Volume 642 Week 58 - Wednesday 17 October 2007 
Volume 642 Week 58 - Wednesday 17 October 2007 
[Volume:642;Page:12423] 
Wednesday 17 October 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Taxation—Australian Tax Cuts 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding tax cuts in Australia in 2005 that “Australian taxpayers earning up to $58000 a year receive a measly $6 a week”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I also stand by my comments yesterday that a programme that focuses on the highest paid is not the sort of programme people would expect to see from a Labour-led Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is now his position that he is opposed to larger tax cuts because of their potential impact on inflation and Government spending and at the same time he is opposed to smaller tax cuts because for instance if they are only $6 a week they are measly; so if he is opposed to both larger and smaller ones then what kind of tax cuts is he talking about? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is a pity the member has never heard of Goldilocks. But apart from that if the member cared to read the entire speech which I think was one of my more brilliant speeches delivered to the Waipukurau Rotary Club in 2005 he would see that I said that Australian taxpayers earning up to $58000 would receive a measly $6 a week—and the important point was the next sentence—meanwhile those earning $125000 or more would receive an extra $87 a week. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on the widely reported gap between taxes on average New Zealanders and taxes on average Australians? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. According to the latest OECD report  
Taxing Wages Report 2006 
 which is the last period for which we have the data an Australian one-earner married couple with two children on the average wage had a tax burden six times higher than the equivalent New Zealand family. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Wake up Bill! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Comments like that lead to disorder. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister regard a tax reduction of $6 per week as measly when this has an annual value of $300 yet he regards cheaper doctor visits which have an annual value of something like $50 a year for an average New Zealander as extremely valuable; so why does he regard cash delivered through a tax cut as insignificant when it is $10 a week but he regards cash delivered through cheaper doctor visits as very valuable when it is about $1 a week? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member is clearly getting more and more convoluted in his arguments. The point I was making to the Waipukurau Rotary Club which some day may invite Mr English to talk to it was— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why not answer the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Comments like that also lead to disorder. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The contrast was between the $6 a week that somebody on the average wage and well above the average wage got and the $87 a week that somebody earning A$125000 a year got. The point about doctors’ fees of course is that people who need to go to the doctor who are often people on lower incomes have had a massive reduction and I thank the member for reminding the House that National plans to increase doctors’ fees and lift the cap. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the Minister’s position that a tax cut of $6 to $10 is significant and why has he not offered one of those when he could afford them? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A New Zealand tax cut across the board at $10 a week—which of course National would never offer—costs something over a billion dollars a year. Even in National Party terminology I would have thought a billion dollars a year was reasonably significant. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister had any reports of anyone in the political arena who advocates significant tax cuts while at the same time wanting the Government to expend more money on every single conceivable Government administrative area in the country? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Less bureaucrats. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If we had more teachers then that member might have said “fewer bureaucrats” instead of “less bureaucrats” but never mind. Yes the National Party daily calls for more spending in almost every area of Government activity and calls for lower taxation but of course we now know how those members make it up. Mr English has now been clear. Every weekend for about the last three he has quite clearly said that a National Government would borrow more money. That borrowing would be disguised for something but it would actually be for tax cuts. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm his statements made over the last 2 years where he has ruled out adjusting tax thresholds for inflation he has ruled out changing the top tax rate the middle tax rate and the bottom tax rate he has ruled out implementing a tax-free zone he has ruled out cutting taxes when growth is strong and cutting taxes when growth is falling and in fact the only thing he has not ruled out is to promise tax cuts in election year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I cannot confirm any single one of those statements. I remind the member firstly that we are cutting corporate tax on 1 April next year which the member voted against. I remind the member that we have cut tax on working families in New Zealand which the member voted against. I remind the member that we have cut taxes on savings which the member voted against. All I know is that Mr English has said that it does not matter whether we have high inflation low inflation a Government surplus or a Government deficit; he would cut taxes and he would borrow to do it. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does he explain to people on $39000 paying 33c in the dollar on every extra dollar they earn that he is so keen to avoid cutting income taxes he has now decided that he is the biggest tax cutter there ever was and he has cut everything except the personal income tax rate which they must continue to pay? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The fact is I have cut taxes more than the previous National Government did but they have been targeted on families targeted on savings and targeted on economic growth. They have been targeted on what does good things for the country. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When will the Minister commit to a proper investigation of replacing some of the tax on the bottom band of wages and salaries with equivalent taxes on pollution waste scarce resources and unearned income as the Greens have been advocating for many years given that New Zealand makes less use of these eco-taxes than most of the OECD? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A number of options have been under consideration and are under consideration. The member also needs to realise that any tax changes at all have to pass through Parliament. They must also not be regressive and many forms of taxation—the form that she mentions—are capable of being regressive because they tend to hit low to modest-income families higher than families on higher incomes. 
