that this bill is a setback for women. Well I want to make the point that in recent times we have seen many very talented women in New Zealand appointed to senior positions on the bench and that is a trend that will clearly continue. I am renowned for having taken a very long time to complete my law degree. I must admit that when I began it I was in classes that were typically dominated by men. By the time I returned to Waikato University and completed it there were far more women in the classes than there were men. So I am absolutely convinced that over time we will see not only many more women in all positions in firms and on the bench but also a vast number of women appointed to the role of Queen’s Counsel. 
Labour dismisses as archaic anything reflecting our Westminster heritage. Labour equates proven benchmarks of quality with snobbery. Labour members refuse altogether to acknowledge the widespread support for this bill within the legal profession because of course that would mean they would have to acknowledge that they got things wrong when Labour was last in office. 
The “we know best” attitude which is so typical of the Labour Party was constantly reiterated by the member for Christchurch East when she spoke on Part 1 during the Committee stage of this bill on Tuesday afternoon. I listened to her carefully. She lamented that National was reversing some of the changes made by the last Labour Government and argued that we should not do so because that would force a future Labour-led Government to reinstate the changes. Her speech that afternoon could be summarised as “Be reasonable. Do it our way.” 
Well we are not doing it Labour’s way; we are doing it the way that the profession and legal commentators recommend. That is very inconvenient for Labour and those supporting it on this bill because it runs contrary to its ideological addiction to social engineering and scrapping all vestiges of the Westminster traditions that have served this nation so well whether in our legal system our democracy or so much of our culture. There is nothing snobbish or anachronistic about the title Queen’s Counsel. Not only does it overcome the ambiguity and lack of meaning of Labour’s preferred title Senior Counsel but it serves a very useful purpose in being immediately recognisable and widely understood. And that is the major reason why the profession has argued for its reinstatement. 
A lot has been said about the bill. To summarise I want to make just a few final points. I repeat very clearly that the bill has been requested by the profession. It is not a National Party whim. The bill strikes a balance in the way appointments as Queen’s Counsel will be made. The bill contains a number of amendments recommended by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. That input is welcomed by the Government as constructive and appropriate. Certainly it is not anachronistic or unnecessary. 
Finally the bill reflects a Government that listens a Government that is looking to the future needs of our legal system while valuing and celebrating our heritage and a Government that is in tune with the electorate. But the bill is opposed by an Opposition that is obsessed with social engineering and its continuing astonishment that it was thrown out of office in 2008 by an electorate that must have been mistaken—because Labour surely could not have been! 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 That speech from Tim Macindoe perhaps reflects the weakness of the changes proposed by this Government to the role of Senior Counsel in that it lacked any rationality it lacked any hard facts or evidence and it relied solely—relied solely—on emotionalism. He is absolutely wrong of course that the Labour Party rejects Westminster traditions. We are proud of our Westminster traditions but we believe that the laws of this country should reflect the 21st century and not the 16th century. 
You know there are three things that Labour is opposed to in this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I want to go through each of them and invite the next National speaker to perhaps bring some facts to the argument instead of the nonsense that we have heard. 
 This bill is about privilege and snobbery. It is not about Westminster traditions. It is about exclusivity. This National Government which is always attacking trade unions does not attack some of the strongest trade unions in this country which include the Bar Association and the Law Society. Because there are so many lawyers on that side and they are looking after their mates they bend over backwards to protect the trade-restrictive practices of that profession. That is what the member is doing. It is OK if you are Federated Farmers or the Law Society. Those are good trade unions and those members will protect the privileges of those who are the best off. It is only the unions that protect the poor in this country that they attack. 
We are against the change in title because the title the Government wants to go back to is anachronistic. We are against having an exclusive pool of people who can become Senior Counsel because that is a trade-restrictive practice. And we are against its aversion to a system of selection for Senior Counsel that is not shrouded in secrecy and is not prone to the old boy network looking after itself. I want to elaborate on each of those three points. 
The changes that we made in relation to the title back in 2006 were in line with the trend of every other Commonwealth country that has a common law system. The Australians do not talk about Queen’s Counsel; they talk about Senior Counsel. They are proud of their Westminster tradition but they want a title that reflects what we are actually talking about. The term Queen’s Counsel was quite appropriate in the 16th and 17th centuries. That is perhaps where Tim Macindoe would have felt more comfortable with life when people respected their betters and the aristocracy. In those days Queen’s Counsel were counsels to the monarch of the day and it was quite appropriate to call them that. Today most Queen’s Counsel most of the time are not representing the Crown. They are representing business they are representing the private interest sector and occasionally they might be acting on the instruction of the Solicitor-General or a Crown solicitor. But that is the exception rather than the practice. 
If we want to have a title that is accurate about the role we will call them Senior Counsel and not Queen’s Counsel. What is so wrong about what the Canadians or the Australians are doing that that is condemned by the National Party and it wants to go back to the term Queen’s Counsel? It is purely about status. It is purely about snobbery. There is no other rational justification and from the Minister and the first speaker of the National Party we have not even had an attempt to give a rational explanation as to why they are making that change. 
You know when the Justice and Electoral Committee was doing the hearings on the bill it was attracted to the comments by a person who is very respected in the legal profession Jack Hodder who himself is a Senior Counsel. Actually Jack Hodder said we should really wonder whether there should be such a rank as Queen’s Counsel. What other profession he challenged the select committee across the country apart from lawyers—you know people like accountants or engineers—have a title or ranking that they give to a select group within it that enables them to charge a lot more for their services? 
I do not go as far as Jack Hodder. I think it is appropriate that you should recognise excellence within the profession. But I want to say this. If you are going to recognise through the use of a title excellence in the profession then it should be done on merit across the profession. It should not be restricted to a tiny minority group of barristers sole but done across the whole profession. 
One of the contradictions of this legislation is that the Government semi-acknowledges that. It first of all places the restriction that it should be only barristers sole and then makes a provision that excellence can be reflected occasionally from across the majority of the profession. 
If the National Government really believes that the argument for restricting it to barristers sole is that only barristers sole can be independent then that would have been a total rule laid down. But it has acknowledged the weakness of its own argument by saying that the Governor-General can appoint from other areas of the profession. 
The fact is that in every other regime including in the home country of the Westminster system itself England they allow appointments from across the profession. England did it in 1995. I want to say to Tim Macindoe or to any other person in the National Party who addresses this bill to bring up some evidence that extending the appointments to across the profession has caused a breach of independence or a lowering of standards. Not one instance has been given to this House. Not one instance was given to the select committee. They have done it in Australia they have done it in Canada and in the home of the Westminster system in England they have been doing it for 18 years and they have been doing it without any problem at all. 
I believe this restriction is because the value of the title is that you can double your fees— 
Charles Chauvel 
: At least. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: —at least double your fees. We heard from the Minister of Justice that $900 an hour is not unreasonable. Well it might not be unreasonable if you are receiving it but by God it is unreasonable if you are paying it. I believe the only reason they have done this is to narrow the group of people who can carry that rank and to increase the payments that a small and select group can take. That is a bad ground for any legislation of that nature. 
There is every reason to maintain the ability to draw on excellence within the profession from across the profession. There is no valid reason that I have heard from any Government member as to why the restriction imposed in 1915 should be put back in place when there is no evidence that that restriction is needed. Every lawyer takes an oath and is obliged under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act to be independent in representing the interests of their clients and to be independent in terms of the duties that they owe to the court. The argument of independence for restricting it to barristers sole simply does not exist. 
I want to come to the third change which is a very negative change being proposed by the Government and that is to go back to an old system of appointment to the rank of Queen’s Counsel that is based on who you know and the old boy network looking after itself. In 2006 we made the change to replace opaqueness with a transparent system. We had a panel. The Solicitor-General and representatives of the Bar Association and the Law Society were on the panel and everything was clean and above board. Why was it necessary to change that? 
I have heard not one word from the Minister not one word from the National Government that justifies going back to a system that enables the Government to look after its own in conjunction with a few select people within the judicial system. It is in the interests of transparency and democracy in this country that appointment to a rank like Senior Counsel be done in an open clear and transparent way. 
Mr Speaker to wind up as you are suggesting I should there are three reasons that we are opposed to this: the title the National Government is going back to is anachronistic the system of appointing from a very narrow group does not recognise excellence across the system and a system of appointment that is not clear open and transparent is open to abuse. This is a bad bill. Labour will oppose it and will reverse it when it gets the chance. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. I rise to speak on the third reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill which the Green Party will not be supporting for many of the same reasons that have been articulated already by the Hon Phil Goff and Mr Charles Chauvel who I thought made an excellent contribution to this debate contrary to what Tim Macindoe suggested. I am not going to speak much to the second part the bill which we thought included primarily sensible uncontroversial amendments that we would have been able to support if it were not for Part 1 of the bill being such an anathema. 
Back when Labour originally legislated to switch the title of Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel on the basis that it was an inappropriate colonial relic we supported that change. We thought it was a progressive change one that really supported the independence of New Zealand. I realise that as an American by birth some of the members in this House might be inclined to assume that I have an innate dislike of the monarchy but that is not really what this is about. Although New Zealand maintains its links to the United Kingdom we have a distinct national culture and some unique constitutional arrangements. The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act passed in 1947 and more recently the Constitution Act of 1986 stand out as practical and symbolic measures from which we have set out to enhance our independence. Though we still retain the Queen as our head of State—a position that is not uniformly supported in this House or by the public at large—the momentum of our country has been like many other Commonwealth countries as has been mentioned one of embracing a destiny that is uniquely New Zealand in nature. Such was the reasoning behind our acceptance of the Labour Government’s changes in the area of titles. The title of Queen’s Counsel is a colonial relic. It does not reflect the distinct character of our cultural identity. 
One reason that the Government has advanced for a change is that there is supposedly a reciprocal relationship between the Queen’s Counsel and the Crown one that is derived from ancient English origins. But this is not a relationship that exists in name only. This relationship continues whether the lawyers concerned are titled Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel. All the important qualities of the position remain untouched. Their independence seniority and credibility are not put in question by a change in the title. Indeed because most Queen’s Counsel in New Zealand rarely or never act on instruction from Solicitors-General or Crown solicitors I think they represent a wide range of private individuals and groups. Changing the name to Senior Counsel actually imbued a broader sense of serving the community at large with skill and independence much better than whatever vestige borrowed by an outdated colonial title might do. 
Perhaps the more interesting arguments that we considered in the Justice and Electoral Committee and in the debates around this bill were those considering eligibility. Labour originally legislated to allow the full profession to be considered as potentially worthy of having the rank of Senior Counsel bestowed upon them rather than uniquely barristers sole which had been a tradition up until that point. This widened the pool of eligibility from a narrow selection comprising only a few hundred to 12000 or so wider practitioners. 
