Volume 669 Week 61 - Tuesday 23 November 2010 
Volume 669 Week 61 - Tuesday 23 November 2010 
[Volume:669;Page:15637] 
Tuesday 23 November 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
Pike River Mine West Coast—Explosion 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice relating to the tragedy at the Pike River coalmine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That the House express its concern to all those involved in the Pike River mine explosion—the miners themselves those battling to save them their families and friends and the people of New Zealand who are waiting and watching with increasing distress as this tragedy unfolds. 
 At approximately 3.45 p.m. on the afternoon of Friday 19 November a large underground explosion tore through the Pike River mine 46 kilometres north of Greymouth on the West Coast of the South Island. Thirty-one men were in the mine at the time of the explosion. Two men Daniel Rockhouse and Russell Smith escaped through a service portal and walked 1.5 kilometres to safety. Twenty-nine others—24 New Zealanders two Australians two Britons and one South African—have not emerged from the mine. These men range in age from 17 to 62. They are fathers sons husbands brothers uncles loved family members and friends. They are trapped in the mine separated from their families and we all want them to come home. 
A search and rescue operation is under way. But at this point rescuers are unable to enter the mine due to the volatile nature of the mine environment and the risks of further explosions. The search and rescue effort is being spearheaded by the New Zealand Police. They are working with and calling on the resources of a number of agencies including the staff of Pike River Coal and other mining operations New Zealand Mines Rescue the New Zealand Defence Force and a number of Government departments. The rescue team is also accessing the best advice expertise and practical assistance from throughout the world. 
At this point it is simply too dangerous for anyone to enter the mine to ascertain what has happened to the 29 men. I personally spoke to members of the rescue team when I was in Greymouth yesterday; they are unquestionably brave people. They themselves agree however that it is simply too risky to enter the volatile mine environment right now. 
Our thoughts right now are with the miners’ families and the sense of helplessness they must be feeling. We share their frustration. We too are impatient to see a rescue team sent in. But we realise that the toxic and potentially explosive gases could cause more casualties too. Later today the hole being bored will hopefully offer information on the kinds of gases that are trapped in the mine. It may allow access to video imaging of what is going on down there and it will possibly reveal the fate of those trapped there. It will provide further information to help the rescue team as they decide on the best course of action. 
We hope and pray that the missing men are alive and well but given that we have not had contact with the men for nearly 4 days the situation remains grave. Although we must stay optimistic police are now planning for the possible loss of life. 
Our thoughts go out to the miners and their loved ones. Our hearts also go out to the entire community that is affected by these events. Everyone in the surrounding town knows someone who is down that mine. Through my two trips to the West Coast since the explosion I have been especially impressed by the way the tight-knit community has pulled together to endure this tragedy. I am truly humbled by the level of support respect and understanding they show as they endure shoulder to shoulder heart to heart this dreadful excruciatingly long wait. 
I have also been heartened to see the offers of support flow in from around the country and the world. Volunteers are working with the families Air New Zealand has sent in expert staff and many others are working to assist. Messages of sympathy support and compassion have arrived from international leaders and dignitaries. I have also been impressed by the solidarity and camaraderie shown by the national and international mining community. These are men who live with risk every day of their lives. They look out for each other in the same way that a father looks out for his son. They are tough resourceful and stoic. 
As a country we have a long history of coalmining and an incident like this is the worst nightmare of those who work in the industry. Obviously in due course inquiries and investigations will be necessary to answer the questions about why this event occurred and how we can prevent anything like it occurring again. Right now as we all await updates on the situation our thoughts and hopes go out to the community and families of all those who are suffering unbearable anxiety and distress as they wait for information about their loved ones. As John Milton once said: “They also serve who only stand and wait.” 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party I support that motion. To the families facing the awful uncertainty of what has happened to their loved ones we in the House today offer our sympathy our solidarity and our prayers. I think the whole of New Zealand is focused on the efforts to effect the recovery and the rescue of those still underground after last Friday’s mine explosion. After 4 days there is undoubtedly growing frustration and even anger that rescuers have been unable to effect a rescue because of the high levels of toxic and volatile gases in the mine. But what I also saw when I visited families in Greymouth on Sunday was incredible bravery and resilience on the part of the partners parents and siblings who are waiting to hear the news of what has happened to their loved ones. I pay tribute to their courage as they seek to balance hope that the rescue might be successful with the awful reality of what the potential consequences might be. The families that I spoke to wanted to express their gratitude to the community that has gathered around them for the flood of support that they were receiving from across New Zealand and indeed for the support that they were receiving from other countries around the world that were offering their help. 
I also want to acknowledge the commitment of those who are trying to achieve the recovery of the miners and those who are helping in other ways: Peter Whittall the Chief Executive Officer of Pike River Coal who is carrying an incredible responsibility and strain police district commander Gary Knowles and the Mines Rescue unit leader Trevor Watts. To Mayor Tony Kokshoorn non-governmental organisations such as the Red Cross St John Victim Support and others the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and local and national companies like Air New Zealand that are offering so much help I thank you for your efforts. 
To all of those in the local community who have offered their help I express my admiration and gratitude. On Friday a new class graduated in catering from the Tai Poutini Polytechnic. By Friday night they were volunteering their efforts to do the catering for the families in their community. 
I also acknowledge my colleagues Damien O’Connor and Rick Barker who have stayed on in Greymouth to help where they can. Both Damien and Rick are born and bred Coasters and they know many of the families who are suffering at this time. 
Today and until the recovery can take place our focus is wholly on the men underground and on their families. But when this phase is over there will need to be a high-level inquiry to determine what happened and why and what we can do to prevent a disaster like this ever happening again. With 21st century technology and safety standards a disaster like this simply should not happen. 
On behalf of the Labour Party which was born in the mines and the towns of the West Coast we offer our love and our support for all of those families who just want to know what has happened to their loved ones. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 Mining culture runs deep on the West Coast. It is an important part of our history and our traditions and it is the breeding ground for some of our values of sticking together bravery self-reliance commitment to social justice and independence. Mining disasters therefore cast a long shadow on the West Coast. Memory of the Strongman disaster in 1967 is still strong and the events at Pike River will have reawakened memories of that disaster and several others since for many of us. These disasters stand in a kind of cultural memory where everyone in our community honours those who have been lost. Right now all of us are standing in solidarity with those who are still in the mine their families and their friends and those who are supporting them. There would not be a family in and around Greymouth where I live without at least some connection to at least someone in the mine and for many of us it is to many of those in the mine. 
Speaking for the Green Party we specifically express our thanks to and our extreme admiration for the Red Cross the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union the company the emergency services the Mines Rescue team and everyone who has so far been involved in providing support and services. I also specifically acknowledge the contribution and the support of the Prime Minister Phil Goff Gerry Brownlee Kate Wilkinson Rick Barker and in particular my fellow Coasters Damien O’Connor and Chris Auchinvole. At a time like this the boundaries between our parties dissolve and I express my thanks for the work they have done on behalf of all of us. I also especially thank and express appreciation for the leadership shown by the Mayor of Grey District Tony Kokshoorn. In this time of crisis Tony has been the voice of our community and it is appreciated by all. 
Both the Prime Minister and the Hon Phil Goff so far have spoken of the feeling of helplessness and I have to say I share it. There have been times over the last few days when I have looked back and wished I had my old job back because then at least I could feel I was doing something useful. That feeling of helplessness and frustration is one that is shared by all. Still I have asked my colleagues on the Coast what message I should be bringing to this discussion this afternoon and the overwhelming message that they have asked me to convey is one of hopefulness and positivity. We know that it is possible for the people down that mine to have survived what has occurred. We must believe that they are alive and that they will come home. Please bring them home. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party to join all other parties in Parliament today to say along with everyone else in Parliament that our hearts and our prayers go out to the miners of Pike River Coal and their families. Today 29 miners face their fifth day in the mine; 29 men—husbands sons and fathers—all of whom are well known within the tight-knit West Coast communities in which they live and work. None of us can imagine what their families and friends are going through right now. On Friday these men left their families as they would have done every day with light-hearted talk of the day ahead and probably just a quick goodbye. We now all know that that was not just another day down the mine. The explosion on late Friday afternoon and the subsequent efforts to rescue the trapped men have left the residents of Greymouth and the entire country anxiously waiting. We wait for every update for each new piece of news hoping for any sign from the mine that the 29 men will return home safe and sound. On behalf of the ACT Party our thoughts go to the men their families their community and the rescue crew who must be champing at the bit. Being forced to wait must surely be heart-wrenching. We all want nothing more than to see those 29 men brought back to the surface alive and well. The ACT Party along with all New Zealanders and members in this House continues to wait and to hope. Our thoughts and our prayers are with you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I rise on behalf of the Maori Party to join with the other parties of this House to express our support for the miners their whanau and the wider community of Te Tai Poutini at this time. 
The West Coast of the South Island has a unique character that is written in the lives of every Coaster. It is a place of unbelievable beauty: the wild untamed bush the fierce waves crashing on the coastline and the rugged landscape of glaciers surging rivers and valleys coming together under the towering gaze of the mighty Southern Alps. This land has been explored by settlers for well over 150 years and well before that by others. It welcomes to its borders the entrepreneurs and adventurers seeking to find greenstone gold timber and coal. It resonates with the pioneering spirit and the resilience of the people who have carved out a distinctive place in our nation’s history. 
But that history unfortunately has also borne the pain all too often of great tragedy. Today that history takes another turn. We in the Maori Party share with every member in this House the agonising pain of the events that have transpired at Pike River. In the last few days I have travelled to Greymouth and have felt the unspeakable sorrow that is etched in the faces of every single person be they official miner rescue team agencies or whanau. As others have said this is an extremely close-knit community and a community whose members place great value on their relationships with each other. Once a Coaster always a Coaster. 
It is a community that has held hope high while also bearing the heaviness of a history that has led them to fear the worst. This is a community devastated by the fatalities of the Strongman Mine disaster of 19 January 1967 the Dobson Mine disaster of 3 December 1926 and the Brunner Mine disaster of 26 March 1896. It is a community peopled by descendants who know the stories of a funeral procession 6000 strong; a community where mass graves at Stillwater Cemetery and Karoro Cemetery mark that tragic past. Now it is a community hoping with every breath that it can summon that there will not be a new date to add to its collective memory—Friday 19 November 2010. 
In the midst of the anguish and fear there is something so moving about the pioneering spirit that re-emerges to support those who are so devastated by the grief of these days. I spoke with Ngati Waewae who are poised ready to go to provide the support the manaakitanga that will be so needed. I have been humbled by the relentless optimism of all those associated at the site. The mining officials have invested every ounce of human energy into preparing for the rescue mission. I have spoken with whanau members with a direct link to the whanau of some of the 29 families involved. They are all on the verge of despair yet they cling valiantly to the hope and faith that will carry them through. 
Our hearts and our aroha are with Te Tai Poutini. We understand the fragile vulnerability of this community and we all must endeavour to do our best to provide the support that is so vital at this time of crisis. There will be plenty of time later for reviews for commissions of inquiry and for questions and media interest to be satisfied but at this time a community is dealing with such an intense and horrific situation that we must caution against any unnecessary or uncalled-for attack. The community just like the mine itself is near the point of explosion. The last thing that any of us would want is for the volatility of this situation to be provoked. There are people who are right on the edge and if I could leave one thought for us all it is that we must apply ourselves to the greatest challenge of this time: to express our compassion our love and our unconditional support to help them all walk through the difficult days ahead. Ma te Atua koutou e manaaki e tiaki i nga wa katoa. 
[ 
God will care and protect you collectively at all times 
.] 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of the Progressive Party to express its support for the Prime Minister’s motion before the House. It is clear that the immediate task is to get to the miners and rescue them. We must at the same time support and care for their loved ones their families and friends in every possible way. It is a harrowing time for them waiting hoping and—in quieter moments—despairing at the time it has taken. 
Once this period of waiting is over and the immediate priorities are settled there needs of course to be an intensive inquiry into why this has happened how it has happened and how we can ensure that it does not happen again. Questions over these matters need answers. However now is not the time for them to be answered; there is other work to do. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I join with others who have spoken in support of the motion moved by the Prime Minister a little while ago. New Zealand at the moment is in a state of suspended animation. Everywhere we go there is but one topic of conversation one issue of concern. But the concern and the state of anxiety that we feel is little compared with that being experienced by the families of the affected miners right now. We might feel uncertain on edge anxious and all of the sentiments that have been expressed but that can be multiplied infinitely in terms of the impact it is having on those families who cling minute after minute hour after hour and increasingly day after day to the hope that this will lead to a positive outcome. 
I think all of us would acknowledge that since the tragedy became apparent on Friday afternoon the company the police the rescue authorities and other organisations that have been mentioned today have done a huge job in terms of trying to effect the most effective and safe rescue as quickly as they can. Our patience simply has to endure to allow that effort to continue and hopefully eventually be brought to a satisfactory outcome. 
It is at a time like this that all of us look into the recesses of our own being and reflect upon its impact upon us. In my case—and I obviously was not around at the time—I remember my family talking about the Brunner explosion because my great-grandfather was a mining inspector at that time. I remember my grandfather and his family talking about Strongman. 
When I saw on Saturday the list of people who were missing in the mine at Pike River I saw the name of Milton Osborne who was United Future’s 2005 West Coast - Tasman candidate. All of those types of experiences impact upon all of us as Kiwis. We all have our connections and we all think sometimes “There but for the grace of God go I.” in such circumstances. Well for the 29 affected men and their families last Friday there was not that option. Now we live with the hope that the efforts which are relentless and determined on their part to bring them to safety will succeed. 
As others have said this is not the time for recrimination or investigation—that will come later. The focus at the moment has to be on the rescue operation and bringing that to an efficient hopefully speedy and safe conclusion. But the lessons from this incident will need to be learnt and will need to be put in place in terms of some solution to prevent as my colleague from the Maori Party commented upon a moment ago another name being etched on to that litany of names of West Coast mining disasters. 
Last night there was a poignant scene on television of miners standing by the Strongman memorial looking out over the Tasman Sea. I recall although I do not recall the lines specifically a very moving poem written at the time by the former Labour MP for West Coast Paddy Blanchfield about the Strongman Mine. This tragedy however it unfolds will be similarly remembered. We have to hope for the sake of the men and their families the West Coast community and the mining community generally that this leads to a safe and satisfactory outcome. 
Motion agreed to. 
Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill 
Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion at the Business Committee last week I seek leave for the Electoral (Finance Reform and Advance Voting) Amendment Bill and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill to be treated as cognate bills and to be taken together for the purpose of the debates on their respective second and third readings but with separate questions being proposed on each bill at the conclusion of each debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
New Zealand—Credit Rating 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What factors were identified by Standard and Poor’s that led to them placing New Zealand’s sovereign credit rating on negative watch? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In fact the question is not correct. Standard and Poor’s has not placed New Zealand on negative watch. It has affirmed New Zealand’s existing AA+ rating for foreign currency debt but has placed it on negative outlook and those are considerably different labels. Standard and Poor’s has focused its concerns on two issues: one is the bank credit quality of our Australian banks and the second is New Zealand’s high overseas debt level. Both of those have improved in the last 12 months since Standard and Poor’s last lifted the negative outlook status. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did he not take action in his first Budget to address the savings problems identified by Standard and Poor’s in its first report of December 2008 and does he now consider that taking 2 full years to set up a savings committee is an adequate response? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not agree with that. In our first Budget the Government had to get hold of ever-rising debt levels and ever-rising deficits. New Zealand certainly would have faced the downgrade if we had allowed the forecasts we had inherited to continue. In Budget 2010 we put in place a tax package designed to assist all New Zealanders to increase their level of savings and to discourage excessive consumption and housing speculation. I think that package will turn out to be a pretty important step towards resolving these issues. 
Chris Tremain 
: What else have credit rating agencies said about New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The other credit rating agency Moody’s Investor Service continues to rate New Zealand as Aaa which is the highest available rating. In fact today Moody’s senior credit officer is quoted as saying: “The nation’s performance during the global financial crisis ‘reinforced’ Moody’s Aaa credit rating for New Zealand—the highest possible.” 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How did cutting back KiwiSaver and cancelling contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund contribute to addressing the crucial savings deficit identified by Standard and Poor’s? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the first place there is a significant improvement in New Zealand’s savings rate. New Zealanders are saving considerably more than they were several years ago and they are spending less. In fact that is one of the reasons why the economic recovery has been more moderate than many people expected. In respect of the two schemes the members refers to in both cases the Government was in the position of borrowing considerable amounts of money to put into savings accounts either its own or New Zealanders’ in KiwiSaver and that of course from a national point of view is a false economy. 
Chris Tremain 
: What other factors did Standard and Poor’s highlight in its assessment of New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Standard and Poor’s repeated what it has regarded for a long time as among the many strengths of the New Zealand economy—that is the fiscal credibility of the New Zealand Government and the monetary policy framework. It also noted that in the last 2 years the New Zealand economy has outperformed most advanced economies. It also noted the economy had entered recession in early 2008 before the global financial crisis but had avoided the deep recessions of many other countries. We have only to see the experience of Ireland which has essentially gone broke to see just how bad things could have been. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When Standard and Poor’s said yesterday that New Zealand had “weakened fiscal flexibility” can he explain why he continued with high-income tax cuts that he knew the country could not afford? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because the country could afford them as the member will know because he campaigned on it. The Government put up tax on consumption—that is increased GST—increased the taxation of property and offset those tax increases with cuts in tax on income on savings and on company earnings. It is a largely neutral tax package. The reason we have less fiscal flexibility than Standard and Poor’s would like is twofold: one is because the Government has been committed to supporting this economy through the recession with extensive spending on infrastructure public services and continuing transfers to family budgets such as Working for Families; the second is because the collapse of South Canterbury Finance and the Christchurch earthquake have used up something like $3.5 billion to $4 billion of flexibility we would otherwise have had. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the Prime Minister’s following statements yesterday is true given that they are mutually exclusive: “Nothing that we have seen has changed from our point of view.” “If anything our position looks stronger from our point of view.” or “We accept that we have had to take the earthquake on the balance sheet and accept that tax revenues are a little bit weaker this year.”; if the latter does he consider crashing corporate tax by 22.4 percent below forecasts and GST by 15.8 percent is “a little bit weaker”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister’s remarks sum up the situation which is that nothing material has changed from the point of view of an external credit rating. What has changed is not the situation in New Zealand although there has been some variation with the earthquake and so on but because of the collapse of Ireland the people who lend us money in overseas markets such as the UK and Europe are now much more sensitive to the debt burdens of small economies. That is not a new issue in New Zealand; it is one we have been concerned about for 15 years or so—maybe even 20 years. Although we are in a similar situation those people who lend us what is currently a stock of around $160 billion of debt are more sensitive as to whether we have more debt than a small country can handle. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the statement from Standard and Poor’s on New Zealand’s credit rating outlook which makes no mention whatsoever— 
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. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Notification of Application for Customary Title 
2. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Is it the Government’s intention to notify local residents that the Minister responsible is considering an application to grant iwi customary marine title over the foreshore and seabed of their local beach; if so will the procedure for that notification be set out in the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 An application is made to the High Court and the Minister is not responsible for notifying anyone about the application. The notification procedure is set out in clause 102. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is it the Government’s intention that the Minister will hear before granting an application from the local residents; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I believe that the member is muddling up the procedure. The Minister will not hear any application. As I said applications are made to the High Court. A person wanting to enter into an agreement with the Crown gives notice of an intention to seek an agreement under clause 93(2). 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Before the Minister responsible grants the application is it the Government’s intention that that Minister hear from other people; or how will they get their views put across to the Crown? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Once again the member is muddling up the procedure. The Minister does not grant any application. An agreement is entered into with the Minister on behalf of the Crown and the agreement will be subject to very intensive scrutiny by Cabinet committees and then Cabinet. Then there is a notification procedure for agreements which is set out in clause 95 of the bill. 
Economy—Reports 
3. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yesterday we received a report from the credit-rating agency Standard and Poor’s pointing to the country’s longstanding external imbalances as a risk. The ratings agency concluded that this external debt driven mainly by private sector debt leaves us vulnerable as a country. The Government identified those risks 2 years ago and set out on a programme to address them. Standard and Poor’s noted the New Zealand Government’s commitment to getting back to a Budget surplus by 2016 and acknowledged that New Zealand had outperformed most advanced economies in the past 2 years. However it said that the negative credit-rating outlook reflected risks stemming from long-running external debt particularly the current account deficit and relatively high levels of foreign debt. 
Amy Adams 
: What trends are evident in the external imbalances highlighted by Standard and Poor’s? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Where Standard and Poor’s referred to New Zealand’s savings record we are seeing a few early signs that those indicators are starting to improve. Households are starting to save and reduce debt rather than continue to borrow and spend. It is also evident that our external debt appears to be rising more slowly than we had anticipated. However it will take a concerted effort over a number of years—I would estimate anything from 5 to 8 years—to deal with the longstanding external imbalances. International financial markets are now much more sensitive about how much more debt countries are carrying and whether that debt is growing. On current projections New Zealand’s external debt will continue to grow from around $160 billion currently to somewhere over $200 billion in the next 4 or 5 years. We now have one of the highest rates of external debt in the developed world. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he still maintain that the removal by Standard and Poor’s of the negative watch following his 2009 Budget was a “verdict” on that Budget; if so does he now admit that downgrading the outlook can only be a verdict on the policies he has implemented since that date? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: To the first question yes; in respect of the second question no. Most people who have observed this situation are a bit puzzled. In fact last year we had conditions where the statement that Standard and Poor’s has made might have been warranted but most of the imbalances it refers to in the statement are better now than 12 months ago when it lifted the negative outlook. 
Amy Adams 
: What policies has the Government introduced to address the imbalances highlighted by Standard and Poor’s? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Fixing our external imbalances will take a concerted effort over a period of years and we took some first steps in Budget 2009 when we turned round post-election forecasts of never-ending deficits and ever-increasing Crown debt. That was done to get under control the amount of borrowing the Government itself would need to do in overseas markets. Since then we have taken steps to address the majority of the overseas debt which is held by New Zealand households by following policies that tilt our economy more towards savings investments and exports and away from consumption and excessive property speculation all financed by debt. We will also be picking up the work of the Savings Working Group which expects to report to the Government early in the new year. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Given that he cancelled in Budget 2009 the second and third rounds of his unaffordable tax cuts in part to avoid a credit-rating downgrade by Standard and Poor’s why did he change his mind and bring in unaffordable tax cuts a year later only to receive the negative outlook that he initially sought to avoid? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government cancelled the further rounds of its 2008 tax cuts because we needed to get on top of ever-increasing debt and deficits. Despite the fact that the National Party had promised those tax cuts we felt it would be irresponsible to follow through on them. The tax package announced in Budget 2010 was as I have described to the member a number of times roughly fiscally neutral—that is the tax cuts were financed by an increase in GST and an increase in taxation of property. Most New Zealanders believe that that has been the right thing to do even if they do not feel that they have a whole lot of extra cash in their pockets. 
Early Childhood Education—Minister’s Statements 
4. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all her statements on early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can services now charge an optional fee to families of children accessing 20 hours’ early childhood education if they have more than 80 percent qualified staff despite her statement in Parliament on 26 October repeating her election promise that National would keep 20 hours’ early childhood education including the same fee controls? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government promised that it would retain the subsidies and fee controls that make up 20 hours’ early childhood education. Those fee controls still apply. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why was the  
Early Childhood Education Funding Handbook 
 amended recently removing the fee control that prevented services from charging optional fees for providing qualified staff? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat for that member: the fee controls that would have allowed centres to charge compulsory top-up fees still remain. 
Louise Upston 
: What other statements has the Minister seen about early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have seen one statement from an owner of nine early childhood centres who said in an email to me: “We commend you for the decisions you have made. We have spent years trying to employ fully qualified people in our centres. Some of our difficulties are now being addressed through your policy of 80 percent qualified staff in centres.” 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did a ministry official report to the sector last week that they could now charge fees for providing more than 80 percent qualified staff for children attending under the 20 hours’ early childhood education scheme? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: They have always been able to charge for that as long as the fees are optional. They cannot charge compulsory top-up fees and that has not changed. 
Sue Moroney 
: If she stands by her statement that “Quality early childhood education and care is a high priority for the Government.” will she ensure that the Prime Minister works with the Opposition to find a time for Opposition members to present the 20000 postcards that oppose the budget cuts and call for the target for 100 percent qualified and registered teachers to be reinstated? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have no responsibility for the Prime Minister and if the Opposition members wish to speak to him I am sure he would be willing to make time for them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was straightforward: “Will she work with the Prime Minister?” and that is not the Prime Minister’s responsibility; it is the Minister’s. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member is normally pretty good at picking which questions to make a stand on but forgive me that question contained a fair bit of political content and it received a pretty modest answer in response. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document showing the new requirements under the  
Early Childhood Education Funding Handbook 
 which shows that services can now— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All we need to know is that the document is from the  
Early Childhood Education Funding Handbook 
. Is it? 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that part of the handbook. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kiwifruit  
Pseudomonas Syringae  
pv 
. Actinidiae 
—Government Response 
5. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: What recent developments have there been in response to the kiwifruit disease Psa? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Last Friday night after 2 days of intensive grower consultation the Kiwifruit Industry Advisory Council announced that it strongly supported the $50 million Government and industry plan to aggressively contain the  
Pseudomonas syringae  
pv.  
Actinidiae ( 
Psa) disease. This is great news and gives the green light for the fight against Psa to get under way. The response is a first-rate example of Government and industry working in partnership in real time to tackle an urgent and serious biosecurity issue. 
Todd McClay 
: What are the next steps in the Psa response? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: With funding approved from both industry and Government the aggressive containment strategy is now under way. A technical advisory group has been convened and vine prunings from quarantined orchards are being incinerated or deep buried by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry at a site near Te Puke. As of yesterday evening 61 properties have tested positive for Psa with the vast majority of those properties centred in the Te Puke region. This is the approximate level of spread that had been anticipated within the agreed response plan. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Has he made any commitment to kiwifruit growers that he will reinstate the 54 front-line biosecurity jobs that were cut last year? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No. 
