Volume 657 Week 25 - Wednesday 23 September 2009 
Volume 657 Week 25 - Wednesday 23 September 2009 
[Volume:657;Page:6779] 
Wednesday 23 September 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Availability of Amending Legislation 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The arrangements for the House for the rest of the week are slightly peculiar as you will be aware. Yesterday at this same point I asked the Leader of the House about the availability of the emissions trading scheme amendment bill because the House will go into urgency tomorrow to consider it. It has had no public scrutiny and there has been no chance for members of the House to look at it and no chance for the media to review it. The Minister continues to say the bill will be made available yet here we are right before we are to go into consideration of it and it is still not available at this time. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is not usual for someone to be invited to respond to a point of order that is actually not a point of order. I inform all members of the House that the Hon Dr Nick Smith will be conducting a briefing for all parties in his office this evening at 7.30—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is actually being heard. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and the bill will be made available. I think that is well adequate time for the Opposition parties to consider the aspects of this bill. 
Tabling of Document—Description  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Minister for Climate Change Issues sought and was granted leave to table a document in the House which he described as a document from Treasury analysing the costs and benefits of the emissions trading scheme. I wonder whether you would like to ask the Minister whether he would like to correct the description of the document that he tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. A member cannot litigate that kind of thing by way of a point of order. That is nothing to do with the order of the House right now. The document is now on the Table and members can make their own conclusions about that document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For the member’s benefit I note that the numbers were prepared by Treasury and the piece of paper was produced by the Ministry for the Environment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that we need to take this matter further. As I understand the situation leave was sought to table a certain document. On the face of it the document that was tabled appeared to be consistent with that leave. In terms of the detail of it I cannot be the judge of that. The important thing is that it appeared to be consistent with the leave that was granted. I do not think the House should take further time on it now. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have heard what you have just said. Leave was sought to table a complete document not a page from a document. It is very clear from what was tabled that the document is not a complete document as well as not being a Treasury document. To be fair I accept the member’s word if in fact it said in the document which has not all been tabled that the figures were prepared by Treasury as opposed to the ministry. One cannot tell that on the face of it. If the member had done as he said he would do and tabled the whole document it would be clear to all of us. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the end of the matter. I have no further comment to make on the matter. 
Questions to Ministers 
New Zealand Superannuation Fund—Contributions 
1. 
 Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with his Minister of Finance’s comment: “we do not want to saddle future generations with the cost of short term policies”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has grown by 33 percent since March and does the excuse for cutting contributions made by his Minister of Finance—that it was losing billions of dollars—now ring a little hollow? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I note that the recovery in performance of the Superannuation Fund reflects the recovery in sharemarkets and managed funds across the world. They are getting somewhere back towards where they started. But the important reason the Government suspended contributions to the Superannuation Fund was that the Government simply did not have the cash to put into it. Current Budget projections indicate that it will be 10 years before the New Zealand Government has a surplus. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Prime Minister now admit in light of the $4.1 billion that the fund has made over the last 6 months that Labour was right in stating that the best time to invest was when the market was at the bottom and that contributions to the Superannuation Fund should continue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No; the fund was set up to take Government surpluses and invest them to support future superannuation obligations. The fact is the Government does not have surpluses. It is going to have deficits in the region of $10 billion to $12 billion over the next few years and it will be 10 years before the Government will have surpluses again. 
Chris Tremain 
: In what context was the Minister of Finance’s comment made? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The comment about not saddling future generations with the cost of short-term policies was made in the context of the Government’s need to borrow significant amounts of money to maintain public services and to invest in infrastructure. We believe that the Government has set a reasonable limit to that debt and that any proposals to borrow more money than the current Government is already borrowing are reckless. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I ask members of the House to be a little more reasonable in their interjections. The question is one being asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that hearing the answer would be of interest to the Opposition. That unacceptable level of interjection should stop. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister concede that the pre-funding of superannuation meant not only that there was greater certainty that current entitlements could be met even as the number of people in retirement was due to double but also that investment in the Superannuation Fund provides a net benefit rather than a cost to the taxpayer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No the mathematics of this are pretty simple. This Government has decided it is willing to borrow to save entitlements and maintain public services but it is not willing to borrow to invest in world equity markets. That is a prudent way of doing business. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Is the Prime Minister convinced that future taxpayers are getting good value for the $400 million the Government is borrowing each week and given that this is equivalent to building up $9500 of debt each year for each employed person in New Zealand might it not be appropriate for his Government to do what any normal person would do in this situation and start cutting back on spending and not saddle future generations with the cost of short-term policies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The questioner points out the costs of extensive borrowing. The Government is currently borrowing $400 million per week and over the next 4 years it will borrow about $40 billion thereby doubling public debt. That is why propositions to borrow more for any reason are reckless. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are two ways of addressing the future doubling of the number of people in retirement in New Zealand: first by increasing the age of retirement; and second by pre-funding the future liability created by the ageing population? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The current Government supports the institution of the Superannuation Fund. We have used the provisions in the legislation that were designed explicitly for these circumstances—that is where the Government does not have surplus cash to put into the fund we can suspend the contributions and make sure that that is a transparent process. That is what we have done. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by Mr John Key that makes precisely the point I just asked the Prime Minister about which the Acting Prime Minister disagreed with. The statement is from  
Agenda  
on 13 April 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from  
Agenda 
. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of policies that would increase Government debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have just had a question about one item on Labour’s list which is the recommendation that the Government should borrow $2 billion extra per year to put into the Superannuation Fund. Adding up Labour’s other promises it comes to about $6 billion a year on top of existing borrowing. By any measure that is reckless. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that pre-funding for the liability for superannuation created by the ageing population is not about spending for consumption but about investing in an asset for the future and can be justified on that basis; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is making a few assumptions. The fact is that the Superannuation Fund return over the years it has existed so far does not match what would have happened if people had put the money in the bank. So pre-funding is no guarantee that the country will be better off. With the member’s current proposition in the future there would be a bigger fund but there would also be significantly bigger debt so the country would be no better off. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by Mr John Key that makes a statement very similar to the question I asked the Prime Minister which the Acting Prime Minister disagreed with. It is from  
Agenda  
on 13 April 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from  
Agenda 
. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Green Party the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the G-20 Sir Nicholas Stern the World Bank and many others that we should not saddle future generations with the long-term costs of climate change which were described today by Barack Obama as “catastrophic”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is moving to put in place an emissions trading scheme which I have to say is further than many other countries have gone—in fact it is further than any other country has gone. We believe that we have made pragmatic decisions that balance our responsibilities to the environment with our responsibilities to the economy and New Zealanders today who face the cost of climate change. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the watered-down emissions trading scheme is to save taxpayers $100 million reduce costs to heavy industry and to households and let off farming for a further 2 years can the Prime Minister explain to the House just who will be paying for New Zealand to meet its international obligations? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The scheme represents a balance between the proportion of the liability that the Government will meet the proportion that will be met by New Zealanders who pay for their electricity bills and fill up their cars with petrol and the proportion paid by agriculture and industry. We believe we have made a balanced decision and I point out to the member that New Zealand has gone further with its emissions trading scheme than any other country on earth. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With that statement is the Prime Minister admitting that because agriculture industry and households will pay less taxpayers will actually pay more under his emissions trading scheme than they would have under the existing law; if not will he answer my previous question? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows calculating the cost of this scheme depends on whether we count the next couple of years when taxpayers will be paying more than they would have under the existing scheme or whether we take the next 50 years when it will be very uncertain. But the Government has made clear its view that in the long run this scheme should be fiscally neutral—that is not a mechanism for raising taxes on the New Zealand public. The previous scheme was going to raise taxes on the New Zealand public. 
Economy—Growth in June Quarter 
2.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Data released today shows that the economy grew marginally by 0.1 percent in the June quarter. It is the first positive quarter after a succession of five negative quarters stretching back to the start of 2008. It indicates that the economy is stabilising and that growth is likely to pick up. That is good news particularly for New Zealanders who are worried about job security or who want to see the prospect of getting another job improving. 
Amy Adams 
: What challenges now lie ahead for the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the challenge for this economy has been generally recognised: to get the right kind of balance in our recovery. The last recession occurred to some extent because of strong increases in Government spending a housing boom and excessive household debt. We do not want to go down that track again so the Government will have to work hard to create the kind of environment where the economy grows from savings investing and exporting rather than from fast Government spending and too much household debt. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What additional measures is the Minister therefore planning in order to ensure that the 135000 New Zealanders currently unemployed will benefit from a turn-round in the economy? How many Kiwis will be forced on to the dole queue before the Government comes up with a real and credible action plan for jobs and exports? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has outlined six policy drivers that will shape the recovery. They include significant investment in productive infrastructure that employs people in the shorter term but lifts the productive capacity in the longer term and a very strong focus on creating the kind of business environment in which the private sector will be willing to invest and employ and therefore create more jobs. Over the next 5 to 10 years new jobs are unlikely to come from a Government sector that is already borrowing $400 million a week just to keep going. 
Amy Adams 
: What risks are there that the recovery could be derailed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have learnt a lot of lessons from the last 10 years when even in the best of times the economy was mismanaged so badly that New Zealand went into a recession before everybody else and thousands of New Zealanders lost jobs that they thought were sustainable. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In the best of times and the worst of times does the Minister stand by his answer given yesterday that “New Zealand is now reaping the benefits of being an open and resilient economy” in forecasting a lower peak of unemployment? Can he confirm that the difference is the strong record of the outgoing Labour Government which had the world’s lowest unemployment zero net national debt and GDP growth a full 1 percent higher than it was the last time National was in office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The previous Labour Government had the opportunity to oversee the best economic conditions in two generations. Labour managed to create a recession before almost anyone in the world. That and not the shower heads is what it should apologise for. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In the Minister’s opinion would New Zealanders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the Hon David Cunliffe and I want to hear his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —be better off now if the previous Government had taken the advice of “Minister Oliver Twist” and borrowed more to fund tax cuts that would have fuelled the consumption he now rails against? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the previous Government had taken the advice of the National Opposition it would not have had a recession on 1 January 2008. It is time those members apologised for that. It will take us years to undo the damage. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister for Social Development and Employment returns. I believe she is in Paris for the next 2 weeks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold the question over. [ 
Interruption 
]—a point of order is being heard and there will not be interjection anywhere while I deal with it I say to the Hon David Cunliffe. Leave is sought to defer the question. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Unemployment—Current Rate 
3.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on New Zealand’s current unemployment rates? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports in relation to New Zealand’s current unemployment rate. One report shows that New Zealand is in the top third of the OECD—ninth out of 30 countries. New Zealand is performing well in a number of labour market indicators having a low unemployment rate high labour force participation and a high employment rate. In fact I could compare our rate with that of the UK which is 7.8 percent and that of the US which is 9.7 percent; New Zealand’s rate is 6 percent. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister aware there are now 1700 registered unemployed in Canterbury alone and that her promise of 4000 Job Ops placements for the entire country over the next 2 years is increasingly becoming a token gesture leaving most young people without a job and not much hope; and will she now revisit the timid approach she has been taking in trying to assist struggling unemployed New Zealanders? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not think anyone would ever accuse the Minister of being timid. However noting how worrying it is for young people not to have work I contrast the concern that this Government has for them with that of the previous Minister Ruth Dyson who stated that 29000 jobs being lost was “not bad news at all”. She said that at the beginning of last year. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question had nothing to do with what the Hon Ruth Dyson did or did not do as Minister for Social Development and Employment. I asked the Minister whether she was aware that there are 1700 young people unemployed in Canterbury alone and that 4000 Job Ops placements over the next 2 years just will not cut it and what she will do about her timid approach. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the House to respect the Standing Orders. When a point of order is being raised the House will be silent so that it can be heard. I remind the honourable member that her question went on somewhat longer than that; in repeating it she left out a chunk of it. However acknowledging that she left out a chunk of it I think it would be helpful if the Minister did address the part of the question about whether any changes are proposed. I understood that to be the key part of the member’s question. If the Minister has any further information on that the House will be obliged. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I advised the member that I was aware of the situation. If she wants to ask me five questions in one that is her problem. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will the Government continue to support those facing unemployment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hope the Minister heard the question because I could not hear it at all. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I ask the member to repeat the question because I must be able to hear it. I ask members to show a little courtesy to their colleagues. That is all I am asking—not to be silent but just show a little courtesy. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will the Government continue to support those facing unemployment? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: This Government is committed to creating economic conditions for sustainable jobs so that when people find themselves out of work they are able to move into another job quickly. We recognise that losing a job creates an enormous amount of stress on individuals and families. That is why we will continue to do everything we can—much more than the previous Government did when the recession first hit—to get people back into work as soon as we can. 
Hon Annette King 
: If her Job Ops scheme is so successful as she has been claiming why have only 29 young people in the whole central region found work through the scheme while at the same time unemployment in the Wairarapa has tripled leading the local newspaper to state that the situation is bleak for people living there; and will she now rename her flagship programme from Job Ops to “Job Flops”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That member might find it funny that young people are out of work but this Government does not. That is why I am very pleased to be able to say that one-third of all people who go to Work and Income at the moment looking for work are able to go either straight into work or into training; they do not go straight on to a benefit which is what that member would rather see. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. How many young people have been placed on Job Ops and Community Max since the Youth Opportunities scheme was announced on 2 August? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am pleased to report that in only 7 weeks employers have listed over 1206 job opportunities. That means that 625 young people are now gaining valuable work experience— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What about the normal jobs they have been advertising? There’s nothing new. They are not new jobs. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —I know that Ms Dalziel may not like to hear it—and 30 percent of those are young Maori. For Community Max there are already 267 opportunities available. One of the first Community Max projects that Minister Turia launched was with Ngati Rangi in Ohakune. It is investing $152 million in young people and creating almost 17000 new opportunities. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 4 Dr Paul Hutchison. [ 
Interruption 
] This time it is the Labour members. I ask the Labour members to treat the House with a little more courtesy. This is the New Zealand Parliament; many people are watching it and listening to it. I ask the members to treat it with a little more courtesy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention the orchestrated clapping that preceded those interjections from Labour members. If you are going to tidy up one side then I think you have to stop the orchestration on the other side. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me be very clear and polite to the honourable member who risks questioning my even-handedness in this House. The applause stopped when I called Dr Hutchison. The interjections went on and on and that is my concern. I am not troubled by some interjection and some noise. I am not asking people to be silent; I am just asking people to treat the House with a little more courtesy. 