Trades—Young People 
2.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What steps is he taking to encourage more young people into trades-related careers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The most recent is the launch of the Youth Apprenticeships pilot programme in 10 schools across New Zealand that offers secondary students industry-based trades training tertiary education and work experience while they are at school. The pilot will be evaluated and we hope to extend it across many more schools in the future.  
Sue Moroney 
: How does this pilot build on other initiatives for trade training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It should be seen in the context of a wide-ranging programme to build apprenticeships and industry training. The programme includes restoring funding to Career Services; restoring attention to the technology curriculum in schools; making sure we have a bridge from school to work through programmes such as Gateway in which 9000 secondary school students are experiencing the workplace before they leave the classroom; the Modern Apprenticeships scheme with 3000 apprenticeships already qualified and 9000 in training; and the introduction of the on-the-job training programme in the industry training area of 176000 trainees next year. I point out that the contribution made by the National Opposition to this programme was to abolish apprenticeships in 1992. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he confirm that out of 8595 secondary school students in the Dunedin area only 5 students will take part in his pilot next year meaning he has announced not so much a pilot but a “pilot-ette” and that this programme just months after John Key’s trades training policy announcement is just a cynical attempt to get the issue of increased trades training in schools off the political agenda? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Can I say I am pleased the member thinks a pilot will sweep away the policy of the National Party around the area of apprenticeships but I would go back to say that while this is a pilot students can enjoy being part of the many hundreds getting advice around the youth career area. They can be part of a technology programme they could be part of the 9000 students currently in training for the Modern Apprenticeships scheme and they could enjoy being part of the 176000 who are enjoying being in industry training. So they have huge options compared with the abolition of apprenticeships in the 1990s which was not much of an option at all for those students. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the  
Hansard 
 showing that the Labour Party voted for the Industry Training Act which replaced the Apprenticeship Act. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I seek leave to table the voting record of National members who voted against the Modern Apprenticeships bill and during the debate labelled it as pathetic. 
Document not tabled. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Otago Daily Times 
 that states only five kids are going to take part in his grand pilot next year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Cancer—Radiotherapy Australia 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many category C cancer patients have been sent to Australia for radiotherapy treatment this year specified by cancer treatment centre? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Radiotherapy in Australia is sometimes offered to category C patients often when the district health board experiences a surge in demand. In the financial year just finished two centres have offered treatment in Australia and four have not. A total of 211 patients in Auckland and in MidCentral have accepted this offer. Although that represents only 2 percent of all patients who receive radiotherapy in New Zealand it does materially improve the timeliness of radiotherapy treatment for all cancer patients. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that Palmerston North cancer patients are waiting up to 3 months to begin radiation treatment which is over three times the Ministry of Health guidelines and why have these delays got so bad; last year he blamed the strikes what is his excuse for failure this year? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The situation in mid-Canterbury started off quite badly got a lot better and has started to deteriorate just in recent weeks. The situation around the country is that nearly all patients in category C get their treatment in a timely manner and all patients who are in categories A or B—the ones who really need it—always get it on time. 
Maryan Street 
: What has been the main limiting factor for radiotherapy in New Zealand and is the proportion of New Zealanders who are being treated in a timely way getting better or worse? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In recent years the key problem has been the shortage of radiation therapists—the people who work the machines. The National Government in its time decided to let the market deliver radiation therapists and—surprise surprise—the market failed to deliver. This Government has now actively increased training so that there are now 36 percent more radiotherapists in the workforce and the number of graduates each year has now doubled. Because the workforce problem has been substantially addressed the proportion of New Zealanders who receive timely therapy has steadily risen as this graph of figures over recent years shows. 