Health Care—Prioritisation of All Communities 
6. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Are all communities his priority for better sooner more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government wants all communities to receive the best possible health services. How these are provided at different communities will change over time as we are seeing for example in Taihape where the individual circumstances of a contracted provider can mean that services need to be provided in a different way. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he told district health boards earlier this year that 2010 would see him target primary care did he mean target it for scrapping including stripping elderly couple Joan and Lou Campbell of their right to live near their daughter in Taihape? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This is of course a concerning time for the people of Taihape. When a provider cannot carry on then there is always uncertainty. What is certain is that the Whanganui District Health Board is working closely with the liquidator the primary health organisation and other interested parties to ensure that the health needs of the community particularly those of the elderly are met. The district health board has been working with the trust to help it to get on to a firmer financial footing including writing off back rents of $450000 and providing outside financial expertise and other support over and above the normal payment for services. I am advised that this additional support totals over $1 million. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How does making front-line nurse Donna Wood and midwife Angelique Tucker redundant and leaving their community in Taihape without their services make anything more convenient for local residents? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is very important that the member understands the full transitional arrangements that are under way. It is proposed that the midwives will be employed by a different entity. The district health board advises that the primary maternity services will continue and that the families of Taihape will receive the same services from the same midwives in the facility. The district health board has been working very closely with the trust and when a provider cannot carry on it is always a difficult time for a community. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Are all communities in the Wellington region a priority for better health care; if so what decisions have been made to deliver this? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes; and yesterday the Government announced the chairs the deputy chairs and members of the district health boards including a joint chair for the Hutt Valley District Health Board and the Capital and Coast District Health Board. This is part of the Government’s drive for closer collaboration between the boards to improve services for patients. These two boards are dependent on each other to be successful. Last year 2600 Hutt Valley patients had operations in Wellington and 1300 Wellington people had procedures in the Hutt Valley. It makes a lot of sense for these boards to work well with each other. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why did John Key promise Taihape residents on his visit just 1 month ago that everything would be all right yet now the locals are facing the closure of their health centre with a loss of 50 jobs and all the services they provide including primary care maternity services community nursing allied health services and the closure of their only rest home? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The premise of the member’s question is not correct. The fact is that services in Taihape are going through a period of transition because the provider cannot carry on. The district health board was prepared for example to put almost $400000 extra in on an ongoing basis. But arrangements are being put in place to make sure that services can continue as best they can and the people of Taihape will be kept fully informed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: When he told the House on 29 July 2010 in response to my question about the termination of after-hour general practitioner services in Rangiora: “… I am advised that discussions are under way between Pegasus Health St John and the acute demand programme about improving services in that area and that we hope there will be some announcements following that shortly.” was he aware that the services in the deal that he and his colleague Kate Wilkinson were claiming to have brokered already existed; and does he really think that over 8200 people who signed a petition calling for the Government to reinstate a service they have had for over 22 years will not see through his and his colleague’s false promises? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The premise of the member’s question is simply not correct. Those services may have existed in Christchurch but they did not necessarily exist in the area of debate at the moment. They are working very closely to improve the situation there and I think there will be an outcome that is very positive for the community. 
Commerce Commissions New Zealand and Australia—Cross-appointments of Members 
7. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What recent steps has the Government taken to enhance cooperation and coordination between New Zealand and Australian competition regulators? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Today I can advise that the New Zealand Government and the Australian Government have finalised cross-appointments between the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the New Zealand Commerce Commission. Dr Mark Berry the chair of the New Zealand Commerce Commission has been appointed to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission as an associate member and Dr Jill Walker a member of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has been appointed to the New Zealand Commerce Commission also as an associate member. Cross-appointments will improve consistency in the way the two regulators approach similar interests and issues under competition and consumer law. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does this announcement fit into the single economic market work programme? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: This cross-appointment is one of the key regulatory outcomes under the single economic market outcomes framework identified in the joint statement of intent by New Zealand and Australian Prime Ministers. That framework is now reflected in the revised Memorandum of Understanding on Coordination of Business Law as we continue to deepen the economic relationships between the two countries. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why if he is committed to enhancing cooperation and coordination between competition regulators has he introduced a bill that will place completely different obligations on our respective stock exchanges which appears to breach the very competition principles the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the New Zealand Commerce Commission are designed to protect? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I do not accept that assertion from the member but I am confident that the smarter members of the Commerce Committee will be able to work that out. 
Environment Canterbury—Assessment of Commissioners’ Performance 
8. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What measures if any have been put in place by which to assess the performance of the commissioners appointed to replace the elected Canterbury Regional Council? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Key measures for the Government are improved water and resource management in Canterbury. Despite it being 19 years since the Resource Management Act was passed and over half the allocated hydro and irrigation water in New Zealand being in Canterbury the previous elected council failed to provide an operative water plan. Good progress has been made with the commissioners notifying the decision on the natural resources plan in October. I also note that in 2008 Environment Canterbury had the worst record for resource consent processing of 84 councils with only 29 percent complying with statutory time frames. I note that in the first quarter of this financial year that percentage improved to 95 percent. A further key measure in respect of water quality is compliance with resource consents. These have improved from 43 percent in 2009 to 59 percent in 2010. I also note the huge progress that the commissioners have made in putting in place the Canterbury Water Management Strategy with five zone committees having been set up. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he agree with the decision of his Government-appointed commissioners to sack the seven staff involved in the Clean Heat project which has improved Christchurch’s air quality and assisted almost 19000 homeowners to install cleaner heating and to insulate their homes; if so how will their sacking and the delaying of air quality standards keep pressure on councils such as Environment Canterbury to quote the Minister’s own words to “improve air quality at the fastest practical rate to minimise harm and to protect the public health” of communities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The question the member has raised really highlights the difference between the Government and the Opposition and it is this. What will make a difference to air quality is installing more Clean Heat systems and the interesting thing is that over five times as many new Clean Heat systems have been put in place under this Government in 2 years than were put in place under the previous Labour Government in 9 years. It is Clean Heat devices not bureaucrats that will clean up the air in Christchurch. 
Colin King 
: Has the Minister received any further advice from the commissioners and the Hurunui-Waiau zone committee on the additional steps necessary to ensure an orderly and sustainable development of water resources in North Canterbury? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yesterday I received a formal application from the commissioners to extend the moratorium on the Hurunui River to include the adjacent Waiau catchment. Today after consultation with Cabinet and caucus I have approved this proposal. I note that such a moratorium in Canterbury is possible only because of the special Environment Canterbury legislation that was passed by this Government and that is enabling a far more orderly approach to irrigation development in Canterbury. This moratorium will stop a “first in first served” rush for the considerable water that is available from the Waiau and will enable the Hurunui-Waiau zone committee which was set up under the Canterbury Water Management Strategy to develop a sensible and balanced water plan for North Canterbury. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the operation of Environment Canterbury in relation to the statement on the front page of the  
Press 
 that the sting operation that saw 28 buses immediately ordered off Christchurch roads last week was prompted by letters to the editor and “If it wasn’t for the letters to the editor this would not have come to our attention.” in light of the fact that Environment Canterbury had been receiving complaints from the public ever since the new tenders were let? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government does have concerns about the recent performance of public bus services in Canterbury particularly in respect of Christchurch Bus Services. I would note that the decisions over those contracts were made by the previous elected council not by the commissioners. I think the commissioners have played quite an important role in that they have enabled Go Bus in Hamilton to buy out Christchurch Bus Services and I am hopeful that we will see an improvement in the quality of service as a consequence of that change. The issue of who manages bus service contracts in Canterbury was highlighted in the investigation led by Wyatt Creech. It is the Government’s intention with Environment Canterbury’s commissioners to have a wider review of what is the best way in which we can sensibly manage ongoing bus service contracts in Canterbury. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That answer was interesting but it was not an answer to the question I asked. The question I asked was who was being held accountable for the fact that the police did the investigation or the sting operation as a result of letters to the editor— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must confess I find it difficult to understand exactly the member’s question because what she just told the House now does not seem totally consistent with what she asked. She did mention a sting in her original question but I do not remember her mentioning a police investigation but I might be wrong. What I will do is allow her to repeat her question but if it contains politics I will not ask the Minister to answer any further. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is he aware that the police said that the sting operation that saw 28 buses immediately ordered off Christchurch roads last week was prompted by letters to the editor—and the quote on the front page of the paper was: “If it wasn’t for the letters to the editor this would not have come to our attention.”—in light of the fact that Environment Canterbury had been receiving complaints from the public ever since the new tenders were let? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is a very important principle in this country that decisions to prosecute are made by the police without influence from elected representatives. The member or others may have concerns about the enforcement by the police but I actually commend the police for their operation in respect of the buses and I am surprised that members opposite would be asking for either Environment Canterbury or Ministers to be interfering in the independent prosecution decisions of the New Zealand Police. 
Brendon Burns 
: Has the Minister now seen the comments of the Prime Minister John Key in February that he wants to see new water schemes in place in Canterbury next year; and given that he as Minister cannot get new environmental controls in place within that time frame does that political agenda not leave the Environment Canterbury commissioners up an increasingly dirty creek without a paddle? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would point out firstly that under the commissioners’ compliance with resource consents has substantially improved—substantially improved—and I thought that members opposite would welcome that. I also note that under the previous Government only 29 percent of resource consents were being processed on time and that figure is now 95 percent—95 percent—and I thought that would be welcomed by members of this House. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect my question was about what— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully this time and the member talked about someone being up a dirty creek without a paddle. If he injects that kind of language into a question the Minister is pretty much at liberty to answer however he sees fit. 
Lincoln University and Telford Rural Polytechnic—Merger 
9. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What benefits will be realised from the merger between Lincoln University and Telford Polytechnic? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Students will benefit from the creation of one larger institution with a stronger base to support education and research in the land-based sector. Having a specialist research and teaching university combining the best of Lincoln University and Telford Rural Polytechnic will improve the speed reach and effectiveness of knowledge transfer as we continue to build up our skills base to support the export-led recovery. 
Colin King 
: What can students expect from a combined institution? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Effective from 1 January next year the merged entity will provide quality land-based training for around 3600 full-time domestic students. Lincoln University will retain Telford Rural Polytechnic’s sub-degree courses but also provide students at the southern campus with access to higher-level study especially in agriculture and agricultural science. With the combined scale the institution will be more efficient and more effective bringing better results for students and for taxpayers who fund the tertiary education system. 
Free-trade Agreements—Legal Suits for Breaches 
10. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his comment in relation to claims that investors are able to sue Governments for breaches of free-trade agreements that such claims are “far-fetched”? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: Yes. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement have provisions that allow investors to sue the New Zealand Government? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The provisions negotiated—and I congratulate the previous Government on negotiating these safeguards—allow investors to raise issues of concern but there are very careful safeguards in that agreement and the agreement has worked extremely satisfactorily. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the Minister has just agreed that the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement has provisions that allow investors to sue the New Zealand Government how can it possibly be true that claims that such provisions exist are “far-fetched”? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Because they are far-fetched. They are deeply implausible. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not hear the end of the Minister’s answer. I wonder whether the Minister could repeat the end of his answer; I could not hear it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a fair request. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I redefined “far-fetched” as deeply implausible. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If a Chinese corporation were to sue New Zealand under the investor-State disputes mechanism of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement would the case be heard in New Zealand? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister I ask members on the front benches to please cease their interjections. I am struggling to hear. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Detailed provisions in the relevant articles—I think they are articles 152 and 153—set out our procedures. At the very end of the day there is provision for a neutral observer to come in and make a judgment but we have never encountered that and I do not expect to. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether this case would be heard in New Zealand; I do not believe the Minister addressed that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can repeat his question so there can be no uncertainty. The noise level meant that I was struggling to hear. I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If a Chinese corporation were to sue New Zealand under the investor-State disputes mechanism of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement would the case be heard in New Zealand? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Not necessarily; it could be held in Beijing. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that under article 153 of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement the dispute would be heard under the auspices of the World Bank or the United Nations and there is absolutely no guarantee at all that it would be heard in New Zealand? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: There are detailed provisions in the agreement. There are adequate safeguards to protect the sovereignty of the New Zealand Government and we are very happy with the way the agreement is proceeding. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very specific non-political question about a specific provision of the free-trade agreement: where the dispute would be heard. I asked whether the Minister agreed that article 153 states that it would be heard under the auspices of the World Bank or the United Nations. It is a simple question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But the member went on to ask if I remember correctly whether that meant that it would not necessarily be heard in New Zealand. The Minister already answered that question; he had already indicated that it could be held offshore. The answer to the previous question covered that and that is why I believe the Minister had answered the question. He has already acknowledged that it could be held offshore. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his comment that he would rule out signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it includes investor-State disputes mechanisms that allow investors to sue Governments? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: The Prime Minister has regarded this as far-fetched. I do not recall the statement that the member uses being used by the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member on this occasion to repeat his question. As I understood it that question was not referring to the Prime Minister’s statement; it was actually asking specifically with regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership provisions. I invite Dr Russel Norman to repeat his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Let me attempt to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have invited the member to repeat his question and he should respect that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he rule out signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership if it includes investor-State disputes mechanisms that allow investors to sue Governments? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: We will look carefully at these provisions—they are not yet negotiated—and we will give an unqualified assurance to the New Zealand public that we will carefully safeguard the sovereignty of New Zealand to entertain good public policy in accordance with the principles of open government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will the Prime Minister rule out signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the agreement includes investor-State disputes mechanisms that allow investors to sue Governments—yes or no? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: I have already answered that question. We are dealing with a hypothetical situation. The Prime Minister has made the Government’s position quite clear. This is a far-fetched hypothetical hunt and I will not go beyond the statements the Prime Minister has issued. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table chapter 11 section 2 of the New Zealand China free-trade agreement called “Investor-State Dispute Settlement”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table part of that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table all the cases that have been lost under the North America Free Trade Agreement in which corporations have sued Governments and won many hundreds of millions of dollars— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is this document? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It is a table of North America Free Trade Agreement chapter 11 cases published in November 2010. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Prime Minister’s comments about investor-State dispute resolution mechanisms. They are not publicly available otherwise; we transcribed them from the videotape. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Early Childhood Education Limited-attendance Centres—Police Checks on Carers 
11. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her statement made during the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill (No 2) that “it’s not intended” that the bill remove the requirement for carers at limited attendance centres to have police checks? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. However I am advised that it is not appropriate for these requirements to be in the Education Act as these are not providers of early childhood education but simply creche or babysitting services in places like gyms and malls where parents choose to leave their children for an hour or two. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she suggesting that individual parents should ask the carers whether they are paedophiles and does she seriously think they will get honest answers? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Whose responsibility is it then to ensure that these carers are not convicted sex offenders? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There are a number of legislative requirements that will continue to apply to this type of short-term child-minding. There is also an onus on the creche providers via contractual obligations to parents to ensure that they provide an environment suitable for the safety and well-being of children in their care. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which parents sign a contractual obligation with a gym when they drop their kids off for 1 hour? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is my understanding that they do not have to sign anything. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will she take responsibility—to the parents—for the first case of a convicted sex offender being allowed to be a carer as a result of the changes that she has made in the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I find the implication of that question absolutely offensive. The bill is making a distinction between an early childhood education centre and a creche or a babysitting service that is in a gym or in a shopping centre where a parent leaves their child for a small period of time. Often they have sight of that child—constantly. The parent has the responsibility to ensure that they are leaving their children—and this Government trusts parents to make those decisions—in a safe environment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister not understand that she is not trusting parents but she is trusting sex offenders because they will no longer have to have police clearances because of the changes she is making? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Mr Speaker I seek your help. I find that question absolutely offensive. I am not trusting sex offenders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been well established and accepted by the Minister that she is removing the protection that stops sex offenders from working as carers in gymnasia and shoppers’ creches. She is saying we should trust the parents when in fact what she is saying is that we should trust the sex offenders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not a point of order. I listened to the member because I know that the member is not satisfied with the Minister’s answer and I was listening to try to assess the basis of the dissatisfaction. The question contained an element of accusation that the Minister found objectionable. If it were possible to frame questions that—forgive me; time has passed. I am not sure whether it was the question that started with: “Does the Minister not understand” and forgive me if it was not the way this one started. But usually that kind of construction for a question is intended to make a statement and previous Speakers have just ruled that kind of question out of order. But given the way the Minister has responded to the question I think that rather than ask the Minister to answer it further the member could ask a supplementary question as he has more available. Framing a question that is asking rather than making a statement that the Minister finds offensive would be a better way to proceed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to be clear. Are you ruling my supplementary question out of order on the point of order from the Minister or are you asking me to rephrase it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I am ruling that I will not ask the Minister to answer it any further. Her answer was that she found it offensive and that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She took a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister was answering. I did not call the Minister on a point of order. I called her to answer the question. Let me come back to the Minister. Did the Minister take a point of order or did she answer the question? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I answered the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has indicated that she answered the question. [ 
Interruption 
] That member has been around the House for a while and she will not interject when a point of order is being dealt with. If I remember the question correctly it went along the lines of: “Does the Minister not understand” something and the Minister objected to that and said she found the question offensive. Under the circumstances I am accepting that as a reasonable answer. I am saying to the member that the subject area is certainly not out of order. As I understand the question it appears that there might be an amendment or it is intended that there be an amendment—or there is an Education Amendment Bill (No 2) that does something. The subject matter is a perfectly legitimate area to question a Minister on. But the questions should not be of that nature especially with this kind of issue. By and large questions that say: “Does the Minister not understand” something are not proper questions at all. They are simply a means to make a statement and the Minister found that statement offensive and that is why I am supporting the Minister in her answer. But the member has further supplementary questions to pursue the fundamental issue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister believe that it is desirable for a paedophile to be employed to care for children in a limited attendance centre; if not why has she removed the primary protection against that happening? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Of course I do not support that. However as I have said before the Education Act is not the appropriate place for these types of regulations because those are not providers of early childhood education. I note that the member has been looking at other jurisdictions and I would always be very happy to discuss how other countries have addressed this issue. But in the meantime this is not an issue for the Education Act because they are not providing early childhood education. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why then if it is not appropriate for it to be in the Education Act did she not promote an amendment to another Act where she thinks it is more appropriate when she removed the protection of young children from paedophiles in gymnasia and in shopping centres? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: First of all we are dealing with an Education Amendment Act so I am making changes. One of the difficulties was that the previous Government over-regulated to such an extent that we had to come in and make changes. These were creches. In fact I visited one with the Minister of Maori Affairs—a room no bigger than an average living room with a small section in the corner in full view of the parent where their child was minded while they were exercising. The previous Government put in regulations that required a qualified teacher an education plan and a whole raft of requirements that were way over the top for a couple of hours of child-minding. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very long answer but it did not go to the question which asked why the Minister did not promote an amendment to another Act as she opened up the gap to paedophiles. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last comment should not have been made under a point of order. I heard the question very clearly and I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer. The question asked “Why did she not” and the Minister explained why. It may not be the “why” the member might have expected but it was certainly a reason why. The Minister talked about excessive regulation etc. and that is certainly a reason. Whether it is exactly the reason that satisfies the member I am not sure but the member does have a further supplementary question if he wishes to pursue it further I believe. 
Schools Secondary—Class Sizes 
12. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Has she seen reports that secondary school teachers and principals say that some classes can get as large as 40 and what is the best-practice advice about the relationship of class size to learning outcomes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen some reports from the secondary teachers union along those lines. However the Ministry of Education advises me that no secondary school has contacted it with concerns about classroom overcrowding. Research shows that effective teaching has the biggest single impact on student achievement regardless of class size. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does she agree with a paper presented to the School Staffing Review Group by the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association in June 2000 that there is strong evidence that small classes assist with the academic success of students from low socio-economic backgrounds and what has changed a decade on to suggest that small classes are no longer a priority? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Actually the evidence is very clear that effective teaching is the most important factor in student achievement. Research by Auckland University’s Professor John Hattie has shown that in comparison with other changes that can be made to improve student outcomes and achievement class size has a considerably small effect. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does she support the goals of Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success specifically to increase the effectiveness of teaching and learning for Maori students in years 9 and 10 and how does a class size of 40 enable that goal to be achieved? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Absolutely I support the goals of Ka Hikitia. We must do much better for our Maori students. But as I said to the member in the primary question I have no evidence before me about overly large classes in secondary schools. This Government is investing with the support of the Maori Party in Te Kotahitanga to increase the effectiveness of teaching in secondary schools. The introduction of national standards will ensure that students arrive at secondary school with good literacy and numeracy skills which we know they need in order to remain engaged at secondary school. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she prepared to approach the Minister of Finance for additional funding in order to settle this teacher pay and conditions dispute; if not why not? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: This Government has a responsibility to keep faith with those members of the Public Service who have already settled and who have recognised the very difficult financial times we are facing. So no I will not. 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. I thank my colleagues for supporting the passage of this bill. I also thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee officials and submitters for their work on this bill. The employment reforms contained in the bill reflect the Government’s desire to install confidence in our economy and ensure that New Zealanders get the opportunities they deserve. We are focused on growing our businesses and creating more jobs. 
I am proud to have led the passage of this bill through the House. These changes are moderate pragmatic sensible and fair. They will help New Zealand’s overall productivity and give businesses of all sizes the confidence to seek new opportunities to invest and take on new workers. Over the past 4 months we have seen plenty of debate on these reforms. The focus has almost entirely been on the extension of the 90-day trial period and the requirement that unions ask permission before turning up at a worksite. The rest of the changes have not generated the same degree of attention as they are widely supported. 
I will spend some time discussing the importance of the trial period in particular. Shortly after the 2008 election trial periods for businesses with fewer than 20 employees were introduced. Rather than have the sky falling in as was hysterically proclaimed employers of small and medium sized businesses gained the confidence to hire new employees. It is a fact that without the trial period hundreds of New Zealand workers would not have the jobs they currently do. What we knew was that employers wanted to grow their businesses and invest in more staff but the fear of hiring someone unsuitable put them off. They did not want to face a personal grievance case if the relationship did not work out so they simply chose not to hire anyone. 
When we introduced the 90-day trial period the situation changed. This Government wants to see New Zealanders in work. We want them to succeed in life and we want them to back themselves to succeed in life. We want them to increase their standard of living and that of their families. We want businesses to flourish and invest in their communities not to be too scared to hire someone out of fear it will derail their business. 
The 90-day trial period has been very successful. An evaluation of the operation of trial periods revealed that 40 percent of employers who used it said they would not have or were unlikely to have hired that person without a trial period. Aside from this report I continue to receive positive feedback on this policy. One employer thanked us for introducing the trial period as it allowed them to hire three new farm workers all of whom were unemployed and two of whom had criminal records. There are countless other stories of labourers retail workers and even hairdressers getting jobs. Without the trial period these New Zealanders could still be sitting in the dole queue but instead they grasped an opportunity they might not otherwise have got and they embraced it. 
Extending access to trial periods is about giving all businesses the increased confidence to hire new employees. It is about giving people a chance. This is not a new policy; it is not untested. We know it works because the world has seen it work. We are not even close to leading the world in that regard. Trial periods in some shape or form are utilised throughout the developed world. This policy should have been introduced years ago. New Zealanders understand perfectly how a trial period works: they know that it is voluntary they know it must be agreed to in writing. They know it is their choice as to whether they want to avail themselves of a trial period and they know the benefits of it. 
Skilled or experienced employees are unlikely to ever use a trial period; they will not need to. This policy is not aimed at them. It is aimed at those on the margins of the workforce or those branching out into a new direction who simply need an employer to back them in a new or first job. By extending this provision these people can confidently ask any employer in New Zealand to give them a chance. This is a policy of opportunity and I am proud to have overseen its passage through this House. 
The bill also delivers on the Government’s manifesto commitment to make changes to union access provisions. It recognises employers’ rights to manage access to their workplaces in a reasonable way while still providing unions with the right to access their members. For many employers and unions this amendment will mean very little change to their current practices. This change is a common-sense approach and recognises that where some union representatives have abused the current law they will no longer be able to. Protections for union members are retained by ensuring that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld. Where an employer denies consent but does not provide a written explanation for the grounds for refusal within 2 days the employer would then be subject to a penalty action. 
The Government has made a number of improvements to the way the personal grievance system works in order to address concerns raised by employers and employees earlier this year. We are focused on producing a system that is fairer and more consistent. The changes include fixing the test of justification so that the minimum requirements of a fair and reasonable process are clearer. The Employment Relations Authority will be able to filter out vexatious cases which will help to reduce costs for users. The parties will also be encouraged to attend mediation before going to the authority. The bill provides greater certainty on the process and will reduce the time involved in resolving personal grievances. 
The bill also provides clarity for employers and employees on what communication they may have during collective bargaining and it will improve the operation and efficiency of the employment institutions used by employers and employees to help them resolve employment relationship problems. Finally the bill strengthens the powers of labour inspectors and gives them a range of tools to enforce compliance with employment legislation. Penalties under the Act have also been doubled. 
Overall the changes in this bill will make New Zealand’s employment relations laws fairer for employers and for employees. They provide the foundation for greater economic growth and the creation of increased employment opportunities. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 The first point that I would like to make just quietly is that I think it shows a certain lack of taste on the part of the Government to promote the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) today. If the Government had thought carefully about appropriate legislation to promote while we were having an unfolding situation on the West Coast it would have gone for legislation that was not in the industrial relations area. I think it is sad that it has chosen to do so because it is inevitable that we get into the sort of debate on this sort of legislation that divides us on the very issues that are important to the miners who are stuck there. 
This bill is just a continuation of the National Government’s attack on the rights of wage earners and salary earners and their conditions. Most of the amendments are unfair. They are very unbalanced mainly unnecessary and certainly ideological. We can see that from the fact that they were announced at the National Party conference. These amendments are breaches of undertakings made by the Prime Minister and they were brought forward without proper consultation. They are being made for political reasons and they will not help our economy. Really they are an attack on job security. It is the opposite approach to that being taken for example in Australia which is the country that the Prime Minister lauds as the one that we want to catch up with. The amendments weaken processes around job security. They extend the range of reasons for dismissal. They restrict substantially the right to appeal. They restrict the right to reinstatement which is the primary remedy. 
Once again the Government used urgency to push through industrial relations legislation. It took the original 90-day fire-at-will bill through under urgency and did not even have the select committee process. In the case of this bill it did have a select committee process. I might say that it is one of the first occasions where I have seen the chairperson of a select committee having to write and apologise for the behaviour of a senior Government member at a committee hearing. It shows that the committee was not well organised and not well chaired and this is a contrast to the committee on which I normally sit the Education and Science Committee. I probably have deeper divisions with the individual who chairs the Education and Science Committee but I have no doubt about his competence and his ability to safeguard the parliamentary process in a way that has not been done with this legislation. 
The fact that the Minister chose to progress this bill under urgency and push it through—even though the House probably took longer over it than would otherwise have been the case—is a sign I think of mismanagement. John Key has tried to sell these changes as being part of his plan to grow the economy but he has done so without any evidence whatsoever that they are wanted needed or are likely to be effective. Frankly the fact that these are the ideas he is promoting proves the fact that there is a lack of a real economic plan on the part of National for the recovery of our economy. One only has to look at the report from Standard and Poor’s yesterday afternoon which also highlighted the lack of an economic plan and the lack of a recovery plan on the part of National to the extent that the Government is making moves that will effectively increase interest rates and make us poorer. This is not because of anything that has occurred in the past but because it does not see a future for New Zealand going forward. This sort of attack drives down wages. 
To be fair to National—and to Bill English in particular—it has long been of the opinion that wage and salary conditions in New Zealand are too high and should be driven down especially at the lower levels and this is a tool that it is using to do that. This approach is consistent with the accident compensation changes the holidays legislation—which I will not anticipate because it is on the Order Paper now—the removal of rights to unfair dismissal and the changes to meal breaks. There are a lot of things that over a period of time have become important to New Zealanders and are part of their core arrangements and National has decided to run them down. 
John Key announced—and the Minister Kate Wilkinson is implementing this for him—a restriction on union access. This means for example that a woman worker who is being sexually harassed by an employer has to ask that employer whether the union representative can come to talk about taking a case or getting union protection for that worker. The idea that one has to work through the harasser in order to get protection is something that I am surprised a woman Minister would be prepared to promote. What this bill does is increase the choice for employers by taking away the right from employees. 
Kate Wilkinson’s policy options paper dated 15 May last year states: “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and union members.” It is fair to say that even Business New Zealand has said that restricting union access is not a priority for it and that it does not receive complaints from employers in this particular area. Yet the Prime Minister says that keeping union officials out of workplaces is likely to make the economy more productive. As someone with some experience of this area I tell the Prime Minister that getting union officials in early in disputes getting them in at the beginning and using the problem-solving methods that union officials these days are much more likely to employ makes our economy more productive while leaving areas to fester and to get worse is likely to cause lower productivity going forward. 