Elective Surgical Discharges—Numbers 
4.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports confirming that the yearly increase in the number of surgical elective discharges from 2000-01 to 2007-08 averaged 1436 a year and can he confirm that the comparable increase in 2008-09 was 11805? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can confirm that the number of people getting elective surgery increased between 2000 and 2008 by a very slow average of 1436 a year which was below population growth and ageing meaning that real access was cut. Many more people got elective surgery in the past financial year with the largest increase coming under the new Government. The past year’s performance was over eight times the past average—a record increase of 11805 extra operations for patients. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Has the Minister seen reports claiming that this increase was due to doing less complex surgery; if so are these claims correct? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I have seen those reports; it is disappointing to inform the House that those claims by the Opposition spokeswoman on health are wrong. The facts show that in the past financial year the average complexity of operations was exactly the same as the previous year and above the average complexity of the previous 7 years. It is worth noting too that most of the increase occurred in the second half of the financial year—January to July 2009. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Can the Minister confirm that during the 2008 calendar year elective surgery actually rose by 15039 procedures meaning the elective surgery increase he just tried to claim credit for actually happened under Labour’s watch not his? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The one thing I have learnt in this House is that I cannot rely on that member’s claims in question time. But regardless of that the fact is that under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government the average increase in operations for patients was 1436. In this financial year with a very big increase in the second half of the year we are getting that average up. That means more service for New Zealand patients. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of the Minister’s answer. I ask you to reflect on how he started his answer. He said he could not rely on the word of another member. You have delivered a homily today to Labour members about performance. We have heard one Minister answer a question by saying that if a member chooses to put five questions in a question that is their problem and then plump herself down. In that case the member concerned had not asked five questions. Now another Minister has said he cannot rely on another member’s word. That leads to disorder and I think you need to reflect on it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No actually—that is what leads to disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and there will be no interjection. I ask Ministers not to start answers in that manner because it will lead to disorder. I support the member’s point of order. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What were the main reasons for this record increase; and is it usual for more elective surgery to be done in the second half of the financial year than in the first half? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: A number of factors contributed to this result. It is very significant that this is the first time since district health boards were established 9 years ago that the number of patients getting elective operations has been higher in the second half of the financial year than in the first. I am also advised that in line with Government expectations district health boards are making smarter use of the private sector which in the past year helped to deliver around 3500 extra operations than in the previous year. That number is up nearly 50 percent. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table figures provided by the Minister of Health himself that show there was an increase from 2007 to 2008 of 15039 surgical procedures. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the meeting of the Northland District Health Board—dated Tuesday 2 June—where the hospital advisory committee notes that the Minister of Health is focusing on patient numbers rather than on case weights which is the complexity of the surgery. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Adult and Community Education—Redundancies 
5.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice has she received if any about the extent of the potential liability schools face if their adult and community education coordinator and tutors have to be made redundant because of the adult and community education funding cuts? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the responsibility to pay redundancy to adult and community education coordinators and tutors rests with the employers. Whether individual schools have a redundancy liability will depend on whether the schools have chosen to employ staff or to contract for their services. I have not been provided with advice about the extent of the potential liability of redundancy costs. Employers have been advised to seek advice and guidance from the New Zealand School Trustees Association about the entitlements of their employees. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister believe that schools should use the adult and community education funding provided in their funding contract to pay for redundancies? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The advice from the Tertiary Education Commission is that adult and community education funding can be used to meet redundancy costs. Any school that is intending to withdraw from adult and community education is encouraged to contact the Tertiary Education Commission if it has not already done so. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Would the Minister reconsider her decision to cut funding for adult and community education provision through high schools if it transpired that the cost of redundancies would cause schools significant financial hardship in 2010? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou. Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom Government announced an additional £20 million investment in community education this week in response to a white paper that found that “Informal learning is important at any time. But during an economic downturn it is essential.”; and why is New Zealand’s position on this issue so out of step with this international thinking? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes and that is why this Government is investing $124 million in community education over the next 4 years. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 My question has been transferred to the Minister for Climate Change Issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should ask her question as on the Order Paper. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—10 Percent Target 
6.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree with United States President Barack Obama who said “the threat from climate change is serious it is urgent and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history;” and if so will the Prime Minister be telling world leaders in New York that a conditional 10 percent emissions reduction target is a sufficient response to this challenge? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. The position that New Zealand has tabled in the United Nations negotiation is considerably more ambitious than that proposed by President Obama’s administration. Its proposal is for a 4 percent reduction from 1990 levels; our proposal of a 10 to 20 percent reduction from 1990 levels is significantly greater than that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What will the Prime Minister be telling world leaders that his Government has done to reduce climate change emissions in New Zealand since it was elected; and how will his list compare with President Obama’s list in his speech today setting out a doubling of generation from renewable energy in 3 years financial incentives for solar photovoltaic panels and batteries for hybrid vehicles billions of dollars to cut energy waste and energy bills in buildings tough new fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and the phasing out of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This Government has a very clear programme around emissions. Let me go through some of the initiatives. More solar water heaters have been installed in the last 10 months than were installed in the entire period of the previous Government. If we look at road-user charges we see that from 1 October there will be an exemption for electric cars that enter New Zealand. The big changes we have made to the Resource Management Act will have us building renewable energy stations whereas over the course of the previous Government we saw a 120 percent increase in emissions from the electricity sector. The changes we are making to the emissions trading scheme will make it workable and realistic. Let me give another example. On 1 July next year the aluminium smelter in Bluff will become the very first smelter out of 168 in the world to face a price for its emissions. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How does the Government believe New Zealand can best make a global contribution to the problem of climate change? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand’s emissions are just 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions and they are not globally significant although we do need to do our share in reducing them. The area in which we can make a real difference is by tapping into the expertise of our considerable agricultural research capacity in order to reduce pastoral farming emissions. That is why David Carter has taken a lead on a new global initiative in this area which the Prime Minister announced today in New York. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement yesterday that “If we can settle our emissions trading scheme by December we will be at the front end of international action on climate change and will actually have the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme of any country in the world.”; if so how is that in line with the policy that John Key endorsed that New Zealand should be a fast follower on climate change rather than a world leader? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: National campaigned on a policy of establishing a moderated emissions trading scheme and the changes that we have announced are absolutely consistent with that approach. The emissions trading scheme that will come into effect next year will be more comprehensive than that of many countries because it is our view that we need to get a price on carbon in order to incentivise more energy-efficient behaviour. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific. It asked whether the Minister stood by a statement that was made yesterday which I then gave him. We had an answer that was a précis of the changes to the emissions trading scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that if the honourable member reflects on his question he will see that it really sought an opinion. With questions that seek opinions I cannot ask for very precise answers. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What advice has the Minister received from officials on the credibility of the more ambitious “40 percent by 2020” climate change goals proposed by the Green Party? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Officials have advised me that the Green Party’s plan is unlikely to result in the emissions reductions that the party claims it would and that it is likely to involve significantly higher costs than those that it has stated. Officials rate only two of the nine initiatives proposed by the Green Party as being achievable. Two of those are initiatives that the Government is doing five are rated as not being cost-effective and two— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the House could be advised as to what ministerial responsibility the Minister has for Green Party policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need assistance. The reason why it was relevant is that the Minister was describing official advice he had received on the matter in consideration of the issues to do with climate change. I was listening very carefully and if he had personally launched into a criticism of Green Party policy I believe that would have been out of order. But I see describing the official advice he had received on the issues as being in order. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister confirming that other than weakening the existing emissions trading scheme and delaying the date by which the aluminium smelter will take responsibility for its emissions he really has no plans for reducing emissions within New Zealand: no fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles which would save 3 million tonnes of emissions no management of indigenous forests which could save 10 million tonnes no phase-out of coal-fired power stations saving 4 million tonnes or anything else in the Greens’ thoroughly thought-out plan to reach a minus 40 percent target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would only hope that the plan was thoroughly thought out. The advice I have received from officials is that it has holes that are so large we could drive a whole tractor through them. I would be happy to table the report because it simply shows how poorly the Green Party has applied its mind to the important challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made it clear that he would be happy to table that report. I require it to be tabled. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave to table the report from the Ministry for the Environment on the Green Party’s emissions reduction plan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is it the entire document or is it part of the document? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is the entire report that has been provided to me. 
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. 
Kyoto Protocol—Costs 
7.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Under the Kyoto Protocol do taxpayers bear the costs for increases in agricultural emissions if those are not paid by the emitter? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No not necessarily. The Kyoto Protocol requires that New Zealand’s net emissions not exceed 1990 levels over the period from 2008 to 2012. There would be a cost to the taxpayer only if these levels were exceeded and we needed to buy units internationally. The 120 percent increase in emissions from electricity generation the 72 percent increase in transport emissions and the 12 percent increase in agricultural emissions are offset by both the forestry and the waste sector. Current projections are that New Zealand will slightly exceed the target and will actually have a small surplus. 
Hon David Parker 
: How does the Minister justify rejecting settled economic principle by allowing the agricultural sector to increase its emissions at the cost of other businesses and taxpayers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite seem to be intent on reducing the size of the economy. Members on this side of the House are of the view that we want to incentivise greater energy efficiency behaviour and adaptation and the technologies to do that. We are absolutely honest about our ambition which is to grow the New Zealand economy. Labour’s approach to these issues would see the New Zealand economy contract and more New Zealanders out of work. 
Nicky Wagner 
: On what basis has the Government determined the timing of various sectors’ entries into the improved emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The timing decision has been based on four key factors: first the extent to which available technologies enable emissions reductions; secondly the extent to which emissions have increased since 1990; thirdly the extent to which a sector is trade exposed; and fourthly the practicalities of applying an emissions trading scheme to that sector. On all these four criteria there is a strong case for the entry of the agricultural sector to be later. 
Hon David Parker 
: Can the Minister not see that allowing uncapped free allocation to the agricultural sector fundamentally undermines the effectiveness of the emissions trading scheme and sees other businesses and taxpayers picking up that sector’s bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it does not. Members opposite do not seem to grasp the key point that under the Kyoto Protocol or its successor New Zealand is allocated a base of emissions. We could be like Labour and nationalise all those units sell them off and try to make billions for the taxpayer or we could take the fair approach that we are taking in New Zealand. The last point I make to the member is to ask why the Australian Labor Government has adopted exactly the measures that we have in our bill and why what works for Labor in Australia is somehow anathema to Labour in New Zealand. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that if the Government agreed to cap the pool of free emission credits for agriculture at 90 percent of 2005 emissions it is likely that an enduring and effective emissions trading scheme could be achieved; and is the Government willing to seriously consider this? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I find it quite perverse that members opposite agree that a production-based approach to industry should be taken yet they seem to have an attitude that is anti-farmer and anti-agriculture despite the agricultural sector being the most important part of the New Zealand economy. In proposing to introduce the agricultural sector into the emissions trading scheme on 1 January 2015 we will be the very first country in the world to attempt to include agriculture. 
Hon David Parker 
: The Minister and the Prime Minister have been saying that they want to continue negotiations with the Labour Party. I asked a very simple question. It was not loaded; it was a factual question that asked about a point of principle as to whether the Government would be willing to seriously consider it. The Minister has not addressed that question. I ask whether I would be able to re-put the question and that he be asked to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to restate his question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that if the Government agreed to cap the pool of free emission credits for agriculture at 90 percent of 2005 emissions it is likely that an enduring and effective emissions trading scheme could be achieved; and is the Government willing to seriously consider this? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is not prepared to consider treating agriculture differently from industry. 
Hon David Parker 
: No I’m not suggesting that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the member is suggesting that there be a cap that is specific to agriculture. I say to the member again that in terms of negotiations between National and Labour I will make myself available any hour and any day to have discussions with Labour about how an accord might be reached. But I say to the member that members on this side of the House will not agree to changes that put agriculture at a disadvantage to other industries because the agricultural sector is the backbone of the New Zealand economy. 
Hon David Parker 
: What more proof does the Minister need that his proposed emissions trading scheme changes will not work than the statement from the forestry industry that because of his changes to the emissions trading scheme there will be little or no private investment in new forestry making a mockery of the National Party promise to plant 600000 to 800000 hectares of marginal lands? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is incorrect. The chief executive of the New Zealand Forest Owners Association made very positive remarks on the day that the changes to the emissions trading scheme were announced. I have seen some analysis since of about the same quality as that done by Labour and it is incorrect. The Ministry for the Environment will be providing information to those people to correct them on some assumptions that they are making about National’s improvements to the emissions trading scheme that are not right. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a release from Roger Dickie saying that private investment in forestry will dissipate as a consequence of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon David Parker 
: The second document is a report from Associate Professor Mason at the University of Canterbury to similar effect. 
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. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Sector Research 
8.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent development has the Government announced in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Earlier today the Prime Minister announced in New York the global alliance and international call for greater research into cutting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. There is an urgent need for more international research and investment into ways of reducing agricultural emissions. The global alliance will push to find solutions faster through greater coordination with other nations. 
Colin King 
: Why is New Zealand pushing for greater international attention to be given to agricultural greenhouse gas research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Agriculture currently produces 14 percent of the annual global greenhouse gas emissions. As the global demand for food rises dramatically it is expected that the 14 percent figure could increase by up to 40 percent by 2030. In order to meet the twin challenges of food security and climate change the world must find ways to grow more food and to do so without growing the greenhouse gas emissions. This is where New Zealand’s proposal for a global alliance fits well. 
Rahui Katene 
: What opportunity will Maori agricultural interests have to be actively involved in including agriculture into the emissions trading scheme and in particular in the development of an international research initiative? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Every opportunity. New Zealand’s agricultural emissions profile presents a challenge to all New Zealanders. With the huge involvement of Maori in both the agriculture and forestry industries Maori need to be fully engaged to help us as New Zealanders to find solutions. 
Colin King 
: How has the global alliance concept been received by other countries? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Extremely well. The Government has been making representations to potential partner countries and at this stage the response is very positive. There have already been indications of support from the United States and India. International support is vital in order to turn this concept into a reality and we are talking to a number of developed and developing countries with significant agricultural production about coordinated research programmes. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost of Changes 
9.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What is the total fiscal cost of all proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 In the period up to 2013 the cost is $415 million for all the changes that are principally around reducing the cost increase for electricity and fuel. Cost estimates beyond 2013 are more difficult as we do not know the final outcome of international negotiations and there is more uncertainty about the price of carbon but the mid-range estimate by officials is that between 2012 and 2018 the improvements will actually save $493 million. So for the first 10 years of the scheme the improvements made to it by the Government will save the taxpayer in the order of $100 million. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked for the total fiscal cost of all proposed changes. The Minister gave an estimate first for the initial period of 3 years and then for a further period of 6 years. There must be further estimates in the out-years and the question did refer to those. That question was on notice and it was not fully addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness I think the Minister gave a very reasonable and comprehensive answer to the question. The member does have further supplementary questions in which to question beyond that period. I think it would be a bit unreasonable to criticise that answer from the Minister. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it fair that taxpayers should pick up the bill for changes to the emissions trading scheme when households will receive assistance only until 2013 whereas large foreign-owned companies like Methanex Rio Tinto and BlueScope Steel will receive taxpayer support for up to another 90 years? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is incorrect. For the immediate period from 2013 to 2018 the scheme that National is proposing will actually involve less support for those companies. The member opposite may want to have an argument about what policy might be in 2030 or 2040 but although I am optimistic about the life of this Government I am not sure this same Government will be in office 70 years hence. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. What advice has the Minister received on the claims by Opposition Leader Phil Goff that “Rio Tinto gets its two billion dollar subsidy if the carbon price turns out to be $30 a ton.”?  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The advice I have received from my officials is that the industry allocation to Rio Tinto for the first decade of the scheme would be 27 million units under Labour’s scheme but 21 million units under the improved scheme. This is 6 million units less and at $30 per tonne amounts to a saving of $180 million. The claim of a $2 billion subsidy for Rio Tinto is another Goff gaffe that is about as good as his proposed benefits for millionaires. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When will the Minister disclose what special deal has been done for Ngai Tahu and other post-Treaty - settlement assets so that the public can understand whether the Maori Party came to this deal for nothing or whether National is now allowing Maori-owned assets to be treated differently from other assets?  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The contributions that the Maori Party has made to the revised emissions trading scheme make great sense for all New Zealanders. For instance all New Zealanders will benefit from a halving in the increase of the price of electricity. I think the changes that the Maori Party has made in respect of the fishing industry—which is important to New Zealand—are an improvement. I think the change it is making in terms of more support for insulation of low-income households is a good thing. I am surprised that the members opposite object to those extra support measures which will improve the scheme. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether there was any particular differentiation between post-Treaty settlement assets and non - post-Treaty settlement assets. That issue has not been addressed at all by the Minister’s answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had restricted his question specifically to that issue then I could put some heat on the Minister to specifically address it. But if I recollect the member’s question correctly it actually contained more than that which gave the Minister more latitude in answering it. I feel I have to be fair to Ministers. I will put pressure on them to answer questions when I hear a very clear straight question but when the question goes on with a range of issues it is very difficult for me to ask the Minister to answer any specific part of it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is not the real reason the Minister is happy to selectively table mis-described documents that allow him to attack the Green Party and Labour when it suits him but he will not give a straight answer on the cost of the emissions trading scheme in the out-years that the Government has taken a short-sighted approach and has saddled future generations of New Zealanders with a fiscal black hole? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have provided the House with the best very accurate estimates that are possible for the next 10 years. Given that the emissions trading scheme will have a review of the allocation system in both 2011 and 2016 and the fact that we have no idea what the rules will be internationally beyond 2012 let alone beyond 2020 quite frankly I believe that financial estimates beyond that period have little value. 
I seek leave of the House to table an analysis of the allocations to Rio Tinto for its Bluff smelter under both the existing and the improved emissions trading scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Analysis done by whom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The analysis has been provided with figures from the Ministry for the Environment on the new and changed emissions trading schemes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who is the document by? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that the analysis was done by the Ministry for the Environment. Was it? There is some uncertainty as to whose analysis the Minister is seeking to table. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The information has been provided by officials. Information has also been provided from the smelter itself— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —about the amount of emissions it is required to report I tell Mr Goff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to bring back some semblance of order. While I am on my feet there will be silence. The confusion for the House is exactly what the document is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to be more specific. The document sets out the allocations that would be made to the Rio Tinto aluminium smelter relative to its reported emissions for each of the years through to 2018 under both the existing scheme and the revised scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House needs to know who prepared the document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The information has been prepared by my office on the basis of the information that has been provided by both the Ministry for the Environment and the smelter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document has been clarified now. The member has sought leave to table it. Is there any objection? 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have clarified what the document is. The member will resume his seat immediately. At my request the Minister in my view has very comprehensively described what the document is because there was some confusion about it. I am now putting the question on the leave being sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Street Racing—Illegal Incidents 
10.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she received any reports on illegal street racer incidents? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I have received a report that shows that since January 2009 the police have issued more than 1800 offence notices for illegal street racing incidents with more in Canterbury than anywhere else. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on illegal street racing incidents? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. The police regularly report on the disorder caused by illegal street racers. I recently received extremely concerning reports. In the last week alone an innocent motorcyclist died as a result of two vehicles allegedly involved in illegal street racing and an innocent 55-year-old woman in her car was smashed into by two teenagers who were allegedly street racing. 