I have to say that the reasoning for the change back has not been sufficiently articulated by the Government. I actually thought the Minister of Justice’s comments that somehow this was a move towards increasing access to justice were completely confusing. I cannot see how the move of restricting this to a small group of barristers sole is going to increase people’s access to justice. That argument simply was not made by the Minister. It was an interesting diversion I think on her part to try to imply that the Opposition is opposed to access to justice which is really laughable when you look at what this Government is currently doing to access to justice through increasing the fixed fees to access the Family Court through the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill which I have grave concerns about. 
During Kennedy Graham’s call on the first reading of this bill which we did support to select committee because we were interested in the provisions in Part 2 of the bill and we were hoping we could ameliorate the proposals in Part 1 he made reference to Simon Power’s statements when the original changes were made that opening up eligibility would capture senior lawyers who undertook substantial commercial work for the Government. This could at least advance the argument on the part of the Government that this would limit independence. But I do not believe that that argument has been proven to occur to such a degree that the integrity of the position had been called into question. 
Another change that we have come to disagree with in this bill as a regressive step is in regard to the selection process. This bill removes the selection panel for QCs and replaces it with a requirement that the Attorney-General consult with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association. This seems very ironic in light of the Government’s purported concerns around independence because the selection process that is being implemented now seems to open up the process to political influence more rather than less. It is just another example of complete and total inconsistency on the part of the Government. 
In short this bill does not seem to engage with a discussion of legitimate arguments around the best way to make the role of Senior Counsel or Queen’s Counsel more effective and independent but rather it is an ideological knee-jerk reaction. I think the Hon Phil Goff very clearly made a compelling argument that in fact what this is really about is privileging a small group of very well-off lawyers. It is another example of the Government doing the exact opposite of what it says. It says that it is for competition and for the market but actually what is happening is that the Government is reducing competition and by doing so it is privileging a small group of people by creating this small monopoly on who can be Senior Counsel. 
I think that it is really unfortunate that the Government is taking this step. The Green Party will not be supporting this regressive move and we hope that in the future New Zealanders will be able to embrace new traditions and put our own stamp on the ones that we do wish to keep hold of. Thank you. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. The bill has been welcomed by the profession and surely they are in the best position to judge it. People may ask well what is in a name? There is plenty in a name. I can recall in the last term of Parliament when enrolled nurses lost that title to something like health care assistants. When that happened there was a huge outcry from that profession. They felt demoralised and unworthy. There was confusion and many people opted out of the training scheme. That name got restored as it should have done. Tony Ryall has widened the scope and that has been welcomed. So there is plenty in a name. 
The primary purpose of this bill is to restore the rank of Queen’s Counsel and restrict eligibility for appointment to that rank to barristers sole to retain independence. The New Zealand Law Society commented in its submission that the change to Senior Counsel was driven by ideology and was not in response to any pressing change. I ask you: if it was not broken why fix it? The Bar Association supported the return to this historical status of the rank of QC. The title of QC has a proud history. It is recognised internationally and it really signifies and identifies that that particular practitioner is at the top of their profession. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill Part 1 is about elitism anti-competitive advantage and historical claptrap. It should in fact be entitled the “Lawyers and Conveyancers Elitist Purposes Bill” I think. It takes us back to the days when QCs were appointed by a mysterious non-transparent process. It re-establishes suspicion of inappropriate influences and political interference which is all too often in fact justified. New Zealand First therefore opposes the legislation at least as far as Part 1 is concerned—therefore the whole bill. We do not think it is good for the legal profession in practice and especially not for its reputation. It is not good for the community’s understanding of the profession. It is about the National Party’s philosophy and ideology and it is a giant leap back to the past. New Zealand would be moving backwards with this legislation when all comparable jurisdictions have moved on with modern and relevant approaches to the issue of acknowledging senior practitioners. You have only to look at Canada and most of the states of Australia to see that. 
It is questionable whether it is really even necessary at all to award either Queen’s Counsel or Senior Counsel. We do not see it done for the medical profession and we do not see it done for the teaching profession. We do not see it done for other professions. These days markets must be free of discriminatory and anti-competitive impositions and that includes the legal profession. For some reason lawyers think they should stand outside that principle. I do not see any reason for doing so. Strangely National usually supports that sort of approach so this is a bit of an aberration for it I think. National has simply got it wrong and it has got it wrong for the wrong reasons. It is wedded to the past and it is not future oriented. However if we are to persist with the ranking of legal practitioners in this way rather than to rely on reputation and the market as it should then it is an important matter to define those members of the profession who have achieved a level of experience and competence in an area of expertise that should be officially acknowledged on a fair and transparent basis. 
The current legislation actually goes a long way to achieve this and should not be undone by this retrograde bill. The acknowledgment of highly regarded and experienced practitioners with special expertise must not be about status or reward or cronyism in the way that it has all too often been in the past and it should not be seen in the same way as the awarding of knighthoods and honours. New Zealand is no longer a British colony with all of its traditions and peculiarities. We should not create commercial advantage by one practitioner over another in the way that this bill will do. The New Zealand system must fulfil our needs and be relevant useful fair in the selection process and transparent. This bill does not appear to be designed to do any of that; in fact it will have exactly the opposite effect. It appears to be designed to perpetuate elitism as distinct from meritism and by that I mean the recognition of status well earned instead of one simply awarded in the manner of some sort of honour or worse still as some sort of favour. 
Under Part 1 the term Queen’s Counsel would return to replace Senior Counsel and that is unwise. The public can more readily understand the term Senior Counsel but I do not think it has ever understood the term Queen’s Counsel and understandability is important for the reputation of the profession. People used to think that the term Queen’s Counsel meant a senior barrister who had some sort of function supporting the Attorney-General. Of course that has not been the case for a very very long time. The term Senior Counsel is more descriptive and does not have the connotations of an overhang from the old English system and our colonial past. New Zealand needs a thoroughly modern legal system and it needs to be seen as such. None of this is assisted by the term Queen’s Counsel and Senior Counsel is much better. Nor does the assertion that somehow the reversion to Queen’s Counsel for barristers sole will enhance the independence of the Bar have any merit at all. If independence means independence from the Crown it really in New Zealand means independence from the Government. This bill is more likely to do the opposite by restoring the old system under which the scope for political and other inappropriate influences is actually worse. 
Concerning eligibility it is not clear at all why only barristers sole are favoured to be eligible for appointment as QCs. It is not a good basis in principle or practice for this to happen. Other senior expert practitioners should not be excluded whether they practise in law firms or not and we should not exclude barristers and solicitors. When you consider the huge differences between how barristers and barristers and solicitors operate in New Zealand as compared with the UK it seems anachronistic that we should have this overhang from the UK in the New Zealand system. But the worst aspect I think of the bill is new section 119A(2) inserted by clause 6 which overrides the other clauses in the bill where the royal prerogative is to be reinstated. 
Charles Chauvel 
: The crony clause. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: This is comprehensive nonsense—and yes it is the cronyism clause. There is no substantive reason given for this huge leap backwards. It is exactly the kind of provision we should avoid. The royal prerogative really means the Government prerogative and all of the disadvantages mentioned earlier of unfairness discrimination and anti-competitive behaviour. The scope for cronyism and bad process will be entrenched by that particular provision. It is thoroughly objectionable. 
The need for transparency has also not been achieved in this bill. It is not what modern best practice requires. These days people rightly insist on a transparent selection process. This will still be a closeted Government process in which the public can have no confidence at all. New Zealand First therefore objects to the entire concept of this retrograde bill as set out in Part 1. It is misconceived it is a step back to the bad old ways it is a barrier to the development of a modern legal system it is devoid of proper process it is unnecessarily restrictive and it is based on discrimination for absolutely no good reason whatsoever. The object should be to define senior practitioners in specialist areas so that the public and other members of the profession are assisted in knowing to whom they may best go for specialist services. If that is not the objective then there is no reason at all for either QCs or Senior Counsel to be appointed. For all these reasons New Zealand First will definitely vote against this very bad bill because of the provisions that are set out in Part 1 for all the reasons that I have mentioned. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill this afternoon. This legislation reinstates the title Queen’s Counsel after Labour removed it in 2008 and replaced it with the title Senior Counsel. You have got to ask yourself why this move happened in 2008 when the Law Society did not ask for it the Bar Association did not ask for it and lawyers themselves did not ask for this change. I was reading the minority report of the Labour Party view and this pretty much hits it on the head. It says: “The last Labour-led Government ended a number of links to our colonial past. These include a final right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council comprising mostly British judges and sitting in London; the award of knighthoods and other honours of English origin; and the annual practice of appointing a small number of barristers to the rank of Queen’s Counsel.” If that was the direction that that Government was going in then that is not a reason to change Queen’s Counsel at all. If it is not broken why change it? 
When you think about what this legislation does it just reinstates how it was before 2008. It ensures that there is an independence of the Inner Bar by placing practice restrictions on Queen’s Counsel so that in most cases they will have to be barristers sole rather than lawyers in a partnership. So what we are trying to do is reinstate independence and the perception of independence which is really important for the public to have confidence. 
The big argument that we have had in this House especially during the Committee stage was around transparency of appointments. It is important that it is addressed. Cabinet has made decisions to repeal the provision of the regulations that provide for a selection panel and replace it with an explicit requirement for consultation with the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Bar Association which is going to give it a lot more transparency than it has had in the past. 
 I also want to talk about the comments about women not being able to become Queen’s Counsel because it is too hard. Well actually we do have women Queen’s Counsel. I think Tim Macindoe made a really good point that we have got more women coming through law schools and more women who are making their way through firms and going out on their own now because there are more women in the pool. That is going to grow and grow and grow. 
Charles Chauvel 
: And now you’re going to stop it. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Charles Chauvel is saying that we are going to stop it. One of his points was that they will not want to be Queen’s Counsel because they will not be able to get maternity leave. Well actually that is not true. They can get maternity leave. 
Charles Chauvel 
: You don’t even understand the point. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: I do understand the point. Going out on your own is hard. It is very hard. If you are self-employed you can get maternity leave actually so it does work. At the end of the day it is about women going out there backing themselves and believing in themselves. I think it is absolutely wrong and you put down women if you do not think they can go out back themselves achieve and become a Queen’s Counsel because they absolutely can. 
I believe that the title Queen’s Counsel provides official recognition of excellence recognition that reflects the highest standards of legal advice. I commend this bill to the House. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand again to talk on the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. Like my colleagues on this side of the House the thing that I find overwhelming about this bill is just how disappointing it is that in a world where all around in many other countries conservative and progressive Governments are looking to changes that actually progress the human race—when they are looking to do things that might be rooted in the values of the old but they are changing the practices of the past—here we have a piece of legislation that does the opposite. It reinstates the practices of the past with no real values attached to them at all. 