The Government has chosen to extend the 90-day fire-at-will scheme and I find that so hard to believe. People believe in trials and people can accept trials but people believe that if someone is dismissed even within a trial period that person has a right to a reason. It is pretty simple: it is a matter of honesty and it is a matter of directness. If someone is to be fired no one is even suggesting that they should be given a good reason or an adequate reason but most Kiwis believe in fairness. Fairness at work involves a person who is being sacked having the right to know why. 
I finish with the point that I made right throughout the debate on this legislation and this point probably comes more from my own economic and economic development background. I believe that this legislation will result in a sticky labour market. It will result in highly qualified people who should be shifting jobs—those who might be earning $100000 to $200000—and who can be more productive in another job and can contribute more to the economy and more to society by shifting jobs choosing not to shift as a result of this legislation. They will not want to put their families at risk and they will not want to put their houses at risk. As a result of this change I think we will have worse productivity not better. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). I congratulate the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson on her leadership in putting this bill through the House and the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who did a fine job in going through the legislation and making any changes that were necessary. To all those who provided form submissions or submitted in person who took their time to show their interest in the bill I say very well done to them as well. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Why didn’t you listen to them? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour members are asking why we did not listen to them. We did listen to them and this bill is the result of that. 
This bill is in the best interests of New Zealand workers and in the best interests of our country and our economy. Labour members will put all the slants they wish on to this bill but in reality it gives people the opportunity to get employment. It gives people within the labour force the flexibility to move in their jobs. Unlike what the previous speaker said they have to agree to be part of this legislation. That agreement will not be forthcoming if people think that in moving they risk losing their position. Labour members will try to put out a lot of fear in regard to this bill and that fear is unnecessary and unjustified. 
This bill is in the best interests of New Zealand workers. It will help in the rebuilding and the recovery of this country. We look forward to its passing through this House and providing an opportunity for many people going forward to get that job and that start in their life that they have so long been wishing for. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) with a very heavy heart. My thoughts and solidarity are with the Pike River miners their families their workmates their fellow union members and of course the Greymouth community. Although we are focused on getting the miners out safely this tragedy has much wider impacts. The workers of Pike River Coal who were not in the mine at the time of the explosion are wondering if they will have a job in the future and now face real uncertainty about their employment. The children and families of other miners in other mines are now fearful about their family members—their sons and fathers—going to work. It must be incredibly frustrating for search and rescue workers and their families. An accident like this shames us all. There will be a time for questions once the recovery of the miners is completed. It is a terrible time for all involved and it will not be quickly forgotten. 
I cannot understand therefore why the Government would think that it was appropriate to have this bill and the employment relations bill to follow debated in the House today. I believe that it is pretty crass and thoughtless to have today the third and final reading debates of these bills which whether the Government admits it or not are stripping away workers’ rights. I can only think that it is because this Government does not really appreciate the contribution and the terrible sacrifice sometimes that workers make in playing their part in our businesses and in the economy. 
This bill is a backward step in New Zealand employment relations. The Government has failed to make the case that any parts of this bill particularly the provisions on access the 90-day trial extension and the changes to personal grievance measures are needed. The Minister of Labour’s own department the Department of Labour raised real questions about the necessity of any of these measures and Treasury even though it supported the bill in principle stated that there was a real lack of robust evidence for it. It is bad lawmaking when we rush into something on the whim of an idea without the proper research and without the background. 
Thousands of submitters expressed opposition to this bill but they were ignored; 22000 workers marched and rallied and John Key shrugged. Professor Erling Rasmussen of Auckland University of Technology said that New Zealand is now under this bill one step closer to an American hire-and-fire model. He also argued that it is difficult to see how the bill will improve the productive employment relationships of well-organised employers. He stated: “This appears to be a clear hand-up for disorganised incompetent employers … This is not just a whittling away of employee rights; it heralds a fundamental shift in employer-employee relationships in New Zealand workplaces.” He went on to state that it was not “a trivial change to employment relations” and that “Even under the hated Employment Contracts Act 1991 this was not a feasible option for low paying high turnover employers.” Even the professionals are questioning the bill. 
I noticed that in her speech the Minister called opposition to the 90-day trial period and other measures “hysterical”. I find that incredibly insulting. As I said earlier the research by the Minister’s own department on the 90-day extension to the trial period was highly flawed. The department managed to speak to 3000 employers but to just 13 workers and even then the department failed to demonstrate that the people the Government was claiming would benefit from the provision of its measures—such as migrants Pasifika Maori and young workers—had actually been given jobs they would not otherwise have been given. 
One of the first workers to take a case under this bill Heather Smith a pharmacy worker has called on Parliament to spare other workers the experience that she suffered under the 90-day fire-at-will law. As we go through the third reading debate I tell members that she has said: “I don’t want what was done to me to happen for many more vulnerable workers in their first 90 days on the job. I was fortunate that the employer in my case made a mistake and enabled me to take a case but if they had done everything according to the 90 day law”—in other words if the employer had got the paperwork right—“I would have had no opportunity to question my sacking.” We can just consider for a moment the impact that that would have had on a young worker such as Heather Smith. She was not allowed to question why she got the sack and would never have known the reason. At every job she went to from that point on there would have been a question about her curriculum vitae and what had happened during that period of her work because she had been with that employer for some time in another workplace. 
People who get fired under this legislation will experience an ongoing impact on their life. Under this bill we are talking about real people and real examples and the fact is that this law will impact on the most vulnerable: those who are least able to question their employers those who are low paid and those who are on a benefit are then sent to a job by Work and Income and are not able to turn it down. It has been confirmed by the Minister of Labour and the Minister for Social Development and Employment that workers in that position cannot turn a job down because a job with a 90-day trial period is treated like any other job. If workers turn a job down they will be stood down from their unemployment benefit. 
The Minister talked again about choice saying that the scheme was voluntary. But what choice does a worker have in that situation? How can that be voluntary? That is utterly ridiculous and as I have said the Government has completely failed to make its case. The provisions on the extension of the 90-day trial period are simply unjustified. We know that the only reason those provisions are being extended to all workplaces is that the Minister has been rolled by the ACT Party. That is what has happened. 
I turn to the provisions on access. The Minister is right in saying that these two provisions have had a lot of attention but that does not mean that there are not a lot of other concerns with this bill. If I have time I will go on to discuss those concerns but first I will talk about what happens with access at the moment. The current law is very very specific about the requirements of a union organiser or representative as they go on to a work site. There are a number of things they have to follow through. The provisions in the Employment Relations Act came about from case law that was developed under the Employment Contracts Act. People are fearful about these provisions because under the Employment Contracts Act which was not nearly as strict as this legislation there was terrible trouble. There were court cases up and down the country. I was involved in one to do with a hotel employer who said that unions were like interfering mothers-in-law and as such should never be allowed in the workplace. He used to go about asking who wanted to see the union and put the names of those people up on the noticeboard. Then when the union organiser came the employer put them into a room after calling them along one by one—people who were worried about their jobs. He exposed them in that way giving them a message that the union was not welcome on the job. That is why people are nervous about access. 
I am also interested in the whole provision on health and safety in relation to access and in why the Minister decided even though she had a draft Cabinet paper provided to her on 11 August by the Department of Labour that access consent would not be required in situations of health and safety. We heard the example from my colleague Trevor Mallard about a worker being sexually harassed but I ask about a situation of health and safety when a union representative is required to come on to the job and deal with a situation that is urgent and needing to be dealt with. There are many many other things which if I had the chance I would talk about. I am concerned about the changes to the test of justification and about the removal of reinstatement as a primary remedy. Clearly I do not have time to go into those issues but they are concerns. This bill is so badly done that it will create a lawyers’ charter and we will pay the price on this bill for years to come. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will continue to oppose the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). It is very clearly anti-union legislation. While listening to National speakers over some time on this legislation and the accompanying Holidays Amendment Bill I have yet to hear any sign that they think unions are good or that they think unions should be promoted. I wish that sometimes National members would say that unions are good and that more people should join them. Instead we have a bill that limits the power of unions making it more difficult for people to join unions and to act effectively in a collective manner within them. 
The basic fact of life is that unions are good for workers. If we look at similar industries we find that the factories or offices that are unionised have better wages and conditions. That is the fundamental thing that happens and it is a good thing. Sometimes there is a conflict of interest between unions and employers. Some employers are good employers and some would rather pay the lowest wage rates possible and get that little bit extra for themselves. Some employers think we do not need unions at all and will try to keep them out of the workplace. We saw the Government encouraging one particular set of employers in the film industry to do that. In the case of what is now known as the “Warners Bill” the Employment Relations (Film Production Work) Amendment Bill effectively the Employment Relations Act was being written out of conditions for workers in the film industry. In the case of any contracts that will occur film industry management will now say that all workers are independent contractors. Workers will have to declare that when they sign contracts and from that point the Employment Relations Act and all their rights as workers in a union sense will no longer apply. 
That is the background to this legislation. The 90-day trial period which is now universalised will give more power to employers against workers and against members of unions. The Minister Kate Wilkinson in her first speech on the bill said she would spend most of her time on the 90-day trial period but she did not mention the fundamental element of this trial period which is that a person can get sacked for no reason whatsoever. We know that the employer does not have to give any reason whatsoever. The Minister did not mention whether for example in the State Service the Government will be allowing unions to negotiate on their contracts. Their members will be excluded from this 90-day provision. That is quite key and I understand that the Government is doing the very opposite; it is telling chief executives not to allow an exclusion of the 90-day provision in the contracts. So this whole talk that the 90-day provision is going to be voluntary and that unions can voluntarily exclude themselves from the 90-day provision is quite wrong. 
Will the Government exclude contracts that say a condition for a person to get a job is whether he or she can sign a contract that does not have a 90-day provision in it or will that person be told that a condition for getting the job is that he or she must have a 90-day trial period? If that is the case then it is not voluntary particularly if Business New Zealand—and I understand it is doing this—is setting up model contracts that include a 90-day provision. People will not have a choice to go to a job with a 90-day provision or without a 90-day provision particularly in a situation of growing unemployment. People will be forced to have a 90-day trial where they can be dismissed at will without any reason given whatsoever. 
The Minister said that the provision does not apply to skilled workers. Why not? I am sure there will be employers who will say they want a 90-day provision in the contract possibly when they are hiring people from overseas. The employer will say “Well I haven’t seen these workers yet. I’m hiring them from the Philippines or China—or somewhere—on a work permit. I’ll make sure there is a 90-day provision so they can be sacked if I don’t like them.” But what does that mean for migrants coming in who are shifting themselves or their families to the other side of the world to get a job in New Zealand? They will be a bit scared of taking up jobs in New Zealand because they could be sacked within the first 90 days. They will probably trot off to Australia or somewhere like that to the disadvantage of New Zealand in terms of skilled migrants coming here. The bill will reduce labour mobility; there is no question of that. If someone in a job has permanent employment and the right to personal grievance if he or she is sacked then that person is liable to stay in that job even if there is a job down the road that is a bit better in terms of skill and in terms of money. Why risk getting sacked in the first 90 days? The bill will be bad for the New Zealand economy in terms of putting people in the right places and in terms of the workforce having the proper level of labour mobility. 
The 90-day provision demoralises people. It is demoralising for people to feel that they have no power in the job in the first 90 days because they can be sacked at will. It is demoralising if people are actually sacked particularly with no reason given. It is demoralising for people to know that when they go to get another job after being sacked within the first 90 days for no reason and the employer asks why they were sacked from the previous job they will not be able to say why they were sacked. They will say “Oh I don’t know. The boss never told me and under the law he didn’t need to tell me.” 
There will be problems for many workers getting benefits. If Work and Income decides even though no reason was explicitly given to a person that somehow from its investigations—or from the employer or whatever else—it thinks the employer had a case to dismiss the person that person will not get a benefit. There will not be any fairness in the process of Work and Income determining that. Then Work and Income will send that person out to get a job and will say that a condition for the person to stay on the benefit is that the person at least has to try for a job and the job has a 90-day trial period. Then it is not voluntary as the person has to go out and at least apply for that job with a 90-day trial period otherwise that person will lose the benefit. So it is very bad in many ways. 
The provision on union access is a provision for mucking unions about so that officials will spend half their time trying to get on to jobs rather than doing the work on the job. I think we have found with the tragedy down in Pike River that the best form of industrial relations is when everyone is working together. As I understand it the Pike River mine is a unionised site under the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union. We have picked up from what is happening down there at the moment that the union the workers and the management—everyone—are working together in a very cooperative way. The other lesson of Pike River—and this is no criticism whatsoever of anyone—is that whenever there is a tragedy people think “Well let’s maximise health and safety; it is important to always maximise that.” To have strong unions working collectively together working with the employer and alerting people to health and safety concerns is always a step forward and helps to avoid disasters. 
A confident workforce is always a better workforce. People are proud of their skills rather than being terrified of what might happen to them in terms of their relationship with employers or 90-day periods or whatever else. A confident workforce with a strong union requires reinstatement as the primary remedy as well because the people who will be sacked and will not be reinstated under this provision will probably be union leaders. That is what will happen. The company will say “I might have to pay a bit to the Employment Court for sacking this person but at least I’ve got rid of the union leaders on the job and perhaps I can get rid of the union altogether.” 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) on behalf of the ACT Party. I begin by congratulating the Minister the Hon Kate Wilkinson on this very good bill. The bill has three main components. The first component extends the 90-day trial period which currently is permitted for employers with 20 or fewer employees to all employers and workplaces. The ACT Party sees this as a very positive move. We are very pleased that the Government listened to the request of the ACT Party to enable this extension to occur. The second part to the bill makes changes to union access to workplaces as we have heard from previous speakers and deals with communications with employees during collective bargaining. The third component of the bill is the definition of the test for justifiability for dismissal or an action by an employer. This clarification by the Minister will also make a significant difference to workplaces. 
I again thank the Minister for listening to the ACT Party particularly in relation to the 90-day trial period component to this bill. The sky did not fall in when the 90-day trial period was introduced for employers with 20 or fewer employees. Nor will the sky fall in now that we have a level playing field and all employers are able to engage employees on the basis of a 90-day trial period. 
We heard a lot from members particularly from the Labour members and the Green member about fairness. I would like to take a moment to talk about fairness. Fairness means fairness for everyone—not just for employees and not just for employers but for everybody. For far too long particularly under the previous Government rights were heavily weighted in terms of employees. If the poor old employer had an employee who did not fit in or who was not able to fulfil the provisions that an employment opportunity might mean the employer still had to maintain that employee. This bill addresses that unfairness. 
We have seen already with the provision for employers with fewer than 20 employees to use a 90-day trial period that those employers are prepared to take a chance on employing somebody because they know that if it does not work out then they can come to an arrangement with the employee whereby he or she does not stay. That means that there are more not fewer opportunities for employees. Somebody who has had difficulty in getting work of any sort somebody who has had difficulty with previous employment but who has managed to turn their life round and somebody who might have developed skills in the interim since the last job will now have an opportunity because employers will be prepared to give them a chance under these provisions. 
We saw particularly with mum and dad businesses under the previous Government that a couple might have a very well-functioning business—it might be tootling along very well—but they were too scared to expand because it meant that they would have to take on employees and they were not sure what they would do if things did not work out. When we saw the initial bill which allowed small business employers to take on somebody with the opportunity of putting in place a 90-day trial we saw people willing to take that risk. That has been of huge benefit not just to employers themselves but to the employees to whom they have given a chance. 
For the most part those employees have stayed on. Why—and this was not explained in the Committee stage particularly when Labour members had every opportunity to do so—would employers get rid of employees who are doing a good job? The answer is that they would not. Employers want to have a well-functioning business they want to have a happy workplace and they want to have employees with skills and experience and who fit in. That is also important because it will give them the ability to increase their productivity. That is what the Opposition does not understand; it does not understand that productivity is important. This bill will help significantly those employers who have more than 20 employees. 
The previous speaker from the Green Party said the House is yet to see any sign that we on this side of the House the Government side have anything good to say about unions. Well I am yet to hear anything good said by the Opposition side of the House about employers. I am not quite sure who they think provides wealth in this country and who provides the jobs but if there are no employers with the ability to make decisions that will benefit their businesses why would anybody bother? Why would anybody take the risk? Why would they bother? 
This is a very good bill. It addresses the three measures that I talked about and the one that we have focused most heavily on is the 90-day trial period. The ACT Party is very proud to have made a significant contribution to workplaces in this country in that regard. We support this bill with great pride. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 When one looks at the explanatory note of this Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) one sees that the general policy statement comes across as extremely positive. It tells us that the purpose of the bill is to provide more flexibility provide greater choice and ensure a balance of fairness for both employers and employees in the principal Act while improving its overall operation and efficiency. 
When we turn to the Maori Party employment relations policy it appears that there is considerable room for comfort if we are to look at our policy in this proposed bill all things being equal. Our policy states that we will support the right for employees to be treated fairly and with dignity in a safe and healthy workplace. But the key statement is “all things being equal”. I refer to comments from a submission from Te Hautu Kahurangi o Aotearoa the Tertiary Education Union of Aotearoa. It states: “This amendment will further turn the balance of power away from employees in particular young and vulnerable employees and those employed in low unionised work sites. Basically the bill will allow employers to dismiss employees without reason or justification clearly contradicting the concept of ‘natural justice’ built up in New Zealand employment law over time through case law.” 
OK so let us look at the current situation for the young and vulnerable employees that Te Hautu Kahurangi o Aotearoa refers to. These are the things that our membership also raises with us when they talk about employment matters. They talk about trade training and work experience and about how we can support our young people into secure and sustainable employment. Our membership comes to us with some amazing ideas like a skills barter system within communities. This would work something along the lines of a carpenter trading some of his or her skills for the skill of a plasterer and vice versa. 
Our members call on us to reduce the unemployment rate amongst Maori and they ask us to fight anti-worker legislation. But guess what? They do not ask us to extend trial periods to all employers. They do not ask us to specify the role and enforcement powers of labour inspectors. They want us to have a mechanism in place by which we resolve employment problems more quickly and more efficiently and of course we want to be more effective in restoring the confidence of all parties in various aspects of employment relationships such as the personal grievance system. We want to do this so that the negative impact of these problems on workplace productivity will be reduced. 
But we also want to talk about the things that really matter to us the things that we as a party believe are critical for us to advance which have to be employment opportunities for our young people. If we look at the demographic profile of our population we know that one in four babies born are now born into tangata whenua homes. But if we look a little further down the life cycle we find that in the latest quarter the unemployment rate for young Maori aged from 15 to 24 has risen from 26.7 percent to 26.8 percent over the year and for our Pasifika young people it has risen from 27.9 percent to 29.8 percent over that same time. In comparison across all young people the unemployment rate is 16.2 percent. 
This is the key issue that confronts our members and it is the key issue that confronts us in this bill. For how can we—indeed how can any members—willingly act in a way that we know will most likely exacerbate the fragile employment status of our most vulnerable? The Maori Party cannot support this bill. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Tena tatou huri noa i to tatou Whare. I am delighted to stand to take a short call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). In recent weeks in the Mana electorate we have been debating a whole range of issues that this bill speaks directly to. In particular they are about how we grow and establish sustainable long-term employment opportunities and how we support businesses—small medium and large—to take risks on employing what otherwise might not be very employable young people. 
We have an unemployment problem which my colleague has outlined statistically and which we experience and observe in the Mana electorate. This bill encourages businesses to take on these young people to give them an opportunity of employment to invest in them and to recognise that with this opportunity young people can join the workforce and participate positively in it. 
I am delighted with this bill. I know small businesses in the Mana electorate that have taken that risk and have been delighted that they have done so. As a result they are building their confidence and encouraging other businesses to do so. Jobs cannot be manufactured out of thin air; they are manufactured out of businesses that are prepared to take that risk. 
As the previous speaker Rahui Katene also said it is not in the interest of any employers to have bad relationships with their employees. It is in the interests of all businesses to attract keep and grow their business through good relationships with their employees. As a business owner in the past I know that we relied absolutely on the quality of the people we employed and that it would have been a very costly matter to find that they did not work out. That is why small businesses are disinclined to take that kind of risk and that is why this bill and the provisions within it help build a stronger more sustainable more successful economy to deal with the opportunities that otherwise might not be available for young and less qualified people. 
I commend this bill to the House and I congratulate the Minister of Labour on her leadership in this area. Kia ora. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 First let me add my voice to that of my colleagues Darien Fenton and Trevor Mallard in relation to the situation in Greymouth with the Pike River miners. Our concern and our solidarity are with those workers their families and their community. 
I stand to speak to what I consider to be one of the most disgraceful bills I have seen come before this House in my time as a member of Parliament the Employment Relations Bill (No 2). It is yet another piece in a concerted attack by this Government on wage earners and salary earners in this country and on their unions. There has been quite a bit of rhetoric about choice and flexibility. Somehow giving employers the absolute right to dismiss for any reason and without workers having any recourse will create jobs! This is just an unbelievable backward-looking archaic attitude to work. I intend in this speech to talk about what reasonable employment legislation—and in fact positive employment legislation—could mean in terms of the future of our workplaces. 
Let me start by talking about some of the particular aspects of this bill. Combined they are unbalanced unfair unjustified and unnecessary. This view was reinforced by many submitters and by the officials who advised the Government. Despite that the Minister of Labour decided to ignore them and to push on with this legislation. I start by saying that this bill is actually contrary to the Act it is amending and I find that a very strange thing indeed. It seems to me that the provisions in this bill do not recognise a fundamental object of the Act—that is that there is an inherent inequality of power in employment relationships. That is a fundamental object in the Act. It is an Act that is designed to build productive employment relationships. I just do not see how the provisions of this bill create productive employment relationships. I will come back to that point. 
Basically work is about relationships. Generally we work with others and we do so for a range of reasons. We go to work to earn money to live. We go to work so that we can contribute our knowledge and our skills. We go to work so that we have social contact with others and so that we are part of our community our society and the economy that then sustains us and our children. We go to work and we expect that we will be treated with respect there. In all my years as a union official money was always an issue for people as they did not necessarily feel that they were paid fairly. But often the biggest issue was about respect and wanting to be treated with respect at work. 
Employment relations legislation exists to outline our rights at work to give us a clear signal of what we as a society think are basic minimums to guarantee those minimum standards and to say: “Look it is not right to employ somebody for less than the minimum wage.” We do not accept as a country that it is right to do that. It is to establish processes and institutions with which to deal with employment relationship problems and it is to provide security and certainty to employees and employers. That is what our legislation should be about. 
Work has a very significant impact on our lives and our families. We want to come home safely and feeling that we have been treated fairly at work. I remember my father saying to me—I can remember this from quite a young age—that the idea was that one does a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay that that was part of the underlying fairness situation in this country and that we had the sort of country where that was a basic tenet. I think we also have a view as New Zealanders that things improve. We expect wages and conditions to improve and our history shows that that is exactly what has happened over an extended period of time. That came to a rapid halt under the last National Government when we went backwards. We reduced wages and conditions under the last National Government and we are doing it again under this National Government. This goes against the notion that I think we should all share: we want things to be better for our children and our grandchildren—better than what we experienced ourselves. 
This legislation is being brought forward by a Government that is supposedly ambitious for New Zealand and is bringing a brighter future to New Zealand but this will not bring a brighter future to our workplaces. This is bringing forth a whole lot of provisions that are most unfortunate most unfair and certainly unbalanced. How can it be part of a successful productive workplace to have provisions like having 90 days at work where workers have no rights not even the right to know why they were dismissed if they are dismissed and no right to challenge a dismissal if it is unfair? How can it be right to have barriers put in the way of workers’ access to union officials when they want them if they have a grievance or as Trevor Mallard said if they are being sexually harassed or if they feel there is a serious health and safety matter as Darien Fenton outlined? How can it be right to remove the right to reinstatement as a primary remedy to be argued for in situations of unjustified dismissal? It is the one remedy that takes workers back to the situation they were in before they were unfairly dismissed. How can any of those things be things we should aspire to in the workplace of the future? They do not create the sorts of positive productive employment relationships that we need as a country. 
The combined effect of these changes will mean that we have different labour markets for those who are skilled and unskilled for those who are new entrants to the workforce versus those who have been around a while and for those who are unionised and non-unionised. That will be really reinforced. It will also mean that the effects will be most strongly felt on those who are already the most vulnerable the most disadvantaged in the workplace. It will make it more difficult to improve wages and conditions. It will lead to increased disputation and it will continue the low productivity in our workplaces that is holding this country back. Low productivity is negative for both employers and employees. 
Overwhelmingly people did not support these changes. There were nearly 8000 submissions and most of the submitters did not support these changes. In response to a survey with a very straight question by the Council of Trade Unions 80 percent of New Zealanders said it was not fair that people should be dismissed in the first 90 days of their employment. Even Department of Labour officials and Treasury officials questioned the value of this legislation and the evidence behind it. 
I want to talk about the kinds of workplaces that we need to be looking at because they are where a Government that was ambitious and wanted a brighter future would be looking. They are workplaces that are more productive and innovative where they actually value people more where the wages are higher where the workforce has more invested in their skills and where as a consequence we get better outcomes that provide greater profitability to employers and sustain the higher wages and conditions that we all want. Those workplaces will need a really determined effort to encourage things like greater capital intensity investment in skills and changing our people management which is very poor. Evidence shows it to be very poor currently and of course we will reinforce bad management behaviour by saying that the worst employers can behave abysmally and sack at will. We need to encourage innovation in our workplace processes and practices and we need to have workforces that are well engaged. That requires unions. The bottom line is that that requires workers to have some sort of collective voice some organisation where they can participate and raise their concerns raise their ideas and negotiate with the employer. 
These unions that many on the other side are more than willing to vilify and use negative stereotypes about are actually key to changing the productivity and improving the productivity in our workplaces. To lift productivity in the workplace we need more industry standards and we need more industry collaboration but most of all we need productive employment relations. We cannot increase productivity by edict—we cannot say: “You will be more productive.” We cannot lift productivity by cutting labour costs or by treating our workforce as commodities. We must invest in improving skills and improving wages and conditions and we must give workers a greater say and commit to having an independent voice for our workforce. Not only is this bill unbalanced unfair unnecessary and unjustified but also it will not lead to the types of productive changes we need in New Zealand. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I also express my support for the West Coast families facing this terrible uncertainty about their loved ones. 
I am pleased to speak to the third reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill is very straightforward. The Government is firmly focused on providing greater choice and creating more opportunities for New Zealanders. The Government is working hard to lift the long-term performance of the economy create more jobs raise living standards and deliver world-class public services to New Zealanders. 
New jobs will not be created unless businesses have confidence and can expand and diversify. It is in businesses’ best interests that they have good relationships with employees and employers hiring and firing at will in a repeated way as members have suggested will happen does not lead to good relationships in the working place let alone productivity. The 90-day trial has encouraged employers to take on new staff and to give people who do not have a work record for whatever reason—such as students migrants and women returning to the workforce—the chance to enter the workforce. This bill is aimed at those at the margins and will give them that opportunity. 
The changes in this bill are both pragmatic and practical with regard to the issues currently facing employees and employers. The bill will reduce compliance costs and give businesses more confidence to grow and take on the staff they need. It will help resolve workplace disputes fast and provide choices for employees. We want our businesses to have confidence to take on the new staff they need to create the productivity we need for this economy to go forward. I commend this bill to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Like my colleagues before me I too extend my thoughts and sympathies to the miners in the Pike River mine disaster and their families. I think they can be well informed that Parliament is very aware of what they are going through and our thoughts are with them as a collective. That is why I agree with my colleague Trevor Mallard; I think it was perhaps a tad inappropriate that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and the bill that is to follow it are being progressed today. Perhaps it would have been more sensitive and appropriate to progress these bills which have relevance for those miners but which are also very political and divisive at a later date. None the less here we are. 