Todd McClay 
: What other reports has the Minister received on recent illegal street racing incidents? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have received a report from the police that shows that 31 boy racers are facing charges—many of them serious—after an illegal street racing incident in Rotorua involving 230 cars and 900 people. It is alleged that those people caused chaos throwing bottles and abusing police officers when they arrived at the venue. That type of incident is far too common and demonstrates yet again the need to toughen up the existing law which is widely acknowledged as being too soft. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister support an amendment to toughen the provisions of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill so that permanent confiscation of a third party - owned vehicle would be mandatory after two offences within 4 years rather than the discretionary confiscation and/or crushing after three offences in 4 years for third party - owned vehicles that her bill currently proposes? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sorry to say to that member that following the Labour Party’s minority report on the legislation which was completely littered with inaccuracies— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might just answer the question asked. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am getting to it. I find it very difficult to accept the member’s statement that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is not troubled whether the Minister finds it difficult to accept a statement. The member asked a perfectly straightforward question; he asked whether the Minister was prepared to consider an alternative to what is currently in the legislation. That question does not deserve an attack on the member; it deserves to be answered. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have read a report in the  
Press 
 from Saturday 19 September which states that Labour has been working constructively with the Government on the legislation. The member asked about some specific provisions that he has never once put to me. It is very difficult to give an answer on a proposition he has never brought to my attention or as far as I am aware to that of anyone else in this party. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can do better than only reiterate your earlier ruling. I simply asked the Minister whether I had brought it to her now a week ago or whenever. I am happy to repeat the question; she is the Minister in charge of the bill— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have supported the member’s question but the Minister gave a perfectly reasonable answer. She made it clear that on a proposition put to her by way of a supplementary question on a serious matter she cannot give the member an absolutely unequivocal answer. She pointed that out. I think that was a fair answer. I was totally dissatisfied and unhappy with her earlier attempts to answer the question but I believe that that answer was perfectly reasonable. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 sets out when questions can be transferred between Ministers and the Government has done that in the case of question No. 11 quite appropriately. We set this question down to the Prime Minister. It has been transferred within the rules to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services so that Mr English as Acting Prime Minister will not have to answer it. 
We are confused about Acting Ministers in portfolios and I wonder whether you could give us your understanding of this matter. Confusion arose yesterday when the Opposition understood that the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services was Mr English yet the question to that Minister was answered by Mr Brownlee. Mr English was present in the Chamber so if he was the Acting Minister he would have been required to answer the question. One of the problems for the Opposition is that we do not have access to the Cabinet Office list of Ministers who are acting in each portfolio. However I have a copy here of a list from earlier in the year where it makes it clear that the Speaker of the House receives a copy of the document. It sets out Ministers who are absent how long they are absent for what portfolios their absences relate to and who the Acting Ministers will be. 
The Opposition would like to know whether when you Mr Speaker know a Minister will be absent—as when Mr Key is absent on well-known official business—you check to see whom you expect to answer the question as Acting Minister in that portfolio. If another Minister answers on behalf of the absent Minister and the Acting Minister is present that is where the difficulty occurs. Our understanding is that Mr English is Acting Minister for all of the Prime Minister’s portfolios in his absence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very interesting point of order but he will recollect that it is the Government’s responsibility to choose which Minister answers questions. The question is put down to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services and it is up to the Government who answers the question. Although it may cause difficulty—I accept that—there is nothing wrong with that under Standing Orders. It is the Government’s responsibility and it always has been to decide who answers questions. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are absolutely right that it is up to the Government to decide which Ministers answer in which portfolio. They can transfer questions to which portfolio they like. But if a Minister is acting in that portfolio—for all intents and purposes is the Minister for that portfolio—and is in the Chamber when a question is being put to that portfolio then the question cannot be transferred to another Minister because it has been set down to the appropriate Minister. The Minister would be required to answer the question if he or she were present in the Chamber. Our difficulty is that we do not know for certain who the Acting Minister is. The question cannot be transferred because it has been set down for a portfolio for which there is an Acting Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises an interesting point. But the fact is as I understand it—and I stress that it is as I understand it—that there is no requirement that an Acting Minister answer the question. That is an internal arrangement. It is for the Government to determine which Minister will answer when the actual Minister responsible for the portfolio is absent. That is the way it has always been. It is an internal arrangement. I suspect the member would be right were the actual Minister in the Chamber but it does not apply when it is an Acting Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All I will do is ask you to review that decision. It is certainly a requirement of the executive to have a Minister in every portfolio in the country at any one time. There must be someone who is appointed and who is responsible. It has certainly been the precedent in all the time I have been in Parliament that if that person is in the Chamber that person must answer the question. I will plead guilty to occasionally as a whip shuffling an Acting Minister out of the Chamber in order for someone else to answer the question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both sides of the House that a serious point of order is being considered. It is an interesting point of order because it is quite technical and it relates to the order of the House. It will be heard in silence. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might come as no surprise to anyone in the House that Trevor Mallard has been involved in a bit of shifty behaviour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the House above all others in the House should know that a point of order should not be abused in that way. The matter he raises should relate to the order of the House. I ask him to come to the issue at question. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That was my point. I am the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services approved at Cabinet last Monday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does not alter the technical point that I made before which is that where an Acting Minister is involved it is up to the Government who handles the question. I have had advice on that issue. 
Ministerial Accommodation—Compliance with Rules 
11.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Who provided any legal advice to support his view that the Hon Bill English is “fully compliant with the rules that operate”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: The Department of Internal Affairs’ chief legal adviser advised Ministerial Services that there were no legal impediments to the lease occurring. No legal advice was provided to the Minister. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What rules operated at the time: the rules set out in an email of 3 February which I tabled yesterday; the rules set out in the  
Gazette 
 notice of 26 May; which I tabled the day before; or some other rules? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I made an explanation yesterday about the email dated 3 February and that explanation should stand. The second point in the question the member asks—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members want to hear the answer to a pretty significant question they may just listen. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —would relate to the determination brought down in 2003 by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It was extremely wide and it raises questions about what those Ministers were doing for all those years up until their concern now. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Department of Internal Affairs’ legal division have full access to the Endeavour Trust deed and a record of recent meetings before it gave legal advice? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The requirements were that members themselves as is the case with all members of Parliament satisfy the pecuniary interest test they are asked to consider. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to ask the Minister to address the question. Can I repeat it? Would that be of any assistance? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe the Minister answered the question in pointing out that the issue the member was seeking to have the Minister confirm one way or the other was not the relevant issue. The Minister in his answer pointed out what the relevant issue was. To me that seemed to be answering the question. The member has further supplementary questions and I will listen very carefully to the answers he gets. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the trust deed was in the hands of those who gave the legal advice. It seems to me impossible to give legal advice that the Minister has no pecuniary interest in the absence of the trust deed. Therefore the question is pertinent and was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to repeat his question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the legal section of the Department of Internal Affairs have full access to the Endeavour Trust deed and a record of recent meetings of the trust before it gave legal advice? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It would have no reason to do that. The advice it tended was around the satisfactory arrangements relating to this particular case. It was able to determine that in the absence of a pecuniary interest there was no impediment to the arrangements being put in place. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Noting that the Hon Bill English declared a pecuniary interest in the Endeavour Trust in 2008 would the Minister now like to tell the House again whether those who gave legal advice had access to the Endeavour Trust deed and minutes of recent meetings before they gave advice that he no longer has a pecuniary interest? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The first point I make is that a lot of members declared all sorts of things in the 2008 Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament including a number of then Labour Ministers who did not need to make such a declaration but did so for fear that they might leave something out. The question is always whether there is a pecuniary interest. If there is not there is no problem with the arrangements. Under Helen Clark’s rules there was no problem with the arrangements. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. I ask you the appropriateness of during that question Bill English calling: “Same answer! Same answer!” to Gerry Brownlee instructing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down immediately. He knows that that is not a point of order under any of the Standing Orders. He should cease. He is a senior member and he should not use his position in such a way. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Bill English who said of a Labour Minister a few years ago in this newsletter called  
Plain English 
: “Tamihere took a golden handshake when he said he wouldn’t … The question is not whether he has broken the law but whether he has behaved according to the standards of a minister.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have no responsibility for anyone else’s statements. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister agree with the views of a member of the press gallery who wrote of the Hon Bill English: “He needs to drop the bitter and nasty attacks on the media. His language in private is unbecoming and unprofessional.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Without fear of Trevor Mallard taking another point of order I simply give the same answer. 
Senior Citizens—Recognition of Contribution to Community 
12.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: My question is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for interrupting the honourable member. Members know that they cannot interject saying “you”. 
JO GOODHEW 
: How is the Government recognising the contribution of older persons in our community? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 1 October is the International Day of Older Persons and it is an opportunity to honour older persons and acknowledge the huge contribution that older people make to society in every walk of life and as grandparents friends and mentors to the younger generation. I will be travelling to several events around the country to celebrate the day and I look forward to having the opportunity to celebrate it with older persons. I encourage other New Zealanders and particularly members in this House to take part in the many events that will be occurring on that day in New Zealand. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What else is the Government doing to support older New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: As the Minister for Senior Citizens my priorities are to concentrate on three particular goals in the Government’s Positive Ageing Strategy. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: He’s too old for night classes! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: This is a serious issue. We on this side of the House respect our older people unlike those interjections we are getting from the Opposition. We will support the employment of older people by encouraging flexible work options and the negotiation of retirement plans to allow older people to work if they choose to. We will work to change attitudes about ageing by celebrating the contributions that older people make to communities and we will encourage older people to continue to stay involved. We will also raise awareness about elder abuse and neglect. Those three priorities are being actively championed and will have a very real impact on the day-to-day lives of older people. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. 
Hon Members 
: Hooray! 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Such wonderful praise! Are making cuts to adult and community education because to quote Anne Tolley “The average age of people attending those night classes is about 46.” considering cutting tertiary education entitlements for over-65s cutting home support to the elderly and stopping contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund good examples of how this Government is recognising the contribution of our older New Zealanders to the community? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Unlike the previous administration this Government actually does respect the older people of New Zealand. More important it is working with the many organisations such as Grey Power and Age Concern that represent the older folk in our society. This Government with schemes such as those promoted by the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Housing is making sure that elderly folk are able to live comfortably in New Zealand in warm homes for example. We have put a huge amount of energy into that. This Government will continue to work with older folk to make sure they have a great standard of living. 
Questions to Members 
Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill—Status 
1. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 My redundancy protection bill has been postponed until 20 October to give parties further time to consider their support for it. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What indications of support has the member had for her redundancy protection bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary questions are meant to relate to the process of the committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would be correct in respect of select committee chairs. If the question was going to a select committee chair it could be about only procedure and process but the question is to a member in charge of a bill so you should be considering a wider range of supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to members; it was my error. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Labour the Greens and the Maori Party are all supporting the bill and I understand that Mr Key is still mulling over National’s support. Meanwhile unions and community organisations are getting behind the bill to ensure that there is a fair deal in hard times. 
I seek leave to table a postcard addressed to the Prime Minister seeking his support for the redundancy protection bill and a fair deal in hard times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a postcard to the Prime Minister. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I seek leave to table a sticker supporting the national day of action that cleaners are taking throughout New Zealand and our cleaners in Parliament who are paid $12.55 an hour while Ministerial Services pays— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it was within my power not to seek leave to do that I would do so because it is so demeaning of this House to seek leave to table things like stickers. The provision for tabling documents is to provide serious information to members. Members show disrespect to this Parliament— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: What a disgrace! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Luckily I could not tell who interjected although maybe I can now from the smile. There will be no further interjection from that quarter. Recently someone sought leave to table some chippies or something. I make it very clear to members that I will not do that in future because it is so demeaning of this House. I do not see stickers as being documents. The Standing Orders provide for the tabling of documents. Therefore I am not putting the leave to the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points to make to you. First does that extend to National members wanting to table badges as we have seen before? You may well have supported that measure— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it does. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The second thing is this whole area of getting members to clarify what they are tabling. Just before question time we had a problem in that not enough information had been put with regard to the tabling of a document by Dr Smith and that led to disorder because we did not think the right thing had been done. Then members who try to provide as much information as possible so that the House is clear what the item is are criticised as well. I think we have to find some sort of middle road. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that earlier in question time the honourable member heard me seek clarification from a Minister as to exactly what was to be tabled; I did that to try to avoid the kind of confusion that was raised just before question time. However I believe that it is demeaning to this House when the procedure for tabling is used in a trivial fashion. It is an important procedure for tabling documents that are meant to inform members to provide information to them that may not otherwise be available to them. It is demeaning to the House when members use it in a trivial fashion. I make it clear to members that I do not intend to allow the seeking of leave to table such things. That is the end of that matter. 
General Debate 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I shall start by talking about the GDP figures released earlier today. The Government is obviously encouraged to see a 0.1 percent increase in the June quarter following five quarters of contraction in the economy. That growth has come from activity in the primary sector which has been driven mainly by the forestry sector—hard-working New Zealanders doing their best to get this economy moving ahead. This Government is encouraged to see export volumes up by 4.7 percent as we try to rebalance our economy around exports and investment and away from consumer debt. The real challenge for us as a country is to achieve sustainable jobs and economic growth in the longer term. It is a challenge dwarfed only by that challenge currently facing the members sitting on the Opposition side of the House. 
 The Leader of the Opposition is clearly struggling to connect with the public of New Zealand. It is the only way to describe the bizarre sight of him riding that motorcycle up to the Labour Party conference. This week’s  
Listener 
 has depicted him as the Terminator riding up in the leather jacket on the motorbike and that does not do a lot to dispel the media perception of him as being slightly robotic I might say. Maybe he was trying to emulate Jon or Ponch from the  
CHiPS 
 programme in the early 1980s. In fact it was one of the most popular television shows when he was first elected to Parliament in 1981. It was popular with me. I remember sitting on the couch and watching it as an 11-year-old. Those are the things that happened back then and obviously not much has changed. 
So we can see the problems the Leader of the Opposition faces. This picture I am holding comes from the Rotorua 
 Daily Post 
. The Leader of the Opposition is pictured with some staff from the Rotorua citizens advice bureau. This is not unusual one might think yet it seems his profile is so low that the caption actually has to point out that the person second from the left is Phil Goff despite the fact that he is the only male in the photo. 
Mr Goff unfortunately is not the only person across the aisle who is suffering from an identity crisis. We know for example that Mr Cunliffe is still quietly claiming around the corridors of Parliament that he is Harvard University and we wait to see what luminary insights that will provide. It is good to see that the Hon Chris Carter is in the House today. He has obviously worked out that reporting to check-in is required 20 minutes before departure. Trevor Mallard is here and clearly he has too much time on his hands these days. He is furiously blogging away hoping to become the David Farrar of the left. I am reliably told by people who do read Red Alert that from time to time his contributions can be amusing. There is even a rumour doing the rounds that Shane Jones is doing the numbers for the leadership of the Labour Party—at least that is what Mr Jones is telling us. We also hear—and this rumour is very close to being confirmed I understand—that George Hawkins is merely biding his time for a tilt at the leadership believing he can provide a fresher face for the Labour Party as he was elected 9 years after Mr Goff was. 