This bill does a number of disappointing things. It reinstates the Queen’s Counsel name. Make no mistake as a member of the legal profession I think it is good that at least in the profession of law and the practice of the law we do develop a profession—a body of people with a set of values and principles with an approach and who play a very important role—but also understand that part of developing a profession is that you recognise those who are top performers in it those who are stellar performers. You do accord some status to it so that those coming into the profession know what good performance at the Bar looks like have something to aspire to and know who the good performers are. Likewise those on the bench who are dealing with counsel all day every day can rely upon those who have achieved a certain degree of skill and indeed notoriety in some cases when they appear before them. So the profession understands that. 
Conferring some sort of name or title or rank on the senior practitioners in this very important field—a field that as I submitted the other day is one of the bulwarks against a rampant breakdown of the rule of law and an undermining of democracy—is appropriate. It is appropriate that we confer some sort of style upon those who are the top performers in it. But when we hanker to the colonial relics of the past and reinstate the Queen’s Counsel title that is what is so unnecessary. 
If the Government is serious about going back to the past here is another relic from the past that we might consider. You see counsel when they are appearing at the Bar and certainly at the senior Bar now wear their gowns and carry on the back of their gowns a little pouch. The background to the pouch was that it was beneath senior members of the profession to ask for money for being a good advocate a top advocate. Were that to be the case today life may be a little different. But they did not ask for a fee or to be paid. The pouch was there so that the happy client irrespective of the outcome of their proceeding knew that they had a duty to reward their counsel who had put themselves in some cases on the line and risked a beheading by the queen or monarch of the day. So as the counsel was cleaning out their desk after a hard day’s advocacy at the Chancery or the Admiralty Bar or the assizes or whatever court it was that they were in a few golden ducats or guineas or coins would be placed in the pouch and the client would wander away. It would be seen by counsel as an anonymous contribution and a fee for their work. 
Well that is not the way it operates today. Of course one engages a QC as I know at least one member of the House has recently—and I enjoyed his company yesterday. QCs do not do that any more. They do not wait until somebody fills up the pouch in the back of their gown. They send an invoice. When you carry the rank of QC of course that invoice frequently has several zeros on it—and that is before the decimal point and the two other zeros that follow after it. That is what it has become. 
In this day and age the legal profession like many others—but apparently not the accountancy profession—has changed significantly. Top performers are not always barristers sole. Many of the top performers in our legal profession are in the firms or they set up their own firms and they do not want to have to partake of the intervention rule so they retain their style as a barrister and solicitor so that they can take clients directly which is a quite honest transaction. There are some barristers sole for whom the intervention rule is really a formality that they honour in its breach. 
But the legal profession has changed and our top performers come from all parts of the profession. Some of them are employed solicitors. They are employed by corporations. They are the general counsel of large companies and large corporations. Indeed I might say that even in one or two trade unions there are top performing lawyers. There is no reason why the top performing members of the profession irrespective of where in the profession they practise should not be recognised if they are regarded by their colleagues across the profession and the members of the bench. There is no reason why they should not have recognition of their excellence and of the performance that they can achieve for the clients on whose behalf they act. That is why it is so unfortunate that now the conditions upon which one might acquire that style or that label that will indicate and mark them out as a senior and excellent practitioner are going to be so restricted and confined. It does limit it. It limits it not just for men but also for the women in the profession and let us face it we are desperately short of women who have been recognised by the profession as being top in their rank. That is so disappointing and it is so unnecessary for us to hanker back to the past and maintain those colonial relics. 
Then of course there is the provision that allows the royal prerogative to be exercised which as we know under the Constitution Act and other provisions is done upon the advice of the Government of the day the Cabinet of the day. So it is not a genuine royal prerogative. It is the prerogative of the Government of the day and that allows the Government to recognise anybody not just those in the profession. The legislation marks out that those who could have the style conferred upon them do not have to be at the Bar but the royal prerogative provision in this bill allows the Government to confer it on anybody. For a bill that claims to be acknowledging and recognising the excellence of the profession that is really beyond the pale because it takes it outside the profession. It takes the judgment of who is recognised by the profession as excellent and as warranting that sort of recognition out of their hands and it really undermines the very purpose for which the bill says it is there. 
So that is what makes it so disappointing—that not only does it restrict now the number of people and the positions from which they practise their profession and prosecute cases on behalf of those who need their help and who are genuinely deserving of the recognition but also it actually allows the Government of the day to ignore all of that and for its special friends to confer this title. That is simply uncalled-for. 
In the modern age we want the best performers to be recognised. We should not have to impose unnecessary and irrelevant conditions such as that they practise as barristers sole—practise at the Independent Bar. This is the other thing about the Independent Bar—the point I made the other day. There are members of the Independent Bar for whom the independence is nominal. They are embedded in corporations they are embedded in organisations on whose behalf almost exclusively they act. I could name examples but I do not care to. So there is a real question about that. They apparently would qualify for this recognition but those who happen to be in a law firm—top partners in a top law firm who do excellent work for their clients who are excellent counsel and who are recognised by the benches—are disqualified from being recognised in this appropriate sort of way. In the modern age that is unnecessary and uncalled-for. 
For that reason we are opposed to the bill. It will be a great giant leap backwards as the profession starts to take charge of improving its standing and its internal professional regulation and management and we are voting against the bill for that reason. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I stand in support of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I also do want to acknowledge from the last term of this Government both the Minister of Justice and the Justice and Electoral Committee for their fine work and their deliberations. I was not a part of those deliberations but I do trust their wisdom and their experience which has brought us to this point where we are now here in the third reading of this bill. 
This bill is about reinstating the status and independence for the top rank of advocates in New Zealand. Trust in the justice sector is so important as is acknowledgment of those who have worked tirelessly and hard to ensure that they advocate in the best possible way. It is important that we acknowledge and recognise them for this as well. 
 In their deliberations the Minister and the select committee have listened carefully to the legal profession and this bill is in response to the profession’s concerns that the title of Senior Counsel created in 2008 under the previous Government does not adequately reflect the nature and the status of the rank. So we are taking steps to protect the essential independence of the Inner Bar. The looser rules for eligibility as Senior Counsel introduced by the previous Government threatened to dilute the independence of our most senior advocates. Restoring in particular the independence of Queen’s Counsel in New Zealand reflects the public purpose and status of this position as well. The bill contains savings and transitional provisions in relation to practice arrangements entered into by Senior Counsel and Queen’s Counsel as well. 
This is a bill that ensures that and addresses these concerns. I commend this bill to the House. 
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 Kia ora. Thank you very much for the opportunity to contribute in this debate the third reading of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. From the outset I want to say that Labour opposes this bill. I also oppose the bill for a very specific reason. I want to focus specifically on Part 1 of the bill in this the third reading debate. It is about the restoration of Queen’s Counsel. 
I want to particularly make reference to a colleague of mine in the Maori Affairs Committee Te Ururoa Flavell and his bill which was the Oaths and Declarations (Upholding the Treaty of Waitangi) Amendment Bill. That bill was not supported by this House. In particular it was not supported by the National Government. The rationale for the non-support of that bill was quite clear. The National Government said that the Maori Party had put the cart before the horse. The appropriate place for a conversation around national identity is with each and every New Zealander and that is a conversation we are having within the constitutional review. That is where this bill belongs within the context of the constitutional review. 
I would like to take this opportunity to outline why I believe it should be discussed and debated within the context of the constitutional review. New Zealand has a constitution that consists of a collection of statutes which are Acts of Parliamentit consists of treaties it consists of Orders in Council it consists of letters patent it consists of decisions of the courts and it consists of unwritten constitutional conventions. So as with the UK there is no one supreme document in Aotearoa New Zealand. 
In August 2011 the Government undertook a constitutional review. We have 12 New Zealanders who are trying to gauge public opinion on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and they have free rein to test views on whether for example we should move towards becoming a republic. This is really relevant because— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! On a third reading speech you must confine your comments to—[ 
Interruption 
] So you need to come back and mention what is actually in the bill with a third reading speech. 
LOUISA WALL 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am sorry if I am taking a while to get to my point. 
So who are Queen’s Counsel? Who are King’s Counsel? Well Queen’s Counsel are lawyers appointed by letters patent which was actually my point. It is actually part of the constitutional convention of New Zealand society that Queen’s Counsel are appointed by letters patent. So that is the relevance of the constitutional review and that is why in my opening remarks I was really clear that I wanted to talk about Part 1 of the bill which is about the restoration of the title Queen’s Counsel. 
I just wanted to actually note that in 2008 when New Zealand made the decision to change Queen’s Counsel to Senior Counsel it was really about changing a name to one without connotations of monarchy. We made this decision I think within the context of the thinking around the constitutional review. It was really about our national identity—issues to do with the place of the Treaty for example but also issues to do with titles like this which historically have been bestowed on us because we are a colony. We were colonised by the British so we inherited a lot of titles such as Queen’s Counsel. So for me this is actually all about us becoming an independent sovereign nation within the context of being a modern democratic society. 
I want to highlight that this issue about maturing as nations within the Commonwealth is really relevant because a number of other Commonwealth countries actually have disestablished the title of Queen’s Counsel. I just want to list them because they are places like Hong Kong the Republic of Ireland South Africa Kenya Malawi Singapore and Guyana. My colleagues Charles Chauvel and the Hon Phil Goff have both talked about the changes within both Canada and Australia countries with which we would see we have some synergies. They have also disestablished the Queen’s Counsel title in Nigeria India and Bangladesh. So in fact when New Zealand in 2008 decided to disestablish that title it was linked to I believe a greater conversation about who we are in today’s world and possibly where we were going in the future. So I think it is incredibly relevant to link the discussions that we are having today in the House with the constitutional review. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for allowing me to get to where I eventually got to—there was some logic to it. 
So I just put on the table that the National Government was very quick to not support Te Ururoa Flavell’s bill based on a principle and the National Government has been very quick to not use that same principle within the context of the discussions we are having about this particular piece of legislation. That is really what I wanted to contribute to the debate. So I thank you very much and I thank the leadership within the discussions we have had of Charles Chauvel. Thank you very much. Kia ora. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I would like to take the final call on this bill the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill. I have been a bit bothered by some of the contributions that we have heard in this debate but like my colleague Katrina Shanks I think the one that disturbed me the most was the suggestion that women are not able to get ahead in their careers and to take on the role of Queen’s Counsel. For a party that supports—or purports to be the party for—gender advancement I was somewhat shocked that the Opposition would even suggest that women are not capable are not able or would not be in a position because of having babies to adequately be a Queen’s Counsel— 
Charles Chauvel 
: You know that’s not what I said. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: It was very close to that line Mr Chauvel as well as a whole range of personal insults that were hurled across at the female members of the National Government. 
The Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill is a restoration of something that the Labour Government changed without really any reference to the lawyers themselves. This is something that the National Government is putting in place based on the suggestions of the lawyers themselves. The Minister of Justice spoke very eloquently in the third reading of this bill and I am proud to say that I support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: I move  
That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. Local government is a crucial component of New Zealand’s economy. The 78 local authorities make up 4 percent of GDP spend $7.5 billion per year of public money and manage around $120 billion worth of public assets. But behind these numbers is the simple fact that most New Zealanders are affected by the decisions and actions of their council on a daily basis and are certainly affected when they receive their quarterly rates bills. 