Barbara Stewart 
: If as reported a facility is set up in Auckland to make the radioactive material used for PET scanners will he request that the district health boards review the case for the purchase of PET scanners for use in the public health system; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That is a good question. The member is well aware but the House may not be that PET scanners are not actually involved in treatment; they are a diagnostic tool and a treatment refinement tool. The situation with PET scanners is that at present New Zealand is drawing up criteria—I am talking about doing that this year—for PET scan use. If we then apply those criteria across our population we will be able to estimate the likely number of people who would benefit from PET scan use. If that use was sufficient to warrant having a PET scanner then I am sure the district health boards would review the case for purchasing one. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Given that cancer patients in Auckland who face an 8-week delay for radiotherapy are offered treatment in Australia why are women with cancer in the lower North Island who face 3-month delays not being offered treatment elsewhere in New Zealand or in Australia or is the Government satisfied that what people get from the health system depends more on where they live than what they need—nothing short of health care by postcode? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the member managed to mishear my answer to his primary question. MidCentral—that is Palmerston North—sends patients to Australia. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Not this year! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member says: “Not this year!”. I have given him the figures. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That was last year. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member suggests that somehow or other I have given him the wrong figures. His question asked about the number of people who had been sent to Australia in the last year; I gave him that information. The information I have given him is correct. He has now decided he is going to make it up for himself. It is not appropriate to do that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister seen the reports of the MidCentral District Health Board spokesperson who earlier this month said that sending patients to Australia was not being considered by the district health board and does he recall the Prime Minister’s speech to the Labour Party when she said: “Why are cancer patients waiting so long for radiotherapy that their cancer is dangerously progressing? I have a friend who waited for 3 months and still does not know for sure whether that will prove fatal.”; and what does he say to the women of Palmerston North—and of Canterbury on the latest available information—who are waiting more than 3 months to begin this lifesaving treatment? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: District health boards offer patients treatment in Australia if they feel they cannot give it to their patients in a timely way. Some patients say: “That’s a good idea. I would rather have my treatment sooner in Australia.” Some patients say: “No that’s OK. I’m OK with the situation that I’m in. I’ll take my treatment in New Zealand later.” That is the situation—it is an offer. It is an offer that has been around for a while. It is an offer that the National Party called for 5 years ago saying: “Can you please let these people have treatment in Australia?”. And we do. The long and short of it is that the proportion of New Zealanders who get treatment in a timely way has been going up. If members want to know what it was like 10 years ago I will quote from a little memo to the Minister of Health at the time Jenny Shipley. North Health indicated that in Auckland alone there were 259 people who were waiting an average of 16½ weeks—that is an average not one or two people waiting more than 13 weeks. There were 259 of them waiting an average of over 3—damn near 4—months. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister stand by his recent statement that the health budget should not be used to pay rent to private landlords and how does that square with the new breast cancer screening facility in Palmerston North being in a privately owned building that is rented by the district health board and having been opened in March last year by the Minister himself? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Large parts of our health system are privately run and large parts of it is privately provided including the provision of real estate. My statement that the member referred to—he pretends to misquote it—is about a situation in which for ideological reasons there is a requirement that a hospital be built by the private sector and rented out to a district health board such that even after 10 or 12 years when the building is paid off the landlord is banking the money and the patients are not the getting the care they would otherwise get because the money has gone to the landlord. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Which of these is Government policy: the Minister’s statement that the health budget should not be spent on paying rent to private landlords the reality of a breast cancer screening facility in Palmerton North that is privately owned but rented by the district health board or the fact of the publicly funded district health board mental health and public health facilities being provided from rented buildings by a district health board in his own electorate in Dunedin? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are hundreds of such examples. I stand against—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is becoming impossible to hear. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I stand against political pressure on any health provider to require it to go to the private market and get a deal that damages health care because ideology trumps common sense. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Napier is a good example. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Indeed Napier is a good example; so is Central Hawke’s Bay. There are plenty of examples of National when in power using its ideological pressure to require landlords to be enriched at the expense of the health of New Zealanders. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the statement “crucial health funds could be diverted from treating patients into paying rent to private landlords.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a report from the MidCentral District Health Board spokesperson who said: “Treatment in Australia—”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Immigration—Labour Market 