Despite Mr Goff’s “mea culpas” at the Labour Party conference has anything really changed in the Labour Party? The short answer is no it has not. We are still waiting for the long-awaited—promised in July—recession response package. Instead the policy ideas we have heard from Labour go something like this: welfare for millionaires and David Cunliffe being open to suggestions to raise the age of superannuation from 65 to 67 while our Prime Minister has made a commitment to retain the age of entitlement at 65. When Phil Goff was the Minister of Employment in 1988—my first year at university—he was asked to take action or resign in a statement by the then President of the Labour Youth Council a Mr Charles Chauvel. It seems that the sentiments remain the same today. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I congratulate Mr Power on acknowledging the good sense of the people of Mt Roskill who have re-elected me nine times as their member of Parliament. They have indeed made a good choice. I found the attempted humour in the member’s speech to be really astonishing. He started off by wanting to talk about the state of the New Zealand economy and unemployment and then he asked the Opposition what its response was to the recession. Well I tell Mr Power that he is a member of the Government today and we are waiting to see his response. It is important that the Minister actually makes a response. At the present time 140000 New Zealand are out of work. People have been losing their jobs at the rate of 2000 per week and Mr Power asked the Opposition what its response is to dealing with that problem. 
I tell Mr Power it is time that the Government stopped being a spectator. It is time that the Government got off the sidelines and did something about this problem. We are seeing internationally at the moment the return of an economic upturn. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders are without security of employment. Many have lost their jobs but many more are wondering how to meet the bills at the end of the week because their real incomes are going down. They want to know what this Government will do to ensure that the international recovery translates into an improvement in their living standards their incomes and their job security. 
Workers hear the Government saying time and again not only to public servants but also to the private sector that there will be no wage increases this year. That is the message from the National Government. I want to ask the National Government why it has been strangely mute in the face of this article in the  
Dominion Post 
 this morning reporting that the chief executives of four big companies in New Zealand have awarded themselves hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay increases while the profits of those companies have declined by between 40 and 60 percent. Why is the National Government not calling for responsibility on the part of the fat cats of this country and asking them to show some leadership and some restraint instead of telling the ordinary hard-working New Zealanders who are struggling to pay the bills at the end of the week that they must show restraint? Where is the leadership from the National Government which gave its Prime Minister hundreds and hundreds of dollars each week in tax cuts while those who earn under $40000 and who have families got nothing? Where is this Government when it comes to fairness and giving the ordinary hard-working New Zealander a fair go some job security and a better real income rather than the cuts and the freezing of wages it has been calling for? 
I want to talk a little about the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Bill English said it was crazy for New Zealand to continue to pre-fund superannuation. He said the fund is losing money. Well I tell Mr English that in the last 6 months the New Zealand Superannuation Fund proudly created by the previous Labour Government has made $4.1 billion and has increased its worth by a third. I tell Mr English that his leader John Key told the country last year that there were only two choices: raise the level of entitlement to national superannuation or pre-fund it. What did National do? It cut the pre-funding but it will not own up and say the long-term consequences of doing that—maybe not so long term—are that people will lose their current superannuation entitlements. This year we have lost $1.65 billion from the New Zealand superannuation scheme. At the end of 10 years there will be a $35 billion hole. John Key admitted last year that the number of people in retirement will double in the next 20 years to over a million. What is the National Government doing? It is saying the bill will have to be met by those New Zealanders who are under the age of 45. Instead of the baby boomers—people like John Key and Bill English who should pay—paying in advance the Government will put the burden on the younger generation. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 Did anyone hear an apology in that speech from Phil Goff? Did anyone hear an apology for the state of the economy that this new Government inherited? Did anyone hear an apology to the mums and dads whose children are now living in Australia after being driven from this country by the previous administration? Did anyone hear an apology about the billion dollars that was written off from the purchase of KiwiRail? Did anyone in this House hear an apology for the things that really matter? 
 Today there are some positive albeit small signs of relief that the recession is starting to turn and that things may be improving: a 0.1 percent increase in GDP is a welcome and well-overdue sign. I am sure all members across the House are at least grateful that our economy may be stabilising and I am sure they will all join me in my greatest hope that unemployment may have stabilised and will begin to decrease. I am quite sure that all members regardless of persuasion are quite hopeful of that. 
We are still suffering from the global recession that hit New Zealand about 1 year earlier than most other OECD countries. One year earlier than those countries the previous Labour Government drove New Zealand into recession with all the hallmarks that a recession—a slow-down in the private sector—brings. We are suffering for that; we will suffer for many many years to the tune of the decade of deficits that this Government now has to deal with. In fact analysis has now shown that the private sector was in recession from 2005. It is just as well New Zealand kicked out the previous Labour Government in 2008. It is just as well New Zealand did not have to wait around for the mini-Budget promised by the previous Minister of Finance prior to the previous election of which he would not give any details. By the way he would never release any of the details around the rail purchase in response to any questions of any substantial nature. It is just as well New Zealand is not waiting for the recession response plan from the Opposition. What happened to it? It was promised months and months ago. We have seen nothing. We have actually seen promise after promise of more spending: it has announced $6 billion of extra spending thus far. It is still up to its old habits; I guess old habits are hard to knock off. 
What have we heard from the Opposition members? We heard that their leader roared into the Labour Party conference on a Suzuki 125. Did he own that bike? That is an interesting question. The big announcement to come out of that conference was something about free condoms for all and some new ministry—a “Ministry of Social Inclusion” or something. There was no costing no trail of funding; it was a matter of what sounded good or would make a headline—anything to get in the papers. I note that today’s press release from the Hon David Cunliffe includes the Hon Phil Goff. Phil Goff is struggling for publicity so he is doing joint press releases with the guy who is challenging for his job. 
There are massive imbalances in our current economy. To name one there was massive destruction of taxpayer wealth under the previous administration. I laugh when I hear those members talk about the kick-up in the value of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund right now particularly when they oversaw about $5 billon of write-off of taxpayer assets and over $1 billion of write-off in the private sector from failed finance companies. Those are a couple of imbalances that this Government has to try to address. The Opposition policy is still—as announced by press release—a position of $6 billion of extra borrowing and counting. Where would that come from? That amount of extra borrowing equates to about $400 million per annum of extra interest rate bills. What would the Opposition cut? What tax would it hike to fund these promises? How many jobs will be lost? How soon would New Zealand go back into recession because of the promises of the current Opposition? 
It will take a long time to unwind the imbalances of the last 9 years. This Government has jobs and families at the forefront of its thinking in building a sustainable and growth economy that will start to attract New Zealanders home and put right the problems the misdirected spending the lack of transparency and the lack of accountability of the last 9 years. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 All I can say after that speech from Craig Foss is that it is a shame the Labour Party did not have its free condoms policy in place when he was conceived. 
I want to talk today about the emissions trading scheme because that policy is a major concern to Opposition members. Billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is at stake. Minister Smith once famously said that this was a decision as big as the decision to introduce GST yet we still cannot see the financial modelling that lies behind the changes to the emissions trading scheme that the Maori Party and National have agreed and that is a shame. Phil Goff had to ask seven questions in Parliament yesterday and I asked four. We tried again today; David Parker asked five questions and I asked four. All we got was the selective tabling of documents by the Minister. 
One document purporting to relate to Rio Tinto’s costs was apparently cooked up between the Minister’s office and the smelter itself. It is reasonable to ask on behalf of ordinary Kiwis how much and for how long we are going to subsidise multinational companies like Rio Tinto and Methanex because both those companies are likely to be able to increase their emissions under the changes agreed to the emissions trading scheme while still attracting a massive subsidy from taxpayers under the deal that has been done. 
Yesterday when I asked Nick Smith about these matters he said after some pressing from you Mr Speaker that he did not have a figure to hand for either of those major emitters. This lack of detail with a potential cost of billions of extra dollars over many years to hard-working Kiwi families for no environmental benefit has to be of major concern. The Government is creating a financial black hole for Kiwi families and those families deserve to know the details. Either the Minister does not know the answer—which would be a worry if this measure is a reform as big as GST—or he is too embarrassed to tell the public about the extent to which they will be forced to subsidise two massive polluters for a very long time to come. 
Let us have a look at what Nick Smith did table in the House yesterday. It was a document that had no detail on that black hole in the out-years. It uses a much lower carbon price assumption $25 or $50 a tonne than the analysis that was used by the Government just last month to justify its weak 2020 pollution reduction target. In that document the assumption was $200 a tonne. 
This is just a case of a Minister and a Government using figures to suit themselves scrawled on the back of an envelope in respect of national decisions that will have a massive massive effect on New Zealand families going forward. In addition that document which was a snapshot of the first 4 years of the scheme only fails to reveal that the National - Maori Party subsidy for polluters lasts a lot longer and is therefore much more expensive for taxpayers than would be the case under the existing scheme. 
I have to commend David Carter because at least he came clean on that in the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 the other day. He said that Labour’s scheme would credit 90 percent of emissions and then phase that out by 8 percent a year down to zero over 12 years while the other scheme was proposing to move it at 1.3 percent over 90 years. That is 90 further years of massive subsidies to big polluters at the expense of ordinary Kiwi families. We have no idea how much that will cost taxpayers. 
National has been misleading because it will not reveal the true cost. Instead it chooses to dribble out custom-made documents often misdescribed to discredit or try to discredit Labour and Green policies. But that is not the issue. The issue is what the cost of this deal will be to the nation. Basically we do not know and we should know. We will be debating the bill tomorrow yet we do not even know the costs and we have not seen the text of the bill. How can this be good government? 
Dr Smith in his answers to the House today said that the changes to the emissions trading scheme will cost the taxpayer around $400 million. But that is the cost up to 2013 only which covers the cost of the transitional measures for 4 years only. That money covers the cost of introducing a 50 percent obligation for the transport energy and industrial sectors. This means that the taxpayer picks up the tab for half the emissions in those sectors. It also provides the polluters with the option of paying the Government $25 per tonne for their emissions—$12.50 once it is halved—instead of having to purchase units to cover their emissions. Once more there is a massive subsidy on the bill for pollution. The Government did not have to have this scheme; it could have had a deal with the Labour Party. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Kia ora. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Tena koe the Hon Mita Ririnui. If it is true that 5000 Kiwis die from tobacco every year it is also true that tobacco companies are directly responsible for the deaths of 100000 New Zealand citizens in the last 25 years. That is why the Maori Party supports every effort to stop this appalling waste of life and to break the cycle of addiction that blights our society. 
There are 5000 deaths every year from tobacco. It accounts for 25 percent of all cancer deaths in Aotearoa and it is a major cause of blindness and respiratory illnesses diseases of the urinary tract pelvis bladder and the digestive tract. Forty-five percent of Maori 32 percent of Pasifika 22 percent of Pakeha and 12 percent of Asians smoke. One in every three Maori dies from smoking cigarettes. That is why the Maori Party is doing everything it can to reduce tobacco consumption and to hold accountable those companies that are responsible for the deaths of those 5000 Kiwis every year. 
Following on from the World Health Organization recommendations of a mix of taxation cessation health promotion legislation and research strategies Tariana Turia co-leader of the Maori Party and the Associate Minister of Health responsible for tobacco control has called for a review of smoking cessation programmes an increase in tobacco tax and a ban on the display of tobacco products here in Aotearoa. Such a law was enacted recently in New South Wales and will be enacted next year in the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory and in Victoria and Tasmania in 2011. Tobacco displays are a very devious and potent form of marketing a killer product normalising cigarettes in the eyes of vulnerable kids and hooking them into buying smokes from a very young age. Banning displays works; we know that because when Saskatchewan did it smoking rates actually dropped 25 percent in just 6 years. 
And just this morning the Maori Affairs Committee approved my request for a full inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Maori. And for that I thank the National Party leadership and in particular Prime Minister John Key his deputy Bill English and the committee chairman Tau Henare for supporting this because if they had not it would have died on the table. This inquiry will be New Zealand’s greatest opportunity to have tobacco companies explain their actions of promoting and maintaining the tobacco addiction that leads to these horrific deaths. Select committee hearings will begin in 2010 giving us plenty of lead-in time to organise cancer patients whanau health researchers health agencies tobacco control groups and the tobacco industry itself to come before the committee. We hope to call Associate Minister Turia as well to hear about what she is doing and to get her advice on how best our work can dovetail with her plans. We will also be taking this inquiry on the road to make it easier for whanau to attend and I have no doubt that by the time we finally get the tobacco company representatives in front of the committee we will have gathered enough testimony to really take them to task. 
To be brutally frank I would like to lynch these tobacco company executives. I have watched too many people die horrible deaths because of their addiction to tobacco and I have seen too much pain and heartache in those left behind to want to be objective about this. I have heard too many chilling comments from tobacco executives such as: “We don’t smoke this shit. We reserve that right to the young the poor the black and the stupid.” to have any respect for these people at all. 
Hopefully with the help of the people of New Zealand the support of all my colleagues on the Maori Affairs Committee and the determination of the members of this House we can finally bring an end to all this unnecessary waste of beautiful life. Tena koe. Kia ora tatou katoa.  
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 Why is the Opposition so grumpy that it cannot acknowledge a bit of good news? Today we have seen a spark in the New Zealand economy. The boat or perhaps the bike as Opposition members might prefer to call it is going slightly faster with GDP data showing that the economy grew 0.1 percent in the June quarter. Although it is a positive sign it is really important that we do not get ahead of ourselves. For many New Zealanders particularly young New Zealanders the measure of a good economy is having a job to turn up to on Monday or a regular pay check for their family. That is why young Kiwis are taking up our Job Ops package. Over 1200 young people are being offered opportunities as a direct result of that scheme. Today’s result is positive. 
There are many builders electricians and insulators who are staying afloat as a direct result of the Warm Up New Zealand package. Over 8000 homes have been retrofitted in the first 8 weeks of the scheme and a further 172000 homes are on the cards. That is a lot of work for builders and electricians who will be in jobs because of the Government. The Youth Guarantee is about saying to young New Zealanders that they should not go on a benefit and instead should take up one of the 2000 places that our Government is offering to study and learn practical skills. 
It is important though to contrast our commitment and approach to job opportunities with the Labour Party’s. Under the Opposition’s plan debt would spiral from $6 billion to $18 billion by 2012. Other brainstorms include the “Donald Trump Welfare Scheme”. That scheme would not see New Zealanders who are most at need getting welfare; it would see millionaires on benefits. The Opposition has reverted to typical ideology in terms of its “Welfare for Everybody” policy. The Opposition also proposes a populist policy of no more dividends from power companies after it conveniently forgot the $3 billion that those companies ripped off New Zealanders in the good times. 
The contrast is very clear. We are seeing positive signs in terms of our economy. This is about delivering smart solid policies aimed at reducing debt and getting people into jobs. The news today is good but we will continue to work harder to get people into jobs. As the Labour Party cranks up its barbecues this summer and Phil Goff puts on his bomber jacket to ride around the country to hold on to his leadership the National Government will continue its progress. There was a spark in the New Zealand economy today. The bike is going slightly faster focusing on getting young New Zealanders and other New Zealanders into jobs. We are doing a good job and we are focused on what matters. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As I am sure many in the House have noted employers around Aotearoa are increasingly going on the offensive in a bid to drive down wages and conditions and reduce the bargaining strength of unions. We are in a classic situation at the moment with a National Government newly in power and rising unemployment combining to give some employers the confidence they need to try to suppress wage demands and undermine conditions. On top of that Bill English and John Key have on occasion taken to trying to talk down wage expectations by making public comments about accepting only nil wage increase demands from some groups of public sector workers such as firefighters nurses and teachers. This kind of dog whistling heightens the willingness of private sector employers to increase the pressures they put on workers in current bargaining rounds. 
Today cleaners working for contractors in schools office buildings and shopping malls are taking to the streets seeking public support for their demands for higher wages. I sincerely hope they will get it. After all these cleaners who are on wages such as $12.55 an hour which is barely over the minimum wage are seeking a rise to $14.62 an hour which is the rate already paid to cleaners in public hospitals and schools yet their employers are offering only 25c extra an hour. 
At Open Country Cheese in the Waikato which is owned by Talley’s Group a large group of workers has been locked out with the employer refusing to accept that workers can actually choose to join a union and negotiate collectively. These workers are standing up for the right to have some job security and to not be forced into casualisation. In return their employer is using so-called replacement labour to do their jobs and one locked-out worker has even been physically assaulted by his manager who slammed a sliding window on his head and put a whole lot of weight on it. The manager then said he would throw tomatoes at the worker next time round. Rather unsurprisingly the union is following this matter up with the police. Open Country Cheese has also tried to stop workers accessing on-site union representation and that comes on top of making false allegations of environmental vandalism or sabotage after sludge from the factory was poured straight into the Waitoa River. 
In other areas Bridgeman Concrete in Manukau locked out its workers last week saying it would lift the ban on work only if staff agreed to a total wage freeze. Infratil in Auckland has threatened bus drivers with a lockout simply for trying to achieve slightly better pay and conditions in their current bargaining round. Over at the Warehouse a major restructuring programme called Project Invigorate is wreaking havoc on the personal and family lives of staff all over New Zealand while at the same time the Warehouse chief executive officer Ian Morrice has had his income for the year lifted to $3.8 million. 