Labour opposes this legislation. It is unfair it is unjustified it is not needed and it will not have the outcomes that the Government claims it will have. In fact we believe it will have exactly the opposite effect. First I point out that this legislation represents yet another broken promise from this National-led Government. When we went through the election campaign National MPs and candidates were at pains to point out that the 90-day fire-at-will period would apply to small businesses only: those with 20 staff or fewer. They said New Zealanders did not need to worry because those would be the only people who were affected and the measure would not be extended any further than that. I sat in candidate meetings where National members and candidates were at pains to point out that this provision would not apply to people employed in much bigger companies. Well here we are today about to pass legislation that represents another broken promise from this National Government because this bill extends the 90-day fire-at-will period to all businesses and all employees in New Zealand. 
Listening to the members opposite I note that they try to insinuate that trial periods did not exist before they came into Government. That is absolutely not true. Under the legislation that the previous Labour Government passed trial periods were allowed as we would expect. This legislation is not actually about trial periods at all which is what members opposite are trying to claim but about whether an employee has any rights at all during a trial period. That is where we part company with the Government on this particular issue because Labour believes that if people are to be fired and have their livelihood taken away from them then it is only fair that they are told why. I look forward to the final National member who is to speak on this bill telling us why those members think it is fair that someone can be fired and not be told why he or she is being fired. 
My other question to National members asks how we can get more productive workplaces if we have legislation that states employees can be fired because presumably they are doing something an employer does not like but the employer does not have to tell them why or give them any opportunity to correct that behaviour. Even if an employer does not want employees to correct their behaviour the employer does not have to tell them what they were doing wrong so that when they apply for their next job they will know why they were fired in the first place. How will workplaces be more productive how will workers be more productive and how will they be able to upskill and make the changes in their work practices that are needed in order to make their workplaces more productive when they do not have to be told why they are being fired? This is a fundamental point about fairness and the difference between members on this side of the House and members on that side of the House. We say it is not fair to pass legislation that states people can be fired for no reason—it is not fair. 
As I said this legislation is not about trial periods. It is actually about legalising discrimination because that is the only difference from the existing law. Most employees and employers have very good working relationships. They do not have to revert to employment law in order to carry out that relationship because it works just fine. We have protections in place for situations where the employment relationship disintegrates and is not working. This legislation states that where for example during the 90-day trial period—or fire-at-will period—the employee joins a union the employer finds out that the employee is a member of the union or of the Labour Party the employer finds out that the employee is gay and has a problem with that or the employee is a woman who gets pregnant within the first 90 days of her employment and the employer suddenly sees a whole raft of costs coming up and maternity leave— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Great story but where are the examples? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: We have given examples I say to Mr Woodhouse. This is classic. Mr Woodhouse asks us to come up with examples. 
I will point something out because members on the other side of the House are out of touch with the reality for workers and with the imbalance of power that exists in the employment relationship. I tell those members that it would be like shooting a hole in one’s CV to come out publicly and say one was fired under a 90-day trial period and it was really unfair and awful. I ask what Mr Woodhouse thinks that would do to that employee’s future prospects. Many workers find it incredibly untenable that they have been fired unfairly during a 90-day trial period but they feel that to come out and do a big hoopla which National says they should have to do in order to have any rights might suggest to another employer that he or she should not to hire that person. The worker wants to get a job to replace the one he or she has been fired from unfairly and to move on. The fact that Mr Woodhouse would even say that and suggest that employees who have been fired should have to come out in the media to defend themselves shows how out of touch his Government is with the reality for workers in New Zealand at the moment. 
I commend those workers who have had the courage to come out knowing that there would be a backlash against them— 
Darien Fenton 
: Knowing they’ll be sneered at by that lot. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: —and knowing that that lot have sneered at and made little of their experiences. I commend those who have come out and told their stories despite the backlash that may occur against them in terms of finding another job. It is not an easy thing to do I tell Mr Woodhouse when one is trying to put food on the table in an ever-decreasing market for jobs and the Government is doing nothing to ensure that one is able to find another job or to make the situation any easier. 
As I was saying all that this bill does is to legalise discrimination. That is the only change to come out of it. Most employees and employers have a good working relationship and will not have to resort to the measures in this legislation but where the employment relationship does not work this bill puts all the onus on the employee and none on the employer. An employee who moves to a new job now carries all the risk whereas we believe that risk should be shared between the employee and the employer in a productive working relationship. 
I will touch on the issue of union access to the workplace. This is another area where we are seeing blind ideology prevail over practicality. There is absolutely no evidence to show that there is a mischief that needs to be remedied. We heard at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the Government has been told that by officials. The Minister when questioned in the House could not come up with examples of issues arising from unions accessing their members in the workplace or more important union members accessing their union that would suggest we need to introduce such a Draconian measure as we are introducing in this legislation. 
As my colleagues who spoke before me have pointed out the Government is saying that when an employee has an issue with his or her employer and wants to get some advice on how to solve the issue—it might be that the employee is being asked to sign a different contract maybe on lower terms and conditions or maybe it is an issue of sexual harassment as my colleague Trevor Mallard has pointed out—the employee now has to get permission from the very person who is causing that problem in order for the union to come in and help the employee to remedy that problem. We have no evidence at all of any abuse by unions of their access to workplaces in New Zealand. Unions need to have good relationships with employers. This is not Soviet era - style politics. I think National still sees unions as the enemy whereas businesses in New Zealand have moved on by and large and see unions as a partner that can provide an awful lot of good in the workplace and can help to lift productivity. National still sees unions as the enemy as a group of individuals out there who criticise it so as with students associations it wants to try to get rid of unions by reducing their ability to properly advocate for their members. Again we ask why we are introducing a measure in this legislation to fix a problem that does not exist. It could result in workers in the most vulnerable situations not having access to the kind of assistance that they should be able to access. 
Finally I want to touch on the issue of removing reinstatement as a primary remedy for wrongful dismissal. This basically says to the small number of employers who might want to use this provision that they can go ahead and get rid of someone unfairly. Even if the tribunal or the Employment Court says a sacking was unfair and wrong an employee now no longer has to be reinstated in that position. That is a dangerous precedent to set. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I also add my voice of concern and support for the people of the West Coast in the Pike River disaster. 
I want to pick up the issue of equality that Carol Beaumont talked about. She described this bill as disgraceful and that it also promotes what she described as the inherent inequality in employment relationships. Indeed that is what the object of the bill points out. Many of the stories from members on the other side about fat cat employers always focus on the extremely large organisations or the high-profile errant companies. Notice how when the issue of tax cuts comes up they quote the chief executive officer of Telecom. But what they do not mention is the plumbers the builders the start-up information technology companies and the small manufacturers that are negotiating through the worst recession in 80 years. That is what our economy is made up of. Overwhelmingly it is built on small and medium sized organisations that bob along in the wake of the recession and are increasingly frustrated by the way the previous Labour Government neither understood small business nor could get over its animosity towards small businesses that through their own sweat and innovation and risk taking have bettered themselves their families and their staff. 
Many small-business owners tell me that they agree with the inherent inequality as set out in the object of the bill. But many of them think it goes the other way. They tell me how disappointing the attitude of the Labour Party and its union affiliates is at the complete lack of empathy for the back story. It is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employees against employers without ever understanding the back story—the 100 percent effort that is put into building a company which will eventually employ staff the poor diet the rusty Toyota not having time to date spending all one’s weekends working to build the company while friends are out celebrating and partying and being effectively married to that small business. Small-business owners put their time their money and their lives into the business in the hope that eventually some day they and by association their staff will be successful. 
When the fruits of their effort are seen such as the improved opportunities to employ staff and increase their wages and yes make profits for themselves does the Labour Party celebrate the fruits of that effort? No; it is envy—“fat cat” comments higher taxes more red tape and more envy. What Labour describes as a disgraceful bill I describe as a bill that makes common-sense balanced and flexible improvements to our labour laws. I strongly support them. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Holidays Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. It gives me great satisfaction to support the Holidays Amendment Bill at its third reading and again I would like to thank my colleagues the select committee and the officials for their work on this bill. This Holidays Amendment Bill reduces compliance costs for employers and clarifies the law by making it simpler to understand and implement. The Holidays Act is difficult legislation and it has caused significant frustration for both employers and employees. Last year I established a working-group made up of union and business representatives to review the law and recommend practical changes. It looked at a number of issues including the transfer of public holidays questions around sick leave and allowing employees to trade 1 week of leave for cash. In particular this group focused on addressing difficulties with relevant daily pay the calculation of payment for public holidays alternative holidays sick leave and bereavement leave. 
The current equation has been a burden on businesses where employees work variable hours and as such their pay can fluctuate from week to week. It has taken an inordinate amount of time and effort for many small businesses to comply. This Government wants small businesses to have confidence in our employment framework and to invest their energies in growing their operations. We do not want employers getting frustrated and wasting their time trying to figure out how to comply with complex formulae in complex legislation. As a result the working-group has drawn up a new concept called average daily pay. This change will make the Holidays Act easier to understand for those who work variable hours. When relevant daily pay is not possible or practical to calculate the employer may use average daily pay. This payment for leave is based on past identifiable earnings over the previous 52 weeks or whatever period the employee has been employed. This addresses the issue of potential fluctuations in pay. Both employees and employers will have greater certainty around what leave payments will be. This is an important change. It will give employers greater clarity and significantly reduce their compliance costs under the Act. 
The bill also allows greater choice and flexibility for employees with regard to cashing up annual holidays and the transfer of public holidays. Giving employees the choice to exchange up to 1 week’s leave for cash was signalled in the National Party’s manifesto prior to the election. If an employee has 6 weeks of leave stored up then he or she may well want to cash in one of those weeks where the employer agrees to it. Many employees do not use their full allocation of leave in a year and it is entirely at their discretion whether they wish to make this trade. It is abundantly clear that only the employee can make this request. If an employer does that he or she is in breach of the Act. This policy is about giving New Zealanders greater choice and flexibility. It is incredibly popular and I am sure the public is very much looking forward to utilising it. 
This bill also simplifies rules in other areas of the Holidays Act and addresses concerns that current arrangements are having a negative impact on business operations and productivity. This includes clarifying the law to allow employers to request proof of sickness or injury within 3 consecutive days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to believe that the sick leave is not genuine. The current law is open to interpretation and employers have noted that they simply do not know at what point they have reasonable grounds. This change will make the law clear and simple. The reality is that this law will be used only very sparingly. Employers have to pay for the proof and it is clear that they will request a medical certificate only when they genuinely suspect someone of routinely pulling sickies. Employers also value good relationships with their staff so to abuse this provision will harm only themselves. 
This bill also provides more choice for employers and employees by restoring the right to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day. This law change recognises that it may better suit some workplaces and employees to agree to observe public holidays on other days. Again this is about choice. Where it works for both parties they will now have the ability to agree to the transfer; for example an employee may agree with their employer that they can observe their regional anniversary on another working day that holds religious or cultural significance for the employee. All New Zealanders remain entitled to the 11 public holidays we observe and most employees will take those holidays as they always have. 
A provision to take effect this December clarifies employees’ entitlements during a customary close-down period such as Christmas. It makes it clear that employees are entitled to be paid for public holidays alternative holidays sick leave and bereavement leave falling during a customary close-down period if they would otherwise be working days for the employees. This does not change current practice but is in response to a recent Employment Court decision and ensures the legislation reflects the original policy intent. 
Lastly we are increasing the maximum penalties under the Holidays Act. Maximum penalties for non-compliance with the Act will double to $10000 for individuals and to $20000 for companies and other bodies corporate. There is no reason why employers cannot meet their obligations under this Act and the current penalties are too weak. Breaches of minimum entitlements are not conducive to good commercial practices and it is important that the law is taken seriously. 
In conclusion I say that this bill responds to concerns raised by the public and utilises the experience of the working-group. It retains the integrity of the Holidays Act maintaining employees’ holiday and leave entitlements whilst also promoting greater flexibility and clarity in key areas. It will be less of a burden on business while also giving greater choice to employees who may want more flexibility around how they take their annual holidays and public holidays. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I would like to start off by repeating my comments on the previous bill as to what I consider to be the inappropriateness of bringing very controversial labour legislation to the House at this time. I think it shows a lack of taste and a lack of judgment on the part of the Minister and what it means is that the debate—and I hope it was unthinking rather than deliberate—on something that is quite controversial must inevitably be stifled. 
This bill is just a continuation of the National Government attack on wage earners’ and salary earners’ rights wages and conditions. It is consistent with the approach that John Key has taken as leader which is the exact opposite of the promise he made with regard to those wages and salaries and the gap with Australia. He is driving them down rather than helping them up. 
Most of the amendments are unfair. They are very unbalanced they are absolutely unnecessary and they are ideological. The fact that they were announced at the National Party conference after a working-group but without full consultation is something that is concerning to democracy and again the fact that these amendments were pushed through at the Committee stage and the second reading under urgency is a sign of the disregard this Government has for workers’ rights and for the conditions of middle - New Zealand wage earners and salary earners. I think it shows a degree of arrogance and frankly bad parliamentary management. If the normal approach had been taken I am sure the Government would have spent less time on this legislation than it actually did. 
It is hardly necessary for Opposition members to focus for a long time on the submissions on this bill although we certainly did at the select committee. It is probably unnecessary for us to do a lot of research on the bill because the Government has been generous enough to provide within the regulatory impact statement a very clear statement of the issues in this bill. The regulatory impact statement makes clear that as part of the Government’s attack on workers this legislation will reduce opportunities for rest and recreation away from work for wage earners and salary earners. That will increase working hours overall and decrease time for community and family activities. 
When did members of the Government as part of the election campaign go to families and say they would reduce the time families will have together? When did the Government say to them: “We think that community activities on the part of wage earners and salary earners should be reduced.”? I just say that it is an interesting comment on the different values on this side of the House that the Labour Party—and I must say in this case the Green Party but not the Maori Party—are supportive of people having family time and having time for community activity. I am sorry; I might be getting an indication from the Maori Party that it has changed its position on the bill. If that is the case I welcome it. I think it is a good move and I am very supportive of the Maori Party. Is it getting close to Matariki? Someone is seeing the light anyway. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It’s too early. It’s June. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh it is exactly the opposite time of the year. Maybe we are heading towards June and the light is being seen by the Maori Party. I think that is good. 
The regulatory impact statement indicates that the bill may negatively impact on health and safety. It will increase the risk of fatigue and stress-related illness and could lead to an increased use of sick leave. Do members opposite not understand that workers who have proper holidays are much more productive? Do those members not understand that workers are more productive when they can take a break a day off if they have the flu and not have to line up at the doctor’s for a certificate for that 1 day off? They will suffer a lot less from long-term fatigue which is one of the barriers to increased productivity in New Zealand. People who are fatigued can often do rote jobs pretty well—even when they are very tired. But if they want to think of ways to make their jobs more productive they cannot be in a state of fatigue because their judgment goes. 
The regulatory impact statement makes it clear that this will negatively impact on groups of workers who are already disadvantaged in the labour market—for example women low-paid workers youth and Maori and Pacific peoples. I am very pleased that the Maori Party has seen that part of the legislation and seen whom it impacts badly on. Even the Government says that Maori and Pacific peoples will be more adversely affected than others. The regulatory impact statement makes it clear that the gap between genders will be increased—and if it were some other time I would focus on the role of the Minister of Women’s Affairs in relation to this and the fact that no attention has been paid to it. 
It indicates that especially for small businesses it will impact on workplaces’ budgeting and financial management if they have not planned for the additional payments that may result from this legislation. It also indicates that there is a likelihood of an increase in disputes between employers and employees—for example around payment for cashed-up holidays whether the agreements are genuine and if an employee believes their request has been unfairly declined. I think it is fair to say that the last thing members on this side of the House want to have is legislation introduced to the House or passed by the House that is likely to increase those disputes. 
The idea that so soon after getting to the point where we have 4 weeks’ annual leave a year we put 1 week up for sale is very very backward. People who are desperate for cash people who are very low-income workers will no doubt take advantage of it. People who probably most need to spend time with their families will lose time with their families as a result of this legislation. It comes as no surprise that Roger Douglas is a keen supporter of it along with National. Roger Douglas along with John Key deep in his heart does not believe any more in workers having holidays at all. He believes that everyone should be on a contract where an employer decides whether they have holidays and when they take them. Well we have moved out of his 18th century approach to life and we have moved forward into the 21st century. 
For a small part of the 21st century New Zealand has been closer to most countries in the OECD with reasonable leave provisions. It is still not ideal—there is work to do in the paid parental leave area in particular. My colleagues and I have some similar views on Anzac Day Easter and especially when two public holidays fall at the same time. The Government chose not to take advantage of an Opposition amendment moved by Darien Fenton whereby we would have recognised it next year. I am an old-fashioned person. I think Anzac Day is on the 25th and it should not be shifted. But I am also old fashioned in that I see no religious importance in Easter Monday. Easter Monday has no religious significance at all. It was a day added on after Easter Sunday in the days where no one ever worked on Sundays to give an extra day to have a long Easter weekend. There is no significance— 
David Bennett 
: Yes there is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I ask Mr Bennett what the religious significance of Easter Monday is. 
David Bennett 
: Well you don’t know. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I do know and there is none. The point that I am making is that shifting that observance to Tuesday has no religious problems and I think it was something the Government should have taken advantage of. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That last speech was a very emotional speech from Trevor Mallard. It tried to create a lot of fear and anxiety amongst New Zealand workers which is the Labour Party’s tactic in regard to this bill the Holidays Amendment Bill. That is quite unjustified and unnecessary. This is a good bill for New Zealand workers. It gives New Zealand workers choice in how they take their holidays; it gives them choice in how they use that time off. I think one of the points that the Minister of Labour raised was very important: maybe somebody wishes for cultural reasons to have a public holiday on another day such as Diwali or something like that. This bill may give the opportunity to people to celebrate in their own way their own special days. So I think the bill shows once again that the Government is acting in the best interests of New Zealand workers contrary to the Opposition which is trying to put a different slant on it for the sake of its publicity. We support the passage of this bill through the House and thank all those who made submissions the Minister who put it forward and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its hard work. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 John Key said long hours at work both parents being in employment childcare shortages growing interest rates and rising bills can create a far from ideal environment for good parenting and family relationships. We agree with that; he is absolutely right. So why does the Government advocate for longer hours to be spent at work by allowing workers to cash up their fourth week’s holiday thereby keeping both parents at work—because the fact is that workers are not getting pay increases so many will be attracted to do that—and also refuse to address the issues that we have about the long work hours culture that we have in New Zealand? The Holidays Amendment Bill in conjunction with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) which we have just passed this afternoon to the shame of this Parliament and the legislation on the Order Paper that provides for the removal of meal and rest breaks are contributing to a claw-back of longstanding employment rights and entitlements. These bills treat workers as being untrustworthy. They remove existing protections and they weaken previous gains in working conditions. 
The previous Labour Government brought in significant improvements with the Holidays Act 2003. I note that National voted against them particularly the fourth week’s annual leave. I will recap on the provisions of the Holidays Act 2003. First of all the purpose of the Act is to promote balance—I repeat the word “balance”—between work and other aspects of workers’ lives. Labour brought in the fourth week’s annual leave for rest and recreation. That is the purpose of the leave; it was not for money. Labour brought in payment at time and a half plus a day off when a worker has to work on a paid public holiday 5 days of sick leave a year after 6 months’ employment and bereavement leave as well. We got the fourth week’s extra leave only in 2003. Australia has had it since 1974. It took 30 years for workers to win an extra fourth week’s leave. Now it is up for grabs and I will get into that a little more as I get into my speech. 
I will also comment on the ministerial advisory group that the Minister referred to. She made it sound as though there had been a large level of agreement on that group. There was a bit of agreement. The ministerial advisory group had people from the Council of Trade Unions Business New Zealand and so on on it. But there were a whole lot of things that they did not agree on. The only thing they agreed on was the provision to transfer a public holiday to another day of cultural significance although the caveat from the Council of Trade Unions was that there needed to be adequate protections to ensure that where that happens the worker who works on the public holiday must be paid time and a half and that the provision is not used for a reason to avoid doing so. I am not confident that those protections are in place. They agreed that there would be no change to the treatment of public holidays—well there is. It also agreed that there would be no change to the treatment and entitlements of casual employees—well that is good. 
But the ministerial advisory group did not agree on the cash up of annual holidays—the members did not agree on that. They did not agree on the formula for determining average daily pay. They did not agree on a whole range of other things including making Easter Sunday another holiday just as a matter of interest. So the idea that this bill flowed from the ministerial working group is completely untrue. The problem with it is that apart from the research that was done during the work of the ministerial advisory group it is based on really poor data. Trevor Mallard has referred to the regulatory impact statement and the real holes in it and the difficulties that the Minister’s department had in trying to find any evidence for some of the provisions that are in this bill. 
I will go back to the issue of the fourth week’s leave and why we have an issue about the cash up. I can understand why any worker would be attracted to the idea of being paid for 53 weeks but working 52 particularly in this environment where there has been zero or very low pay increases—I can understand that. But the problem is that leave is not a commodity; it should not be up for sale. Once it is up for sale that will weaken that fourth week’s provision for vulnerable workers. Over time it will not become a fourth week’s annual leave; it will become just part of one’s salary. I know that the protections are written into the bill but that entitlement is being chipped away. We will lose the fourth week’s leave which was fought for over 30 years. As I said that is why Labour is opposed to that amendment. I understand why people think of the fourth week as providing a little extra cash but it is quite shameful that people are in a situation whereby they cannot afford to spend time with their families. They need the cash. They want to spend the extra money they will get from the fourth week’s leave. That is my objection. 
The other objection is that a lot of people worked very very hard over the years to win a fourth week’s annual leave. It did not just come about. The previous Labour Government enacted it in the end but lots of people had campaigned for it for many many years. Like paid parental leave eventually we got there but some women had campaigned on that entitlement for many many years. I remember when the then National Government thought that paid parental leave should be cashed up. Do members remember the baby bonus idea: that people did not have to take leave to look after their baby which is what paid parental leave is about? It was said they could cash up the paid parental leave because they might need to buy a few extra nappies. 
Minimum conditions are supposed to be minimum conditions. Workers can and do negotiate extra holidays. If they want to cash those up that is fine but the minimum entitlement of New Zealand workers should not be undermined by this provision. 
I want to talk a little about public holidays and how that provision is being undermined. The first point is around the alternative holiday. Effectively the bill provides that the employer gets to decide on it. If there cannot be any agreement the employer must give at least 2 weeks’ notice and gets to decide when the alternative holiday will be. That is really really unfair. Under current provisions the employer and employee have a year to try to reach agreement because the employee has a year in which to take the alternative holiday. What I can see happening is families being forced to work on Christmas Day as many workers are and having to take the alternative day off at a time not of their choosing when their family are either on holiday or back at work. Again going back to what John Key said about both parents being in employment childcare shortages low pay etc. I say this provision will add to that problem. 
The third point I will touch on is the whole area of sick leave and the really silly provision that requires a sick note for the first day’s illness. Nobody can tell us where that came from. It certainly did not come through the ministerial advisory group. It was not raised at all—definitely not. There was no advice from the Department of Labour on that. No one asked for it as far as we can tell. It does not seem to have been on anyone’s mind. Maybe Roger Douglas suggested that everybody should need a sick note after 1 day’s leave—like he did with regard to the extension of the 90-day trial. Maybe it was Roger Douglas; maybe the Minister was rolled again. There is plenty of data out there about this which the Minister does not seem to have considered. For example the 2009 national employers wage and salary survey looked at 593 employers with 38000 employees and found that the average number of sick days that New Zealanders had taken in the preceding 12 months was 4.6 days. So we do not have a problem with people not being at work because of illness. As we saw from the report from Treasury last week we have a problem with people going to work when they are ill. We were worried about swine flu and we got through that thank goodness. But another pandemic will come along one day and how on earth will we prevent its spreading? How will we prevent the spread of illness? How do we stop that happening if workers in difficult economic circumstances feel that under this legislation they have to go to work when they are ill? 
This bill is a disgrace. As my colleague Trevor Mallard said it is a damn shame that the third reading is being debated today given the awful situation that we have on the West Coast. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very strongly opposed to the Holidays Amendment Bill. It effectively takes away from workers their long hard-won rights to holidays. About 8 years ago we managed to get a fourth week’s holiday for all New Zealand workers—4 weeks’ statutory holidays. We were catching up a bit with countries particularly in Western Europe where they have 4 or 5 weeks’ holiday already and that was a fantastic achievement. I think New Zealanders celebrated that achievement but the National Party was never keen on that and the ACT Party was never keen on that. Now they are trying to erode that achievement and the way they are doing it is to give people the right to sell off the fourth week of their holiday. The people who will sell it off are the people who most need a holiday—the people who are hardest up. They will be people who are on $13 an hour maybe have five kids no fixed assets rent a house and find it quite difficult to make ends meet. They will be the ones who will be tempted in some way to sell off their holiday. They might get some small financial advantage but it will be at the disadvantage of the rest period that they really need. They will be people who often work longer hours more overtime at heavy physical jobs and who most need a holiday. We can be sure that the people at the higher end of society including MPs like ourselves judges chief executive officers whatever who even before the statutory fourth week holiday came in had 4 or 5 weeks’ holidays will not be suffering or trading off a week of their annual holidays. That only reinforces the inequality in that respect in terms of leisure time available in society. 
Leisure is very important. It is a very human thing and a very necessary thing. It is important that given the very difficult situation in Pike River and not wanting to get into that issue in terms of what exactly has happened or what caused this particular accident I think it draws our attention back to the need to really concentrate on safety in the workplace. One thing that generally helps with safety in the workplace is if people are rested; not overworked but on the ball and have their mind on all the safety issues and are looking after their workmates etc. In that context we should not be moving backwards in terms of holidays and leisure. 
The Government goes on about choice and how people have a choice about whether they sell off the fourth week of their holiday but in many situations they will not have too much choice. The employer may want to have the office factory or whatever open for an extra week so pressure will be put on a section of the workforce to sell off their fourth week’s holiday. We might think that under the legislation those people have choice and they do not need to accept that. But in fact people in a workforce with an imbalance of power who want to be promoted or do not want to be shifted out of a good job in a particular workplace will feel that if the pressure is on they had better go along with what the employer says and what other workers are doing and sell off the fourth week of their holiday. The idea that it is completely choice ignores the relationships in a workplace and the power of employers to work out who is promoted who is not and all the rest of it. That is something the Government completely ignores and was never discussed through all of this debate on the Holidays Bill or the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Even if workers sell off the fourth week of their holiday to get a little bit of extra financial advantage that financial advantage can easily be clawed back in the next year or the next 2 or 3 years by the employer depending on the strength of the union to maintain wages and conditions. But when workers sell off a week’s holiday it is more difficult to go back to where they started from. 
On the transfer of public holidays from Christmas and Easter for example to some other day it is important to consider what the good things are about Christmas Day Boxing Day and Easter holidays. There are two things: first it is the time when families are together and although there may be one or two people working in the society overwhelmingly people have the time off and can travel to be with their families. That is fantastically important for families and for communities. 