4.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement: “We must always ensure capable Kiwis get jobs first. Immigration should never substitute foreign for domestic labour because it is cheaper.”; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Yes; because it is an important principle and an objective that is set out in immigration work permit policy. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the Government’s skilled labour policies are being exploited by companies in the communications industry such as Transfield Services and possibly DownerCommspec through the practice of bringing in relatively cheap technicians from countries like the Philippines which is forcing skilled New Zealand telecommunications technicians to receive downward pressure on their wages or alternatively to move offshore; in light of all that would he still assert that our immigration policy should not lead to Kiwis losing their jobs to cheap foreign labour as is apparently happening in this industry? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place I am aware there are extensive skill shortages in the information and communications technology industry and by far the majority of representations that I receive on that subject are in the direction of desperate companies seeking to hire more workers from whatever source. Further to that I draw the House’s attention to the fact that there are various mechanisms that prevent the undercutting of New Zealand wages by immigrant labour such as the labour market test the need for industry and union agreement to place jobs on the long-term and immediate skills-shortage lists and ensuring that applicants are qualified to undertake any relevant work in New Zealand. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has the Minister of Immigration seen on the contribution of migrants to the New Zealand labour market? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have seen a Department of Labour survey which provided good feedback from employers of skilled migrants and shows that 81 percent of employers were impressed with the performance of their skilled migrant staff and that 90 percent of skilled migrants were either satisfied or very satisfied with their jobs and lives in New Zealand. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the general manager of AutoTerminal New Zealand Ltd one of New Zealand’s largest used-car importers has allegedly told an employee that if he had any problems with signing a contract—offering lower pay and worse conditions—the employee would be replaced by someone from the Philippines as the company had “people in the Philippines who are training to do branch managers’ jobs and sales jobs over here to replace anyone who won’t fall into line.”; and would the Minister agree that the ability to blatantly exploit our skilled labour shortages and replace hard-working New Zealanders with cheap foreign labour show that the Minister’s immigration policy is failing to meet expectations? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am truly shocked that the member has found an allegedly unethical used-car dealer but if he would like to put down a primary question on the matter or write to me about it I would be happy to look into it. 
Peter Brown 
: Would the Minister agree that the ability for employers to bring in cheap foreign labour under the guise of filling our skilled labour shortages when they come at the expense of New Zealanders already filling those jobs—like the examples I have already listed in my supplementary questions—has now created the perverse consequences of employers forcing down wages and even worse forcing those same New Zealanders offshore to get better-paid employment; and can he describe this as being anything other than a complete disaster? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes I certainly can. In the last quarter 42 percent of New Zealand firms described difficulty finding unskilled staff and fully one-third of all New Zealand businesses recorded a shortage of skills as their primary constraint to growth. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister personally received any reports of abuses such as those I have just outlined; if so can he tell us what he is doing to address the situation noting his comments that I quoted in my primary question? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I outlined to the House the member has not done me the courtesy of providing me in advance with the information he refers to. But there are two industries where those sorts of reports have come to me and where we have taken appropriate action. One is the situation of foreign crews on charter fishing vessels where we have substantially tightened the rules and the other is the seasonal labour industry in horticulture and viticulture where the Government’s new Recognised Seasonal Employer programme is making a huge and positive difference. 
State-owned Enterprises—Asset Ownership 
5.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he consider buildings or wholly owned subsidiaries of State-owned enterprises to be taxpayer-owned assets; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I start by thanking the member for the opportunity to contrast the various policies of the National Party on asset sales with the policy of Labour. The substantive answer is “Yes” for wholly owned subsidiaries and as far as buildings are concerned it depends on whether the Crown is the beneficial owner. Lots of buildings in New Zealand are not owned by the taxpayer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it correct that as one of the two shareholding Ministers he recently approved a deal allowing the Airways Corporation of New Zealand to sell its purpose-built Christchurch complex then lease it back off the private sector; if so why did he do that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes; because it is not a core asset. 