Foodstuffs (South Island) made a profit of $227 million in 2008 and its chief executive officer is paid $920000 a year yet this company is offering workers on a take-home pay of $10.39 to $12.14 an hour a zero increase in wages and conditions. Telecom New Zealand is making hundreds of its line engineers redundant as it hands their jobs over to Visionstream which will take them on only as contractors. And guess what Paul Reynolds the chief executive of Telecom gets around $7 million a year in salary and bonuses. That is a package 17 times greater than the one the Prime Minister receives. 
These are not companies in trouble. In fact these companies are doing pretty well for themselves. Their approach is in contrast to that of the unions involved in a number of situations where businesses have been threatened with closure and in which workers have gallantly offered to help out by moving to working 9 days a fortnight for example. It is disgraceful that big successful companies like these see the recession as being simply an opportunity to put the boot into workers and extract even greater profits from them. 
On the one hand we have a Government that talks about the need to raise incomes here so that they more closely match Australian incomes. Don Brash is leading a commission on the matter. On the other hand we have John Key and Bill English saying that there must be nil wage increases for large groups of State sector workers thereby indicating to private sector employers that it is OK to keep wages as pressed down as possible. Caught in the middle are many ordinary people on very ordinary wages who are struggling to find the money to survive. The Green Party will continue to support the call of the Unite union and others for a minimum wage of $15 an hour now and for the right of unions to effectively bargain collectively on behalf of their members. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 If there was any justification needed for the electoral decisions that the public made last year around jobs then I think that was it; the previous speech from the member Sue Bradford really sums up the left’s approach to business. I tell members that I have been going around speaking to hundreds of business managers since the election. They tell me how incredibly hard they are working to maintain the jobs of their workers throughout this recession and how hard they have to work to squeeze every ounce of value out of each dollar spent. Frankly although there will always be errant workers and errant employers just as in a law-abiding citizenry there will always be people who break the law the tail should not wag the dog. The overwhelming number of employers in this country work incredibly hard for their workers and try to maintain those jobs because they know that this recession will end and they want to maintain those jobs for as long as they can. 
I will also touch on the bagging that the organisation Rio Tinto has had in this House over the last few days. I have spent quite a bit of time with that organisation in the last couple of months and I can tell members how incredibly hard all 750-odd members of its staff are working to maintain productivity and jobs through this recession. Not a single job has been lost in that period and that is in the face of huge drops in aluminium prices and huge increases in electricity prices which are thanks largely to the failure of the previous Government to maintain continuity of supply. The moment we had dry years it would go along to Rio Tinto and ask it to switch off a line. Well that is hardly conducive to jobs growth. I also have to say that all of that electricity is powered by renewable sources and that organisation has made incredibly good progress in reducing its carbon emissions. So I think that it behoves this House and particularly members of the Opposition to go down to Bluff and explain to the people in that organisation why they seem so intent on bagging that organisation. 
I congratulate the Minister of Finance. When I go around a lot of people tell me how lucky this country is to have a National Government and a Minister of Finance working so hard through this recession. I think that this morning’s news around GDP was very promising. We are cautiously optimistic. Obviously we have had a number of policies that will take what we hope will be the sharpest edges off the recession and the return to growth has come a good couple of quarters ahead of Budget projections. So I congratulate that hard-working Minister of Finance. 
I was in the gym a few weeks ago and I must say I nearly had an accident when watching Parliament TV. I was on the treadmill and nearly fell off it because I heard the member for Dunedin North Mr Hodgson say that the Labour Government was very responsible in its spending promises in the lead-up to the last election. Well I just could not believe my ears. Members of the public who are listening will remember that the Labour Government tried to squeeze what was conservatively estimated at about $3.5 billion worth of unfunded new spending into a $1.4 billion fiscal envelope. We would think that Labour members would learn would we not because they promised us a Budget at the end of the year. They were thrown out then they promised us an alternative Budget. We are still waiting but we are hearing the promises are we not? By the most conservative calculations those members want another $6 billion of spending including on the Waterview tunnel welfare for millionaires and now free condoms. Well it is easy to make promises because those members know that they will never have to deliver on a single promise not for the next 2 years not for the next 5 years and probably not for the next 8 to 11 years. 
I am very pleased that we have the Minister of Finance we have because I see the sharpest edges being taken off the recession while at the same time we are being kind to employees. While we are on the subject of workers I make no apology for a Government that expects the same level of productivity from the public sector as it expects from the private sector. Just as every ounce of value needs to be extracted from the business sector I think that the obligation is even more on the public sector to provide as much service to the public. I do not think that there is any problem with setting that sort of expectation. This Government has been very pleased with the positive response that has come from the sector in terms of its willingness to improve productivity and to be fiscally prudent during the next few years. I offer my congratulations to the Minister of Finance and long may the good news continue. Thank you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I absolutely agree with the previous speaker Michael Woodhouse that it is appropriate for Government services to be expected to act responsibly with public money and to save money where they can. I do not agree with the member that we should be respectful towards the current Minister of Finance who he says is taking the sharpest edges off the recession. Well that is true only of the Minister of Finance’s personal household where the sharpest edges of the recession were attempted to be blunted by thousands of dollars every week. 
I turn to another thing in respect of the Minister of Finance. He turns up in this House every day and he tries to rewrite history as the previous speaker did by alleging economic mismanagement by the previous Government. The reality is clearly otherwise. We ran Budget surpluses in a time of plenty every one of which was criticised by the National Opposition that called for more unaffordable tax cuts that would have further fuelled the country’s consumption boom and property bubble. We reduced Government debt through the surpluses that the Labour Government ran and the National Opposition criticised from 38 percent of GDP to 17 percent of GDP gross debt and we got net debt down to zero for the first time for over 100 years. Far from mismanaging the economy we did those things. Our rates of growth were the same as Australia’s growth rates. They were higher than the growth rates in the UK the USA and Japan and higher than Europe’s growth rates on average. 
We contrast that with what the National Government is doing. It is making short-term decisions with disastrous long-term effects. We need look no further than the effects in terms of the future funding of superannuation. We all know that the number of people reliant on superannuation will roughly double to about 1 million people in the next few years as a consequence of our ageing population. That causes an increased burden on the funding of superannuation and it is credible that that can only be managed if we have some pre-funding of that obligation through the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. The National Government stopped funding that this year. As a consequence by 2031 when the fund is meant to be being drawn down there will be an estimated $35 billion hole—a $35 billion hole—because the money will not be there to fund superannuation. 
We have Mr Key on record as saying that in order for superannuation to be funded for the increased number of people who will need it in the future we will have to increase the age of entitlement decrease the level of generosity or pre-fund it. This Government has cut the pre-funding but it still runs this myth that it will be able to maintain superannuation in the future. That is a myth. We know that it is causing intergenerational unfairness. The Government is expecting people who are currently young to be funding a great burden of superannuation in the future whereas those people who are currently of working age and who are coming into retirement are not putting their hand in their pocket enough to fund their future superannuation. The Government’s short-term thinking on this issue is arrant nonsense. 
 We see mistakes being made with the emissions trading scheme. All the commentators are now unanimous on that. We have an unprincipled change that does not make economic sense. Emitters are being encouraged to increase their emissions at the cost of either taxpayers or other businesses and this is no more apparent than in agriculture. No one disagrees that agriculture should not have some free allocation. We all agree that that sector needs generous levels of free allocation so that it can continue its current level of output without undue competition from countries that are not pricing emissions. But that is completely different to saying that the sector should be able to increase its emissions at the cost of either taxpayers or other businesses. That is what the Government is doing and it renders the emissions trading scheme ineffective. It has an emissions trading scheme that will not work. 
We have had unanimous views from Brian Fallow Rod Oram and columns in the  
Dominion Post 
—from all except the heavy emitters who want other people to pay their bills. This is another example of short-term policies from the National Party that help big emitters especially in the agricultural sector at the long-term cost of the New Zealand economy and of other participants in agriculture. Notably as a consequence the forestry sector will not be planting trees because it will not be able to compete against the higher land price in dairying. We have seen that sort of short term-ism in the failed decisions of superannuation as well as in the emissions trading scheme. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 Boy! I am glad that the Minister of Education is introducing standards and focusing on literacy and numeracy after the contribution by the previous speaker David Parker. Perhaps the Minister should also include history lessons in the curriculum because obviously that member does not remember the last 10 years. 
New Zealand is going through the worst recession since the Depression. The world is going through the worst global recession since the 1930s. To tackle that background the Hon Bill English the Minister of Finance produced a Budget that was prudent and responsible. Yes members on this side of the House like the two words “prudent” and “responsible”. You see members opposite do not seem to understand the concepts of prudence and responsibility. We know this because the previous Labour Government at a time when we should have been careful—extremely careful—managers of the economy left this country with a legacy— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Frivolous! 
MELISSA LEE 
: Yes a legacy I like to call a decade of deficits. Its answer to fixing that awful legacy is to spend more. How much more? Six billion dollars more. That is how we have ended up in this pickle. 
Labour’s idea of managing the economy is to borrow more a heck of a lot more and to spend even more. If I did that with my own finances—borrowed more and spent more—I hate to think where I would be. That kind of reckless economic policy from Labour would put New Zealand deeper into debt make it billions of dollars worse off drive up interest rates and ultimately bankrupt this country. New Zealand went into recession under Labour’s watch. That is right—under the previous Labour Government’s watch. When that is combined with the global recession it will put a big hole in New Zealand’s economy over the next 3 years. Somebody on the other side of the House talked about a big hole but it is actually a $50 billion big hole and Labour’s delusional economic policy of borrowing more is simply that—delusional. We do not need more debt; more debt is the last thing that we need. We are facing a cash deficit of $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 4 years. If we were to heed Labour’s delusional advice the debt would spiral even more. 
Brendon Burns 
: How delusional were you as a candidate in Mt Albert? 
MELISSA LEE 
: That is right Mr Burns; if we take your advice we will go into even more debt. So we will certainly not be taking Labour’s advice on how to improve our economy. Over the last decade Labour has proven that it cannot be trusted to manage New Zealand’s economy with prudence or with responsibility. 
The Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff goofed up—probably he was on his scooter—when he announced in July that he would announce a recession response package shortly. I do not know about other members but I think it has become a very long “shortly”. As far as I am concerned “shortly” is something to do with urgency and soon. Perhaps that is the reason—the style of the previous Government—that the last decade has proven to be very bad. We are still waiting for Mr Goff’s response package. 
But the Leader of the Opposition was very quick—guns ablaze I will call it—when he came out and promised a gold-plated or perhaps diamond-encrusted social welfare system that would see households with millionaires receiving the dole. Although the Leader of the Opposition has now backtracked on this it is interesting to note how he operates. It speaks volumes in my view that in choosing to highlight the case of a man who had lost his job and had nothing Mr Goff could have been seen to do the responsible thing. But what speaks volumes is what he chose to omit what he left out. He failed to reveal that the man had a number of investment properties. He is not someone who needed to go on the dole. 
Mr Goff apparently apologised at the recent Labour Party conference for the nanny State policies of the previous Labour Government admitting that it had got them wrong. Perhaps the prudent and responsible thing for Mr Goff to do would be to apologise to all of New Zealand—to all New Zealanders—for the decade of deficits and bad management of New Zealand’s economy. Perhaps then his popularity might improve out of the single figure ghetto that he is in at the moment. 
The last thing I will say is that it is great news that after five quarters of economic contraction we have finally managed a small growth rate in the June quarter. It is in fact very small but it is huge growth when contrasted with the previous contraction. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is deeply concerning to the Opposition that the Government seems to be so economically illiterate. Members of the Government seem to have genuinely convinced themselves that somehow they are responsible for the fact that our unemployment is not as high as in the UK or in the USA. They stopped talking about Australia because for the first time in 20 years Australia’s unemployment is lower than New Zealand’s unemployment on their watch. So they do not talk about Australia any more. But they genuinely seem to think it was all their own work despite the fact that they inherited from the previous Labour Government one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. 
Hon Member 
: The lowest. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The lowest in the OECD. They also inherited one of the lowest Government debts as a proportion of GDP and books that are in the black in terms of assets from the previous Government. They seriously expect New Zealanders to believe that somehow they have had something to do with the fact that we have weathered a recession better than most other countries. We have weathered it and Treasury said that New Zealand was in a better position to weather the economic recession because of the way the previous Government left the economy for this Government in terms of unemployment and in terms of Government debt. We have seen other countries all around the world actually doing something about the recession; our Government has done nothing. It is purely thanks to Michael Cullen and his legacy that this Government is able to stand up and pretend to take credit for that legacy. 
I want to talk about the emissions trading scheme and the absolute shambles that we are seeing from the Government at this time. The Government talks about its Warm Up New Zealand policy. We know that it is not about home insulation but is actually its climate change policy. That is what will happen. What is the point of having an emissions trading scheme that will not reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? I ask Mr Auchinvole what the point is. Exactly. We sometimes forget that the entire point of having climate change policy is to address climate change. And we want to do it in an economically responsible way. This Government has decided that lowering greenhouse gas emissions does not really matter in which case we have to ask why it is even going through this sham of a process—this utter shambles—for a policy that will do nothing except move the cost from the polluters to the taxpayer. We have literally moved from a “polluter pays” policy to a “pay the polluter” policy. I think the Government should be honest with the people of New Zealand and tell them how much this policy of subsidies for big polluters will cost the ordinary taxpayer of New Zealand. I tell Ms Goodhew that that is what we are talking about. The member can shake her head as much as she likes but the fact is that with this announcement we have seen a huge transfer of wealth from polluters who can do something to mitigate their emissions to taxpayers who cannot do anything to mitigate the emissions of the big polluters. I wonder how New Zealand will be able to hold its head up on an international stage given how important it is that we maintain this “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. Under National it is only “10-20% Pure New Zealand” based on this Government’s greenhouse gas target. 
The Prime Minister is currently in New York and he is holding talks around climate change. He is talking up the new Pastoral Greenhouse Gas Research Consortium. I am a big fan of anything that creates more work for scientists in New Zealand. Let us be honest: the United States takes science seriously. It has seriously invested in science. Minister David Carter stood up in the House today and went on about how great National has been for science in this area. I will correct that and I will quote from someone who knows about this area because I know National members will not take my word for it. I quote from the president of the New Zealand Association of Scientists. This is what she said after the Budget: “many of us may have heaved a sigh of relief that it was not as bad for science as it might well have been given that it was coming from a National Government”. I think that is a fair comment. She said: “A modest increase—of 2.5% to Vote Science—appears good news on the face of it until you look at other countries who have announced funding increases in science of 25% or greater based on recognition of the role that science plays in sustaining and enhancing a nation’s economic basis and then you couple that with the huge cuts faced by education. Sadly it does not seem that this Government believes that science is a lynchpin to sound economic growth. Considering the education cuts further one can be left in little doubt that science and society will suffer because what underpins science more than education … ?”. That follows on from what my colleague Trevor Mallard was saying yesterday in the House about the cuts to science advisers. 
Mike Berridge who is a well-known scientist for those who know the sector said: “Recently a current Minister of the Crown indicated that the RS&T portfolio was seen as a fun portfolio grouping it along with sport and recreation and the arts. God save our nation if science and innovation are not taken more seriously than pastime entertainment and recreation”. I cannot agree with him more. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 Today I would like to concentrate on what this Government is doing to see New Zealand through these very difficult times. But first of all I will spend some time telling the House how disappointed I have been on so many occasions lately as we have had to listen to the misinformation and scaremongering from members on the other side of the House. Have we heard those members’ alternatives? We have heard some of them and I might add that some of them have been quite ludicrous but I will come to that in a moment. Have there been any concrete alternatives to getting New Zealand through this recessionary period or any economic policies? No those members have not been forthcoming at all. 
Right now New Zealanders are telling me and all my colleagues as well that they are focused on us and they want us to be focused on New Zealanders’ well-being entitlements health care services and education and on this economy growing and being sustainable. But New Zealanders are not actually seeing that focus from the Opposition. I am disappointed because right now New Zealand needs its members of Parliament to work together on some things if at all possible instead of indulging in this petty politics of envy. We have heard about welfare for millionaires. That was a really good idea of Phil Goff’s. He is backtracking on that one but probably not fast enough because the damage has been done. New Zealanders do not like the idea of millionaires getting welfare. We have heard about welfare for property investors. That was a bit of a coup as well. Goodness gracious me! It is hard to believe that Labour would back on the front page of the paper somebody who had so much property yet it was feeding him the idea that he was entitled to welfare. Another idea was free condoms for all. We have heard some demeaning comments here. I am really sad to say that we have heard some demeaning comments from the Opposition today about that policy. We thought that Labour would maybe be giving out free condoms for the good of all but no we had silly suggestions instead. 