The second good thing about having not many people working on Christmas Day Boxing Day and Easter Day etc. is that it means they are quiet times. It is great during the Easter or Christmas period to go around when the shops are not open—it is an unusually quiet and relaxing time which is welcomed by a lot of people in the community. The more we have this transferring of holidays the more people will be working on Christmas Day and Easter Day etc. and that is tied in with the attempt by National and ACT MPs to allow shops to be open on Easter Friday Easter Sunday or whatever. It is tied in with more and more people working on those days. This enticement to trade off one’s holiday will not necessarily be voluntary. Again because of the power of the workplace people tend to go along with what the employer is pushing for. In fact the employer might want a day off on Christmas Day and say to an employee: “Could you just transfer your holiday? You can come in and keep the place open on Christmas Day.” The idea of choice does not apply in practice. 
Then there is the question of employers being able to require a sick note for 1 day’s absence. The Minister in her introductory speech said that this would happen only when employers genuinely suspected that there was something dodgy going on. If she really believes that this will happen only when there is a reason to genuinely suspect something why did she remove the words in the Holidays Act that said that employers could require a sick note for 1 day’s absence if there were reasonable grounds—reasonable grounds being if someone took 5 consecutive Mondays off or whatever? Instead she has changed the legislation so that it does not include “genuinely suspect”—or the sorts of words that she used. It says that the employer may require proof of sickness or injury within 3 consecutive calendar days—full stop—for any reason whatsoever. She has specifically removed the two words “reasonable grounds” so she is not really explaining what is behind this bill when she says that employers will require a sick note only if they genuinely suspect something. 
She also says that employers will not do that unjustly because they all want good relations with staff. That is the problem. Unions exist because often there are bad employers who do not have good relations with staff and do things unjustly. We are not in a utopian world of all good employers. Often employers do not like unions so they will harass the union leader off the job perhaps by requiring a sick note every time they are off. If I were trying to get the union off the job I would use that tactic. Why not? Why not do that every time a union leader was off sick by saying they had to have a sick note? That is what happens. Members are living in utopia if they think that all employers are great and want good relations with staff. That is just la-la land. We really need to go in the opposite direction so that people do not need to transfer and sell off their holidays by giving workers particularly those at the lower end a better deal. A $15 an hour minimum wage would get a lot of people off their present wage of $13 and $14 an hour. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 We have just been listening to the “we know best” mob. They are the mob who say to workers “We do not trust you. We do not trust you to be able to make up your own mind. We do not trust you to make the trade-off involved in taking 1 week’s holiday or working that week and getting the extra income.” This group of people Labour and the Greens are simply not of the real world—they are not of the real world. 
Let me give members two or three real-world examples of the trade-offs that people might make. Imagine a family who is $1000 in arrears on their mortgage and that is of particular concern to the family and is causing friction in the home. They have the opportunity to work 1 extra week and pay off a large part of that $1000. But Labour and the Green Party say to that worker: “Thou shall not work. Thou shall not pay off that mortgage. We know best for you.” 
There is a family they have 4 weeks’ holiday and cannot afford to take their kids away. The kids want to go to the beach for a week they would love to go to the beach for a week and the parents would love to take them to the beach for a week. So what do they decide to do under the Holidays Amendment Bill? Under this bill they will be able to work 1 extra week trade that in and take the kids to the beach. That is a real possibility. But what do the Greens say? What do Labour members say? They say: “Thou shall not do that. You have to stay at home for the 4 weeks.” 
These are decisions that individual New Zealanders are fully capable of making for themselves on whether to catch up with the mortgage or have 1 week less holiday but be able to take the children away to the beach. But no Labour and the Green Party say: “We do not trust you. We do not trust you to be able to make those decisions.” Frankly I trust the average New Zealander a lot more than I trust Labour or the Green Party. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and speak on this Holidays Amendment Bill and I find it so interesting that the two parties that believe in less government and less legislation are actually using legislation to tell people how they should be living their lives. Earlier today the Maori Party received an email that told us in no uncertain terms exactly how we needed to vote on this bill. It said: “If we allow workers to covert”—I think he meant convert—“time to cash the next obvious step is for employers to say ‘We are obviously giving too many days holidays. The workers don’t need them. The fact that they are selling them is proof in itself’.” It went on to say: “The people who will sell their holidays are the lowly paid ones and already work the most overtime and who really need the holidays and times with their whanau.” The email finished in large capital letters with “VOTE NO”. 
We as a caucus have had a very passionate and considered discussion of the issues raised by this legislation and I want to address those issues one by one. First the bill allows employers and employees to agree to transfer the observance of public holidays to another working day. We saw this as a very significant advance in allowing a mechanism by which whanau members could identify days of special cultural significance for them for which they sought leave: days like Te Hui Ahurei o Tuhoe the Ratana celebration and the recognition of the 18th day for those from Taranaki iwi. The opportunity to honour one’s cultural and spiritual legacy is something we supported. But this bill then twists this opportunity by stipulating that should the employer and employee not agree then the employers should direct when an alternative holiday is taken. If I as the employee tell the employer that I will work on Queen’s Birthday so that I can take the day on which Matariki falls as a holiday but the employer does not agree what is the point in my working on Queen’s Birthday if I cannot then take off the day I need to observe my culture? 
The second issue is that the bill allows employers to request proof of sickness or injury within the first 3 consecutive calendar days of an employee taking sick leave without first having reasonable grounds to suspect that the sick leave is not genuine. Although we would be the first to argue for transparency and accountability as core principles of any employment relationship we cannot fail but be influenced by statements made by the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the New Zealand Educational Institute speaking on behalf of some 46000 nurses and 50000 education staff in primary schools and early childhood centres. It is their collective view that the new law has implications for children’s health and welfare. They suggest that the new law may mean that parents who use their own sick leave to care for their children are less likely to stay home with their children if they fear that doing so will put their employment at risk. That could result in more ill children attending schools and kohanga the implications of that being obvious. 
They also pointed out that New Zealand law currently provides for 5 days of sick leave a year which is one of the lowest rates in the OECD. Further to that New Zealanders currently take on average 4.6 days’ sick leave a year compared with 7.4 days in Britain and 8.6 days in Australia. We can take from that comparison that either we are a lot more sturdy than our British and Australian counterparts or that we drag ourselves to work at varying stages of ill health simply because our leave restrictions are so harsh. 
The third issue is that the bill allows by agreement 1 week of an employee’s minimum entitlement to annual holidays to be commuted for a cash payment to the employee. This was a difficult one for us. We know that some members of our community are faced with such difficult and compromised financial constraints that the opportunity to cash in their holiday leave might just well be the respite they need to ease the grind of everyday poverty but we cannot reconcile the fact that we firmly believe that every worker has the right to rest and recreation. They have the right not to be working every hour of the day every day of the week unlike MPs. They have the right to enjoy being with their whanau. So we firmly believe that the right thing to do is to support employment legislation that promotes opportunities for employees to be with their families and to benefit from rest. 
We are also influenced by the view that came to the select committee that in this bill there are no safeguards against employers wielding undue pressure on an employee to cash up their leave and sell away their holiday. We gave this bill the benefit of the doubt in previous stages but as I indicated to Mr Mallard at this third and final reading we are simply faced with too many questions to be able to satisfy our concerns. We believe on balance that this legislation should not be supported and therefore we will be voting against the bill. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on the Holidays Amendment Bill. The principal Act has been criticised for being overly complex and prescriptive. The Government recognises that prescriptive laws cannot work or account for the variable hours the variety of jobs and the diverse workplaces that exist in New Zealand and there needs to be greater flexibility and choice. This bill gives exactly that. It makes a number of sensible amendments in that direction. It will help improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act 2003 and I commend it to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise again to speak of another concerted attack on wage earners and salary earners in this country. I note for the record and for those listening that all the way through the debates on the Holidays Amendment Bill and the employment relations legislation we have heard Government members stand up and say they will take a short call without dealing with what are very substantial issues and major changes to our legislation. I think that in itself is quite telling. There has been no real content and no real effort to analyse issues. Instead members opposite have put out the same platitudes about how this is really about choice. It is dressed up as choice and I will talk about some of the choices especially in light of the comments made by Roger Douglas. Supposedly this bill is also about making the legislation easier to understand. Well that is an interesting one as well so I will talk about that. 
Like the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) this bill is unjustified unnecessary unbalanced and unfair. I will talk about three key provisions and I will analyse them against those particular points. At its heart we are dealing with a set of issues that are about people’s time and their work-life balance—their ability to manage their time at work and their time outside of work. That is an increasingly significant issue in countries such as New Zealand. We have gone from a situation where one-income households were the norm to one where it is necessary for households to have both parents working. Often the kids are working as well; the majority of teenage children are in the paid workforce. We have moved into a situation where time is an increasingly hard issue for families to balance. There has been a temporary situation—I hope at least—where unemployment has meant that some people now have far too much time. That is a separate issue and one that this Government is not addressing properly either but now I am talking about those people who are in the paid workforce. 
The ability to manage work and other life issues is really important and it goes to the quality of our working life and to the quality of our wider lifestyle. It involves spending time with family and friends and enjoying some of the things that we think make us uniquely New Zealand such as being able to go out into the bush and to the beach and those sorts of things. When we read the regulatory impact statement we see that major concerns are raised about a number of provisions of the bill and again a concern has been raised by officials that there is not the evidence to back up many of the provisions being put forward here. I will not litigate that issue again because I know that the Hon Trevor Mallard has explained it in some detail to the House. But it does not seem to matter to members opposite; getting advice from officials and ignoring it seems to be a relatively common occurrence. I put it on record that many concerns have been raised in the regulatory impact statement. 
I will talk about the fourth week provision first. This is a minimum provision and minimum provisions are by their nature meant to set standards. We say as a standard that the minimum wage is set by law and people cannot work for less than the minimum wage because as a country we believe that is a socially acceptable minimum. Likewise—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the Government may well have a go at the minimum wage next. Minimum holiday provisions are just that: they are minimum holiday provisions which means time to have off on pay with family and friends to enjoy some time together without being at work. The 4 weeks’ annual leave requirement is time to have a holiday. It is not time to sell a holiday; it is time to have a holiday. As I said in earlier speeches on this bill very few people get to the end of their lives and regret that they did not spend more time at work. They often get to the end of their lives and regret that they did not spend more time with their family or doing the things that mattered to them. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There are a few people under this Government who don’t have jobs. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: Yes and I have flagged that issue and I reinforce again that there is a huge issue with unemployment that this Government is not addressing. 
The sale of the fourth week of holiday is linked at its heart to low wages. The desire to sell the fourth week will be driven by low wages. The examples that Roger Douglas gave were about people who need money. The people most likely to have to sell their holidays are those on low incomes. Our wages are too low. There is a gap of 30 percent on average between wages in New Zealand and Australia and that gap is getting larger and it will continue to get larger under this Government which does not have any ideas on lifting workplace productivity or improving the quality of our working lives. The gap between wages in New Zealand and Australia will get higher. It is the reason why people leave our country and go to Australia and it will drive people to sell their fourth week of leave. The reason people will sell their holiday is not because they do not want to spend time with their families and have time off but because they have to sell it to get some money. 
There will be groups most likely to sell their time. Low-income groups and other vulnerable groups will be the ones most likely to be in the situation of losing that fourth week—the fourth week that is actually a reasonably new addition to our minimum code. A whole lot of vulnerable workers are most likely to be in that situation: young workers people who do not know their rights maybe people for whom English is a second language and perhaps those who are disabled. In order to try to tell everybody that the Government was not going to see that happen we had provisions in the original bill that said the sale of the fourth week would be informed and voluntary. Of course those provisions have been taken out. The “informed and voluntary” bit is no longer in there. The provision is linked to low wages and vulnerable workers and low-income people will be the people who lose their holidays. Those people are perhaps not the people that members opposite are most concerned about. 
There has been a lot said by ACT. Heather Roy talked about the bill last week and today Roger Douglas talked about the fourth week of holiday as if it is like a property right as if Labour and the Greens are stopping people from doing something they want to do and as if that is what this bill provides for. I would like Roger Douglas to stand up in this House and say he would like to see this bill take away the rights of the employer in this situation because he clearly has not read the bill. This provision does not allow a free right to sell a holiday because actually it is ultimately up to the employer. The employer could have a completely blanket policy that says nobody will be allowed to sell their leave—not anybody no matter how desperately they need the money as Sir Roger said. So if those members are worried about property rights they perhaps need to talk to National about the fact that the balance is clearly and firmly on the side of the employer. Certainly this bill is unjustified unnecessary definitely unbalanced and potentially unfair. This legislation will be something that applies only to some New Zealanders and some New Zealanders will have less opportunity to take time off with their family and friends. 
The second point I will talk about a point I feel very strongly about is the alternative holiday provision: the day in lieu. This is a shocking situation where there is no evidence of any need for change. The Department of Labour were quite clear on that and submitters as well yet we see a situation in which something that is working perfectly well is now being changed with the balance going to the employer. We are talking about a situation where workers work on a public holiday on a day they normally work so they get another day off in lieu. Workers have to try to reach agreement with employers and often that is done but when that agreement cannot be reached ultimately it is the workers who get to decide when that day in lieu is taken. That is only fair; this day is replacing a day of great significance on which they have worked—Christmas Day Boxing Day or whatever—a public holiday when most of their family and friends have had time off and spent time together. People—and we had the example of the bus driver—work Christmas Day and do not see their families get a day in lieu and want to take a day off when they know their partners and kids will be around to share it with them. Under this provision people will no longer have that choice; it will be up to employers to determine when they get that day off. That is just mean-spirited apart from anything else. It is unfairly penalising workers who are working at the times the employer needs them to be working. 
Finally there is the sickness certificate which requires people to get a medical certificate for illness or injury for no reason. At the moment if there is any concern about somebody abusing the sick leave provisions an employer can require that person to get a medical certificate. This provision just takes away the requirement that employers have to have some genuine reason for doing that. I think Keith Locke was quite right when he said that potentially that could be used to harass people. It is unworkable; we had submitter after submitter saying this provision was unworkable. It will lead to consequences that will be damaging for those with responsibility—those with the primary-care responsibility for children because most frequently they use their sick leave for domestic leave—and it will be most difficult for workers who will end up going back to work sick and unproductive. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 I rise to support the Holidays Amendment Bill. This bill will improve the overall operation and efficiency of the Holidays Act 2003. The people of Rangitata have told me they support this bill. Therefore I commend it to the House. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is absolutely unbelievable that on an issue as important as the Holidays Amendment Bill National members are making 5-second speeches and not bothering to address any of the issues being raised by members on this side of the House. It shows the level of contempt those members have for the people who will be the worst affected by this bill: the wage earners and salary earners in New Zealand particularly those at the lower end of the income scale. 
I endorse the comments made by members from the Labour Party the Greens and Maori Party on this particular legislation. It shows just how out of touch National members are with the reality for working people that those members think working people have some kind of choice over whether they cash up the fourth week’s holiday. Roger Douglas’ contribution was unbelievable. This bill is not about choice. When the decision is between being able to pay the bills and having that extra week’s leave that is not choice. I suggest that members in this House get out of their ivory towers and go and talk to some of the families who are really struggling. They should go and tell them stories about sandcastles on the beach. 
David Bennett 
: Yeah you’d better go out and talk to them. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: David Bennett is sitting over there signing his Christmas cards. I am sure he will get a nice break with his family over the holidays but is it not ironic that he is taking away a lot of the protections that currently exist under the law to ensure that all working people in New Zealand can enjoy time with their families particularly on days of importance such as Christmas Day? This legislation is not about choice for those families; they have no choice. If we take Roger Douglas’ argument to its logical conclusion poor people are just choosing not to live in mansions. They are choosing not to be able to afford food. If they are being kicked out of their houses because they cannot pay their rent they have just chosen not to pay their rent; that is right. 
We are passing this legislation which will put workers in the unenviable position of having to trade off time with their family time to regenerate and rejuvenate and time to ensure they are more productive when they go back to work because they cannot afford to pay the bills. National members have talked as though it is a positive thing that workers will be cashing up leave and as though those members are really proud of their record in Government so far which has seen unemployment soar. The people who are unemployed and those who are in work have seen the cost of living go up and up. National increased GST to 15 percent earlier this year despite promising during the election campaign that it would not increase GST. Well that has hit low-income families the hardest. Those are the very families who because they have not had a pay increase will find themselves in the position of having to cash up a week’s leave—which would have been time with their kids and their family—in order to pay the bills. 
It is also important to point out that a lot of the workers who will be put in this position will be shift workers. These people work hours that mean they do not get to see their families. It is not a nine-to-five job from which they go home at the end of the night and still get some time with their kids and with their husbands or wives. A lot of these people work more than one job. A lot of them work at night; they are the people who come into our offices at midnight to clean them. They are the people who come in at midnight to clean our offices and the people who leave for work as their kids are getting home from school. That makes their annual leave even more precious. 
When people work in a job that means they do not get to see their families very often it means that those 4 weeks become even more precious. When people are put in the position of having to give up that fourth week’s leave—a week with their kids and with their families—because they are not getting a pay increase and cannot pay the bills they find it hard to bear and it is even harder for those families. This bill is from a National-led Government that says that it is family-friendly—family-friendly! Everything this Government has done to undermine the conditions of workers in New Zealand goes against the rhetoric that says it is family-friendly. This is possibly one of the least family-friendly pieces of legislation we have seen in this Parliament so far. 
It is interesting that National and ACT members see annual leave only in terms of its dollar cost. They do not see any value in it other than what it costs in dollars. They do not see the benefits for families. They do not see that productivity increases in the workplace because workers are rested and because they feel as though they have had some proper time with their families. As my colleague Darien Fenton said those members see annual leave just as a commodity—one more thing in this world that can be bought sold and traded with no other intrinsic value at all—and that approach is absolutely wrong. 
I will now talk about the argument that annual leave is a property right. This feeds into the idea that annual leave is just something to be bought and sold. We have heard throughout the course of this debate from National and ACT members that annual leave or holidays is a property right. Well I want to know where the respect for property rights was when this Government passed legislation earlier this year taking annual leave from people who are entitled to accident compensation. 
Two workers in the same position have the same accident and end up being unable to work and they both get the same entitlement to ACC. One worker is owed no annual leave because he or she has already taken it all and the other worker is owed 4 weeks because he or she has been saving it up for time at home over Christmas or whatever. The Government now says that the worker who has already taken all of his or her leave at the time of the accident gets ACC but the worker who is owed 4 weeks’ annual leave—4 weeks that has been saved up—has to use up that leave first before getting the accident compensation entitlement. 
I ask where the respect for property rights was when the National Government took away those holidays. The Government will say whatever suits it at the time and the inconsistency between the arguments coming from the Government needs to be pointed out. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: That is scurrilous. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It is scurrilous; I agree with Mr Woodhouse. It is absolutely scurrilous. 
David Bennett 
: Tell the truth. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I know this is a touchy subject for David Bennett. David Bennett is the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He also took only a 5-second call on this legislation. David Bennett actually stopped a lot of submitters from appearing at the select committee and restricted the time that Opposition members had to question submitters. It was a shame that he did not feel it was necessary to take more than a 5-second call given his position as the chair of the select committee and the fact that he gets an extra $10000 a year for being the chair of a select committee. I suggest that that is hardly good value for money. 
I will now talk about the issue of the sick leave changes. Currently under the law if employers have reason to believe that someone is rorting the sick leave provisions they can require a medical certificate and that is absolutely just and fair—absolutely fair. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It costs $69 to go and get it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It costs $69 in Gisborne if one has to go to the doctor on a weekend. If someone is obviously taking lots of Fridays and Mondays off or the boss sees that person on TV at the rugby when he or she should be at work then absolutely the employer can require a medical certificate. But this change says that if someone is sick for 1 day then the employer has the ability to require a medical certificate. That is completely impractical. 
All the evidence we had at the select committee said that this amendment cannot work. It would be impossible for all those workers to get access to a general practitioner anyway and if it is just a cold or the flu any doctor would just tell those people to not bother going in to get lots of rest and fluids and so on. Well employees now have to go to a doctor if their employer tells them that they want a medical certificate. It is total ideology over practicality in the extreme and the ridiculous thing is that employers can already require a medical certificate. The only thing this bill is changing is that employers no longer have to have any reason to suspect that someone is rorting it. Members opposite keep saying that that will not happen. Well of course what will happen is that it completely changes the situation for employees who are sick because regardless of whether employers do go on to require a medical certificate they know that they can do that when their employees get sick. 
Employees know that when they get sick their employers can require a medical certificate so they will just go into work. What we know what the select committee was told and what officials told the Government—and what it chose to ignore—is that firstly New Zealanders on average take far less sick leave than workers in the rest of the OECD countries that we compare ourselves with and secondly the biggest cost to businesses when it comes to sick leave is not the cost of employees taking sick leave but the cost of them turning up to work and making everyone else sick and the lost productivity that comes from that. The evidence is absolutely irrefutable— 
Darien Fenton 
: It came from Treasury. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: It came from Treasury which is hardly the most liberal left-wing Government department there is. Mr Power thinks that is under question. But Treasury does not take these things lightly. It tends to be very conservative about these matters and it has said the biggest issue is that employees go to work when they are sick. We have legislation here that will only exacerbate that position by scaring workers into thinking that if they do not go into work they will be required to provide a medical certificate for a common cold. That is ridiculous. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I begin by saying that if the comments made by Miss Mackey on accident compensation are anything to go by then the rest of her speech on the Holidays Amendment Bill should be taken with a similar pinch of salt. Labour members showed in the debate on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) that they have absolutely no understanding of employers and now we have the quinella—they have no understanding of employees either. They treat them as if they are idiots. Well this side of the House does not. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Holidays Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration. 
This bill amends the Electoral Act in three significant respects. First the bill completes the legislative changes required to establish a single integrated electoral agency with overarching responsibility for electoral administration. Previously three electoral agencies were responsible for carrying out electoral administration. Although by and large they have delivered a quality service several reviews have highlighted flaws in the system and have supported change. The Electoral (Administration) Amendment Act 2010 transferred the functions of the Chief Electoral Officer and former Electoral Commission to a new Electoral Commission. This bill completes the second stage of the reform. It transfers the functions of the Chief Registrar of Electors including responsibility for the electoral roll from the chief executive of New Zealand Post Ltd to the new Electoral Commission on 1 October 2012. Having a single entity with overarching responsibility will enable us to have a more integrated and efficient electoral administration. 
Second this bill will give effect to three recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee following its inquiry into the 2008 general election. Electors’ immigration status will be able to be checked at the same time as their enrolment applications are processed rather than after they are enrolled. This will help to ensure that only New Zealand citizens or permanent residents can register as electors. The change will improve the integrity of the roll and as a consequence the validity of the vote. The bill also allows information on applicants for new and renewed New Zealand passports to be provided to the registrar of electors for enrolment purposes. Access to passport information will help to maintain the accuracy of the roll and maximise enrolments. In addition the bill will permit the destruction of paper enrolment records that are securely stored electronically to reduce storage and administration costs. 
Finally this bill will give electors the ability to re-enrol and update their details online without having to complete and sign a written form. This is the first step in a process that will eventually allow electors to use the Internet to enrol. Taking advantage of the Internet will make it as simple as possible for people to participate in elections. 
I would like to commend the electoral agencies involved in this structural reform for their hard work and professionalism during the transition. They have been working on the integration of the agencies at the same time as running a by-election. During this time they have ensured that business as usual including major preparation for next year’s election continues on track. I am sure that this bill will contribute to public confidence in our system and I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the referral of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) to the Justice and Electoral Committee where obviously we will subject it to some scrutiny. Labour is generally supportive of the bill we have before us given that it will give effect to the new Electoral Commission as the second part of what has been a two-stage reform of electoral administration. We do appreciate the way in which the Minister of Justice has been relatively consultative on these matters and I look forward to the additional appointments to the Electoral Commission. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I shall enjoy taking the entire 9 minutes on addressing the support that Labour has for the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). I also say to the Government that we will be scrutinising this legislation very carefully at the select committee as we always do with electoral law reform in respect of any changes that may have constitutional ramifications. We will certainly work through this bill as we did with its predecessor bill the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill which enacted the original stage one of this two-stage process. 
Just before the dinner adjournment I was addressing the question of appointments to the Electoral Commission. As members will be aware we have appointed two members to the new commission in order to get it up and running to take effect from 1 October this year. It has taken effect and it is already in play. There is a third appointment to be made and I took the opportunity at the end of the last session to inquire of the Minister as to how progress was going on the third appointment. I am hoping that that will not be too far away now. 
The new commission is in place but this legislation will not take practical effect until after the next general election. It is designed to bring the third of the three independent entities that are being merged in this process into the new Electoral Commission. The third role is that of the Chief Registrar of Electors. The reason that this provision was delayed and not included in the original legislation is that in order to properly run a general election which we have next year—we have not only a general election but also a referendum running alongside it—it is really important to allow considerable lead-in time for the transferring of that role. There simply has not been time in this calendar year to transfer the Chief Registrar of Electors’ responsibility for the electoral role to the new Electoral Commission in time for the 2011 general election. The transfer of responsibility will happen on 1 October 2012 which I suspect will be just over a year after the next general election. There are those who think the next general election will be just under a year from now but there is probably only one person in this House who knows precisely what that date may be. He probably has not worked that out yet himself because he will have to lick his finger put it in the air see how the polls are going and see which way the wind is blowing before he makes that call. I think it makes good sense to hold over the transfer of the Chief Registrar of Electors’ responsibility so that a considerable amount of lead-in time is allowed. 
The second thing that this bill does is allow for some amendments that arose from the inquiry into the 2008 general election which was conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is good to see recommendations from our select committee review process being implemented. I have sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee at some stage in a previous part of my 20 years in Parliament. We did one of those inquiries and made a number of recommendations but unfortunately they were not picked up by the Government of the day. When they are picked up I think it proves that parliamentarians can play a very useful role in looking in a non-partisan way dispassionately at the processes that may give rise to opportunities to strengthen the law. In this case it makes really good sense to use the Department of Labour’s immigration information to check as a preliminary step whether an applicant for enrolment is qualified to be enrolled. That is a good use of the process of select committee inquiries in bringing about a simple change in the law that will streamline the whole process and add integrity to the role. 
The third thing that this legislation does is begin to set up an e-environment for our elections and I think that will excite those who are interested in such matters. It starts with stage one which is online re-enrolment and updating. This bill if it is passed in its current form will enable voters who are already on the electoral role to re-enrol or to communicate any changes about their enrolment details via the Internet. The Minister of Justice pointed out in his comments in the introductory address that the igovt log-on service is the basis for that re-enrolment. It is stage one of a two-stage process that will ultimately give electors the option of full online enrolment. I support the concept. I think it is important that we become relevant to the new age as it were of electronic media. If we are to encourage a generation that really knows only electronic media as the means of communication we need to come up to speed with the way they now do business with each other and communicate with each other. If we want to engage young people in the electoral process then we have to find a way of enabling them to at least register their enrolment online in a way that is secure. 