Dave Hereora 
: What reports has he seen on alternative views of ownership of State-owned enterprises? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen quite a number including two from the National Party in this New Zealand Exchange publication. The National Party is in such disarray that its members cannot get together to tell one story in the publication; they tell two stories in that publication rather than one. I tell the members opposite that we understand the difference between core assets of State-owned enterprises and things that are not core. For example a wind farm is a core asset of Meridian Energy but a building is not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Doug Woolerton. [ 
Interruption 
] I have called Doug Woolerton. Would members please be quiet; otherwise members will be leaving the Chamber. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that dividends from former State-owned enterprises that were sold in the 1980s and 1990s—not including the ones that the Government has had to buy back because the effect of their sale was disastrous—largely flow offshore ramping up our current account deficit and making other countries rich at our expense? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think it is fair to say that that is generally the case but in the case of some specific assets that have been sold directly to National’s mates that might not necessarily apply. The point I want to make to members opposite is that Government members understand the difference between trading and not trading. National Party members seem to say that Landcorp cannot sell a sheep or Meridian Energy cannot sell a unit of electricity. Clearly that is nonsense. But what we do know is that this Government will never do what the National Government did—and frankly some other Governments did—in the past and that was to sell off assets that should have been retained in the beneficial interests of all New Zealanders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister explain given that he says a wind farm is a core asset what a geothermal field generating electricity is if it is not a core asset; if it is a core asset why did his party decide to sell the some of the geothermal assets of Mighty River Power to Tuwharetoa— 
Hon Member 
: Who? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I will start again Madam Speaker. If a wind farm is a core asset—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will hear this question in silence to get it over with. Come on! I want this question heard in silence so that there is not constant interruption of the member who is trying to put his question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If a wind farm is a core asset what is a geothermal field producing electricity; if it is a core asset why did his Government sell some of Mighty River Power’s geothermal capacity to Ngati Tuwharetoa Geothermal Assets Ltd; and can he explain why it is OK if his party sells State-owned assets but if someone else talks about it it is not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A number of the electricity companies owned by the State have been involved in joint-venture arrangements with iwi. That will continue; it is one of the ways that the assets of the iwi can be used positively not only for the iwi but for the security of supply of electricity in New Zealand. That is a good thing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister explain whether the sale of the AgResearch subsidiary AgVax Developments Ltd to a foreign-owned company called Intervet was an example of privatisation of taxpayer assets and was it in his view a “good thing”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it was not. That company was a spin-off company one that was not—[ 
Interruption 
] Well there are a number of ignorant people opposite who do not understand that one of the things that our State-owned enterprises and Crown research institutes sometimes do is develop intellectual property into a company and sell it whereas the practice of the National Government was to sell intellectual property at an early stage for very little return. This Government believes that there are occasions when it is worth developing intellectual property to the point where we get real value from it rather than selling it off cheap to one’s mates in the way that Bill English Tony Ryall and Nick Smith did in the past. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member knows he cannot make that kind of imputation in Parliament. I ask him to withdraw it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member has asked for a withdrawal of comments that were made in answer to the question. I personally found it very difficult to hear so I cannot assist members. I am afraid members will be leaving the Chamber systematically; I will be simply asking members to leave because of the barracking. Will the member please withdraw. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that Paraparaumu Airport was sold to mates of National at below its real value? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is a matter of record. How much the former Minister of Transport got for his campaign funds for doing so is unclear. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I take grave exception to that. I want to make a personal explanation. I was the Minister of Transport when Paraparaumu Airport was sold and I received not a cent from anybody for any campaign fund. I want to make that very clear. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it clear that I made no reflection on that member; Roger Sowry was of course the member involved. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is it acceptable for a State-owned enterprise with a vital role in New Zealand’s air safety to sell its purpose-built building to a profit-seeking private sector investor without a lease guarantee when according to statements from the Minister’s fellow Ministers these very same factors present insurmountable barriers to any private sector involvement in new roads or other infrastructural assets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government has never ruled out the involvement of the private sector in the building of roads. The private sector has been involved in the building of roads in New Zealand ever since the Ministry of Works was broken up over 20 years ago. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm this afternoon that the Labour Government is perfectly happy with the sale of non-core assets perfectly happy with the sale of spin-off assets perfectly happy with the sale of non-trading assets and perfectly happy with the sale of numerous buildings; in that context can he explain what the extraordinary sale of the South Island national grid under his Government was all about? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes yes no maybe and we did not sell it. 
Obesity—Community Initiatives 
6.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports of community initiatives that have helped in the fight against obesity and contributed to better health outcomes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. Last week the Mangere Healthy Kai initiative won the supreme Health Innovation Award. Shopkeepers in Mangere have got together to promote and improve sales of healthy food and to raise awareness for adopting healthy lifestyles. It works. The good people of Mangere have taken to sushi filled roll sales have doubled banana sales have trebled and so on. We should congratulate all those involved. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of initiatives that will not contribute to better health outcomes? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am afraid I have too. The National Party’s secret plan to let the market set the price for seeing a doctor would drive many people away from getting health advice. John Key and his friends think it is OK for something like health to be a market commodity. This is a little at odds with ordinary Kiwis who are now going to see their general practitioners more often because it is half the price it used to be. It is also at odds with community initiatives like the Mangere Healthy Kai one which relies on partnership and goodwill rather more than on venal motives. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister agree that valuable though community initiatives like the one he mentioned are they will not be sufficient as long as we have an environment in which unhealthy food is far more readily available is often cheaper and is far more heavily promoted than healthy food and that we will not change that environment without putting controls over the marketing of unhealthy foods to children? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Certainly the marketing of food for children is part of the thinking within the original Healthy Eating - Healthy Action strategy and I notice that it is also part of the thinking of the report into obesity that has just come from the Health Committee which the member who asked the question chairs. So yes this issue runs across the whole of society and it will require multiple areas of endeavour to make progress on it. On the other hand where a small successful initiative has done so well I think we should applaud it and give it some congratulations. 