There is also a suggestion about raising the age of entitlement to superannuation. That was a scary thought and it did not come from this side of the House. The Prime Minister has promised that superannuation entitlements will remain as they are and so too will the age of entitlement. That suggestion came from Phil Goff. What a ghastly thought. We have also heard here today that New Zealanders are not putting their hands in their own pockets enough. We have also heard from other members of the House that businesses are not doing enough to raise wages. Well hello! First of all people have to earn something before wages can be increased. When I talk to business people in my electorate I give them a big pat on the back and shake their hands if they are paying tax because quite frankly this country needs more people who are successful enough to be paying tax. I can tell members that we need this Government’s movement through this recessionary period for that to happen. 
This Government is focused on addressing the tough questions taking the best possible steps to address law and order issues and putting infrastructure in the places where there are gaps because that has hampered New Zealand’s growth. Our reform of the Resource Management Act will go a long way as will the second tranche of our reforms to getting this country going and it is only when this country is moving forward that we will move out of this. New Zealand got to the recession before most of the rest of the world. That was a sad indictment on the 9 years of squandering of the economic good times by the Labour Government. New Zealand got there first. How sad is that? I say thank goodness we have seen a slight change—a 0.1 percent change—in this last quarter. We need this country to turn round. But we cannot thank the previous Government for having achieved the best possible growth out of the economic good times that it had. 
This Government is focusing on front-line services the services that see social workers doctors teachers and nurses delivering on the front line. It sees Work and Income’s front-office staff sending at least one in three of the people who come through its door to get an unemployment benefit back out the door and into a job. That is the good-news story. If Opposition members believe that we can be in a recession and not have an increase in unemployment then they are in la-la land. It just cannot happen. Of course unemployment will rise. We are focusing on the younger people who are on unemployment benefits. There are nearly 17000 opportunities for young people. This was decried in the House this afternoon during question time but truly there are 17000 opportunities for young people. That is not to be mocked. That is not to be scoffed at. There are job opportunities happening in my electorate of Rangitata. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill 
Second Reading 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I move  
That the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time 
. It gives me a lot of pleasure to pick up the baton on this legislation from my predecessor the Hon Steve Maharey who did a lot of work in bringing this bill to the House and seeing it through to the select committee. It is a piece of legislation that Mr Maharey described as a modest bill. I prefer to think of it as efficient. There are not too many things that are modest that come out of Palmerston North. A cursory glance at the list of my predecessors would attest to that I should think. 
Of course Palmerston North has very much to be immodest about. There is Massey University which has campuses—everywhere it seems these days—in Mr Power’s electorate and in Palmerston North as well; Centrepoint theatre one of the few working professional theatres in a provincial city; a standard of living that I am quite sure is unsurpassed by any other city in New Zealand; and the glorious sight of the sun rising over the Tararua Ranges as the blades of the wind farm turbines whirl below. One of the showpieces in Palmerston North is of course the showgrounds which are also known as Arena Manawatu. On the weekend just gone I was at Arena Manawatu with about 8500 other people from the Manawatu and Palmerston North watching the Manawatu Turbos who sadly went down to Northland. The Turbos have had their most successful season so far by quite some stretch and they have been doing very well. Sadly the team did not quite make it against Northland last weekend but it is heading over to Hawke’s Bay to take on the Magpies next weekend and I look forward to heading over to Napier to watch that match. 
From the first reading of this bill I note that Chris Tremain compared the mood of the House on this bill to the mood of Manawatu and Hawke’s Bay rugby. It was interesting that so many National Party members who were in Opposition at the time chose to speak on this bill. I do not know what it was about Palmerston North that day that those members were so keen to recount their affinity with it. Perhaps today given the amount of time we have on our hands many of the Government members might decide to get up and say something about this bill as it might look slightly odd if the House rises as early as this today given that we will be back late tomorrow night. 
 The bill essentially does three things. Firstly it provides for the transfer of the management and control of the land that comprises the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. Secondly it allows for the dissolution of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control. Thirdly it repeals the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act 1974. The Act enabled the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association to dispose of the showgrounds to the Palmerston North City Council as a recreation reserve and constituted the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control for the management and control of the land as a recreation reserve. The 1974 Act resulted from a deed of agreement between the parties under which the city council would develop and improve the showgrounds and they would be available to the A and P society to be used as showgrounds on a number of days each year. The A and P society no longer requires the use of the showgrounds seeing as the A and P show has headed over to Feilding. The board of control now wishes to dissolve and transfer its rights assets and liabilities to the city council. 
The bill went to the Local Government and Environment Committee which returned it with no amendments. I thank the members and chair of the committee for their work. One issue that was raised—and I note that Te Ururoa Flavell raised the issue in the first reading of the bill—was the status of the land in relation to Ngati Kauwhata’s Treaty claims in the Palmerston North area. It is great to see the chair of the committee in the Chamber this afternoon. I am very pleased to see that the select committee has come to the conclusion that the transfer of the land will have no bearing whatsoever on the claim. Essentially the land as it is at the moment would be inaccessible to such a claim. That will continue to be the case. Hopefully that will satisfy Ngati Kauwhata in their concerns and allow us to push ahead with this as I said very efficient small bill to tidy up some loose ends. 
I know that a number of staff at the Palmerston North City Council will be very pleased to see the bill progressing. They will have to think of a new first thing to say to me when they see me in Palmerston North rather than asking how far the bill is getting through. It is a very great pleasure to see it moving on. I certainly commend the bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I call the member for Rangitikei the Hon Simon Power. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker for that nice addition to my introduction. I appreciate my electorate being recognised from time to time. In the old days members were recognised only by their electorate name. Would it not be interesting to go back to those days? 
The Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill as Iain Lees-Galloway the MP for Palmerston North has indicated is a bill that has merit and should be progressed quickly and swiftly through the House. I am advised by the senior Government whip that so meritorious is the legislation that we will not be delaying its passage in any way shape or form following my contribution today. We are keen to see the matter moving. I give a slight nod in the direction of Mr Lees-Galloway’s predecessor the Hon Steve Maharey whom I spent many hours with in this House debating a variety of legislation. This bill is one of those pieces of legislation on which we agreed. If members check  
Hansard 
 and the first reading debate of the bill they will find that both the Hon Steve Maharey and I had only very short contributions to make in respect of the bill largely because it was one of the rare occasions when we agreed on legislation in such a concerted way. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: I’m sure there were plenty of times where that happened. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: It is true that we agreed on many other things—in fact most things—but when it came to legislation this place being what it is that was not always the case in the House. Now that Mr Lees-Galloway has seen the necessity to lift the bill in the way it deserves and to pursue its passage through the House he can be assured of the Government’s support on the matter and on making some real progress today. 
I recall as a young lad in the Palmerston North area spending some time at the showgrounds either playing rugby or in latter years refereeing rugby. I spent time at what was from time to time the A and P show. The show has fluctuated in its capacity to draw numbers over the years but it is fair to say that it remains a crowd favourite when it is in town. 
The legalities surrounding this bill are pretty straightforward. Mr Lees-Galloway has outlined them. He has also quite rightly in my view addressed the matters that were raised in respect of Ngati Kauwhata’s concerns about the bill at its first reading. In fact if my memory serves me I think the Green Party may have voted against the bill at its first reading. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: No. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: It did not. Well it certainly indicated that it was concerned about that particular issue. On that basis I am sure that the Green Party like members on this side of the House will be pleased that the issue has been resolved. 
Some of the most exciting things that are going on around the Palmerston North area include those at the Palmerston North Showgrounds but I cannot let the opportunity pass without saying that Manfeild Park which is being developed in the Feilding area will prove to be a very big drawcard for many of the events that would have historically found themselves at the Palmerston North Showgrounds. I am sure that members on the other side of the House will agree with this because although they are not usually fans of competition in this context I think they will agree that competition is a good thing. The important thing for those who are not familiar with that territory to realise is that the capacity for the wider region what we would broadly describe as the Manawatu-Rangitikei catchment to draw people to the region through high-class facilities such as the showgrounds and Manfeild Park can be only for the betterment of the entire region.  
I think Mr Lees-Galloway has gone some small way today to filling the very big shoes left by Steve Maharey and this bill is one of the ways he can show he is up to the task that his predecessor left for him to complete. The National Party and the Government will support the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. It is a bill that I too have had some discussion with Palmerston North City Council employees about from time to time. We are pleased to support the bill at its second reading. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a very short call on the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill because I chaired the Local Government and Environment Committee when the bill first came to us. Although we may think that these sorts of bills that come to a select committee are small and very tidy and just sort out issues in a region or district on behalf of a council the bill raised some concern when it first came before us and we sent it back to the Palmerston North City Council. Not all of us at the select committee were comfortable because we were concerned about overlapping Treaty claims and we could not be given any assurance at the select committee that there was no outstanding Treaty claim over this piece of land. 
It is very appropriate that Te Ururoa Flavell raised those concerns because often we take it for granted that all the work has been done by the authority that is sponsoring a local bill and sometimes that work is not undertaken to the level of our expectation as parliamentarians. We are not there to be default judge and jury on decisions that are made in a region or district. That was the point of concern originally. Of course we on this side of the House are not against competition but the A and P shows were usually for competitions for sponge cakes sand saucers and horse riding. As the previous speaker Simon Power said we would love to see the speedway and racing cars at Manfeild Park too but the bill is about sorting out land used by the Manawatu and West Coast Agricultural and Pastoral Association and vesting it back to the Palmerston North City Council. 
It is a very simple bill. Now that we are happy about the arrangements for what could have been outstanding claims Labour is very happy to support the bill today. It is wonderful that Iain Lees-Galloway has carried on the tradition started by Steve Maharey the previous MP for Palmerston North. Steve Maharey taught him everything he knows and Iain Lees-Galloway will have a long career in the House as a good Labour member for the good electorate of Palmerston North. In fact Mr Lees-Galloway should have worn his “I love Palmy” badge because we in Labour all love Palmy. We are delighted to be in the Chamber today to support the bill for Palmerston North. Having the bill in the House a day before urgency is a rather interesting House management issue. Tomorrow we will be debating in urgency until 10 o’clock at night but tonight we will run out of work. That is most peculiar and awkward House management. It could have been entirely avoided had the Leader of the House managed urgency and not had members sitting in the Chamber 3 weeks in a row in and out of urgency with knee-jerk reactions to major legislation. We are delighted to be debating and supporting the bill today. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 Without wishing to draw the proceedings of the House to a close earlier than even my predecessor has intimated I simply advise the House that the Green Party supports the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill which proposes to transfer the management and control of the Palmerston North Showgrounds from the Palmerston North Showgrounds Board of Control to the Palmerston North City Council. We wish the promoters of the bill well. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 There was a 50 percent chance that Ngati Kauwhata would be heard heeded and respected in respect of the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill. After all only two submissions were received by the Local Government and Environment Committee: one supported and one opposed the legislation. So the probability was high that the sun would shine on Ngati Kauwhata. Such high stakes were inevitably helped by the compelling evidence provided in their submission. I will take a rather unusual step of repeating a key statement from their submission for the benefit of the House. Ngati Kauwhata said that they “must continue in our responsibilities as tangata whenua to protect the land and natural resources of our district. To do this we must object to and make others aware of the stealth that the Crown and their Agents Local Government will use to keep Ngati Kauwhata marginalised from their lands and in poor health to forever keep them dependent on the Crown as beneficiaries and therefore to be slandered by those who seek power within the Crown’s structures.” 
Those are strong words that underline the passion and the responsibility Ngati Kauwhata uphold in protecting their history and preserving their heritage. Ngati Kauwhata stand by the contention that they did not sell interests in the Te Ahu-turanga Block. Ngati Kauwhata instead believe that the land was taken by stealth and by devious purchasing practices by the Crown and its agents. Ngati Kauwhata claim that the land is part of the Te Ahu-turanga Block taken from them by proclamation and is subject to two Waitangi Tribunal claims: Wai 784 and Wai 972. There is another new claim Wai 1461 regarding the Rangitikei-Manawatu Block. It is a conjoint claim between Ngati Kauwhata Ngati Raukawa and all of Nga Iwi o Te Reureu. 
This history of Treaty injustices and contemporary breaches was heard by the select committee but it chose a different history. It opted to favour the history presented by the Palmerston North City Council. The council supports the bill on the grounds that the relevant land and most of the other assets are already owned by it and that effectively it has managed the showgrounds over the last 2 years. The committee was privy to the expert advice of public health champion Ngati Kauwhata member and Assistant Vice-Chancellor (Maori and Pasifika) of Massey University Professor Mason Durie. His analysis included the conclusion that a lack of access to tribal land must be woven into explanations of the chronic poor health status of Maori. 
Ngati Kauwhata were not asking for the world. They just wanted to be part of the overall governance and part of the process of managing the land that was taken from them. They humbly requested that the bill be delayed until they were able to determine the status of the land in respect of ownership and the implications of the Treaty claims over it. In considering the views of Ngati Kauwhata the select committee determined that any Waitangi Tribunal investigation can have no effect on the land in question given its status as private land. 
With all due respect I suggest that the select committee is not the appropriate body to make such pronouncements. If Ngati Kauwhata believe they have the right to at least have the land in question considered as part of their claim then that is something for the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate consider and determine not the select committee. When the Government purchased the Te Ahu-turanga Block from Rangitane in 1864 it noted that there was some dispute at the time about ownership between Rangitane and neighbouring iwi. Now 145 years later this bill could have been an excellent opportunity to face a dispute in the light of day once and for all. Instead the select committee chose to ignore the dispute to ignore the strongly held views of Ngati Kauwhata and to affect the transfer of the management and control of the land of the showgrounds from the board to the Palmerston North City Council. 
The showgrounds will now be fully managed and controlled by the council as a recreation site. The council’s submission to the select committee did not discuss any consultation that it may or may not have had with local iwi including Ngati Kauwhata. Although it appears that this legislation is not a problematic change for Rangitane it is utterly evident that there are longstanding and outstanding issues for Ngati Kauwhata. The Maori Party believes that we cannot make any progress on the bill while the dispute is still manifest. We oppose this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Palmerston North Showgrounds Act Repeal Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 117 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 5 
Maori Party 5. 
Bill read a second time. 
International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 19 August. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of Kennedy Graham’s International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill. Labour believes there is much to recommend in this bill and we support its referral to the select committee. I will focus my comments on clause 9 of the bill which requires a New Zealand leader to obtain the written advice of the Attorney-General before deciding to commit the armed forces of New Zealand to action involving the use of armed force. 
The National Government members who spoke in this debate before me before the debate was interrupted a month ago repeatedly stated their support for the underlying intent of the bill. Dr Wayne Mapp talked about Dr Graham’s deep commitment to the progressive development of international law saying National understands the underlying motivations behind this bill. The other doctor Dr Paul Hutchison said the sentiment behind this bill was extremely worthy and that perhaps it was something that New Zealand must seriously consider in the future. 
But here is the truth: in spite of those soothing words National does not even support the most modest element in this bill. It does not support the idea of having the Attorney-General provide a legal opinion on any proposed armed intervention by New Zealand. This is the most modest element in the bill. It would not constrain the executive it would not prevent the deployment of New Zealand troops to take part in an international intervention and it would not limit New Zealand’s ability to participate in a Kosovo-type humanitarian situation. It would simply require the Attorney-General to produce to this House a legal opinion on the lawfulness of any proposed armed intervention. But this National Government does not want a bar of that. It does not want this bill to go to a select committee where it could be debated and improved. 
Putting aside for a second the issue of the passage of this bill I am told that the National Government has even rejected the idea of supporting the proposal in the bill for an opinion by the Attorney-General to be discussed at a select committee. This idea is not for National but it is good enough for the United Kingdom which is moving to make a legal opinion by the Attorney-General a requirement as a parliamentary convention. This was signalled by the Prime Minister Gordon Brown in a speech to the House of Commons in June but it is not good enough for National. It is a practical simple suggestion that is designed to enhance public and parliamentary scrutiny of the most heavy responsibility of the executive: sending young New Zealanders to war. 