 Because local authorities have such an impact on the daily lives of New Zealanders and because they are charged with spending ratepayers’ money it is vital that they operate in an effective and efficient manner and this means being financially responsible transparent and accountable to ratepayers. That is why the local government reforms being undertaken by this Government are so crucial to New Zealand’s communities. The reforms will improve the operation of local government in New Zealand. They will focus local authorities on operating more efficiently and effectively by doing things that only they can do. The reforms will encourage local authorities to reduce red tape and compliance minimise rates for households and businesses lower council debt and provide high-quality infrastructure at the least possible cost. 
These reforms are not about bashing councils or imposing constraints on local democracy as suggested by Opposition members. These reforms are about putting in place a framework that means New Zealanders’ rates do not continue to increase on average by 7 percent per annum as they have over the last decade. Over this period local government debt has quadrupled from $2 billion to $8 billion. These trends must be stopped. These reforms are about ensuring that ratepayers are not put in situations like that the Kaipara District Council ratepayers are currently in where a council with a population of 18000 has run up a debt of $80 million and the community is left with crushing rates increases as a result. These reforms are about ensuring that communities can decide how they want to structure their local governance arrangements. Since 1989 no local government reorganisation has taken place under the existing rules. It is a nonsense to suggest that circumstances have not changed in the last 24 years or that communities have not wanted to change. The fact is that the barriers for communities to effect change have been too high. 
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill marks the first phase of the Government’s programme for reform of the local government sector. It amends the Local Government Act 2002 to refocus the purpose of local government introduce financial prudence requirements strengthen council governance and streamline local authority reorganisation procedures. The Local Government and Environment Committee received over 500 submissions on the bill from individuals organisations and local authorities. The level of interest was significant. 
I am therefore disappointed in the Opposition members on the select committee who turned down an offer to work constructively on this bill and disappointed about the disregard they showed for many constructive submissions. An offer was made by the chair to put some of the contentious parts of the bill to one side and constructively engage on the rest. Unfortunately this offer was not taken up. As a result the bill is returned to the House largely unchanged. 
Because of the committee’s inability to agree I will be tabling an amendment during the Committee stage that will pick up on many of the good ideas from submitters and address the issues that they raised. These include making it easier for communities to exercise their vote in a poll by changing the petition requirements needing 10 percent of voters in any affected territorial authority area and increasing the number of days allowed to complete the petition from 40 days to 60 days. Further amendments will provide clarity around the circumstances where the Government might consider using the assistance and intervention framework and provide for a more flexible structure for communities to reorganise their local governance arrangements should they wish to do so. The proposal will enable some regions to utilise a two-tier structure that will deliver the most effective local governance for the community. 
The few amendments that the committee has recommended clarify the bill’s intent and improve its operation and the Government will be supporting them. One area of the bill where the Government will not be proposing changes is around the purpose statement. I have carefully considered the differing views on this issue but I firmly believe a more focused mandate for local government is necessary. The intention is not to prescribe what local authorities can and cannot do but rather to better define the appropriate scope of their activities. Individual local authorities and their communities will decide what activities matter to them and how much they are willing to pay for them. The new purpose statement will encourage local authorities to take a fresh look at what they are doing and why and to seek their community’s guidance as to what their current and future needs are. 
This bill is an important milestone that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local government. It will provide the right settings for the local government sector to play its part in growing New Zealand’s economy. It will develop vital reforms to benefit our communities businesses industries and households for many years to come. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. This bill is a disgrace to this Parliament. It is nothing more than a gratuitous attack on local government and it has been inspired by a sacked Minister Nick Smith who based his so-called reforms on a lot of lies misinformation and a handful of egregious examples to denigrate local government and to prove a political point. The political point was that he did not like the 2002 Act because the Labour Government passed it. 
This bill I have to say was opposed by the majority of submitters who came to the Local Government and Environment Committee. One after another they lined up to oppose the change to the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002. Local government itself NGOs Grey Power the Law Society individuals and many others lined up to oppose the change that this bill is making to the purpose of local government. I have to say that none of their submissions will be listened to. I see Colin King looking at me. Colin King comes from rural provincial New Zealand and I say to Colin King that the mayors and the local authority people in rural provincial New Zealand are disgusted at what this Government is doing to local government. Many of them have worked hard in their local communities and provide services that those communities want and for very little reason they are being told that there will be a change to the purpose of local government and that they have to change what they are doing. 
We strongly oppose this bill. I have already tabled two amendments and I thank my colleague Charles Chauvel who when I asked immediately had them written. I had them tabled so we can show this Government that we will not support these changes which are based not on facts or evidence but on a whole lot of myths and a story that has been spun by Nick Smith. 
 The first of the two amendments is to restore the four well-beings back to the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002—the four well-beings of social environmental economic and cultural which have been in the Act since 2002. I will talk more about that in a moment. The second amendment will restore the requirement for a poll of electors in an affected area to be held when the Local Government Commission decides on a final proposal for local government reorganisation. The foundation stone of democracy is that you allow local people to have a local say. 
We oppose this bill on six major grounds. The first is that there is absolutely no evidence—no evidence—provided by the Government that we need to change the purpose of the Local Government Act 2002. There was no evidence provided that we should get rid of the four well-beings. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: I would’ve had a list of 10 if I was Opposition. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: And let me tell the member who knows nothing about this bill otherwise he would not be chirping to go and read the regulatory impact statement from your own Government department which wrote on this bill—and I will read it—“There is no clear quantitative evidence to suggest that the [Local Government Act 2002] has resulted in a proliferation of new activities or that local government is undertaking a wider group of functions.” The very reason Nick Smith gave for changing the purpose was that local government had got way outside its scope and was providing services it ought not to. There is no quantitative evidence and that comes from the Minister’s own department. 
I had a survey of local government around New Zealand and asked what it had added to its core services since the passage of the 2002 Act. One council—one council—replied that it might be doing one thing that might not be considered a core service of local government. There is no evidence to change the purpose. If a Government ever listens to submissions if it takes even the slightest bit of notice of submissions over— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: We’re always listening. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Always listening. Well I will look to see whether the member for Tauranga votes with this side of the House on putting back the four well-beings. The member for Tauranga needs to know that nearly every submission to the select committee said to leave the four well-beings alone. Local Government New Zealand itself at its conference in Queenstown this year voted unanimously to leave the purpose of the Local Government Act alone. Will the Government listen? Mr King have you had any influence on the Government? Have the rural members had any influence over this Government? I predict not a dicky-bird. They will not change a thing when it comes to the purpose of this Act. 
The second thing is that it has been based on misinformation and it has been based on a very small number of egregious examples as to why we should change local government. Some of those examples were around the debt and the cost of local government. We have been provided with information as recently as October 2012 from research that was done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research entitled  
Is Local Government Fiscally Responsible? 
. That report states that the data from the last 10 to 20 years suggests that the local government sector as a whole has not been fiscally irresponsible. Rates and spending have risen but the increases are not startling relative to GDP or property values. At an aggregate level investment and borrowing cannot be said to be irresponsibly high. Debt levels—debt is low relative to assets. Capital spending is steady relative to the asset base. Debt servicing costs are at a responsible level. That is not the Opposition saying that that is not local government saying that; that comes from work—comprehensive work—done by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. That blows out of the water this argument that local government has been fiscally irresponsible and that it needs to be reined in. 
The third reason is that this bill has been rushed. It was written before there was sufficient evidence gathered to support the changes and that is in the regulatory impact statement from the Department of Internal Affairs. It said there is a risk as to whether the proposals will even work. It said there would be significant sector reaction that the time frame in which the proposals had been developed has restricted the ability to assess multiple options and that the assumptions have not been tested or have been only partially tested. That is what this bill is based on—partially tested or untested assumptions. It has not been properly thought through. It is based on the idea of Nick Smith who wants to punish local government. 
The fourth reason is that the whole bill has been done back to front. It is an eight-point plan from the National Government called Better Local Government. The first four parts of its programme are in legislation; the last four parts of its programme are to do research to have a task force and to look at what changes are needed to be made in local government. So we put the legislation in first and then we find out what we really need to do. I have never seen a more back to front way of undertaking legislation. 
The fifth reason is that anti-democratic changes are being made in terms of the removal of the ability for local people to have a local say on whether they will be amalgamated with another bigger local authority. We are opposed to weakening local decision-making by local people and many many submissions were also strongly opposed to it. 
Finally we believe that this bill leads to far greater interference in local government by the Minister than is warranted by the evidence. We have only two forms of government in this country: central government and local government. We are not bound up with many Houses and many different forms of government. It is very simple in New Zealand. We are not over-governed and we rely on local government to do the job at a local level. It does a good job by any measure and this interference is unwarranted. We will strongly oppose this bill and we will be joined by thousands of New Zealanders who agree with us. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 The member who has just resumed her seat the Hon Annette King is very concerned about what the local government sector wants. Let us though talk about what ratepayers want. Ratepayers want reasonable rates and they want those rates well spent. Ratepayers want their local authority to provide a good supply of clean safe drinking-water. They want reliable stormwater and reliable sewerage. Ratepayers want footpaths they want kerb and channel and they want their potholes fixed. Ratepayers want reasonable library charges they want meeting halls they want swimming pools they want recreational facilities they want their building permits and their liquor licences processed in an efficient and timely manner they want playing fields and they want public gardens. Ratepayers are never happy with the sum on their rate demand—that includes me and probably my colleagues. And they are very clear: they want their rates spent responsibly and if they choose to they want to have a say on how that money should be spent. 
The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill delivers the framework for all those services that the ratepayers want. The bill draws the focus back on to providing local infrastructure local public services and local regulatory functions. That is what ratepayers want. The refocusing of the purpose of local government has caused much consternation within the local government sector with the misinformed view that removal of the four well-beings will prevent the councils from doing anything new or that if they propose a new activity it will tend to be endlessly challenged through the courts. Well my belief is that that expressed fear is more about what they want rather than what is good for their ratepayers. 
Section 11A of the Local Government Act 2002 “Core services to be considered in performing role” states—and I will read it—“In performing its role a local authority must have particular regard to the contribution that the following core services make to its communities:”. They are listed as network infrastructure public transport services solid waste the avoidance or mitigation of natural hazards and libraries museums reserves recreational facilities and other community infrastructure. Section 11A of the Local Government Act 2002 is not amended by this bill and those expressed fears from the local government sector are unfounded. The local government reforms will provide clarity and efficiency around the role of the councils stronger governance and more responsible financial management. 