As I said the first step is covered by the igovt log-on service which is being developed by the Department of Internal Affairs. In respect of the second stage there has to be a much higher level of security around giving somebody the ability to enrol fully online from start to finish. The igovt log-on service is not sufficiently strong or robust to give the degree of security we need. The reason we need that security is that our electoral rolls must have integrity. Nothing is more important than people being able to exercise their right to vote. It is actually a legal requirement to be on the roll—unless one is a victim of Paul Quinn’s bill. Essentially one has to be on the electoral roll because it is a legal requirement to be on the electoral roll. It is the basis for one’s right to exercise one’s duty to vote. So I think the Government is going down the right track of seeking to secure a much much more robust system for verification. The explanatory note outlines that the Department of Internal Affairs is developing the igovt identity verification service the IVS which requires users to verify their identity online in real time. It will probably not be: “Give us your email address and we’ll send you a little code that you can put in.”; it will obviously be a much more strengthened process than that. 
I am certainly looking forward to the submissions that will come in on this bill. I know that there is a lot of interest in seeing an expansion of electronic media use in terms of our electoral system. I think it helps to make it much more relevant to young people. For that reason I hope that when the bill is reported back we can see some progress in that regard. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 It is my privilege and honour to participate in the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). The purpose of the bill is to amend the Electoral Act 1993 to establish electoral reforms. On 1 October 2010 the offices of the Chief Electoral Officer and Electoral Commission were abolished and their functions were transferred to the new Electoral Commission. The second stage of the reform is the transfer on 1 October 2012 of the Chief Registrar of Electors’ responsibility for the electoral roll to the new Electoral Commission. The purpose of presenting this bill in stages is to minimise disruption to the 2011 general election. 
This bill also includes amendments resulting from the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2008 general election. Democracy is a political system in which electoral representation governs according to the constitutional laws of the land. There have been cases where this process has been challenged. We have to ensure that the democratic process is safeguarded at any cost. 
One of the main recommendations made by the Justice and Electoral Committee was to ensure that an elector’s immigration status could be tested at the time that an enrolment application is processed. There have been several cases of people who have deceived the Electoral Commission with regard to their immigration status. To enable the Electoral Commission to carry out these checks the Department of Internal Affairs has been given the authority to provide information to the Chief Registrar of Electors during the issuing of new passports or the renewal of passports. This change will be implemented from 1 October 2012. 
To assist the public and to bring them into the present day with new technology this bill gives voters the option to re-enrol and to amend their enrolment details online. It will also enable applicants to verify their identity online in real time. The Justice and Electoral Committee also recommended that paper enrolment records be destroyed once they have been electronically secured and stored. The amendment will enhance the enrolment service and reduce electoral administration costs. 
The amalgamation of electoral agencies is part of the reform initiated by this Government with the support of other parties. This bill is essential not only to ensure the reliability and competence of the electoral system but also to streamline the enrolment process and accomplish a reduction in overheads. I look forward to hearing submissions on this bill during the select committee process. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). As I think Lianne Dalziel and the Minister of Justice said this is the second bill in a two-stage reform of electoral administration serving to establish the new combined body to be known as the Electoral Commission. Members may remember from the debate on the first bill in this reform process that my colleagues on this side of the House spoke in support of the new Electoral Commission. The basis for that support is a belief that the current system is not as efficient as it might be and that the one proposed will be a more effective regulator of the electoral process. The quality of the proposed authority will be incredibly important. 
The very nature of changes to Acts such as the Electoral Act is such that they can have very serious constitutional ramifications in terms of the way in which our country runs. Although we support this bill on its introduction obviously we will have to subject it to very close scrutiny at the Justice and Electoral Committee and give serious consideration to all the submissions received. 
At this point in my speech I will pay tribute to the work that has already been done by the Electoral Legislation Committee in the process that I mentioned before which this bill is effectively the second part of because bills on the new electoral finance laws and the first referendum on MMP have also been considered by that committee. I think it is appropriate to record that that committee has worked on a multiparty basis to try to achieve consensus on matters that will hopefully mean we have greater integrity in our electoral law. I remember speaking on the earlier legislation and lamenting the fact that there was initially a refusal to provide for spending caps in it on so-called parallel campaigners or third parties so it is good to see that the committee has come back with a workable compromise on that issue. 
The committee has reported the new electoral finance and referenda legislation back to the House with a provision for a $300000 spending limit on third parties in the 3 months prior to an election. That is an appropriate thing to have done; it reflects the fact that the committee has worked well. The Minister of Justice has shown that he is working in an appropriate spirit on the electoral legislation by his accepting that recommendation and bringing the report back to the House with wide support. Clearly the decision to allow for a cap on third-party spending will go a long way towards quelling concerns that money could have an overt influence over future elections and that we were moving towards the Americanisation of our political system. 
I think we can be hopeful given the careful scrutiny and the eventual consensus that has been reached to date by the special Electoral Legislation Committee that we will see a careful consideration of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Justice and Electoral Committee and that if improvements to it are needed we will see them be made in a spirit of multiparty agreement as well. 
It is appropriate to have a new combined entity to regulate elections and it is likely that it will be more effective than the previous three entities. Although the election administration machinery will be streamlined by the bill I think it is appropriate for somebody in a first reading speech to at least record that in saying that nobody is trying to take anything away from the fine work that has been done by the three existing agencies which have served New Zealand well. We have had largely free and fair elections in this country. There are one or two notable exceptions that probably do not need to be reiterated in this speech but the office of the Chief Electoral Officer the previous Electoral Commission and the Chief Registrar of Electors have shown a demonstrable commitment to the oversight of free and fair elections. We are blessed in this country to have those types of elections generally. I think sometimes we take that for granted and we fail to realise how well served we have been. Let us hope that the new combined body will continue to work in the spirit of its three predecessors and do an even more effective job. It should be able to discharge its responsibilities efficiently by having all the functions in one body rather than having them split across three bodies. 
As to the need for reform it is interesting to look at the functions of the previous bodies. The Chief Electoral Office conducted the elections the Electoral Commission registered political parties and logos and the Chief Registrar of Electors was responsible for the electoral roll. Clearly the reform process that is mooted by this bill will make the system potentially more efficient by making sure that those roles are carried out by the new body. Giving it responsibility for conducting elections dealing with donations and expenditure informing the public about electoral matters appropriating broadcasting time and funding registering parties and logos maintaining the electoral roll sharing the information across what used to be separate authorities and reducing crossovers and potential miscommunications should all make for a better system. 
It is very important that the new commission be staffed at the highest levels by the very best people who are available. As Lianne Dalziel said this Parliament facilitated on the appointments side by the Minister has made two appointments to the new commission. A third appointment is pending. It is important that we have that appointment expedited so that the work of the commission can continue with a full complement of commission members. There is a big job ahead certainly in terms of supervising the next election and possibly the odd by-election that might well occur in the meantime and obviously there is the job of supervising the MMP referendum which the Government remains determined to hold in conjunction with the next election. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where is Pansy? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Unfortunately we do not have the member for Botany here to tell us about the likelihood of the next by-election but obviously it is desirable to have the commission up and running at full strength as soon as possible. I do hope that the Minister will hasten to ensure that the third member of the commission can be appointed on a consensus basis in the Parliament as the legislation intends. 
The amendments that were recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee following its inquiry into the 2008 general election will also when adopted in legislation make the enrolment process better. They will result in more people being on the electoral roll and provide more clarity around the status of immigrants to New Zealand and whether people in that category are eligible to enrol. This is good news. It has become an issue in recent years and it is an area that needs improvement. I know from personal experience in recent weeks of doorknocking in Mana that there is a lot of confusion in immigrant communities about enrolment. A lot of voters would not have had the chance to enrol if our party and no doubt other parties had not taken the forms physically to them in their homes in shopping centres or wherever else it was and ensured that they were on the roll or able to cast a special vote. The more that we can do to ensure that the body charged with the public function of ensuring that everybody who is entitled to be on the roll is on the roll the better it will be. Although we can praise the innovative work that has been done to date on enrolment there is always more that can be done especially with the use of the new technologies that are now at the command of the new body. We want to see all those innovative technologies and opportunities being deployed by the new body. 
I look forward to the general election next year being conducted under the new authority that the Government has set up. I am sure that the new commission will do an excellent job. I do hope that the third member of the commission is appointed promptly and also I wish the select committee all the best in its consideration of this legislation. I hope we will see the same type of consideration—thorough and consensus based—that we have seen to date on other electoral legislation in this Parliament. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). As previous speakers have noted there are three key provisions within this bill and the bill itself is part of a suite of electoral reforms. This bill is but one part of those reforms and as the previous speaker indicated this has been carried out in the context of a consensus amongst parties on the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is important that the functioning of democracy in New Zealand is clear and transparent accountable well understood and has the support of all parties in Parliament. Democracy is only as good as the quality of the people who participate in it and this bill is part of the legislative framework that provides for that quality. 
The first part of the bill is about establishing the Electoral Commission as a Crown entity and the second phase is about tidying up the institutional or structural administration of electoral legislation. The bill amends the Electoral Act 1993 to ensure that stage two of the two-stage process of electoral administration can occur and occur in a way that is the least disruptive possible to the general election at the end of 2011. We look forward to the full complement of commissioners being in place to oversee the administration of this legislation. 
But I want to move on to the provision about immigrant communities which provides for those people who are enrolled on the register to have as much assurance as possible about what the process is and the quality of that process that will enable them to ensure that they can indeed exercise their right of democracy which is to cast a vote. In the recent Mana by-election it was indeed clear to us—particularly in Mana which comprises a very committed set of communities embracing refugee communities and immigrant communities—that as part of their citizenship entitlement in New Zealand they understand how they might participate in the democratic process. 
Many of these refugees and immigrants come from countries where democracy is practised in ways that are quite different from the way we in New Zealand have come to know democracy and enjoy it—where one’s vote is free and untrammelled where one can go to a polling booth without being intimidated or threatened and where one can in the repeated words of columnist Chris Trotter “vote as if one is free”. But one can vote as if one is free only if one is indeed registered to vote. 
The bill also includes amendments arising from the Government’s response to the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on its inquiry into the 2008 election. These amendments will enable the Department of Labour’s immigration information which is currently used to check whether enrolled electors are entitled to be on the electoral roll to be used to check whether an applicant for enrolment is qualified to be enrolled. It will provide a new notice of procedure for applications that fail the pre-enrolment immigration status check. It will be used to authorise the destruction of paper enrolment records as long as they have been stored as secure electronic images and it will allow information from the Department of Internal Affairs on new and renewing passport applicants to be provided to the Chief Registrar of Electors for enrolment purposes. Together with the other two main provisions of this bill I commend it to the House. Thank you. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Opposition will be supporting the first reading of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2) in the name of Simon Power. There are so many things to say about the different aspects of our electoral law. My colleagues the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel have already touched on those events. 
I acknowledge the previous speaker Hekia Parata. I think she would be offended if I did not make reference to her as the speaker following her speech. I know that despite her natural shyness she will set this to one side to allow me to make a couple of comments. I note that on Saturday Labour won the second by-election of this parliamentary term. It is great indeed to see that Labour’s record is winning two out of two by-elections. Matters of electoral administration are very very important to Labour. In fact if I were to be unkind to the honourable member I would say that her claim that she does not do runner-up is not a line she can keep on using. This is the third time she has come in as runner-up in an electoral race. I think she will have to use a new strap-line for her campaigns. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry; I cannot hear the member as her own colleagues are drowning her out. 
Hekia Parata 
: A greater degree of snideness is required in your tone. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: That can be achieved. I can deliver that for the member if she chooses. But I will not. I just note that I commiserate with the member because her own personal share of the vote fell by almost 3000. Almost 3000 fewer people voted for her on Saturday than 2 years ago. I almost wondered whether Jonathan Coleman had been giving some advice to that particular campaign. 
Hekia Parata 
: There was a low turn-out on Saturday. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am pleased to hear Government members now saying that there was a low turn-out on Saturday because I had not heard that from the spin of the National Government. Now the candidate for Mana is saying that one of the reasons she lost 3000 votes on Saturday was that there was a low turn-out. I acknowledge the member and I agree with the argument that she has put forward. I think that was very useful indeed. 
The member will be grateful to the Prime Minister for the extraordinary amount of time he spent in her electorate and the predictions he made. It was unusual to see him in the electorate on Saturday night. None of us thought we would see him in Mana on Saturday evening. He made the decision to be there while of course there were other matters of State on his mind and we are all thinking of him in that respect. But he was there in Mana and he obviously had some expectations that did not come to pass. Anyway that is the way it went. I am glad the member had the chance to speak on matters of electoral administration. There was a far more honourable showing on Saturday I must say than we saw just a year ago in the Mt Albert electorate. I am very critical of Jonathan Coleman for many reasons and a lot of them are shared by his own colleagues so I feel in great company in that respect. But I must admit I will give him credit for one thing. On election night he and Melissa Lee showed up to concede in person. I was very surprised that the member Hekia Parata did not appear in person to concede defeat in the Mana electorate. I thought she would have done that. I must admit I was a bit surprised about that because when all is said and done she is a good person. I thought that might have been a classy touch to what was a very clean campaign. 
However having said that I will touch on other matters on this bill because it is important. Having poked a little bit of borax at the National Party I want to give praise to Simon Power on this 23rd day of November 2010—one day after the 22nd of November. That date will be important to the Minister of Justice for reasons known to him. Minister Power has managed this process with a great degree of integrity and he has sought to genuinely balance a degree of bipartisan cooperation to the extent that that can be expected. There are some genuine differences across the aisle here about the ways these matters should be handled. The balance of the package that the Minister has developed—and is delivering by way of two other bills that we will debate on Thursday—and this bill tonight is not perfect from the Labour Party’s point of view. I know that National does not think it is perfect either but there is a balance. I think we have got ourselves back into a very credible position where we are trying to have laws for electoral purposes that even if we do not regard them as perfect most sides can live with. I do have to say that Simon Power has brought us to that position through his ministerial role and we do appreciate it. I definitely put on the record that we are grateful to him for that. 
As other speakers have said—including Mr Bakshi who very eloquently pointed it out—this is stage two of a two-stage reform package. He made the point quite firmly that the bill does make changes to how the new Electoral Commission can operate. We of course had an Electoral Commission previously but this bill coordinates the different branches of that commission in a way that we have not seen before. It is almost but not quite a one-stop shop but that model of one agency that will deliver on our electoral laws and will give the advice the support the guidance and importantly the information about our electoral system will be quite an important thing. So the Labour Opposition does understand why the Government has done this. 
I think all political parties regardless of their political philosophy who have stumped up on the campaign trail have all at different points felt some degree of frustration at some of the duplication that has occurred in our processes. So being able to streamline that—a phrase that I think all parties have used to explain their support for this bill—will obviously have some reduction in terms of the costs of running elections but more to the point it will provide more clarity for political parties and parliamentary candidates than has necessarily been the case in the past. This a staged process although the commission exists. Mr Chauvel spoke about the fact that two members of the commission are appointed and there is a third member to come on board which should take place as quickly as possible. Again I say that the Minister has been very generous in his consultation on that. Once that is set up I think it will be quite important for the members to assume those responsibilities as soon as that can take place. 
I must admit I am surprised that the role of the Chief Registrar of Electors do not fall into this new commission until 2012 which is still quite some time away. That takes us beyond the Botany by-election and it takes us beyond the general election of 2011 as well. So there will be quite some time before these reforms all take place. But there is a road map for it and I think that is quite a useful thing that has been signalled to us. 
I will pick up on some of the points that members of the Justice and Electoral Committee made because I think they focused on this quite heavily after the general election. We have a convention I guess that after every general election the committee conducts an inquiry. There are submissions from different political parties and most of them are from those who are active in the election process. In some years nothing really happens with those reports but this year I was very pleased to see that the multiparty committee that inquired into that has made some recommendations that the Government has picked up. Those have been outlined by Lianne Dalziel and Hekia Parata just mentioned a number of them in respect of immigration information that is available. 
I think that moving down the path of e-enrolment will be a very important thing particularly when people find through moving around that they can easily be dropped off the roll which none of us like to see happen. I think the reforms that were made when Tim Barnett was the chair of the select committee to assume that people would be reinstated on the roll after every general election were a good thing. Members will recall that after each election everyone was wiped from the roll and forced to re-enrol—that was a crazy system. It has been much better to have the reform whereby people are assumed to continue as electors unless there is a reason not to. So I am pleased to see that that has continued. 
We are lucky in New Zealand that we have very high levels of enrolment and an optional voting system. That is an important element to make sure that people get on the electoral roll and exercise their right to vote. In Australia of course with its compulsory voting system that is not as important. There is an almost 100 percent rate of participation in elections. I know that there is a state election in Victoria this weekend and once again we will see an electoral system that works very very credibly. Labour supports the referral of this bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. For the reasons I have outlined this is useful legislation and we congratulate the Minister of Justice Simon Power on the way he is conducting this process. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I was not going to mention the Mana by-election but as the member who has just resumed his seat Mr Hughes opened the door I am very happy to go through it. I congratulate Mr Fa’fo and I look forward as all honourable members do— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It’s “Fa’foi”. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Thank you. I look forward as I am sure all members do to Mr Fa’afoi taking his seat in this House. But it was a pyrrhic victory really was it not? We can see it was when we think about all the union resources Labour members used. They were trucking protesters up from Dunedin for goodness’ sake! Of course there is a surplus of them down there. I am sure that Labour could have done without a few because they have had very little to protest about down there. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How does the member go in Dunedin? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I have not had them outside my office for several months. I cannot think what might be going right but something is definitely going right. The protesters had nothing else to do but come to Mana and protest the Prime Minister and the National candidate. Really as the Prime Minister said it was the best feeling anyone could have coming second; we never thought that coming second would feel so good. The Leader of the Opposition said the by-election was a referendum on the Government. I think actually that it was more of a referendum on his leadership and on the Labour Opposition. Some members of that caucus must be sweating profusely. That does not apply to the good Mr Hodgson; he will not have to worry for too much longer. 
On a more generous note I will pick up on the points Mr Chauvel made. Was that the correct pronunciation? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This time yes. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Mr Chauvel made some very generous comments about the temporary select committee that was set up the Electoral Legislation Committee. I thought it did an outstanding job. I was not a member of that select committee but like many other members I spent some time on it. It dealt with some really tricky issues on the three bills it was considering. They involved quite substantial changes to our electoral system and I congratulate all the members on the work they have done. 
This bill of course will continue that work. I think it will be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am particularly interested in the Internet capability for e-enrolment that this bill will provide and also the efficiencies that will continue with the merger of the three organisations. I strongly support the bill. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I am surprised and disappointed that the member from Dunedin who has just resumed his seat Mr Woodhouse was unable to make a contribution longer than the modest one he made. In the course of his speech he spent much time speaking about Mana and a surfeit of support from Dunedin to help in the Mana electorate because there are an awful lot of Labour Party activists in Dunedin. Well if that is to be the tenor of that member’s contribution let me take issue with the fact that we have a surfeit of Labour Party supporters in Dunedin who were able to help in the Mana by-election and contrast that with the fact that a fellow called Joe Butterfield has just been appointed as chief executive of the Southland District Health Board. He comes from Timaru which is 200 kilometres from Dunedin and I say to Mr Assistant Speaker Roy it is 400 kilometres from Invercargill which you know so well. There is no air link. And this is a man who is well into his 70s. 
What does that say for the quality of National Party hacks in Dunedin? The Minister of Health thinks that the National Party hacks in Dunedin are all of such low standards that he has to appoint a very experienced man I must admit from 200 kilometres further north. Well enough—enough of that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Back to Mana. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: All I would say about Mana is that the turn out in Mana exceeded the turn-out in Mt Albert that the party vote for the Labour Party in Mana exceeded the party vote for the Labour Party in the 2008 election that whenever we have a by-election there is always a lesser turn-out than there is in a general election therefore there is always a lesser majority than there is in a general election before or after. It happens time and again. We could go through any by-election. One could go to the Taranaki - King Country by-election and find the same thing. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: There’s only ever one winner. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There was only one winner in the Taranaki - King Country by-election. True he came to this House in a tractor which he failed to stop and in which he went up the steps of Parliament House. But there was only one winner. The Labour Party did not win Taranaki - King Country; we came second and there is no place for second in politics. We consider the Taranaki - King Country by-election to be a dreadful loss. Mana on the other hand was not. “We won. You lost. Eat that!” Ha ha! I do not know whether I am quoting anyone. I wonder who last said that. What seat were they in? What reaction did it cause around the country? Was there a strike by capital? I think there was but probably not in this case. 
I will make some serious remarks about electoral reform. This legislation is pretty modest. It does not do a lot but it does some stuff that is really rather interesting including for example moving us towards electronic enrolments. I think that is pretty smart. One thing will follow like night follows day as soon as we have electronic enrolments and it is that people will ask why they cannot enrol on election day or why they cannot enrol after election day and before the special votes are counted and so on. People will push the boundaries and that has been part of history. We used to close the electoral roll 28 days before an election in order to get the roll printed. It was a lovely excuse. We had to close the roll 28 days before an election in order to print it because unless it could be seen that they were on the printed roll they could not be issued with voting papers. Of course there were exceptions say where someone had just come of age in the week before the election in which case they could cast a special vote. 
Finally one bright spark said: “Well if you can cast a special vote for that reason maybe you can cast a special vote for the fact that you have only just gone on the roll in general a week before.” So one way or another after a lot of argy-bargy through the 1990s the enrolment closure period moved from 28 days out to 5 p.m. the day before the election. Still in the last election 20000-odd people—I cannot remember the exact number; let us say 25000 people about the adult population of Timaru—on election day went to the trouble of going down to the polling booth asking for their name to be looked up finding that their name was not to be found on the roll asking for a special vote being given a special vote filling in the special voting form putting it in the ballot box and having their special vote not counted—only because they were not on the roll. That occurred with 25000-odd New Zealanders or maybe 23000. 
Under-enrolment even though we have high levels of enrolment when compared with the standards of some jurisdictions continues to disenfranchise folk. We need to be preoccupied by that. So moving to electronic enrolment is a damn good idea but it does beg the question of whether people can enrol on election day. If people can enrol on election day then the question arises as to whether those people can enrol and then vote. Of course the administrators will say that they are busy enough already. But as administration gets easier and easier and we move to a more and more straightforward and electronic approach to life in general including electronic voting one day then the idea of electronic enrolling and voting at once will be plausible and the minute it is plausible it will be demanded. 
We are on a bit of a journey and this legislation takes us one step further. Earlier speakers have spoken of the value of a mostly agreed electoral system—of a mostly agreed electoral system. There are periods in our history including one recently when the electoral system the law around the electoral Acts or various pieces of legislation that we use including parliamentary rules has not been agreed on across the House. There will always be some argy-bargy. There will always be a viewpoint from say the ACT Party that there should be absolutely no restriction ever again on anyone doing for example television advertising because that is just horrible. If someone is extremely rich and wants to spend a lot of money buying an election result—and is stupid enough to spend their money on that says the ACT Party—then they should be allowed to because that is what a liberal society looks like. There are other people who hold the view that it is best that we do not have people winning elections on the basis of how rich they are but rather on the basis of the contest of their arguments and whether their arguments stack up in the views of the majority. 
There will always be differences but it is really important that we get a significant measure of agreement which we have not always had. Indeed there were some terrible debates in this House over the 28-day enrolment rule of 1993 1996 and 1999—way back then. Then when we got ourselves into the MMP debate around 1992-93 and we had some incredible debates then too. I say that this legislation and the legislation that is coming up later this week now has a significant measure of agreement at least between the two major parties. I acknowledge that minor parties hold other views and I am respectful of those. But equally I think minor parties would acknowledge that it is good that the bulk of us have a rough measure of agreement about what electoral laws should be like because it so important because it is part of our constitution. All I would say— 
Hilary Calvert 
: Because you get free TV Pete. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There goes the ACT Party position. I told her what it was and minutes later the member having returned from urgent public business walks into the Chamber and like the puppet she is out it came. It is just what one would expect from the ACT Party. It is good to see her here another person from Dunedin and that is great. In fact there are not a lot of people left in Dunedin north midweek because half of that number are up here in the House. We have a significant measure of agreement across the House. I add my thanks to the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power and indeed to the National caucus for their contribution to that better measure of agreement. It is not great agreement but it is much much better. We are probably a better nation for that better agreement. Thank you. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 It is good to stand up in support of the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). A lot of people do not realise that about 80 percent of bills that pass through the House have agreement between National and Labour. Labour supports good legislation. We support strong legislation and we support common-sense legislation. In fact the only sort of legislation we do not support is the sort of legislation that strips away rights from workers—and we have seen a little bit of that recently as Mr Assistant Speaker Roy is well aware. We have debated that long and hard and I think the vast majority of New Zealanders understand that National is the party for the few; Labour is the party for the many. 
We support this legislation but the other sort of legislation we do not support is the sort of legislation that gives massive tax cuts to those very few at the top. As an example we are talking about the 650 New Zealanders who earn $1 million or more. They have received a tax cut of about $1000 a week or more. People on the median wage in Napier have received less than $5. That is the sort of legislation that Labour does not support because it is not fair or equitable. It is not what everyday New Zealanders support or in fact what the vast majority of New Zealanders actually voted for. It is not the sort of legislation that Labour would support. 
Michael Woodhouse brought up an interesting fact when he started speaking about the Mana electorate. It sounded like the rhetoric we hear from the New Zealand cricket team when they talk about moral victories. National has said there was a moral victory in Mana. John Key stood up and said: “Coming second has never felt so good.” Well he will come second again in about 12 months so I hope he feels the same way then. I tell him that members on this side know there is a winner and there is a loser; there is not a moral victory. So I tell him to enjoy his moral victory because he will have a lot more moral victories. But on this side of the House all we are concerned about is real victories. Chris Fa’afoi won; Hekia Parata came runner-up—again. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: No she doesn’t “do runner-up”. 
STUART NASH 
: That is right: she does not do runner-up—but she does. I do not quite understand that but it is the sort of gobbledegook we are used to hearing from members opposite anyway. John Key was “ecstatic” at National’s coming second. Well he will be laughing a long time next year I assure him. 
I must admit that it was good to hear the contribution from the ACT Party. I think it was a retort that said something about free TV. I ask my chief whip how many votes the ACT candidate got in Mana. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Half a percent. 
STUART NASH 
: I think that was about 100 votes. I saw the Hon Rodney Hide in the Koru Club one time when I was heading back to Napier to work hard in Hawke’s Bay because we are going to take those Bay seats back. I asked him where he was headed to and was told he was going down to Mana. I thought to myself: “Why is he going down to Mana? Is there something to do with local government down there? Is there a local government conference?”. But he was going down to campaign in Mana. Why would he? ACT got 100 votes. I have to say that he is a man who was against perks. He was a perk-buster. So how much money did it cost to get Rodney Hide from Auckland down to Mana and back again?”. It was about $1000 per vote I suspect. That is not a good use of taxpayers’ money at all. 
Paddy from TV3 came up and asked: “How much taxpayers’ money did it cost to get you MPs out to Mana?”. I said: “To tell the truth it did not cost the taxpayers any money but it cost me $6 on the train.” He said: “Oh there goes my story.” I said: “Absolutely!”. No taxpayers’ money was involved because we were on the train out to Mana every day.” At 6 a.m. we were on the train. It did not cost any money because I was down here on a Thursday anyway. I just decided to go out and help out a mate in Mana because that is what we do in the Labour Party. At 6 a.m. we are normally at the gym or going for a run but that Thursday I thought I would go and help out a mate; I went and waved some signs. It cost me $6 out of my own pocket. So it was a moral victory for National but it was a real victory for Labour which is what we are concerned about. 