As advanced by Kennedy Graham the proposal is that 7 days in advance of any deployment except in situations of self-defence the Prime Minister would be expected to table in this House an opinion from the Attorney-General concerning the lawfulness of the deployment and its consistency with international law and in particular with the UN Charter. Why does the National Government not want to have an informed discussion in this House before young Kiwis are sent off to battle? Why does it not want there to be a discussion on that informed by a dispassionate legal opinion by no less than the Attorney-General? The answer is Iraq. National members on the Government side of the House will remember that their party leader the Prime Minister John Key said he would have sent troops to take part in George Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq. In their hearts they are not committed to international law. In rejecting this provision in Kennedy Graham’s bill they are showing their true colours. They want to be able to send our troops to fight overseas regardless of whether that is consistent with international law. 
We saw with the recent deployment of SAS troops to Afghanistan how susceptible the National Government is to pressure from bigger and more powerful allies. What started out as an international operation to root out al-Qaeda after attacks on New York City has become several years later an unwinnable quagmire. Kennedy Graham’s proposal in this bill would have generated an opinion that surely would have advised that the Afghanistan deployment was consistent with international law. An opinion from the Attorney-General would not have stopped the deployment but if applied in the future it might save National and this country from engaging in unwise interventions. Thank you. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Government cited three reasons to oppose the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill: it will surrender our foreign policy to a Security Council veto it will divide out nation and it will be blatantly misused. Each of those statements is effortlessly refuted at least in logic. 
The Minister of Defence is irritated by the veto and craves the freedom to circumvent it yet in San Francisco although we argued against the veto we signed the charter in full acknowledgment of its inclusion and we abide by that reality today. Dr Mapp prefers the NATO interpretation that the doctrine of responsibility to protect enables Western powers with New Zealand tagging along behind whenever summoned to intervene militarily without UN authorisation. The same freedom for so-called legitimate if illegal actions of the Kosovo type is not to be extended to China or Russia. That level of hubris predates even 1945. 
The rule of international law is contemptuous of outmoded notions of political superiority. At some stage before long the International Criminal Court will adopt the crime of aggression. New Zealand will agree voluntarily or otherwise and on that day the Government will discreetly forget what it has said in this debate. 
Will this bill divide the nation? Of course not. The New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987 imposed criminal liability on the Prime Minister to respect the prohibition on nuclear-armed warships in our harbours. Far from dividing the nation the warships stopped coming. The nation remains united on the nuclear-free policy. Notwithstanding the historical writhing of the National Party the Prime Minister celebrates our nuclear-free policy before world leaders at the United Nations this week—hardly a nation divided. 
Would the bill result in misuse? There is no greater risk of this legislation being abused than any other. Dr Hutchison has a low opinion of the judiciary; I do not. In fact I find the expression of such a view in this legislature to be quite reprehensible. We should be worth more. 
Finally the Government allowed itself a touching philosophical flourish. The bill is Dr Hutchison said perhaps something that New Zealand must consider in the future. In other words it is ahead of its time. To put the record straight I say to members that this bill is half a century behind. If it is premature to make national leaders liable in criminal law for aggression then this country owes a formal apology to Japan for participating in the trial and execution of its leaders six decades ago. The House should then call upon the Prime Minister to convey that apology immediately after dispatching this bill to the void. 
I am disappointed at the Government’s position on my bill but I am not surprised. The bill would take a major step forward in civilising the world through civilising ourselves. It requires vision and courage so I am not surprised. Nor am I discouraged for it is clear to me whether or not it is clear to my colleagues across the floor that this bill even in this failed incarnation is a beacon to the country and to elsewhere. 
The bill has been distributed to over 100 Parliaments around the world and it is already being seen as a model for other countries to emulate. Work has begun in the Argentine Senate. The disposition of each of those countries to adopt it sooner or later will reflect considerations that transcend the particular reasons so stated in this House for not proceeding today. 
It is never difficult and it is always tempting to find rationalisations for not proceeding with a far-reaching initiative in politics. We can go home tonight knowing we have done our duty to this House. We have considered deliberated and pronounced. The only thing left to do is explain to our children tomorrow why we would not act today. 
Whether we have done our duty to the nation and to humanity is less clear. The Prime Minister and his Government have an opportunity today for statesmanship but recoiled before the mirror. We are what we think even to a lilliputian degree. It is likely that future generations will understand us better than we today understand ourselves. Very well then; let us proceed to the vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 If passed I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee. 
I take the freedom of the individual as one of the ultimate yardsticks in assessing Government action. What does that mean? It means that at a fundamental level relationships between individuals in society should be based on consent and that they should be based on voluntary cooperation. Freedom of association is an ideal that has historically speaking not necessarily been well served by this House. The best I can say is that over time Parliament has reversed many of the laws that forced individuals to associate with different groups. It ended forced association of Government employees with unions: we no longer force public servants to join a union. It ended the forced association of citizens with the army: we no longer conscript our young people. And it ended the forced association of employees with a union in the ordinary workforce: we no longer allow a majority of workers to compel the minority into a closed shop. In a free society individuals should be free to choose whether to join a residents association; they should be free to decide whether they should join the local tennis club or join the Automobile Association. 
Over time we have come to respect the importance of freedom of association. We in this House have ratified the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees to individuals freedom of association and I might add explicitly includes the right not to associate. We have backed up that ratification by passing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which also protects the freedom of association. Freedom of association protects not only individuals but also groups of individuals within society who wish to voluntarily join hands and work together towards a common goal. I suggest that associations are not truly representative of their members’ convictions if those members are forced to join. They are in fact meaningless—the mere playthings of those who control them. 
One group of individuals in New Zealand is still forced to join an association. One group of individuals have their money forcefully taken in order to fund the association they are forced to join. Every year individuals around this country are compelled to join a students association when they sign up to a tertiary institute. This simple fact is often lost in the sophistication that surrounds the issue. 
I am sure you will hear from Labour and Green members of this House many of whose MPs once funded their political causes from money forcibly taken from other students that there are several reasons why the law does not breach freedom of association. The first thing they will say is that students can hold a referendum and end compulsory student membership. It is funny to hear Labour members argue that rights should be dependent on the whim of the majority. Should a majority for example be able to compel all businesses to join the Business Roundtable? I hope not. The principle of the matter is that no individual should be forced to fund any association at the whim of the majority. 
The second thing they will say is that students can conscientiously object. By that logic of course the military draft was OK as one could conscientiously object. There can be no freedom of association without the capacity to reclaim the resources that fund those organisations. I may be able to exit the organisation but if I cannot recoup the resources that were compulsorily acquired then the result is taxation without representation. 
The third thing they will say which is probably the most worrying of all is that we are all compelled to pay taxes and rates. With that of course I can agree; as a statement that argument is correct. But the fact that the Government uses its coercive power to force us to pay taxes is the reason why the exercise of Government power should be limited. The fact that Government has expanded beyond its role in a free society should not be used as an argument to allow those in the voluntary sector to force individuals to act in certain ways. In simple terms a students association is not a Government. 
Compulsory students associations are not necessary as in a free society individuals can form them and allow anyone to join who wants to if they so wish. This confuses the Labour and Green members because they do not care about the use of force by the Government. To the supporters of unfettered Government power and in the words of the Rt Hon Helen Clark the role of Government is whatever the Government defines it to be. However some members in Labour get it. They are probably those who did not learn the ropes of Labour politics which is to push one’s personal agenda and at the same time claim to represent all students. A few Labour members understand freedom of association and I will quote from just one of them. Clayton Cosgrove is one such member. In a radio interview with Radio New Zealand on 14 March 2008 he said: “Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? … If you want to join the footy club the workingmen’s club the institute go for it. It’s your choice”. Clayton Cosgrove actually gets it. It is worth repeating because one could not say it better: “Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? … If you want to join the footy club the workingmen’s club … It’s your choice”. 
David Garrett 
: Who said that? 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS 
: Clayton Cosgrove. He is quite a bright guy I would have thought. 
So why is freedom of association so important and what is bad about forcing people to spend their money in a particular way? There are two main reasons. In the first place requiring people to spend their money in a particular way requires that we first take their money off them. In other words the idea is fundamentally based around the philosophy of coercion and force. In the second place no one spends someone else’s money as carefully as that person spends his or her own money. That is why students associations undertake the kinds of projects they do. That is why the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association offered a $10000 reward for the citizen’s arrest of Condoleezza Rice. That is why it advocates such loony projects as fully taxpayer-subsidised tertiary education. 
I finish by making it clear that I am not opposed to students associations. If students want to group together and advocate for nutty policy they should go for it. The Greens are doing all right. If a students association wants to provide services to its members it should go for it. The Automobile Association does it particularly well. Indeed if students associations really do such an amazing job then many students will voluntarily join. But no individual should be forced against his or her will. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. National will support this bill’s referral to the select committee. In most tertiary institutions students must belong to the student union whether are full-time students part-time students on-campus students or distance students. Union membership is compulsory. Auckland University is the only university that has a voluntary students association and guess what? The sky has not fallen. Currently the only way to change is to get 10 percent of students to petition for a referendum and then get the majority to vote for voluntary membership. Individuals can opt out of the membership but they still have to pay the levy which is then passed on by the student union to a charity. The current law does not allow students to make their own decisions about union membership. They are the only group in society that is denied that basic freedom. Most organisations have to demonstrate their value and their competence in order to justify support. What is so different about student unions? 
Following the actions of the Victoria University students union this year of refusing to show respect on Anzac Day my office received many many letters from students who were appalled at having to support an organisation that clearly did not reflect their values. Other than going through that long complicated and involved process of holding a referendum they had little redress and little influence on the organisation that they were forced to support financially. 
Some concern has been raised about the services that student unions provide. Opponents of the bill have said that vital services that are provided by student organisations will disappear under voluntary students associations. I echo the words of the speaker before me the sponsor of this bill Sir Roger Douglas: if those students associations that are performing those valuable services can prove that they are of benefit to the students then the students will join them—obviously. Intelligent people attend our universities and polytechs and if there is a worthwhile service they will join. However I understand that there are some concerns about part of the wording in the bill and how this might affect the continuity of services and that is something that can be dealt with at the select committee. The mode of provision of services varies across tertiary institutions in New Zealand. Some institutions for example provide student welfare services directly and at others they are provided by students associations. The select committee is the appropriate forum at which to discuss these matters further to ensure that should this bill proceed those services are still available. 
I will finish by using the words of someone who I think has summed up exactly what this bill is all about. The previous speaker stole my thunder a bit but I will just expand on the quote. Former Minister of Labour Clayton Cosgrove said: “We haven’t had compulsory unionism for 20 years.”—for anyone other than students—“Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? … If you want to join the footy club the workingmen’s club the institute go for it. It’s your choice and you should have that right.” I think he summed it up for our students. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We now move to 5-minute speeches. There will be a warning bell at 1 minute. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill for three key reasons. The first reason is that the bill is unnecessary the second is that it will cost students more and the third is that the real driver behind this bill—which of course we heard already from Roger Douglas and Anne Tolley—is that it is designed to silence critics of the Government. 
This bill is unnecessary. It is unnecessary because students already have choice. They have choice because of the compromise arrangement reached in 1998 by the then National - New Zealand First Government. It was a very sensible arrangement that gave students a choice as to whether to have a system of universal membership or a system of voluntary membership. They are allowed to choose a voluntary system by way of referendum. That deal was brokered by Tau Henare of the National Party. It was a sensible deal and I hope that Tau Henare will take the opportunity of the select committee deliberation—now that we know the bill will be referred to a select committee because National will vote for it—to impress upon his current party the National Party the value of it. It was a sensible arrangement. Students have that choice now and they should be entitled to keep that choice of retaining universal membership if they want it—and we know that they do. In 1999 when the students at my university Victoria University were given that choice 78 percent of them an overwhelming majority voted in favour of retaining universal membership. More than half the students on campus participated in that vote and 78 percent of them voted to retain a system of universal student membership. 
This bill if enacted will cost students more. The universities will want to retain some of the services that students associations currently provide and they will not be able to deliver them at the cost at which the students associations can deliver them. Students associations are run on hundreds and thousands of volunteer hours every year and the universities simply cannot provide that. We know that when voluntary membership was first mooted at Victoria University in 1999 it introduced another levy that would have allowed it to continue some of the services the students association already provided—only some of them not all of them—and that levy was more than the students association levy for those services. So students will pay more if voluntary membership is enacted. In recent weeks we have already seen massive increases in student services levies around the country because universities and polytechnics cannot provide services to the standard and at the price that students associations currently can provide them. So students will pay more. 
The other thing that the National Government did in 1999 was try to stack the deck against students associations. Before National reached the compromise that Tau Henare sponsored it removed the ability of students to add their students association membership fees on to their student loans. So students basically had to front up with the cash to pay their students association fees. The Government did everything it possibly could to stack the deck against having any form of students association membership. It would not surprise me if this bill is passed to see a National Government doing that again. 
Some very important services are provided by students associations some of which may be provided by universities but many of which will not. The most important services which I am concerned about are the student representation services—the welfare and advocacy services—which will be at risk if this bill goes through. Those services are very important to students. I ask the Minister for Ethnic Affairs Pansy Wong to consider the implication of voluntary student membership on so many of the cultural and ethnic clubs and groups on campus. They provide vital support services to those different ethnic groups. I ask the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett to consider the welfare and advocacy services that are provided to students who find themselves in hard times. There are so many of them. In fact the Minister for Social Development and Employment used to be one of those students. This is another example of the Minister trying to pull the ladder up behind her and remove many of the vital supports she relied on to get herself up the ladder. She is trying to remove those opportunities from other students. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 We have heard from the youngster of the Labour Party Chris Hipkins. If I could humbly give that member a little bit of advice it would be that if he is going to be successful in this place it would pay for him to get his story right and be consistent with his front-benchers. What is Labour’s position on the issue we are debating? Is it as was expounded by the young member there is it what former Labour Minister Clayton Cosgrove had to say or is it more ominous that that? This is what Clayton Cosgrove said in 2008— 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Repeat it three times. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: You should hear it three times. You are going to hear it again because you need to listen and to learn. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I most humbly apologise. This is what Clayton Cosgrove had to say when he was defending plans to make membership of the Real Estate Institute voluntary and when he argued in favour of voluntary membership and freedom of association. He said: “We haven’t had compulsory unionism for 20 years. Why should I as a politician tell you or anybody else what you should belong to? If you want to join the footy club the workingmen’s club the institute—go for it. It’s your choice and you should have that right.” 
Jacqui Dean 
: Who said that? 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Clayton Cosgrove the member who almost lost his seat. It seems to me that Labour members are arguing that students should not have the same rights of freedom of association as other New Zealanders. That is the basic argument of Labour and that is where I take issue with the stand it is taking. 
I congratulate the ACT member Sir Roger Douglas. This matter needs to be debated and I look forward to chairing the Education and Science Committee which will hold hearings on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I want to send a very very clear message now as to what I will be looking for at the committee. National is supporting the bill going to the select committee in order to give the select committee and New Zealanders the chance to consider an issue that is very very important to students and to New Zealand generally. The key question and the one I will look to have addressed is why university students are being denied the right of freedom of association that all other New Zealanders have an entitlement to. Has this country gone so far backwards in its thinking that it is not prepared to enter into an open and honest debate and discussion on the issue? 
I will also be seeking an explanation for why if the situation works at the University of Auckland where there is a voluntary students association it cannot work anywhere else. Why can the students of Otago Canterbury Victoria and Waikato not have the same rights and privileges of New Zealanders and of freedom of association that the students of Auckland enjoy? I will be looking for that issue to be discussed by submitters. 
I will conclude by reiterating what I have said. The bill is about the rights of New Zealanders to enjoy freedom of association. Labour members have already made it clear that it is their intention to deny young New Zealanders that right. I will not be so easily convinced. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 What a stunning argument from this incompetent and incapable Government. National members in desperation to find a good reason why they are propping up another ACT initiative—there are not so many Maori Party initiatives going through but there are plenty of ACT Party initiatives—and to find a way to link themselves to that party have found one quote from Clayton Cosgrove that is completely out of context. Clayton Cosgrove was talking about shonky real estate agents. Clayton Cosgrove was talking about loan sharks. Clayton Cosgrove was talking about rip-off merchants. He was not talking about students and students associations. That is the most tenuous link I have yet seen in this term of Parliament. And why? It was so that National members—desperately—could find a way to suck up one more time to the ACT Party the “3 Percent Party”— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: 2 percent. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: —and dropping. National with all its numbers just seems to want to bend over backwards at any single opportunity to please the ACT Party. 