Local government like central government needs to deliver better services to all New Zealanders whether they are taxpayers or ratepayers within tight financial constraints. The Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill delivers and I commend it to the House at its second reading. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I want to pick up where the Hon Annette King left off actually because it was an excellent contribution she made. She talked about local government in this country and she made the point that local government in New Zealand basically works. It is a part of our society our nation and our system of Government that functions effectively and I think any reasonable or objective person would agree with that. Councils by and large are close to their communities. Mayors councillors and council staff are people who are generally motivated by a sense of civic service and of public-mindedness. There is certainly no glamour or wealth to be had from a career in local government. Local councils do what their communities require of them. There are a few egregious examples. We know that the citizens of Kaipara have been unduly saddled with a debt because of the blowout of cost on the Mangawhai Heads water treatment scheme. But generally—and we know this from a number of credible studies—local government in this country is run well it is administered sensibly and its finances are not out of control.  
So I ask this Government and I ask the National Party members on that side of the House what is it with you people? Why are you messing with a part of our system of government that basically works? What is it that you do not like— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! Order! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Sure. What is it with these people? What is it about them that makes them want to stick the boot into local government and to put up a bill like this the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill which is a shallow populist political attack on an institution in our society that is valued and that serves local communities? I do have a theory about why they are doing this. I do have a theory and I will seek to sort of draw that out over the next 5 or so minutes. 
If the National members were being honest with the people of New Zealand about why they have brought this bill to the House and why they are making such an unwarranted and unjustified attack on the institution of local government they would say something like this: “Look we know that local government is working fine. Everybody agrees that the finances are well managed. But we know that people out in the public are concerned about their rates so we are going to cook up a bill and justify it with shonky numbers as a way of somehow trying to say to New Zealanders that we are on your side and we know that you don’t like to pay the rates bills.” I do not mean you of course Mr Assistant Speaker; I mean the members on the National side of the House. That is utterly dishonest. 
 This bill is based on a lie. Annette King proved the point by reference to a number of credible reports that have I think made the case very persuasively that there is no evidence to back the claim that local government has expanded its mission and its remit and that it is doing more things than it used to before the 2002 legislation came in. Firstly there is no evidence that local government is out of control and doing a whole lot of things that it should not be doing. Secondly there is no evidence that the spread of activities that local government is undertaking has anything to do with the increase in debt. 
All of the credible analysis and data in the public domain show that there are two reasons actually that debt has increased. One is the infrastructure deficit. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who they were asked to— 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right and local councils have been required by central government to address the infrastructure deficit. And second is the number of unfunded mandates that have been imposed on local government by central government. Even former local government Minister the Hon Rodney Hide had the honesty to admit actually that that was the reason for the increase in debt and the increase in council spending. 
This bill is based on a lie. Nick Smith has come to this House he has cooked up a shonky campaign to suggest that councils are out of control—they are charging too much in rates they are borrowing too much they are racking up all this debt—and that it is because councils are doing all sorts of things that they should not. So it is based on a lie about what the problem is but it is also based on a lie about the solution. This bill will do nothing to reduce council rates. There is nothing in this bill that will make a difference to the rates bills that go into the letterboxes of New Zealanders all around this country. It is an utterly dishonest bill and it is shallow populism. 
It actually would not be so bad if the Government had applied the “do no harm” test—if this was just in fact a shallow piece of electioneering trying to make some kind of rhetorical point pretending to make a difference and do something about rates but actually it will do some harm. It undermines councils local government and local democracy around this country. 
When this bill came to the House we took one look at it. On the face of it it looked like the bill was harmful and that it took away the democratic rights of communities to have a say on amalgamations of local government. We said that the narrowing of the purpose of local government and the abolition of what we have come to know as the four well-beings—economic social cultural and environmental well-being—and replacing them with a narrow definition based on public services and cost-effective infrastructure did not on the face of it look good. 
But you know what? You go to the select committee and you hope that debate and evidence and public submissions—you are in the fresh light of day and you hope that you will look at the bill give it a good scrutiny and then be prepared to revise your view and come back to the House with a more informed perspective. But it was overwhelming that at the select committee one submitter after another came to the select committee and said: “Don’t do away with the four well-beings. These are the negative consequences for our communities. Don’t do it.” Councils said it unanimously and dozens and dozens and dozens of other submitters came along. The only people by and large who agreed with the Government’s proposal to narrow the purpose of local government were a handful of organisations that have an entrenched political agenda about small government and reducing the rates. By and large everybody else said: “Don’t compromise the ability of our elected councils to meet the needs and aspirations of our communities.” 
That is one of the things that I struggle to understand about the National Party’s policy in this area. It is the rural and provincial councils in areas by and large represented by National MPs that are most vociferous about the fact that they need the ability the freedom and the flexibility to respond to the needs of their communities. I was in Ashburton talking to the council there about the way that the Government is cutting the funding for local roads in that part of the South Island. They told me that the council runs a couple of medical centres clinics in Methven and Rakaia which they believe could be jeopardised by the change to the purpose statement of local government. If the local council did not run those clinics no one would and the people of that community would be far worse off. The Government is not prepared to provide those services; it is willing only to mandate local government to do what it wants to do. It wants to stop local government having the flexibility to respond to the needs of their communities. 
Why does the National Party hate democracy so much? What is it? What is it afraid of? What is going on with the members on that side of the House when every year that I have been in this Parliament they have come to this House with some kind of attack on the democratic rights of local communities? They denied Aucklanders the right to a referendum over the establishment of the super-city in the face of massive public protests. They came here and abolished democracy in Canterbury and they have recently suspended for several more years democratic elections for Environment Canterbury. We have seen in every single local government bill that has come to the House in the last 4 years that they have wound back the democratic rights of local communities. The provisions in this bill that take away the right of communities to vote up or down an amalgamation proposal are nothing more and nothing less than an attack on local communities. It makes it very clear that in spite of John Key’s promises that there would be no forced amalgamations the agenda of this National Government is to force amalgamation through whether communities like it or not. Increasing the number of days that communities have to get a petition together is not going to solve this problem. 
This bill is an attack on local government. I do not know why the National Party has such a problem with local communities and local democracy but it is getting a very bad name. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 National does not understand respect or trust local government. That is obvious with this eccentric bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. It is obvious in the lack of any robust analysis supporting the changes to the substantive Act and it is obvious in what the Government has done in Canterbury. The Local Government and Environment Committee was hearing submissions in Christchurch this morning. We got a palpable demonstration of the frustration and sense of disempowerment that Canterbury residents feel through the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 and the new Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Amendment Bill. It is the same sense of disempowerment of Wellington coming in and trampling on local communities that is at the heart of this local government amendment bill. 
 Local government should be accountable primarily to its communities through the consultation it does through its councillors and board members representing their constituencies and through a right to vote every 3 years. It is this bill the removal from the purpose of local government of the promotion of the four well-beings and the increased powers of ministerial interference that fundamentally change the relationship that local communities have with their councils. It puts those councils under Wellington’s thumb and it will certainly have councils and their staff looking over their shoulders to what the Minister thinks in Wellington. That is one of the reasons why the Green Party is opposing this bill. 
As a new member of Parliament I had understood that select committees were the workhorses of Parliament and that they were the one place where you could get some sensible constructive debate rather than the sometimes purely oppositional debate that we get in this Chamber. There were more than 510 submissions from individuals and organisations on the bill. People took a lot of time to write thoughtful constructive submissions and many people appeared before the Local Government and Environment Committee’s hearings. 
The vast majority of submitters opposed the bill yet have there been any significant changes to the bill? No. This failure to respond to community views undermines trust in democracy and undermines trust in Parliament when the Government is so unresponsive to public opinion. But it was certainly a privilege to hear those submissions from councils community organisations residents’ groups and local board members outlining the scope of activities that councils were involved in and the way in which small amounts of council funds could often leverage work that community organisations early childhood centres and artistic organisations were doing in the community to promote our well-being. It was all about creating attractive safe and healthy places to live and that is what the promotion of well-being is all about. 
I want on behalf of the Green Party to pay tribute to all of the work that councils councillors and their staff are doing throughout New Zealand to create good places to live. That is the benefit of having a purpose that is focused on the promotion of community well-being. 
Hurunui District Council was one of the many councils that came along to describe the breadth of its services the way in which it responded to community needs and the way in which that is imperilled by the change of purpose. As Mr Twyford mentioned Ashburton runs health centres. So does Hurunui—it has four health centres. How can these be described as core services or core infrastructure? Yet they are providing for a fundamental community need because they attract general practitioners and health professionals to a large rural district and they make sure by being there that residents have easy access to those health services. That sort of service—and the housing for elderly that Hurunui and other councils provide—is potentially jeopardised by the change in purpose and by commercial organisations being able to challenge the direction of council funds to things such as health centres. 
Hurunui has another example. It owns and manages the Hanmer Springs Thermal Pools and Spa. It is the revenue from that business which again is not a core piece of infrastructure—it is not a core service—that significantly offsets rates. If a commercial provider wants to buy up that complex can it use the change in the purpose that this bill is promoting to push the council to sell up? 
The Green Party opposes the bill also because of the substantially increased powers for the Minister to meddle in local government as the Government has done in Canterbury and to undermine democracy by doing that. Just as this National Government is selling off our State assets—our energy companies—there is a real risk that a National and ACT Government would use the increased ministerial intervention powers in the bill combined with the financial performance benchmarks to pressure councils particularly the Christchurch City Council to sell off their assets to avoid any increase in rates. 
The Minister of Local Government David Carter in around May in an interview on  
Q+A  
talked about the ability of central government to interfere with local government decisions around rates as “very very limited” and that “we wanted more ability for central government to work more closely” so we could manage some of these things. He went on to promote the sale of shares in airport and port companies. That is the ideological agenda behind the bill to put pressure on councils through the ministerial powers of intervention and through the performance benchmarks to actually sell a lot of their assets. One of the reasons for that is the very loose way in which “significant problem” which is the trigger for ministerial interference is defined. It is very very broad. 
One of the other reasons the Green Party opposes this bill is the agenda of super-sizing councils and the provisions in the bill for reorganisation. Again those deny democracy because they deny communities the automatic right to vote in any reorganisation or amalgamation proposal. They put the burden on the community to have a petition signed by 10 percent of electors before there can be a poll and when there is a poll it has to be across all of the area affected by the amalgamation not each individual area. As we saw in Nelson and Tasman where individual residents were able to vote they sent their opinion loud and clear and they did not support amalgamation. 
It is this agenda for streamlining proposals that actually cuts the voices of local communities and their ability to have an automatic right to decide their governance structures for their communities. This Government has a think-big agenda in local government. It has an agenda to take the “local” out of local government and to have it dominated by Wellington and the Wellington agenda. It is an agenda that we oppose. 
As other members have said the bill is back to front with the changes it is making because we have not seen the Productivity Commission review. And when the majority of public submissions were against the bill it is a breach of trust for the Government to continue with the bill without making any substantive changes to it without reinstating the well-beings reducing the ministerial powers and allowing an automatic right to vote on any amalgamation proposal. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 We heard a lot of submissions on this bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill in the Local Government and Environment Committee and I congratulate the chair Nicky Wagner on conducting that in an appropriate fashion. 