I come back to the bill. As mentioned we support the bill because we support good common-sense legislation—legislation that makes it easier for all New Zealanders to engage in the voting process. As my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson mentioned before this bill is about making it easier to enrol and using online electoral enrolment. That is a good thing and I give one reason: when I was out doorknocking in Mana many people were either not enrolled or were not living at the address shown in the current electoral roll. When people are not enrolled they become disenfranchised from the system and we all know the statistics of people who have turned up on enrolment day in a general election wanting to vote but not able to vote. The people I met wanted to have their say. They had taken time out to go and vote once every 3 years—that is all but if they live in Mana it is a little bit more often—but they had been told they were not on the roll. Well that is not right apart from the fact that we know it is actually illegal not to be on the roll. Unlike Australia where it is illegal not to vote here it is illegal not to be on the roll. 
We have to make it easy for people to obey the law and to get on the roll. If there are any impediments to that then it is really the role of this Parliament to ensure that those impediments are removed or at least mitigated and to make it easy for people to engage. That is what this bill does. It provides for a more efficient way of checking that electors’ immigration status legally allows them to be on the electoral roll. Anyone who has been to a citizenship ceremony will understand the importance that new immigrants place on voting in this country. For a lot of countries that is not a right and the reason a lot of people are here is that they have been denied their fundamental democratic right to vote. But in New Zealand we think it is a very fundamental right to vote. It is probably the No. 1 right when one becomes a New Zealander—one’s right to choose the next Government. We have to make it easy for people to do that; I think that everyone would agree with that but in Mana there were many instances where that was not the case. People did not know they could not check and they did not have the ability to check. This bill will make it so much easier which we are all for. 
Another thing I would like to talk about which has already been alluded to is electoral finance reform and referenda. The Government’s initial refusal to provide spending caps on so-called parallel campaigners or third parties was actually a black mark against electoral reforms. But Mr Power saw common sense and realised there needed to be transparency so we reached a workable compromise. I thank my Labour colleagues very much who suggested to Mr Power that that would be a good suggestion. He listened and here we have what we have now. I understand that the new spending limit on third parties is about $300000. To a lot of people $300000 sounds like a lot of money but when we hark back to the 2005 election we know there was a group—I think the Exclusive Brethren—who spent a million dollars. They were not aligned to any political party—in fact they are not even allowed to vote according to their religion—but they spent a million dollars. This bill brings the limit right back to $300000. Under a citizens initiated referendum it would be down to $50000 and we think that that would be a good idea; as I said we must have transparency and accountability. 
Under the former electoral administration set-up we basically had three separate bodies. There was the Chief Electoral Officer—but let me tell members a story. I was standing beside one of the electoral blokes on election day in Mana. He got a call saying there was a “Nash Labour car” driving through the electorate. I was standing beside him and he asked where my car was. I said that I had driven it right through the electorate and it was now sitting in the parliamentary car park underneath Parliament House. We relayed that and the electoral officer said—well I cannot repeat what he said but I can tell members that he was not very happy about that at all. We have to use a bit of common sense in this situation but the blokes on the other side ignored that common-sense test well and truly. 
Under the former set-up there was also the Electoral Commission and the Chief Registrar of Electors. Now we have a new Electoral Commission and it conducts elections deals with donations informs the public about electoral matters apportions broadcasting time and funding registers parties and logos and maintains the electoral roll. 
This is good common-sense legislation. As I have said Labour supports common-sense legislation. Thank you very much. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I will take a short call on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party will be supporting this legislation. It is the second bill that deals with reforming the various electoral agencies. It makes perfect sense in the circumstances for it to proceed and we have no problems with it. We supported the first round of legislation on this issue and we will support this one as well. 
Other members have been talking too about the other electoral law that we expect will be available for debate later this week on the electoral financing system. The Green Party is very pleased to see that in that bill for example there are caps on spending by third parties in an election as there will be in the MMP referendum. The electoral agencies that are concerned in the bill we are discussing tonight will manage that process. We will go into that debate in more detail later in the week but for the Greens those are significant issues about the protection of our democracy. 
The democratic system that we have in this country although not perfect—and it will never be perfect—is one that attempts to provide the fairest and most genuine representation to all New Zealanders that is possible. It is a democratic system that we need to continue to improve to be honest about its failings and to be able to deal with the changes that need to be made. 
We know that in the next election for example there will be an MMP referendum. Legislation about that referendum will come to this House soon for debate. We see that decisions have been made to put a cap on the spending of third parties on the MMP referendum. We are very pleased about that. We think that is very important. One of the most important decisions that the people of this country—the citizens of this country—can make is a decision about the kind of system we use to elect our representatives to this House. Indeed a more important decision than an election itself is how we conduct it. 
As we look around the world we see so many examples where communities are stripped of their right to have a say. They are stripped of their right to fair representation inside their democratic system. They are stripped of their right to critique and assess whether their representatives have done a good job and to hold those representatives to account. They are stripped in many places of their right just to be represented—just to have a voice in a House like this that will speak for them and their issues. 
We in this country despite the flaws of our system are very lucky that we have a proportional representative system. That means that by far the majority of New Zealanders who vote in this country are represented by their choice of representative in this House. That is a critical step in the development and the growth of a changing electoral system and of a democratic system. 
The provisions of this bill are very narrow and I am certainly talking about the broader issues around electoral reform but I think it is very important that we continue to put out the message that this electoral system and this system of democracy—the Westminster representative democracy—belongs to the citizens of this country. They are entitled to be decision makers to have access to the best possible information and to have a process of information and decision making that is not corrupted by the influence of excessive use of money. 
There is a lot of argument about whether there should be controls on spending on elections and for example on the MMP referendum. But those controls are necessary; advertising works. It is a multibillion dollar industry for a reason and that is because advertising works. Because it works so well and can distort what is the most critical debate this country faces which is how we will elect our Governments and how we elect our representatives to this Chamber we need to make sure that the public get access to good quality information and that that is not distorted by the abuse and the misuse of money in the system. That is why we are so pleased to see that the Government has agreed to our proposal to have caps on the MMP referendum alongside caps on third parties in electoral finance law. 
All of those issues are part of the public debate. It is really important that the public themselves engage in those discussions in this debate. There was the select committee process and no doubt there may be other issues that get raised as a result of this legislation being passed tonight that will be discussed at select committee. But at the end of the day as I say any provision and any legislation that deal with reform of our electoral system are of critical import to the rights of our people to act as citizens and take responsibility as citizens for the electoral system and the governance systems of their country. We are pleased to support legislation that does that. Kia ora. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a very short call on this Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is the member standing again? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: The member is standing again. It is good to see the member sitting in on this occasion. He is the voluble ex-member of—where was it Otaki? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Ex and next. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I do not think so. Amendments arising from inquiry into the 2008 general election are encapsulated in this bill. They will renew and simplify enrolment processes to maximise enrolment and achieve cost effectiveness. 
It is good to see that the Labour Opposition including Darren Hughes Charles Chauvel and even Stuart Nash all recognise the finely crafted job that this excellent National Government has achieved in bringing this bill about. I commend it to the House. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I first of all want to thank Simon Power for the work that he has done on the Electoral (Administration) Amendment Bill (No 2). He has listened to other people and that is when Parliament is at its best—when the Government listens to this Opposition. It has been a tough week for the National Government. It was going to win Mana but it came second and it is very happy about that—a close second. But at the TAB when one puts one’s money on for a win one gets something back only if the horse wins. National’s horse came nowhere. 
I listened to the member for Hunua. It is great to see the member for Hunua actually standing up to say something in Parliament. But out in Hunua people are dissatisfied and National is dissatisfied with the member for Hunua. People are now plotting and scheming and looking for who can replace the person who replaced Bill Birch and of course he came second and will come second. 
This bill is really important. When we have electoral reform it is very easy for people to look after their own interests. It is not often that we get the two major parties agreeing and I think that is good. Some of the smaller parties will not be happy with all of this and they really need to voice their concerns a lot stronger than they have. But we as an Opposition believe that voting has to be made even simpler. In my electorate many people shift around. It is a very transient area. It does not matter where they come from they come into Manurewa and they love George. Of course Cam Calder will tell members that. But a lot of these people do not get themselves on the electoral roll and they miss out on voting. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is Cam on the Manurewa roll? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No Cam is not on the Manurewa roll; he is on the North Shore roll. He has to come across the bridge each day but he knows where a good place is. But those people who do not get themselves on the roll do not get to vote. That is really very sad. Some of them turn up on election day and want to vote. They want to vote for me and I support them but they cannot. They get a special vote and when they get a special vote it usually ends up in the bin. It goes into the bin. These people have problems because of the transient nature of their lifestyle when they run away from one landlord to another landlord. That is the style of life that people face in tough times and this Government forgets that. It thinks that people should pay 2.5 cents more in the dollar for everything they buy. For every dollar that they spend another 2.5 cents goes to the Government. These people want to be able to get out probably in July next year when the general election will take place and they want to have something to say. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This is Botany. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: They will in Botany. They will get up and there will be voting going on there. Botany is interesting. It is a seat where there is a lot of interest and people are all of a sudden becoming very interested in Botany. They are National members all looking for somewhere to go. I say to Cam Calder that Botany is a good seat. In fact it is probably closer to Devonport than Manurewa. Perhaps he should go there. 
I want to finish off by saying to Simon Power that it is good that he has brought this bill here and that he has listened and cooperated in a very genuine way. That is something that is all too rare here. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
Environmental Protection Authority Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environmental Protection Authority Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee with an instruction that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 March 2011 and that the committee have the authority to meet as required at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening of a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This bill is an important part of the Government’s programme to strengthen New Zealand’s environment management systems. It is about central government providing stronger leadership on environmental regulation. It is about a balanced approach of growing the economy but underpinned by sound environmental systems. It is about an efficient Public Service where we group like activities together under one roof and it is about ensuring integrity independence and consistency in the way we organise our environmental institutions. 
The need for this bill is a product of our time. There was a stage in our development when environmental issues were fringe when environmental considerations were an optional extra and when only a few public policy issues had an environmental dimension. The reality is that many of the really challenging issues we face this century are environmental such as the limiting of emissions and a water-constrained world. We need better and stronger public institutions to help us manage those challenges as a nation. 
In the 1970s we got our first environment Minister; in the 1980s the Ministry for the Environment. Just as there are clear separations of responsibility in the economic sphere between Treasury the Reserve Bank and Audit New Zealand in the environment sphere there are different roles. The thinking behind this bill is that the Ministry for the Environment is the brains trust the policy thinktank and the adviser to Government whereas the Environmental Protection Authority is the arm’s-length regulator of environmental standards and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is the environmental auditor. 
Internationally the notion of an environmental protection authority is not new. Such authorities exist in most OECD jurisdictions including at state level in Australia the USA and the European Union. The idea in a New Zealand context came out of National’s 2006  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 discussion document. Following public consultation it became part of National’s 2008 environment policy. 
Part of the rationale for the Environmental Protection Authority is a view that our Resource Management Act system of environmental regulation is too devolved. It does not make sense for a small country of 4.5 million people to have every environmental issue relitigated 78 times with each council. It is also underpinned by a view that some major consents are nationally significant and rather than being processed by territorial or regional councils should be dealt with by a national consenting authority. 
The bill before the House establishes the new Environmental Protection Authority as a Crown entity under the Crown Entities Act 2004 with its own appointed board. The bill disestablishes the Environmental Risk Management Authority and transfers all its functions and powers under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to the Environmental Protection Authority. The new authority incorporates the transitional Environmental Protection Authority established within the Ministry for the Environment as part of this Government’s first phase of resource management reforms introduced in our first 100 days as a Government. We wanted to get that new national consenting function up and running as quickly as possible. The value of that is reinforced by the fact that there are over $5 billion of resource consents currently before it. 
The House should be encouraged by the progress that the transitional Environmental Protection Authority has made to date. Four major consents are currently before the authority: the Tauhara Stage Two geothermal project near Taupo the Waterview Connection in Auckland Transmission Gully here in Wellington and the new Wiri men’s prison at Manukau. I contrast the progress made by the Environmental Protection Authority on the Tauhara project—issuing an interim decision within 6½ months and its final decision within 9 months—with the 15-year-long battle over the Wellington inner-city bypass or the 12-year fiasco over the Whangamata marina. The new processes are proving robust timely and well managed by the Environmental Protection Authority. 
It was not possible to resolve the important detail of the new authority in the tight time frame of the 100-day first phase of resource management reforms so this bill presents the detailed work of designing the new authority’s form and functions. The bill achieves that by amending the Climate Change Response Act 2002 the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the Resource Management Act 1991 to allow for the relevant functions and powers from those Acts to transfer to the new Environmental Protection Authority. I ask the House to note that it is not the Government’s intention to alter the substance of functions carried out under those three Acts; what changes is the body responsible for them. 
The bill transfers some administrative functions of the emissions trading scheme from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment to the Environmental Protection Authority. These functions include the emissions trading register and the allocation of New Zealand units for industry and agriculture. The administration of the forestry portion of the emissions trading scheme appropriately remains with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. It is my intention that the Environmental Protection Authority will also assume responsibility for the regulatory functions necessary under the imports and export orders and the Ozone Layer Protection Act and their regulations. Regulatory changes to give effect to that change will likely occur alongside the progress of the bill. 
The Government is also working on legislation on New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone. New Zealand’s marine environment is an integral part of our nation and contributes significantly to our economy and environment. Obviously it is important to our fishing aquaculture oil and gas tourism transport and telecommunications industries. However there is currently no way to effectively manage the environmental impact of activities within the exclusive economic zone. The Government is determined to ensure that New Zealand’s marine environment is properly protected as we expand development in that area. We run not only an environmental risk; the gap in regulation leads to uncertainty and could constrain future economic growth from New Zealand’s extensive marine resources. It is therefore my intention that the Environmental Protection Authority be responsible for the permitting functions that will arise from that proposed exclusive economic zone legislation. 
A further function of the Environmental Protection Authority under clause 12 will be the undertaking of environmental assessments under the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994 which currently resides within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Again I think most members would subscribe to the view that the Environmental Protection Authority rather than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is the better home for that role. 
The bill quite deliberately creates a separation between the Minister and regulatory functions. I note for instance that when we brought before the House amendments to moderate the emissions trading scheme a number of thoughtful submissions sought greater separation between the management of the registry by the Minister and our decisions over the emissions trading scheme in respect of prosecution and non-compliance. This bill refines the administration of the emissions trading scheme to achieve that separation. The broader issue of Ministers being close to policy but at arm’s length from regulatory functions is generally good public policy and is being applied in this bill. 
I acknowledge the Maori Party’s support for this bill. The capacity of National and the Maori Party to work together on important environmental legislation reflects a common interest in progressing reforms that carefully balance economic and environmental interests. 
To summarise this bill it brings together under one Crown authority a range of environmental regulatory functions that currently partially reside within the Ministry for the Environment the Environmental Risk Management Authority the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as well as providing stronger national direction on roles that currently reside within our 86 regional and territorial authorities. 
This bill is a balanced environmental approach. It reinforces the importance of scientific skills in good environmental decision-making. It recognises the importance to our economy of efficiency in environmental regulation. The time for a comprehensive Environmental Protection Authority for New Zealand has come. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I move that all the words after the word “committee” in the motion be deleted. The Minister for the Environment rejoices publicly in good process and in collaborative processes in the environmental area yet here we have a motion presaging a reference of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill to a select committee that expresses an intention on the part of the Government to have the Local Government and Environment Committee sit all hours and to have members of the committee deprived of their ability to sit in the House when they might be required to do so because they will be needed on the Local Government and Environment Committee to look at the detail of the bill. 
Bad legislation starts with bad process and nowhere is that truer than in the environmental area. The Minister should know better having trumpeted the collaborative process started by the previous Labour Government with the Land and Water Forum. I think every member of this House hopes that that process will bear fruit but the lesson should be that bad process will lead to bad outcomes. Here we start the Environmental Protection Authority Bill with bad process and bad faith from the Minister which are hallmarks unfortunately of his tenure in the role of Minister for the Environment. 
New Zealand’s pristine natural environment is something we should protect and treat with respect. Labour knows that the preservation of our vital natural spaces is necessary not only to our economy but to preserving our very way of life. The real danger in the Environmental Protection Authority Bill at least as it has been brought to the House by the Minister is that it will be used simply as a vehicle to sidetrack the democratic process. This Government has nearly come to the end of its first term—hopefully its only term—and over the past 2 years it has developed a very bad record on environmental protection. It has excelled in circumventing and abusing the democratic process when it comes to the environment. If we are to judge this Government on its actions rather than its words then the fear must be that the Environmental Protection Authority will be used from the outset as we have just seen signalled by the Minister’s intended motion about the select committee to undermine democratic procedures. 
The House should note that in its current form the transitional Environmental Protection Authority within the Ministry for the Environment is already being used by the National Government as part of its assault on democracy and on consultation with local communities. The Minister virtually admitted in his speech—though of course he put it much more rosily than this—that the Environmental Protection Authority has been used to fast track controversial projects such as the Waterview Connection despite requests by the Eden Albert Community Board and the Auckland City Council to have the submission period extended. These requests were deliberately ignored under the existing Environmental Protection Authority process. In the case of Transmission Gully which was cited by the Minister the Environmental Protection Authority has been used to circumvent the Wellington Regional Council’s freshwater plan. It looks as if the Environmental Protection Authority will also be used to create a private prison in South Auckland despite the objections again in the media today of local residents. 
All those instances involve people being denied the opportunity to have their say on issues that affect their communities. It is not a good start for the Environmental Protection Authority despite the fair words we have heard from the Minister. Ideally the creation of an independent authority would eliminate rather than exacerbate these problems but that is unlikely to be the case. The establishment authority has been understaffed and it appears there will be no new resources allocated to the new authority. So fundamentally why would anybody expect environmental outcomes to improve? More worryingly the board of this “independent” authority will be accountable to Dr Nick Smith. The only thing worse than an entity that has problems with democratic processes because of the very way that it is set up is one that is ostensibly independent but in reality is at the whim of that Minister. 
If the Government cared at all about empowering communities it would not be stripping councils of the power to consent and regulate off-shore oil and gas operations as this bill will do. The processing of these sorts of applications needs to take the feedback of communities and iwi into account and who better to take into account that feedback than local democratically elected councils? It is far better to have that happening than to have it happen through some central body under the control of the Minister in Wellington. That violates the very spirit of the Resource Management Act and gets rid of all local input. The power should be residing locally rather than having it deposited in some body in Wellington. 
Not only have we had heard the Minister foreshadow depriving members of the Local Government and Environment Committee of being able to perform their ordinary parliamentary duties but also we have had the example of the Government’s unprecedented abuse of urgency through its term in Parliament so far. This has been accompanied by the firing of democratically elected representatives in Canterbury and that is a cause for great concern. So far the track record of this Government on the environment provides little comfort that the new Environmental Protection Authority will do much for environmental protection at all. 
There are some examples worth recording in this House tonight. The regulation of air quality is one example that I have asked the Minister about a number of times. National has effectively thrown away the reins by extending the deadline for the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality to 2018. Ironically this is a Government that is willing to implement untested untrialled national standards for schools but refuses to place any importance on national standards for air quality which are based on scientific research. The Government is willing to put at risk not only our environment but also potentially people’s lives. 
The Minister cited the emissions trading scheme in his speech. We have seen National water down the emissions trading scheme and make changes to it so that hard-working Kiwi families have to pay for big businesses’ pollution while watching climate change continue to worsen. 
Nicky Wagner 
: That’s half the cost. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Here they go repeating the mantra of balance between the economy and the environment as if that myth could somehow take hold when in fact the reality is that they are not separate criteria; it is the same one. 
Chris Tremain 
: The reality is that it took you guys 8 years to get legislation in this House to protect the environment—8 years! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Tremain is talking about how long it took to get an emissions trading scheme into place. It came into place along with an energy strategy a meaningful transport strategy and a whole host of measures to actually control New Zealand’s emissions. What do we see under this Government? There is no plan at all to deal with emissions. 
As if the watering down of the emissions trading scheme was not bad enough we then saw John Key’s Government try to get its hand on New Zealand’s most precious schedule 4 land. It backed down only after the hugest public outcry. There has been a failure to adopt environmental standards for our waterways. There has been the abolition of a democratically elected council in a bid to help big corporate dairy-farming interests and the repeal of the biofuel obligation. The biofuel obligation has been replaced with a biofuels grants scheme that has had a 1 percent take-up over the past year. Meanwhile several biofuels businesses that the Labour Government helped to get off the ground have lost business and shut down because of National’s changes. National just does not have a plan for the future especially not when the environment is involved. 
It has watered down the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy leaving the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority without any meaningful plan to measure itself against. It now effectively exists to make it look as if this Government cares about the environment. The Government has watered down the energy strategy—the plan to have 90 percent of our energy coming from renewable sources by 2025. National’s focus in that plan as has recently been published is all about developing coal and petroleum. They are 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. 
Labour members think it is important to have a decent authority advising the Government on matters relating to the environment but that authority has to be independent and not subject to abuse from a Minister who has no regard for process. As the bill stands this authority stands in great danger of abuse from a Government that has shown no respect for the environment or for democracy. We will have to come up with a much better bill at the select committee if Labour is going to be able to support this legislation further. Although we will support sending the bill to the select committee because of the record that I have outlined in the House tonight we will be looking at the bill very very carefully to ensure it is much more fit for purpose than it is currently. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Environmental Protection Authority Bill 2010. The Environmental Protection Authority is designed to provide the country with strong and independent environmental oversight—strong and independent. Despite Mr Chauvel’s protests the concept has wide acceptance across the House and by environmental groups. I would like to quote from the Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand which said: “The Government decision to establish an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fully fledged is welcomed.” 
It is interesting to see that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment is also positive about the Environmental Protection Authority. She said: “I’m pleased to see the EPA will be a stand-alone entity as that will ensure its work is not only independent but that it is seen to be independent. I’m also encouraged to see that the new EPA will have a high level of technical capability.” That was said by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright. 
This bill is very significant because it allows the Government to provide stronger central government leadership on environmental issues. New Zealand is known overseas for its beautiful natural environment and we need to make sure we deliver on our international reputation as a clean green country. We must improve on the environmental outcomes we inherited from 9 years of the previous Labour Government. Our environmental practices must reflect our reputation and our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. 
The establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority was part of National’s election promises and it is part of our plan for better environmental outcomes. It underpins our blue-green vision of protecting the environment while growing the economy. The two must go hand in hand. New Zealanders are closely connected to their local environments but the existing legislative framework is too decentralised and some issues are often relitigated across our local authorities. We want to use our personal energy and resources to conserve and to enhance the environment rather than to continually relitigate the same old issues in different places. There is a lot of support for the fact that it is more efficient and effective for a small country of just over 4 million people to regulate some environmental issues nationally. 
This bill is an omnibus bill. It amends several environmental Acts and establishes the new Environmental Protection Authority as a Crown agent under the Crown Entities Act 2004. It requires the Environmental Protection Authority to advise the Minister and exercise powers conferred on it by the Climate Change Response Act 2002 the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 and the Resource Management Act 1991. The bill is designed to give greater clarity to environmental functions. The Government’s reforms are about the Ministry for the Environment being focused on policy the Environmental Protection Authority being focused on administrating regulations and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment being an overall systems auditor. That seems to us to be a pretty good pattern and a pretty good template. 
The Environmental Protection Authority will also bring together under one entity regulatory functions concerning the environment that are presently split between the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Economic Development the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It will ensure that regulatory functions are independent from Ministers. The Government believes that functions such as national consenting and the administration of the emissions trading scheme should be at arm’s length from the Government and in an independent Crown entity. 
The Environmental Protection Authority is to undertake its functions in a way that contributes to the efficient effective and transparent management of the New Zealand environment and its natural and physical resources and enables New Zealand to meet its international obligations. Combining technical and regulatory skills in one body will lead to better-informed environmental decisions and greater protection for our natural resources. The bill brings together a wide range of regulatory functions and provides stronger national direction to the environmental roles of the regional and district councils. The bill also provides for Maori advisory committees to provide advice and assistance to the Environmental Protection Authority on policy matters processes and decisions. 
The Environmental Protection Authority will administer the emissions trading scheme and take over the responsibilities of the Environmental Risk Management Authority under the Hazardous Substance and New Organisms Act 1996. The new Environmental Protection Authority will also take over the functions of the temporary Environmental Protection Authority which was established under the amended Resource Management Act last year. There is also potential for further growth of the Environmental Protection Authority where other appropriate functions could be transferred to it. 
The establishment of a stand-alone Environmental Protection Authority is positive for our environment and for our natural resources. It will be a strong independent regulatory authority and it will ensure the protection of our environment at a national level. I support this bill and commend it to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow the convenor of the National blue-green caucus—and how apt it is that I should follow on. Blue-green algae I understand is the most toxic algae found in New Zealand’s waterways. It is killing dogs in several rivers in Canterbury that manage to eat some of that blue-green algae. How appropriate and apt it is to follow on from that speaker Nicky Wagner! 
The referral of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee will be supported by the Labour Party. We believe there could be some real value in a properly funded and constituted Environmental Protection Authority. But the question is whether this will provide the powers and teeth that are necessary to protect our environment. I do believe that is what the Hon Dr Nick Smith wanted—I believe that. He has spoken strongly about protecting the environment and prior to the election he and the blue-green caucus had a very strong paper  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 which promoted the Ministry for the Environment being replaced by an Environmental Protection Authority—and of course we see that heralded tonight—and also replaced by a ministry for sustainable development. I do not see the second leg of that policy emerging; maybe that is still in the offing but I have my doubts. I have very real doubts that we will see that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It didn’t make it to policy. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: It did not make it to policy from  
A Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand 
 by the Hon Dr Nick Smith. So there we go; it did not come through. Why did it not come through? Prior to the election and certainly from the election onwards I think that Nick Smith lost ground and I think the first signal of that came on 20 December 2008 when a forum was called by Federated Farmers for irrigators across Canterbury. It was attended by Gerry Brownlee as Minister for Economic Development by Bill English as Minister of Finance and by David Carter as Minister of Agriculture but Nick Smith was not there. I think they did not want any environmental voice present at that meeting because that forum set the scene for the demolition of Environment Canterbury which followed in rapid fashion from thereon. 
I think the Environment Canterbury legislation went further than Dr Smith would have wanted—I really would say that. I think he would not have wanted for instance the inclusion at the eleventh hour of the move to do away with the process for awarding and retaining water conservation orders. That amendment to that bill as included and presented and passed by this House after 30 hours of urgency which I note we will see mirrored by this legislation tonight nearly cost him the support of many in the Land and Water Forum. Indeed I think his own good friend and confidant Guy Salmon was horrified at the late addition to the bill and he said so publicly. The environmental movement in trying to give some support to the good ambitions of Dr Nick Smith I think felt betrayed by the Environment Canterbury legislation and the Act as it was passed through. 
Then we come to today where for the second time I asked Dr Smith in the House about the Prime Minister’s statement in February that he wants to see new water schemes in place in Canterbury next year. The question that flows from that is how on earth he can as the Minister for the Environment get in place new environmental controls in that very rapid time frame. The truth of it is that he cannot do that. There is no way on God’s earth that he can follow through with the good recommendations from the Land and Water Forum which managed to hold together despite the tests that the Environment Canterbury legislation put to it. It knows there can be no way that Dr Smith can start implementing the recommendations that it has put up because they are complex. They require legislation and implementation and they will not happen in a rapid fashion. Here we have the Environmental Protection Authority as promulgated by this bill. It will not come into force until July next year yet here we have the Prime Minister saying he wants to see new water schemes in place in Canterbury and possibly Otago next year. There is no way we will see any environmental change through that time frame. 