The previous speaker Allan Peachey said that he was going to seek out the answer to why students are the only group who are denied freedom of association. Clearly that member is not listening to students because they have a better question than that. Why are students the only group in society who are denied access to a universal allowance if they are out of work? That is a far better question that the Government ought to be addressing rather than this one. Nevertheless it has been given the opportunity to bend over backwards for the ACT Party and so it will. 
I would like to talk about what the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill actually means in practical terms—what it will mean on the ground for students. It will mean a massive increase in costs for students because the universities will want to maintain the services that the students associations offer. They will still want to run orientation events and other events. Universities will still want a student newspaper they will want radio stations and they will want advocacy to be available to students. They will want representation. Universities appreciate the fact that there is an organisation out there that provides representation for students when they have a grievance with the university. There will be some problems of independence if the universities have to offer a service in order for students to advocate against them. That will get tricky but they will want it. 
Here is the problem. Students associations live and die on hours and hours of voluntary time being provided. They also live and die on having dedicated people who take paid employment with students associations but they take it for a pittance. The universities will not be able to offer that; they will have to pay people properly. They will have to provide those services and it will cost them an awful lot more. Who will pay for that? It will be the students. In fact we have already seen on several occasions that universities looking for ways to increase the student component of their fees have gone after the student services component because it does not fall under the fee maxima policy. This will put more and more pressure on universities and provide more opportunities for universities to whack up those fees. Who will pay? It will be the students. The students will lose out as a result of this legislation passing. 
What is more when those services are provided by the students association whether or not the students take them up they have an opportunity to have a say in what the fee is. They have a far greater opportunity to say how they want their students association to spend this money to say what fee they expect to pay and what they want the students association to do. Students do not have anything like that opportunity when dealing with the university. In fact the opportunity will become less and less as Mrs Tolley attacks the councils and gets rid of student representation. We have already seen it happen with the polytechs and the universities are next. It means that students will have less and less of a voice and less and less of a say on how their money is spent. This is bad news for students. The Government is not listening to them; it is spending all its time bending over backwards for the ACT Party. It is the students and young people in this country who will pay for that policy. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Can I remind people in the gallery that their role is passive. They cannot participate and they cannot clap. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is opposed to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and we regret that this House has to deal with such extremism all over again. We left the 20th century behind some time ago and it does not seem to me that we should reintroduce the 1980s back into 21st century legislation especially when that legislation attacks if I may say so the students of the 21st century who are supposed to lead us into the future. I guess it is not a surprise that we have to deal with this kind of extremist viewpoint from the ACT Party but it is disappointing that ACT has not learnt any of the lessons of the past. 
We certainly agree with students associations and students who say one of the major impacts of this bill will be a reduction in the services that the associations provide for students. That will affect key social and welfare services clubs and sports activity and other services such as advocacy for greater transport accessibility for students and for housing. In the area where I live in Dunedin and in other parts of the country there are serious issues for students with disabilities for example who wish to access accessible housing and their students associations the collective organisations to which they voluntarily belong are key organisations in terms of helping to support those students. Those kinds of services will be lost if this bill is allowed to proceed. 
I will make only a small contribution this afternoon but I say another key area of loss for students—who are paying through the nose for their fees working while they study and doing an incredible job of trying to keep themselves afloat while they educate themselves for the benefit of the public as a whole—will be in the access they now have to strong advocacy on the issues that they face. That is not just advocacy in terms of a voice in the university councils and in the tertiary institutions but political advocacy as well. Many students who are part of students associations or collective organisations do not necessarily have a vote. Some of them are quite young yet through their students associations they have access to a political voice and advocacy that they would not otherwise get. Here in Parliament we make decisions that affect students’ lives their employment the kinds of jobs that they may be able to access and the education that they may be able to access yet we would restrict their ability to have a voice and a say in exactly those decisions that affect them. One of the Green Party’s key principles is that of participatory democracy the principle that people who are affected by decisions should be part of the decision-making process and this bill attempts to strip that away from students. 
Serious issues have been raised about the impact of this bill on Maori students and their ability to continue to have an advocacy voice and have support services provided through their collective associations. This is particularly important at a time when this Government is attacking the tertiary sector by massively reducing its funding. Polytech councils for example are now under attack and universities I am sure will be soon to follow. With a reduction in the community voices on those councils those voices and particularly Maori voices are being lost. Maori voices are being lost from the decision-making processes around tertiary education and this bill is another attack on exactly that—on the right of Maori to have a say. Of course we already know that the National Government does not like it when Maori have a voice. We have already seen it remove that voice in the legislation on Auckland governance when it stripped Maori of the ability to have a political voice in the Auckland super-city. Now the Government is doing exactly the same thing for Maori students those who will be leading our community in the future. 
This bill breaches even its own principles of choice and freedom. It strikes me that the ACT Party believes that when people do not vote for the Government they can then somehow throw off the responsibilities of their citizenship because it is not their fault that we have a particular Government. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: It’s a libertarian view. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: This is the extremist libertarian view. We know that kind of example is ridiculous because the principle behind it is ridiculous. Students are entitled under the current law to choose how they organise themselves and this bill will strip from them their right to choose and their freedom to associate in the way that they think is the most appropriate. This bill constrains their choices and freedoms; it does not support them. This bill is classic 1980s dinosaurian thinking which this Parliament and this country can well do without. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 My colleague Sir Roger Douglas has already made the very clear case for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill on the grounds of freedom of association but I want to talk about the behaviour of student politicians when people do not join their organisations voluntarily and what happens as a result. 
When we look at elections of students associations we see that most suffer from apathy and most elections do well to achieve a 10 percent turn-out. This lack of turn-out directly leads to a lack of accountability and it is this lack of accountability that allows students associations to get away with so much waste so much politicking and so much fraud. 
I heard Mr Lees-Galloway explain that Mr Cosgrove’s quote—and I see Mr Cosgrove has joined us in the House so I imagine he will speak—was aimed at “rip-off merchants”. Well let us hear about these rip-off merchants. In 2007 the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association spent $22000 of its members’ money doing up a van. That spending was not authorised by the executive initially. It was undertaken by one Geoff Hayward and another fellow. In other words those two people stole student money. I note that Geoff Hayward used to work for the Labour Party. Maybe he gave advice on the pledge card rort of taxpayers back in 2005. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What about the Pipitea Street electorate office? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh it gets worse; it gets much worse. In 2008 Clelia Opie spent $6000 of students’ money making calls to psychic hotlines. That is right—she misused student money to call psychics. In 2009 the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association will spend 70 percent of its budget on administration. It claims to provide services but most of the money will be wasted along the way. 
But let us go back to the rip-offs. Mr Lees-Galloway a former student politician and Labour Party learner back in his student days said that Mr Cosgrove was talking only about rip-off merchants so let us hear about a few more of them. In 2003 Florence Bailey the office manager of the Massey University Students Association was jailed for 2 years and 3 months after stealing $203000 of student money. That is an awful lot of money. In 2005 the Victoria University of Wellington Maori Students Association treasurer Wi Nepia was jailed for stealing $161000 of student money. Last but sadly not least Otago University’s Te Roopu Maori the Maori students association at that university collapsed amid allegations of financial impropriety and estimated fraud of $21000. With one exception I have mentioned only the ones who actually got convicted because even though what I say in this House is protected I do not believe in casting aspersions without some justification and proof. 
Lastly we realise that the Labour Party and the Greens will support this abuse of student money and the real reason is over there on the Opposition benches. Mr Lees-Galloway Mr Hipkins and others are all former officers of student unions. Mr Hipkins was the president of the students association at Victoria University in 2000-01 Mr Iain Lees-Galloway was the president of the Massey University Students Association and Grant Robertson was the president of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations. On his own website he describes his role back then as “full-time lobbyist”. Well I ask what happened to the interests of students. 
This bill is aimed squarely at giving people freedom of choice. The obvious argument that can be made is that if the deal is so wonderful students will be flocking to join voluntary organisations. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is a report regarding Donna Awatere Huata a former ACT Party MP ripping off the Pipi Foundation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I seek leave to table a report relating to the scandal perpetrated by the ACT Party around its out-of-Parliament office in Pipitea Street. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I seek leave to table a report about Rodney Hide’s conduct in relation to a Fiji pyramid scheme. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: What report is that? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is in relation to the allegation about a scandal. It is a media report. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a media report. Leave is sought— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask which organisation the report is from. We need a little more detail please. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a press report. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is from the media. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Throughout history students associations have been directly linked to key events on the pathway to democracy. In the 1960s African-American student movements occupied white-only lunch counters and other segregated public institutions throughout the South to protest against segregated seating. In 1989 student activists played a central role in the Tiananmen Square protests seeking to bring democracy to China. And of course just 5 years ago in Aotearoa students associations were involved in the hikoi opposing the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. So it is with some irony that we are faced with a bill the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill that seeks to erode students associations but places the word “freedom” in its title. 
Freedom a concept associated with emancipation and empowerment is not simply about having the opportunity to do as one pleases. Freedom is essentially about the chance to formulate available choices to argue debate and consider them and then have the opportunity to choose. In the context of students associations that is manifest in the capacity to opt out of membership. In the current legislation sections 229A to 229D of the Education Act 1989 enable the student body of a tertiary institution to determine whether it wants a compulsory or voluntary students association. It also enables individuals to choose to be exempt from membership on the grounds of financial hardship or conscientious objection—that is to opt out. 
This bill instead will require students to opt in. It sounds a very simple idea—the switch from opting out to opting in. But of course there is always a wider agenda. The broader context for this bill is that students associations and their representatives including Maori student ropu and their representatives have often been strong advocates within tertiary institutions and the wider sector for high-quality academic standards adequate Government investment and course fee maintenance or reductions. Students associations also provide a range of important services to students: welfare and academic advocacy faculty and class representatives financial assistance legal help counselling services student social events student clubs student societies and campus sports and recreation facilities. In short it is a wonder that any student has time to attend classes with all the activities students could be immersed in through their students associations. 
Given that this bill is about students associations one would think it pretty important to canvass views from them about the need and value of this bill. What we have learnt is that the bill is opposed by Te Mana Akonga the national Maori tertiary students association; Te Hunga Roia Maori o Aotearoa the national Maori lawyers association; Te Toi Tauira mo te Matariki the national forum for supporting Maori students and staff in tertiary education; Te Ropu Takawaenga Maori o Nga Kura Matauranga o Aotearoa the Maori liaison tertiary association of New Zealand; Te Toi Ahurangi the komiti Maori within the Tertiary Education Union; and Te Kahui Amokura the Maori committee of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee. The membership of the last committee is I think of particular note. It includes Professor Mason Durie as chair Sir Tipene O’Regan Jim Peters Pare Keiha Linda Smith Piri Sciascia Hirini Matunga and Darryn Russell. They are all people whose opinion I hold in high regard. 
Finally I bring to the attention of the House the fact that at the hui-a-motu held earlier this month for komiti Maori within the Tertiary Education Union members voted to oppose this bill. I spoke at the hui and I have been advised that the hui resolved to support the position of the New Zealand University Students Association and Te Mana Akonga which is: “the current legislative framework is both flexible and inclusive allowing for both voluntary and universal membership of students’ associations.” 
We support the position of students. In recognition of the views of the people most affected we therefore opt in to maintain the status quo and we the Maori Party opt out of supporting this bill. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on this Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I question though why we are having this debate in the first place. Last time I checked I had not seen any students marching on to the forecourt of Parliament to request that this bill be put before the House. In fact the last time that I saw students marching on Parliament it was about astronomical student debt not about student union membership. 
This is a misguided and unnecessary bill which has been brought before us by Sir Roger Douglas and I wonder what his motives were. Perhaps Mr Douglas reviewed the hall of fame of other members of Parliament who have put forward this measure before. Let us just run through that hall of fame. First there was Tony Steel MP who suggested that we should have such a measure then ironically it was Donna Awatere Huata who put forward this measure and then—wait for it—Michael Laws suggested that we do the same thing. And now we have Roger Douglas who has also suggested it. I will give that group of MPs the charity of my silence and not comment on their past careers. 
This bill is not about choice. This bill is not about choice because if it were students would have been asked to some degree about their level of support for it. This bill is not about rights. If it were about rights we would be discussing an issue like free education or we might be discussing an issue like the right to lifelong learning which has also been stripped away and undermined by this House and by this Government. This bill is about neither of those arguments. It is about ACT’s ideology plain and simple and the Nats have jumped on the bandwagon. 
Unlike the member who is in charge of this bill I can speak from some experience having attended a university that looked at voluntary student union membership. I was at Waikato University in the 1990s. I was not a student politician—I want to make that clear—I was a student. I was an observer of what happened and I voted in the election that eventually led to that university being the first in 70 years I believe to go voluntary. I inform members of this House that it was the first university to go back to universal membership because it learnt that it was a disaster to move to a voluntary system. 
But I would also like members to reflect on the fact that this happened only after all of the services that those students had benefited from had collapsed. Those were services that Roger Douglas would not have required when he attended university. When Mr Douglas used the education system tertiary education was free. Student debt was not astronomical. When Mr Douglas was at university young people were not accessing food banks students were not seeking emergency housing and students were not accessing a hardship fund. Students did not require the services that they require today. That is the utter hypocrisy of this bill. All of these services are now provided by students associations because they are necessary and they are services that that member never ever needed. 
This bill is not about choice. Students have choice already and universities have demonstrated that they are fully able to exercise that choice when and if they require it. I say again that they have learnt the lesson that the system they have is working for them. If they make the choice to have a referendum and they stick with universal student union membership then that is a collective choice that they have made together. After they have made that collective choice all of the services that then flow from it benefit that collective and that choice is still there. That is democracy at work plain and simple. The idea of collectivism might be a bit complex for members opposite to grasp but it works. 
It is an absolute shame that we are debating this bill in the House. It is a shame that we are distracted from the real issues in tertiary education that we should be discussing. It is a shame that that member sees fit to impose on students without giving them a choice and without giving them a debate a shameful bill like this one. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 National supports the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill going to the Education and Science Committee. We will listen to the views of submitters and we encourage students in particular to make their views loud and clear. We support the bill going to the select committee. Thank you. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 I will take up one or two of the points that were made. The first point I take up is about the referendum. The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is about individual rights which Labour members do not seem to understand. The idea that rights can be upheld only by majority rule is about mob rule rather than anything else. 
Members opposite talked about the fact that students associations delivered vital services and that those services would no longer be available. Let us think about that. In the first place many of those services such as student health counselling etc. are funded from a levy raised by the university not by the association. It is precisely because those associations are somewhat inept that the university takes on that role. In the second place there is nothing to stop voluntary associations from providing vital services. Members of the association could be given membership cards that allow them access to certain services free at the point of consumption. The Automobile Association does exactly that and so do the trade unions. Why is it beyond students associations? In the third place many of the social services such as orientation run at a profit so they will continue anyway. 
It is funny but exactly the same arguments we heard this afternoon were made when unions became voluntary. Since then the sky somehow has not fallen in; unions still exist and many of them do a good job for their members. 
Chris Hipkins said that ACT is trying to deny students a voice. Nothing could be further from the truth. But let us understand that students do not speak with one voice. Like any other group in society many students think many different things. Voluntary student membership gives a voice to every student and that is what Labour wants to deny. Voluntary membership does not give a voice to just the few who control the association; it gives a voice to every student not just a few. 
In addition the fact that these associations are voluntary will give them respect and mana. Currently they can be dismissed and they are dismissed as organisations that students are forced to join rather than their being a genuinely representative group. Under voluntary membership that will change. 
In conclusion I make three points. Firstly no individual should be forced against his or her will to fund the kind of political campaign engaged in by students associations. Secondly no individual should be forced against his or her will to pay for private services that he or she does not use or does not want to use. Thirdly no individual should be forced against his or her will to associate with others if he or she does not want to. I commend the bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee. 
Inquiries 
Consideration of Report of Officers of Parliament Committee Inquiry into Appointment of Controller and Auditor-General 
No member having risen members’ order of the day No. 3 for consideration of the report of the Officers of Parliament Committee on the inquiry into the appointment of a Controller and Auditor-General was discharged. 
Reports 
Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee on Report from Controller and Auditor-General on Statements of Intent: Examples of Reporting Practice 
No member having risen members’ order of the day No. 4 for consideration of the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee on the report from the Controller and Auditor-General on statements of intent: examples of reporting practice was discharged. 
Sittings of the House 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House to now adjourn. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
The House adjourned at 5.56 p.m.