It was a very thorough process and we heard a lot of incumbent mayors and councillors coming along to tell us—in the main their message was: “There is no problem. Leave us alone. Let us continue what we are doing.” We also heard from many groups of ratepayers and they had a different story. I remember the Howick Residents and Ratepayers Association. An elderly woman at the select committee hearing was in tears about the relentless increase in rates that she has had to pay on a fixed income and that she would be forced from her home. So I am bound to say I had a lot more sympathy for those ratepayers. 
Hon Annette King 
: There were very few of them who came to the select committee. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: There were quite a large number of them. Those struggling ratepayers have no choice. They have to pay those rates. 
I am amazed to hear from members on the other side of the House that there is no issue. “There is no issue.” they keep telling us. Well since 2002 when these mysterious four well-beings came into place council debt has quadrupled from $2 billion to $8 billion and over the same period council rates have gone up on average 7 percent per year far outstripping inflation. They might say: “Oh well it’s only 7 percent.” Well inflation has been a lot less than that and we cannot continue to do it. 
We hear the defenders of big spending all say: “Oh there’s no evidence that these four well-beings have led to an expansion into new areas.” Well if that is the case if they want any evidence take a look at this document I am holding. This document is not a German art photo book. It is the Auckland Plan. I will briefly if I can indulge the House very briefly just tell members to look at the sorts of things they are getting into here: ensuring all Auckland children can have access to a primary school within 30 minutes. Well that is crucial stuff! Thank goodness we have got Auckland Council focused on that! 
That is why we need to get this focus back and that is why this bill is the sort of stuff—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I think we need to move on but it is important that this bill is passed as quickly as possible. I stand for this bill and I think it is an appropriate one that will help serve the communities of Auckland and throughout New Zealand in local government in the best possible way. Thank you very much. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. We also oppose this bill. I would like to quote from John Key MP and National Party leader on 28 July 2008—6 months before he became the Prime Minister: “Right now we have a serious backlog in infrastructure investment. Much of our infrastructure needs upgrading or replacing. Some is at the end of its expected lifespan. Low-quality infrastructure has become a bottleneck to a growing economy. 
Local authorities have identified in their Long Term Council Community Plans a required investment of around $30 billion over the next 10 years. Most of this goes to pay for roading and the so-called ‘three waters’: drinking water waste water and storm water. Central government is also facing an infrastructure spend of about the same magnitude over the next decade. This makes infrastructure a $60 billion issue and we have to have the right approach to dealing with it. 
It’s my view”—and this was the view of John Key MP leader of the National Party prior to becoming the Prime Minister—“that central government has much to learn from local government”— 
Hon Member 
: What? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: —much to learn from local government—“when it comes to infrastructure planning investment and management.” 
Phil Twyford 
: Who said that? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Who said that? One Mr John Key as the Leader of the Opposition. But it gets worse for the National Party. He then went to subsequent Local Government New Zealand conferences—not just in 2008 but in 2009 2010 and 2011 and I think even in 2012 but to a much lesser degree. 
Mr Key said that a partnership was required with local government in New Zealand if this country was going to pick up and lift its economic performance. He talked about a partnership between local government and central government. What happened? Local Government responded to the former Opposition leader Mr John Key in July 2008 and it lifted its performance and it carried on lifting its performance in order to help meet the infrastructure deficit in this country. What happened? Of course the Shand report—the report from the Local Government Rates Inquiry—which came out in around the same period 2006-07 said that the New Zealand local government authorities had lazy balance sheets and that they should leverage their balance sheets to a high level. 
John Key reaffirmed the fact that they had lazy balance sheets and should leverage their balance sheets higher. So what did they do? They had balance sheets showing only $2 billion in debt—only $2 billion—with close to $100 billion in assets. So they have got $100 billion in assets—and sure a lot of those are roads and footpaths—and $2 billion in leverage and the Government is saying “We have got a $60 billion infrastructure shortfall.” and the Prime Minister is saying “We have got to do something about this to lift our economic performance.” Then the Shand report comes out and tells all the councils “You should leverage your balance sheets.” and they do. They respond to all that and they take their balance sheets from $2 billion to $8 billion over a period of about 9 years while this Government takes its balance sheet from about $16 billion to $55 billion in deficit in 4 years. 
In half the time that local authorities took their balance sheets from a $2 billion deficit to an $8 billion deficit this National Government in 4 short years went from $16 billion - odd to $55 billion in deficit. And it gets worse—it gets worse—because it is projecting to go to a $75 billion deficit. The Government is criticising the councils which are trying to meet the partnership deal with central government—the challenge laid down by John Key the Leader of the Opposition in July 2008 as we all remember. They responded to the challenge and in the meantime the Government increased its deficit so many times more. It is just unbelievable. Yet local government is the one that is being criticised. Well quite frankly I am appalled. 
 Further at the local government conference this year 78 councils—as we heard before and I recall this—voted against what the Government was doing in terms of removing the purpose of the Local Government Act around the four well-beings. I want to quote from Lawrence Yule the president of Local Government New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: He’s a National Party supporter. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: He is a good National Party supporter and possibly a future candidate for the National Party in the electorate of Tukituki—maybe but who knows? 
Grant Robertson 
: Foss is gone. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Exactly. But anyway Lawrence Yule a good National Party man a supporter of the National Party said at this year’s conference: “It’s been a challenging year—for Local Government New Zealand and for our sector. We all look at ways of delivering more for less and being more efficient and effective.” And councils do. I can tell you having been a councillor and a mayor and a community board member that councils do. They are always looking to try to deliver more efficiently. 
Lawrence Yule goes on to say: “Our sector is doing its bit to make sure New Zealand Inc is a success. Local government and central government are partners in this journey. Local Government New Zealand does have some concerns with the Government’s Better Local Government reform agenda. But there are also some areas we agree with central government on.” such as the regulatory area. We all agree that the regulatory side can be tidied up and it can be improved. 
We all agree there are efficiencies to be made in some areas. “But” he says “Local Government New Zealand questions the proposal to refocus the purpose of local government in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill with the removal of the four wellbeings. ... We believe this fundamentally undermines the integrity of the relationship local authorities have with their communities.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Did Lawrie say that? 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: A good National Party mayor and future candidate for the National Party in Tukituki said that. Further he says: “Part of the purpose of the current Act ensures outcomes must be delivered to communities. If one of the reasons for the changes is to limit the role of local government then we question this approach.” 
They question that approach. So even National’s own supporters are questioning them. A lot of the mayors of the 78 councils around New Zealand—and I can tell you that a lot of them are National Party mayors—are saying that you are wrong. I look across at the benches there and I count the number of people who have had involvement in local government. I am just trying to think whether Maggie Barry did. No I do not think so. Did anyone on the backbenches? No I do not think so. Did anyone over here? I do not think so. How many of them have actually had local government experience? Yet they come out and think they are experts. They think they are experts. Well I can tell you that if you do not understand what a community is about if you do not understand what a city is about if you do not want to understand what a district is about and if you do not understand that here in New Zealand— 
Maggie Barry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not know that you need to be on the receiving end of so much of this nonsense. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member will just mind his pronouns. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you Mr Deputy Speaker do know what a city is about and what a region is about and what a district is about. At the end of the day we have only two tiers of government— 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure it is within the Standing Orders for the member for North Shore to refer to Mr Williams’ speech as nonsense in a point of order is it? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! That is a debatable point. I am not upholding that. 
Phil Twyford 
: But to describe another member’s speech as nonsense in a point of order is in fact a debating point itself is it not? It is not a point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think the score is now about even. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS 
: What I can say from real experience is that if those members do not understand that the second tier of government—and we have only two tiers of government in this country: central government and local government—is the social fabric of our communities the glue between those communities and the catalyst for so much happening in our communities then we are going to live in a very sad society. Those members need to understand that if the second tier of government in New Zealand is not able to continue delivering for the needs of communities whether they be rural communities city communities or small townships then we are going to live in a very sad society in this country. If those members do not understand that we will live in a very sad society. 
Sure we can all find efficiencies and we can all find savings but it is not the time or the place at the moment to start gutting communities gutting local authorities and gutting local democracy. We went to Christchurch today and we saw how democracy is being gutted down there. This is another case of central government of the National Government putting the knife and the boot into local government. We do not need it and the people of New Zealand do not need it either. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It does not seem right that there are no Ministers taking calls in this debate— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! And it is certainly not right that the member parades that as a point of order. That is not right either. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 To the member who has just resumed his seat and took a call on this Andrew Williams I say that we need to put in context his contribution. He was so successful in his previous role! He was what? He was the lowest-polling mayoral candidate below everybody else. Nor was he elected for the local health board. So when we look at his authority when we look at his ability to actually convince the people of the North Shore of his enormous knowledge of local body politics and his enormous authority he fails utterly and dismally. Let the record stand that this is not the kind of man whom people listen to or believe in. That was proved on the North Shore. He is hardly an authority. 
When we look at what this bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill is trying to do—others have outlined its provisions—we see it is very much about the ratepayers and about the extraordinary amount of extra spending that has come in since 2002. We campaigned consistently against it and we will continue to because of the extraordinary amount of extra spending that has come into effect since the four well-beings came in. In the past 10 years council debt has quadrupled from $2 billion to $8 billion and council rates have gone up on average by a very large amount indeed 7 percent a year far outstripping inflation. 
This has to stop. The ratepayers of New Zealand deserve better and this Government is going to deliver these reforms. They will be able to make councils more fiscally responsible. They will strengthen council governance provisions and streamline council reorganisation processes. This is not a difficult concept to grasp. I believe that many of the councils and local authorities are doing a good job and will do an even better job once these go through. 
I must say too—it is irresistible really—that when I listened to the phrases dripping from the lips of the member for Te Atatu I thought “ ‘Shallow populism’—oh really?”. That is something he knows a great deal about. “Pretending to make a difference”—that is also an area of expertise. Perhaps when Phil Twyford is no longer the member for Te Atatu he can pursue a career on the stage because he certainly does a very convincing line in faux outrage. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 There was some controversy earlier in the process of the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill about what was in and what was not in if the four well-beings were out. What could local government do? John Key was asked a number of questions about it and he said that the Hamilton V8 Supercars were out. That was not good enough. That was out. But surprisingly he said that the Ellerslie Flower Show was in. We can now reveal that Maggie Barry finally has an achievement in politics. The Ellerslie Flower Show was in because Maggie Barry lobbied for it. That was it. Her career is complete because that is the greatest contribution that we will get from Maggie Barry in this debate. 