The other aspect of this that is interesting is that the Minister wanted the Environmental Protection Authority to start a year earlier because he told the New Zealand Planning Institute on 8 May last year in a speech that is on the Beehive website that he wanted “the expanded EPA fully operational by 1 July 2010.”—1 July 2010. No wonder we are now seeing urgency attached because here we are nearly 18 months after he said he wanted the Environmental Protection Authority operational. I think the reasons for that are very very clear. I think what has happened in the Cabinet process is that a very clear message is being sent to Dr Smith to not think he will get new money for any agency especially to deal with protecting the environment because the Prime Minister has an agenda for rapid growth in Canterbury and other places and Cabinet does not want anything getting in the way of that through the Environmental Protection Authority or anything else. 
Of course even when the Environmental Protection Authority comes into effect on 1 July next year—so too late to stop any of the things that will happen with those new water schemes coming into place—how many people will be employed by the Environmental Protection Authority? How big an agency will it be to deal with all of the critical environmental issues that this nation faces and that I think this Minister acknowledges? Certainly in Opposition time and time again he took the call and talked about the damage to freshwater quality and the whole range of environmental damage that was being perpetrated. What will we see? The budget for the Environmental Protection Authority will be in the order of $26 million. That will involve 140 staff. One would think that that is a pretty good number of staff if we want to see some serious change to the way we protect our most precious resource. 
The very driver of our economic base as a nation comes out of our freshwater sources. We make our reputation in the world on the basis of being clean and green. Water is fundamental to that. Until we get water right and I believe that the Minister wants to get it right we will not protect our market edge in the world economy. We must improve water quality. If we have 140 staff dedicated to improving that that would be a great start. However there is a problem. Of that 140 staff that the Environmental Protection Authority will employ 90 of them are coming across from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. So 90 out of 140 will come from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. That is good; it does a great job too. It has an important environmental protection job but they are not new staff; they are transferred staff in this grand new authority that the Minister is establishing under this bill.  
What else will the Environmental Protection Authority do? It will take on and look after the issues of climate change. How many staff will be involved in dealing with that? Maybe 20 staff? So now we are up to 110 of the 140 staff of the Environmental Protection Authority who will not be dealing with the critical issue of freshwater quality. Who else will be employed by the Environmental Protection Authority? We will see staff working at the Ministry of Economic Development on management of living modified organisms. There will be a handful of staff there; maybe not a large number. The Antarctica division that is currently within the Ministry for the Environment is moving across. That division will be part of the new Environmental Protection Authority as well. Then we will also have staff involved in protecting our exclusive economic zone. There is one other element within the Environmental Protection Authority which is the fast-track agency. That is the agency that pushes through the projects like the Waterview Connection when the Government wants to fast track them. 
I want the Minister to say at some point what the numbers of staff are who will deal with the flagship issue of freshwater quality. Where are they? What will they do and how many of them will there be? By my count there might be none coming across to deal with the critical issue of freshwater quality. That will be to the detriment of New Zealand. The Environmental Protection Authority will be against a Prime Minister who is still pushing for rapid growth in Canterbury and still wants to see rapid runs on the board in terms of growth. We have a Minister with a much-vaunted flagship agency that will not actually have any staff to do the job we would all like to see it do in terms of protecting our most precious resource of all which is fresh water. There is nobody there to do the job unless Bill English digs into his pockets and finds some new funding. Given the track record of that Minister I suggest that that is very very unlikely. As my colleague Charles Chauvel noted the track record beyond the rhetoric of this Government is that it talks the talk of environmental protection and it established the Environmental Protection Authority under this bill but there will not be the staff and resources to deliver the goods that the Government says it wants to deliver and that New Zealanders want to see delivered. There is not the staffing there under this bill or under this agency and that is a tragic loss for New Zealand. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora koutou. When the Environmental Protection Authority Bill first appeared a week or so ago I recalled an experience prior to the 2005 election when I spoke on behalf of the Greens at an event organised by the Resource Management Law Association. Dr Nick Smith was also at that event clearly speaking for National. In the course of his presentation Dr Smith talked in positive terms about the establishment of some sort of environmental protection agency. He appeared slightly surprised when I evinced Green support with a similar view that we also believed that there was value in having a genuinely independent well-resourced stand-alone agency that was one step removed from a policy process and some several steps removed from ministerial control or political advocacy and indeed an agency that could stand and speak and be the advocate for the environment because that is what is missing in this. It has long been our policy to support the idea of an agency that is an independent environmental reporter advocate and an organisation that can make good decisions with the well-being of the environment in mind. If we do not maintain a good environment our economic and social arrangements will collapse in their turn. 
Clearly it would be perverse of us not to support the establishment of this authority but we do so as has been commented by Labour speakers with considerable reservation. There are elements of this bill that lead us to think that we would not see the genuinely strong independent and well-resourced agency that is required to do this job and do it well. Part of our concern arises from the current situation where the nascent skeletal Environmental Protection Authority currently exists due to the haste of this Government to establish something rather than do the job properly in one hit. We are very concerned about the way that the Environmental Protection Authority which is scarcely off the ground is allegedly dealing with quite a number of very substantial matters that are of considerable public concern and interest and have major long-term environmental and indeed economic consequences. 
Clearly the Waterview Connection situation is one of these. I attended one of the public meetings some weeks ago where the public allegedly was to be informed and enabled to make sensible submissions on the final proposals for the Waterview Connection. The public was presented with a massive amount of information much of it highly technical in nature and allowed 20 working days to comment about that extremely complex series of decisions including around 53 individual resource consents. The people of Waterview Mount Albert and Point Chevalier were given 20 days as lay people to try to come up with submissions. I said at the time that it would challenge a very good well-resourced and effective resource management consultancy to come up with a comprehensive submission to such an enormous project. If this is to be the way of the Environmental Protection Authority—that it will be obliged to do things quickly shabbily and without appropriate public involvement—then that is not an environmental protection authority that we could continue to support. 
It is true that since 1991 particularly in matters of resource management there has been a need for more central direction and for more consistency within and between the various local and regional agencies. Clearly central government was remiss for many years under a variety of Governments in not promptly and comprehensively providing national policy standards and national environmental standards. As an inevitable outcome of that the regions in particular were obliged to invent wheels of their own accord. We got a lack of consistency a great deal of time and effort was lost and the implementation of the Resource Management Act in particular was suboptimal for that reason. It was observed not only by players and commentators within New Zealand but also by international researchers—everyone from independent academic researchers through to the OECD—that we desperately needed a little more central direction. There did not necessarily need to be more control but there certainly needed to be more direction support and resourcing for the satisfactory implementation of what was and still is in many regards quite visionary and ground-breaking legislation. 
One of the positive advantages of this new authority is that it will bring together a range of skills abilities and particularly technical and scientific skills and I believe that is a good thing. We are a small country with a relatively small pool of scientists—which is getting smaller by the minute as our failure to give a good career path to scientists has led to its inevitable reduction—but although I entirely endorse the idea of bringing together and concentrating skills knowledge ability and resources I hope that this agency is not one where we have a concentration of world views and values to such an extent that the culture of the organisation becomes monosyllabic. It is critical that this agency albeit a regulatory agency employs and has within its numbers people with a range of world views and values so that it can make good determinations that will engage with the range of values and beliefs reflected in the broader society. 
We are told that the agency will give some certainty of process. Again that is a desirable thing. Members of the public as well as specialists and indeed politicians ought to be able to rely on certainty of process. But let us hope that there is not an equivalent certainty of outcome. Increasingly when we hear the language of streamlining taking away barriers and taking away cost from resource management processes and other processes we see that what is really intended is to get faster to the point where the agency says yes to any application. There is a remarkable concentration it seems on getting faster to the point where the agency says yes to the development no matter what its quality. We think that equally there should be situations where we get quickly to the point of saying no where there are clear environmental social or economic reasons why we ought to resist object to and reject entirely some of the very flawed applications we have seen. 
I would have to say that four words in this bill give some heart and they are quite sweet to us in the Green Party. Those four words are: “ERMA will be disestablished.” The Environmental Risk Management Authority or ERMA has often been called the authority that never saw an application it did not like particularly in respect of genetic modification and genetic engineering. Unfortunately what could have been a robust positive useful organisation has become a rubber stamp and very little else. It has allowed tolerated and passed some extraordinarily risky scientifically unsound ethically untenable applications and we will not in any way regret the passing of that organisation. We hope quite sincerely that this new organisation this new authority will have a much more inquisitive and challenging culture that will lead to much better and more balanced outcomes. 
The two primary principles of resource management law that the Greens stand by and will continue to defend are those of public participation and environmental protection. The language of the Resource Management Act is that we ought to use develop and protect our natural and physical resources. There has been a great deal of use over the years and a great deal of development—some of it good much of it less good—and it is critical that this authority is genuinely an environmental protection authority not a developmental facilitation authority. Given the way in which this bill is constructed and some of the past and present activities and focus of this Government it is our major concern that this agency will be misused in that way. 
We heard the Minister for the Environment in his introduction to the bill use the word “balance”. Clearly we in the Green Party have come to recognise that the word “balance is in fact shorthand for trading off a little more environmental degradation for a little more short-term economic gain and that is not a notion of balance that we can comprehend or support. What is actually called for is a clear understanding of a genuine engagement between our social and economic needs and the absolutely critical irrevocable protection of the environment without which we have no future. The Minister also recommended having stronger public institutions. We would like to see that made flesh rather than this continual chipping away at the capacity of the public service to do its work well. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT Party with lukewarm support for the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. ACT supports the bill as far as its referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee but for a whole raft of reasons we are reluctant to take that support any further. 
The ACT Party is all for any legislation that removes pointless bureaucracy and makes life easier for those who wish to get ahead. The bill’s explanatory note makes many good noises such as: “The purpose of creating an EPA is to more effectively efficiently and transparently manage the regulation of New Zealand’s environment and natural and physical resources.” If only! As a rule one does not reduce regulation by creating an extra regulatory body. An additional layer of bureaucracy no matter how well meaning is still an additional layer of bureaucracy. With it comes more paperwork more muddled decision-making and of course more demand for Government funding that could be better spent elsewhere. A case in point: the regulatory impact statement estimates the extra one-off capital and establishment costs to be between $1.8 million and $3.5 million with an increase in annual costs of up to $2.4 million. 
Labour seems to think that having 140 staff will improve the cleanliness of our water and that that number is not enough. So my question asks how many people it takes to make the water clean. My answer—as Labour does not seem to know—is that the water has to want to be clean! 
If this bill were to give truth to its intentions it would streamline the system. That might very well mean getting rid of the regional councils and all the obstacles and complexities that they bring to the table. As the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide showed one can eliminate all sorts of duplicated practices by removing the bodies that create said duplications and that saves ratepayers huge amounts of time and money. Turning eight factional councils into one unified body did precisely that. 
If the Government was truly serious about attacking regulations it would scrap the Climate Change Response Act 2002 which would remove clauses 48 to 64 in a flash. 
When Australia is backtracking on the need for an emissions trading scheme and the United States has rejected a cap-and-trade plan it is a nonsense that New Zealand continues to cling to our pointless scheme. Because of this Government’s stubbornness on this issue we all have to waste our time in the House amending laws to ensure that the right agency is appointing enforcement officers collecting emissions penalties etc. etc. 
ACT is in favour of letting this bill go to a select committee in the interests of democracy but for the reasons specified it would take a great many changes to the bill to convince us to support it any further than that. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak in the first reading of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. It is well recognised that New Zealand has led the way in resource management legislation and this bill provides the necessary central direction and leadership to support our existing resource management legislation. 
In the course of what I will say this evening I will bring in a practical example of how the Environmental Protection Authority has been operating. It is a bit unfortunate that members of the Opposition seem to think that simplifying and streamlining legislation leads to worse outcomes for the environment. Members on this side of the House agree that we are able to reduce bureaucracy reduce red tape and get important projects under way without any degradation of the environment. The members opposite are joining some dots that are not there. Members on this side of the House are proud to have a record of reforming resource management legislation to put something in place that provides greater central direction in order to make sure that our pristine environment of which we are all so proud continues to be protected and at the same time has the ability to create jobs and build infrastructure that this country so desperately needs. 
The other thing that concerned me a tad was hearing one of the Opposition speakers say that the Environmental Protection Authority reduces democracy. I thought that that member clearly does not understand what this legislation is about. If we look at any example—one of which I will talk about in a little while is the Contact Energy Tauhara Stage Two plant in my electorate—we see that there is no reduction in democracy. I was a little perturbed that perhaps the member had not read the bill or understood what the Environmental Protection Authority is all about. 
Of the organisations that are supportive of this work one that is worth quoting is the Environmental Defence Society whose executive director Gary Taylor is known for his tireless lobbying of all sides of the House to ensure that our environment is protected. In his words: “The EPA is to become the national environmental regulator and it’s vital that it is free from political influence. … We are pleased to see the continuing evolution of the EPA as a national independent environmental regulator.” We have some strong supporters of this legislation. The Green member David Clendon who spoke before me also said that the Green Party supports the setting up of this type of authority so I shall look forward to its input in the select committee process. 
But let us look for a moment at some of the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority. One is that it will look after the administration and management of projects of national significance and applications that are called in under the Resource Management Act. I thought it would be useful to use the example of a project in the Taupo electorate. Before the end of this Parliament alone we are expecting $6 billion worth of applications for infrastructure projects to be put before the Environmental Protection Authority—$6 billion worth. A local example is Contact Energy’s Tauhara Stage Two geothermal project which is expected to bring around $1 billion worth of investment into the Taupo region—$1 billion worth of investment. This is also significant in terms of forwarding the Government’s goal of producing 90 percent of all electricity in New Zealand from renewable sources. Again one of the Opposition members completely forgot that we have massive geothermal developments in this country which was a bit sad and shows how ill-informed Opposition members are. 
This process means that the application for a project of this size will be turned round in less than 9 months. What does that mean? No it does not mean that democracy is short-circuited and no it does not mean that people do not have input. To highlight that point I have brought to the House some of the documentation from the Environmental Protection Authority on the Tauhara Stage Two geothermal development project. It states exactly how the process works why the Minister for the Environment directed it to a board of inquiry and what the Environmental Protection Authority’s role is in terms of administering the process for hearing and deciding on the applications. There is a really nice part in the documentation that I thought the Opposition might not be aware of. It is a concept called “friends of submitters”. Support is provided for those who want to make a submission. They do not have to be a resource management lawyer or expert; they will have a resource management consultant walk alongside them so that they can get the best advice they need in order to make a submission. 
This particular project will bring $1 billion into my electorate. I am really proud that it was approved. Unlike some members on the other side of the Chamber I think the creation of jobs and the building of infrastructure is vital. It does not mean that the environment is trashed. The guys opposite connected some dots that did not need to be connected. I am proud that this Government is showing central leadership and protecting the environment for many generations to come. Thank you. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I do not disagree with the previous speaker. If we can protect our environment and go forward economically there is absolutely no problem. I think some of the work that has been going on in geothermal exploration and the potential that it holds for New Zealand is fantastic. We could lead not only in that form of energy but also in the science around it that is being created. 
In principle Labour is in support of the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. We would like to see it go to the select committee and we would very much like to hear a lot of the submitters who have obviously put some work in behind the scenes submit to the select committee in public. We do support the establishment of an independent agency a stand-alone agency and an agency that is away from the Minister—that has some distance from the Minister—to look at the impact on the environment and not be swayed by political considerations political pressures and to advocate for the environment where necessary. I think that is very important. I am heartened in a way to see the people who have been behind the principle of this bill—people like Jan Wright the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and Gary Taylor. There are many people who have worked hard for our environment in New Zealand. 
The question really is whether these factors—independence the ability to work independently of a Minister and advocate for the environment and to hear people’s concerns and have a transparent and open process of submissions—will actually occur. Unlike the previous speaker Louise Upston I am not hugely heartened by what has happened recently. One of the biggest projects one of National’s roads of national significance State Highway 20 runs through the suburb of Waterview which is in my electorate. The community there has not I would argue been given the information that it needs. 
The people of Waterview have been given enormous amounts of technical documentation to go through in 20 working days. There are some six folders of documentation and 54 different resource consents to look through. If I wanted to build a non-complying deck on the back of my house my neighbour would get 20 working days in which to consider it. For this project people in the Waterview community are getting exactly the same amount of time and I believe that that is totally and utterly inadequate. The project has been fast tracked against the wishes of the Auckland City Council and against the wishes of the then Eden Albert Community Board. Both were ignored and they did not want this project to happen. They had 20 working days in which to make submissions. They have now got back an enormous amount of material in order to be able to consider expert opinion. Even the most accomplished engineering firm in Auckland would need that amount of time to go through the volume of material that ordinary residents in my electorate have been asked to go through. 
Then over Christmas last year—Mr Joyce is famous for making announcements during the Christmas period—the project was completely changed. Six days before Christmas he announced that. Of course he did that because there would not be any publicity over the Christmas period. There is a very cynical approach of ramming this project through. People had to study the material on that over the Christmas break and then they had to come back to the submission process early in the new year. 
The other aspect other than the process is the fact that some of the residents’ concerns are very significant. Let us take for example the smokestack. There are two exhaust stacks on this motorway. They will be built 45 metres from a primary school and kindergarten. They will be 70 metres high and they will not be filtered. An enormous construction will go up right beside a primary school. It will take out four of the local soccer fields in the area and although some of them will be replaced in other areas it will scatter the fields all across the region. The very simple things that would make this project much more acceptable to the local community have been completely ignored. One small example of that is that if the Metro Football Club and the Metro Softball Club which are right beside the motorway had an all-weather pitch they would be able to double or triple the number of games being played on that field. That fact is being ignored. 
This motorway is a $1.4 billion project and the Auckland City Council has made a number of submissions on the things it wants to have in order to mitigate the effects on the local community. In a $1.4 billion project can we not find the $10 million or whatever it takes to make an enormous difference and improve the lives of the local community? 
Hon Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Whatever it takes—that is the Labour Party. Whatever it takes. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: If this was going through the North Shore I say to Dr Mapp he would be standing where I am standing and demanding the money that he needed in order to mitigate some of those sorts of impacts. We are talking about a six-lane highway through a suburban region. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He wants tunnels. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Of course he wants tunnels. These people simply do not want to have a 70-metre high smokestack right beside their primary school. I do not think that is too much to ask. 
The other thing that I will talk about is the control building that is to be built. It was going to be 6 metres high; we are now told that it might be 10 metres high. The dimensions of this project are changing as the residents are making their submissions. It has not even been finalised and the residents are being asked to make submissions. Also with regard to the acquisition of houses on the motorway route a number of people in my electorate have said whoever is doing the valuation of the houses in the region is seriously undervaluing them. When people get independent valuations they find that the independent valuations are invariably at least 20 percent higher than the valuations done by the approved valuer for the New Zealand Transport Agency. 
The Waterview project is an example of the Environmental Protection Authority in process; it is an example of the way that it may work. If this is the way that it will work and if this is the experience that we can take before the bill even comes before the select committee then I think we have some major concerns about it. I will be very interested to hear not only the views of the local community but also the views of other submitters who are trying to protect the environment. So far I do not see any independence from the Minister. I do not see an agency that will go out and really promote the environment. I do not see an agency that will really allow the full voice of the local community to have a real say on a project such as the Waterview tunnel project. 
I believe that this is important legislation. It could bring some very very good outcomes to our environment but only if—and I repeat only if—the authority is independent truly listens to the community and is able to go out and advocate for our environment. I say from looking at the example of Waterview and what is happening there that I do not have a lot of confidence that this will be the case. When we see how the Environmental Protection Authority is being rolled out in practice we see that this bill is not the legislation that we had hoped it might be and will not bring the outcomes that we hoped it might bring. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I look forward very much to hear the views of those out there who are listening to this debate tonight. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to rise and speak on the Environment Protection Authority Bill. I will speak briefly. This excellent bill establishes the Environmental Protection Authority as a stand-alone Crown agent to perform environmental regulatory functions. The bill is part of our phase-two reforms of the Resource Management Act which contribute to our six-point plan for a stronger economy. The bill does this by cutting red tape and regulations. 
The establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority is yet another election promise fulfilled. It is part of the blue-green vision to grow the economy while protecting New Zealand’s natural environment. We are committed to protecting our environment; it is unique and it is crucial to New Zealand’s future. We have absolutely no truck with the ideas expressed at the time of the Falklands War by Margaret Thatcher who observed: “It is exciting to have a real crisis on your hands when you have spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment.” That is certainly not our attitude. 
The Government is committed to the importance of the environment for New Zealand’s future. I reiterate the fact that the Environmental Protection Authority is a strong and independent regulatory authority that will ensure that our environment is protected at a national level. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I picked up a copy of this bill the Environmental Protection Authority Bill a moment ago and I have to say that I was a little surprised. We are establishing the Environmental Protection Authority through this bill but one of the objectives of the Environmental Protection Authority is not the protection of the environment. Is it not ironic that we are setting up the Environmental Protection Authority which does not have as its goal the protection of the environment? I was really surprised to read that in the bill. The bill talks about contributing to the efficient effective and transparent management of the New Zealand environment but there is no mention at all of protecting the environment. It enables us to meet our international obligations—once again not protecting the environment at all. So why are we establishing an Environmental Protection Authority that does not set about to protect the environment? I am little surprised. 
That is something that Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very proud of. He thought the best hospital in the National Health Service was one that had no patients. Here we have the Environmental Protection Authority that does not set out to protect the environment—something I am sure Sir Humphrey Appleby would be very happy about. It is an absolute triumph for the bureaucracy that it is establishing a new bureaucracy that does not do what its title suggests it will do. But having said that Labour will support the bill. If this bill did what it purports to do the protection of the environment is very worthwhile. There is much that is laudable in the overall objective of the bill. 
However we have some concerns and I will be looking forward as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee to hearing what people have to say when they have the opportunity to submit on this bill. I sincerely hope the committee will have sufficient time to do this bill justice. I hope that the select committee process will not be truncated as the resolution put forward by the Minister when he read the first reading speech on this bill suggests it will be. 
As David Shearer just pointed out the Minister is trying to fast track his bill through the House. Therefore how can we have any confidence that the bill if enacted will not then be used to fast track a whole lot of measures? It is certainly symbolic of the Government’s attitude when it comes to environmental protection that it is trying to fast track the bill through the House. I encourage the Government to just take a breath: make sure the select committee can hear submissions without being overly rushed because there is no reason to overly rush this legislation. It is important that we get it right and that the select committee has the opportunity to hear submissions in full. It is important that members of Parliament have the opportunity to participate fully in the parliamentary process which does not happen when the Government continually truncates the appropriate process. 
I am concerned that the bill if enacted will be used to fast track certain projects. David Shearer mentioned the Waterview Connection but there are many others. For example this legislation could be used to fast track the new private prison at Wiri in South Auckland. It could be used to fast track certain oil and gas consenting and regulatory approvals because it will take those functions away from local authorities and vest them with the Environmental Protection Authority. I have to say I have mixed views on that because I recognise that in the consenting and regulation of offshore oil and gas operations there is a body of knowledge that resides within one local authority—that is predominantly within the local authorities in Taranaki. If we move to seeing more widespread oil and gas exploration in other parts of the country we will need to think about how we handle that. If all the expertise resides in the Taranaki area and we end up exploring for oil and gas elsewhere is it appropriate that the local authorities in those areas develop that expertise or is it more important for an Environmental Protection Authority to do so? 
There could be some merit in the Environmental Protection Authority taking on those functions but the feedback that I have had from around the industry is that there is actually a limited body of expertise out there. There will be some important transition issues that will need to be dealt with in regard to that. I have to say overall I do not have a huge amount of confidence in the Government’s track record when it comes to protecting the environment and even less confidence in its track record in trying to pass the Environmental Protection Authority Bill which does not actually set out to protect the environment. 
What have we seen from the Government since it has been elected? We have seen a plan to try to mine the national parks. We have seen the Government water down the emissions trading scheme. We have seen it repeal the biofuel sales obligation which would have allowed a sustainable biofuels industry to be established in this country. That is— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agrees. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I do not necessarily agree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in that particular area. We have seen the Government repeal the restriction on new baseload electricity generation from non-renewable sources such as coal and gas. These are all things that the Government has done in the short period of time that it has been in office which in my view suggests that far from protecting the environment the Government is going in the other direction. It has scrapped fuel economy standards for car vehicles. Gerry Brownlee has resisted any moves to have a common standard for smart metering in our electricity meters. These are all things that the Government could do that would significantly enhance our environmental protection yet this Government is going the other way and walking away from those things. 
I want to talk now about where certain functions will reside in the rearrangement of the Government agencies that this bill involves. The bill refocuses the Ministry for the Environment on policy and moves the Environmental Protection Authority to a role where it administers regulations and then it places the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as the overall systems auditor and monitoring agency for environmental standards in New Zealand. 
When it comes to the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment one of the things we need to be very mindful of is the need to protect the independence of the commissioner. I am concerned that placing all of the focus of auditing and reporting on the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment could compromise that. There will still be a role for the ministry and for the Environmental Protection Authority in ensuring that the standards are set and that the data the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment will need for adequate reporting is collected. I do not think that it should be the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to be involved at that operational level of ensuring that the data required is collected. That involves a certain administrative burden and it would require the commissioner to become if you like part of the governing machinery. If we want an independent watchdog then forcing the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment to become involved at that level of routine Government administration will seriously compromise that. 
One of the things that I would like to see is either the Ministry for the Environment or the Environmental Protection Authority—and it probably rests mostly with the Ministry for the Environment in the new scheme of things—having a role in establishing the standards for environmental data collection and the enforcement of those standards so that when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment does the reporting this Parliament will hopefully under another piece of legislation in due course require of them that the data and the quality information will be available. The biggest impediment to quality environmental reporting at the current point in time is that the data and the quality information simply do not exist. 
By way of summary I think that this bill is worthy of significant consideration by the select committee. It is important that the public have the opportunity to have a say on it and that people with relevant expertise have the opportunity to have a say on it. I suspect that one of the first things they may want to consider— 
Hon Member 
: We want to vote! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —there are still 3 whole minutes to go—is whether in the functions of the Environmental Protection Authority it might be prudent to list “protection of the environment” as something that the Environmental Protection Authority might actually want to have within its ambit. Maybe protecting the environment rather than simply contributing to efficient effective and transparent management of the environment could be something it would want to think about. That has to be a very novel idea for an agency called the Environmental Protection Authority! 
Overall let us hear what the select committee has to say. I urge the Government to give the select committee adequate opportunity to have a proper hearing on this particular bill rather than once again try to truncate the process and rush it through. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to make a short but hopefully punchy call on the Environmental Protection Authority Bill. 
The bill is about the environment and it is about better decision-making in terms of the environment. In my view it is very important legislation; it is part of a wider package. We have already passed the first phase the Resource Management Act reforms. We are seeing wonderful progress in terms of the Resource Management Act reforms with faster consenting across the country. This is excellent legislation and I commend it to the House. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Environmental Protection Agency bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 March 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Before I put that question I will put the question on the amendment moved by Charles Chauvel. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That all the words after “Committee” be omitted. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Environmental Protection Authority Bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee that the committee report finally to the House on or before 28 March 2011 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Ayes 78 
New Zealand National 58; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 42 
New Zealand Labour 41; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The House adjourned at 10.01 p.m.