From time to time in this House National Party members bellow across to us that we are the party of big government—that we are the party that wants everything to happen in Wellington. This is what happens. Maggie Barry occasionally raises that issue that it is big government on this side of the House. Well all I have seen from National members when it comes to looking at local government is their desire to take control away from local communities and drag it back to them here in Wellington. As Phil Twyford said every year since we have been MPs in this House this National Government has said: “We’re going to take power off local communities drag it back into Wellington and be big government over there.” 
There is no better example of that than this Government’s cancelling of the elections for the Canterbury Regional Council or Environment Canterbury and then for it to come back and extend that out—to say that the people of Canterbury will have no say over their representation at a regional council level until at least 2016. That went against the advice of officials it went against the advice of the commissioners themselves and it went against the will and interests of the Canterbury people. But that is the kind of big government that that party over there thinks is the right thing to do: to centralise that power and take it off local government. We saw it with Auckland we have seen it with Canterbury and now in this bill we see it again. 
Let us be absolutely clear. If we want one specific example of whether this Government actually believes that local residents should have a say over their own communities how is it right to take away the right to an automatic referendum where there is amalgamation? That is what this bill does. It says that the National Government knows best. The National Government knows best and local people do not have a right to an automatic referendum if there is to be an amalgamation. That is taking away democratic rights. That is the pattern of this Government and that is what this bill does. 
Other colleagues have talked about the importance of the four well-beings and I just want to highlight some of the activity of local government that this Government could take a look at. The work that the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs has done over a number of years has done far more for growth and employment far more for opportunities for young people than any of those members over there will ever be able to claim credit for. Mayors like Dale Williams and Bryan Cadogan down in Clutha district have actually got in there in their communities. These are people who I think I would say are soft Tories. That is a nice term; it is a term of endearment. Local government has a lot of people who are supporters of the National Party in it and this Government comes to this House today with this tawdry bill to trash those people—people like Dale Williams like Bryan Cadogan—who have done the work to get people in their communities into jobs and to get young people into training. Yet this Government says: “We’re better at that. We’re better at that; that’s not what local government should do.” Well actually the Government is not—7.3 percent of this country’s workers are unemployed. There are 175000 people out of work and looking for jobs. This Government has got no idea of how to make sure that there is employment growth yet it comes to this House with a bill that says: “We’re going to take away the four well-beings. We don’t think local government should be responsible for economic social cultural and environmental well-beings.” That is shameful. 
Most of the submitters on this bill came to the Local Government and Environment Committee and asked: “What are you doing removing those four well-beings? What are you doing taking away from councils the ability to deliver to their communities the services that their communities want?”. No National knows best. The National Party era of Wellington-based big government is alive and well as it takes away the rights of New Zealanders at the local level. 
It has been said by other speakers in this debate before that this bill is based on a lie. This bill is based on a lie. My colleague Annette King saw that because she saw that the statistics that Nick Smith put up alongside his  
Better Local Government 
 paper were wrong. They were shonky. They were not accurate and all of a sudden they disappeared. Annette King wrote to David Carter and asked what was going on there. David Carter wrote back to Annette King and this is what he said to her: “You note that the Department has removed the tables from its website. As noted on the website this was because there were issues with the data”—issues with the data—“both in terms of its accuracy and in terms of the picture that was being given for some councils.” 
I will translate for the members. The “issues with the data” were that it was wrong. It was a lie. It was wrong and that is the fundamental basis for this bill—perpetuating a lie about what local government has been doing. So not only does this bill take away from local communities the ability to decide what they will do but also it is fundamentally based on a lie. It is fundamentally based on undermining the ability of local communities to decide what they do. 
I want to return to the question of amalgamations and the role of local communities in what happens in amalgamations. In the community I live in in Wellington there is enthusiasm in some quarters to create some kind of larger super-city - type structure. That debate is worth having but what is wrong is that when the Local Government Commission under the provisions of this bill decides on some kind of amalgamation process the people of this region will have 40 working days to try to get 48000 signatures to actually have a referendum on a proposal—to actually have the right to have a say. That is an unacceptable limit on the rights of local people to decide how they are governed and there is not much that is more fundamental in our community than local people being able to decide how they govern their communities. 
Once again the National Party comes to this House and says: “We know better than local communities. We will control how those amalgamations take place.” and the notion that there will not be forced amalgamations—a commitment made by John Key—is thoroughly undermined by the provisions of this bill. The agenda for local government that is being driven by National is one of greater central control and I do believe that it is looking towards forced amalgamations. 
Throughout the community people have looked at this bill and said that it is wrong. It is not just the mayors as some of the members opposite would say. It is local communities which know and respect their councils but it is also fair-minded people who look at this and ask how it is fair: Christine Cheyne who said that this would be an ad hoc and fragmented arrangement; Rod Oram writing in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 saying that it was wrong-headed illogical and based on “gross distortions of the truth” and “a handful of egregious examples”. That is the basis for making law that will define how local communities are organised and governed in the future in New Zealand—on the basis of illogical wrong-headed arguments and gross distortions of the truth. 
This bill is disrespectful to this Parliament and it is disrespectful to the people and communities of New Zealand. It takes an approach that is arrogant that is undemocratic and that gives the lie to the belief that New Zealanders would have that they have control over how they are represented. This Government is showing no respect for democracy at a local level throughout New Zealand. National is the party of big government and control when it comes to how New Zealanders are governed at a local level. This is a shameful bill and it should not pass. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 This bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill should pass and it is certainly not a shameful piece of legislation. We have heard a lot of talk about democracy and constitutional stuff and it has to be said from someone who knows a bit about constitutional stuff—because you know I use the technical term—it is absolutely all made up. It is wonderful “shameful” rhetoric but to use those words “illogical” “wrong-headed” and “arrogant”—those are the arguments that we have been hearing from the Opposition. 
My electorate—it is just one part of Auckland Tamaki—is facing almost an average of 7.6 percent rate increases year after year; the most was 10 percent. To fund what? To fund documents pages long with sort of waffling text. Others I think on the waste management of Auckland at the moment want to integrate metaphysical and religious reasons for how we should be running our waste in Auckland. That is not what government is about. We have heard about the importance of democracy. We in the National Government have been listening to the people in our constituencies across New Zealand who have had enough of councils running around not following their core purposes and spending as if their ratepayers their taxpayers are eftpos cards. 
I return again to my electorate. They have said to me person after person week after week that they have had enough of local councils continuing to spend without restriction and to spend in ways that are not within the core purposes of what councils are about. So this is a democratic action. This is the National Government listening to the people and exercising its democratic mandate to make sure that councils operate democratically fairly and in a way that is entirely appropriate. 
This is good constitutional work. This is good democratic work. This is about listening to people and that is what this Government is about. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a split call—Raymond Huo 5 minutes. 
David Bennett 
: Here are the big guns! 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Yes indeed. In the light of the excellent speeches delivered by my colleagues I will need only 5 minutes to unleash my reasoning and anger to oppose this bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill. As a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee I had the privilege of hearing the submissions not only in Parliament but also in Auckland Christchurch and other regions when the select committee had special sessions there. Meeting with those local government representatives and listening to their submissions was very rewarding. The submissions from those 518 or so individuals organisations and local authorities were thoughtful responsible and constructive. The vast majority of the submissions opposed this bill. I should say that this National-ACT Government is very brave in ignoring those submissions and rejecting proposals to introduce sensible amendments. 
As the Hon Annette King has emphasised Labour stands for effective and efficient local government. We believe in local democracy local empowerment and local choice. Labour opposes the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill on six major grounds. First of all we agree with the vast majority of submissions and strongly oppose the changes to the purpose of local government in the principal Act. The four well-beings—namely the social economic environmental and cultural well-beings—are what local government is all about. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Which is most important. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: We agreed—yes indeed Mr Simon Bridges—with the Auckland District Law Society that the new purpose statement which is narrow and more restrictive will cause legal confusion and uncertainty and risks legal challenges to council decisions. Secondly the bill is based on misinformation and a very small number of examples particularly in relation to rate increases and debt levels of councils between 2002 and 2011. For the information of Mr Simon O’Connor who touched upon the issue of rates increases I can tell him that rates increases—for example for the Tasman District Council and other councils—are more the result of— 
Jami-Lee Ross 
: He’s from Tamaki not Tasman. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: I cite it as an example. As I said I had the privilege of hearing the submissions not only in Auckland but also in the South Island. Rates increases are more the result of the provision of infrastructure addressing historical deferred maintenance and additional regulatory responsibility imposed on councils by that member’s central government than a result of the purpose of local government in the principal Act. Thirdly the bill has been rushed. It was written before sufficient evidence had been gathered to support the changes. Fourthly the so-called Better Local Government Dr Nick Smith’s approach the so-called reform proposals are being implemented in a back to front way with a number of reviews aimed at gathering evidence and information and providing advice due to be reported after the passage of this bill. 
Further the reorganisation proposals for local government are anti-democratic with the removal of an automatic poll for voters in an affected area. The bill leads to far greater interference in local government by the Minister of Local Government than is warranted by the evidence. Currently the law guarantees to all citizens the right to a say in the binding ballot of any proposed reorganisation or amalgamation of their local council. This bill takes away that right. It is the confiscation of the democratic rights of New Zealanders. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Nga mihi nui ki a koe me tena koe ki te Whare tenei. 
I would like to start my speech by acknowledging some people in the gallery: Lorna and Barry Stansfield who are my partner’s parents. I am acknowledging them because they are voters they are ratepayers they live in Auckland City and they care about local government. Lorna particularly has been a frequent visitor submitter and petitioner to her local community board and to her council. She is well known by local councillors—some of them fear her. She is very very vocal in saying what she as a ratepayer deserves in her community that should be paid for by her rates. Basically they take advantage of local democracy. Kia ora. 
I also want to acknowledge in this House today those who have represented their communities as representatives on their local councils their local boards their community boards and as mayoral candidates and mayors as well. These are the people who actually signed up to the principles of the Local Government Act 2002. They will have sworn to serve their communities to the best of their abilities and to serve those communities’ interests. Like me they would have been bound by the purposes of the Act. The purposes in the Local Government Act 2002 include the provision for local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social economic environmental and cultural well-being of their communities taking a sustainable development approach. Those are the four well-beings. This bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill seeks to remove the four well-beings from local government. 
The Greens will be voting against this bill because it rips the heart and soul out of the Local Government Act 2002. That was a carefully crafted Act that has stood the test of time. It allowed local communities to determine their own priorities without central government interference. This bill addresses a problem that does not exist and this is backed up by the regulatory impact statement that was provided to the Local Government and Environment Committee. On page 1 it says: “There is limited evidence to inform the development of these proposals”. The regulatory impact statement confirms that this is a rushed job by the Government and that in its haste to carve up local government for its own ends for its own agendas it could well create more mess-ups. Local Government New Zealand agrees that these reforms are based on a beat-up by the Government and it is justifiably disappointed that it was not consulted at all in the drafting of this bill. 
Local Government is right to be worried about this meddlesome bill and the Government’s agenda. Not satisfied with taking the “local” out of local government now the National Government is trying to take the “government” out of local government as well. How else can you describe the provisions in this bill that allow central government the right to intervene in local government or set the financial parameters and benchmarks the proposal to remove citizen participation in council reorganisation proposals—and we have seen that already in Auckland—or the provision around remuneration and employment policy that will deliberately fudge the line between governance and operations and will also eliminate any attempt at good-faith bargaining for local government staff? 
This bill fails to recognise that local government is about locals for locals—locals like Lorna and Barry and the local people whom they democratically elected. This Government not content with dismantling democracy in Canterbury not content with forcing a massive amalgamation in Auckland is set on rolling out a scheme to interfere with and micromanage all the councils in the country. 
This is nanny State behaviour. This is Government acting like a control freak. We will be opposing this bill. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 The Opposition wants to characterise this bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill as an attack on democracy. Well I want to tell the Opposition that for the last 10 years local government in New Zealand has been attacking the pockets of ratepayers. That is why we are implementing this legislation. The ratepayers in New Zealand are calling out for relief. The ratepayers in New Zealand are calling out for assistance. After 10 years of having to operate under legislation passed by members on that side that let local government do absolutely anything it wanted to do—and saw rates go through the roof nationwide—ratepayers are calling for change. Ratepayers want something to be done about the awful local government legislation that they have had to endure. 
Since 2002 the average rates increase in this country has been 6.8 percent—6.8 percent. In that time CPI has been 3 percent. Auckland at the moment has put its rates up by 3.6 percent. Can anyone tell me what the CPI is running at at the moment? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: 1.1? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: It is 1 percent. Actually in the last quarter it was 0.8 annualised. The Auckland Council is putting its rates up by 3½ times what the current inflation rate is at the moment. 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: That’s terrible. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: That is awful and ratepayers are calling out for some relief. Let me tell you that in the Auckland Plan the biggest expenditure is transport. I absolutely agree with that—it is 34 percent. The second-biggest area of expenditure in the Auckland Council’s plan is on lifestyle and culture. Twenty-two percent of my rates and every Aucklander’s rates is going on lifestyle and culture. I have absolutely no idea what “lifestyle and culture” is supposed to mean and I do not know why local government is involved in lifestyle and culture. 
My colleague Paul Goldsmith read out a couple of targets in the Auckland Council’s plan. The Auckland Council wants to see all school-leavers achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 by 2020. That is an honourable goal but why is local government trying to get involved in education? That is what people pay their taxes for. The Auckland Council also wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Hey that’s my job. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: —based on 1990 levels. That is Simon Bridges’ job. It is not local government’s job. Aucklanders do not pay their rates for the Auckland Council to try to do what the Government should be doing to try to get involved in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Ratepayers have been telling Parliament that local government has been out of control and it needs to be brought back in line with what reality is. 
We are implementing this legislation to bring about some sense to local government to try to narrow the focus of local government. The Opposition thinks that ratepayers are sitting at home crying because the four well-beings are being taken away. How many ratepayers actually know what the four well-beings are? Ratepayers want to see good quality public services. They want to see good quality public infrastructure. They want to see local government implementing its regulatory responsibilities in an efficient way. That is what this bill is all about. I do not understand why the Opposition hates ratepayers and wants to support the spending desires of a couple of hundred local body politicians over the ratepayers of this country. They are the ones calling out for change. They are the ones we are supporting with this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 59 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 2; Mana 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Legislation Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 13 November. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is a delight to be able to rise and make a contribution in what has been an exciting debate to date in the Committee stage of the Legislation Bill. It is great to see that Chris Tremain is the Minister in the chair for these purposes. I know that with the assistance of the officials he will be able to answer all the questions that I and my colleagues have for him today on this significant piece of legislation and in particular in the debate on the title and the commencement clause. 
Seriously for a moment first of all I want to say just a few words about clause 1 the title. The provision says simply that “This Act is the Legislation Act 2010” but this is a fantastic example of parliamentary understatement. This little bill with its plain little title hides a number of treasures. I know that Mr Bridges is itching to take a call on this very issue because he also knows of the jewels that lie beneath this modest little title of this particular bill. Although we are going to refer to the Act as the Legislation Act 2012 when it is eventually enacted—because that is how long the process has taken to wend through the select committee and through the House—what I think members and the people listening to the broadcast seeing us on television and seeing us here in Parliament today need to understand is that there are a number of exciting things that this Legislation Bill will do that we really are not given a proper clue about by the title. 
First of all let us have a look at the Acts that this legislation will replace. Again with a simple look at the title there would be no clue as to the complexity that this legislation starts to simplify. Instead of having a Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 an Acts and Regulations Publication Act 1989 and a Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 those three Acts of Parliament are going to be streamlined and brought into substantial effect on a modernised basis by the Legislation Bill and not before time. The modernisation that the Legislation Bill effects with its modest little title is really quite significant. We have as we have heard in the Committee stage a bill before us that despite that modest little title will revolutionise and modernise the publishing the reprinting and the revising of legislation in New Zealand. That is a most significant innovation. 
 We have a complete re-enactment of the scheme of both the Regulations (Disallowance) Act and also the Acts and Regulations Publication Act at least as far as those two pieces of legislation relate to this new category of disallowable instruments which will be recognised by our law under that terminology for the first time. We have a re-enactment of the important way in which the Regulations Review Committee ensures that scrutiny of delegated legislation will occur because the procedure that is set out in the Regulations (Disallowance) Act 1989 will be substantially re-enacted by this bill. I know that the scheme of the disallowance regime is well known to many members of this House including you Mr Chairperson but it will be set out in a modernised form with reference to that concept of disallowable instruments by this plainly titled Legislation Bill. 
Also very significantly—and this was a matter that did not get great attention in the select committee process—the legislation that currently governs the Parliamentary Counsel Office the Statutes Drafting and Compilation Act 1920 will be completely modernised by Part 4 of the Legislation Bill. For the first time there will be a proper statutory setting out of the basis on which the Chief Parliamentary Counsel holds office—a definition of the relationship between him and the executive and this body. It is a tripartite relationship as the acting Chief Parliamentary Counsel acknowledged in two select committee appearances that he made today which I was present for—one in the Regulations Review Committee and one in the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
There are some other important innovations that simply would not occur to the reader of the name of this plainly titled bill. There are some important provisions relating to the staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They have really had quite an ambiguous status in law in respect of a number of important issues including the issue of whether when they provide their important and valued drafting and interpretation advice to Ministers or to members when they are assisting select committees or with members’ bills they actually have a client whom they are dealing with or whether there is some more ambiguous relationship that is on foot here. Of course the importance of this is all about whether or not they have an expectation relating to legal professional privilege around the advice and the representation that they provide to these figures including members of Parliament and Ministers. It is important that we are clear that that is the duty that we are clarifying. 
As well there is another important innovation that the bill—not apparent from its title—provides and that is to extend the same sort of protection from liability that public servants enjoy at the moment. That is extended to the Parliamentary Counsel Office and to the staff working in it. So if they do something in good faith and within the powers that they are given by the legislation then they are protected from liability. They cannot be sued as individuals. Bizarrely that was not a position that has been clear in the law until now. It is something that the Regulations Review Committee when we looked at this legislation thought was an anomaly. Why should public servants subject to the State Sector Act have those protections but the valued staff of the Parliamentary Counsel Office on whom we rely so greatly day to day in this office—why should they not have exactly those same protections? I am glad to see that those provisions are brought into effect by this bill. 
It is also good to see provisions ensuring that parliamentary counsel are to be appointed on merit and that the Chief Parliamentary Counsel is to establish procedures for notifying vacancies and appointments and for reviewing appointments. 
This is good modernising legislation. It is timely. It is the sort of thing that the office deserves and needs and I am very very pleased that under the guise of this modest little title we are doing all those things today. 
Just a word on commencement. Originally the legislation provided for most of the bill to come into force on 1 July 2011. Then there was a dual scheme put in place to allow for much of the rest of the legislation to be brought into effect by Order in Council or were those Orders in Council not made by 1 July 2013. That is a proper way to do things. It is appropriate for legislation such as this which deals with matters such as delegated legislation to ensure that when there is a legislative scheme that is to be brought into effect by regulations it is not on the never-never. There is a drop-dead date if you like by which the legislation must come into effect if the executive fails to bring into effect Orders in Council to enact the legislation or at least to have it in force. 
I see that there is a Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 127 which will change that scheme somewhat. It will push out the latest date by which the legislation must come into force but it is still a specified date. So it can be brought into force earlier by Order in Council but there is that very appropriate commencement formula by which the final date on which all of the important pieces of legislation that comprise this measure must be brought into effect and that is 1 July 2014. 
I am delighted that we are finally progressing this bill. It is good to see all these important provisions coming into force. I certainly commend the bill in its entirety and in particular clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take yet another call on the Legislation Bill which as my colleague Charles Chauvel has pointed out is a very important piece of legislation. It is curious given what the bill does in relation to the status of legislation—completed and concluded legislation—the publication of it and the role of the Parliamentary Counsel Office that it should be given such a bland unappealing and really uninformative name as the Legislation Bill. Really I think that if we are serious and want to meet the spirit of this legislation itself then we will find a more creative name something that in fact does it justice—no pun intended. 
I will relay a recent experience I had. I found myself yesterday in the company not only of a QC and one or two other lawyers but actually of a High Court judge in an interesting exercise which I will not go into. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Where was that? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: It was at the Auckland High Court. I do not want to go into too many other details except to say that there was a very satisfactory outcome for all concerned. It was a very satisfying—satisfying and satisfactory—outcome for all concerned particularly that party that I think had the biggest legal bill to pay. But anyway the point is this: while we were there engaging in a very mutually satisfying and satisfactory conversation with all concerned— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Was this in the courtroom? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: This was before we held hands and exchanged beatific smiles with each other. The High Court judge a most respectable and honorary fellow came to the room equipped with large printed and hard-bound editions of legislation and a highly respectable legal text. I sat there in that room observing this highly respectable and honourable High Court judge thinking: “If only His Honour the Justice had the benefit of the Legislation Bill currently going through Parliament.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Did you think that? 
ANDREW LITTLE 
: I did think that. In fact were it not for other issues that were occupying those of us who were there I might have raised the issue because His Honour the judge would have been most assisted by an electronic publication of the legislation he was consulting at the time which from memory I think was something like the Defamation Act 1992 although I could have that wrong. It was a large bound volume of legislation. I thought to myself “Isn’t it a pity that at this very point it is not a requirement that an official version of the legislation is published electronically?” because had that been the case then His Honour the judge may well have been able to turn up with a nifty little iPad or even a laptop or some other hand-held device on which he could have brought his legal texts along with him and it would have saved him having to wander through the vast cavernous regions of the Auckland High Court to come to our little room to play his very important role. So that is what I think is very good about this legislation and why— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.