Benefit Fraud—Serious Fraud Office 
7.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How does he respond to the concerns of the Serious Fraud Office in relation to the Wayne Patterson benefit fraud investigation that “The role adopted by the Ministry as the investigator the prosecutor and the political adviser on this significant fraud in which it was also the victim does raise perception issues that would have been avoided had the Police or the Serious Fraud Office been responsible for the investigation and the prosecution.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Although this is clearly an operational matter between the ministry and the Serious Fraud Office I am advised that the ministry informed the police of this case as soon as the scale and the nature of the offending was identified. That was the correct thing to do. The protocol at the time was for the police to engage the Serious Fraud Office. The ministry worked closely with the New Zealand Police the Department of Internal Affairs the Crown Law Office the Crown-warranted criminal prosecutors and forensic accountants and it liaised with the Inland Revenue Department. I point out that Mr Wayne Patterson was sentenced to 8 years in prison. All of the money he stole will be recovered. An additional $467000 on top of that will be returned to the Crown so I fail to see how this was an inappropriate way to conduct an investigation that was supported by the police and by forensic accountants. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister agree with the Serious Fraud Office that aspects of the investigation did not meet professional standards; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not for the reasons I outlined in my substantive answer. 
Judith Collins 
: Does the Minister think the Ministry of Social Development was acting professionally when it took a full week from 26 September to 3 October for the ministry’s senior fraud investigator to take Kiwibank’s notification of suspicious activity any further because she “couldn’t open the spreadsheet”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I believe that this investigation into what was a one-off extraordinary case resulted in the full recovery of all money stolen plus nearly $500000 on top of that. As I said in answer to the member’s first question I fail to see how the department could have done any better than that. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister aware that when the Ministry of Social Development’s senior fraud investigator received a call from the Department of Internal Affairs on 2 October offering assistance with Operation Sparky the ministry investigator admitted that she did not know what he was talking about because even though she had received an email about a potential fraud with a spreadsheet containing 14 identities 6 days earlier she had not been able to open that spreadsheet; and does the Minister agree that this amateurish response suggests that the investigation would have been better handled by the Serious Fraud Office or the police? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No I do not. I point out to the member that the end result—which as I have repeatedly pointed out to her is quite an outstanding one—may well not have been achieved by the Serious Fraud Office. The Serious Fraud Office focuses on prosecution and conviction. We have a prosecution we have a conviction we have our money back and we have nearly $500000 on top of it. That is not a bad result. 
Judith Collins 
: When the Minister said yesterday that the conclusion of this investigation shows the way this was handled was obviously very effective did he know then that his senior investigator had no idea what was going on for well over a week and could not open a simple spreadsheet; and how can the public have confidence that there is not another Wayne Patterson story sitting in a spreadsheet somewhere? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I doubt that there is a person out there with 123 unique identities at the present time taking money from any particular system given the judge’s saying that this was one of the most unique cases he had ever heard. But what I do not doubt is that this investigation has got all the money back plus $500000 and that the person was prosecuted and is currently sitting in prison for 8 years. It is not a bad result. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Ministry of Social Development have computer skills courses to improve its staff’s skills in this area and might those courses be shared by members opposite who as  
The Hollow Men 
 showed in the case of Bill English Gerry Brownlee Nick Smith Don Brash and John Key had their emails on a broadcast system? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order not the second. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that the ministry is constantly lifting the skills of— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can the first part of that question be in order Madam Speaker? The member asked whether the skills he spoke of would be shared by the National Party. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not what was said. The member needs to listen like I have to. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well I can hardly hear. That is the problem. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well maybe the member would like to talk to his colleagues and to the colleagues on this side. There is a lot of chattering going on as well as interjections. Members need to lower it. The first part of the question was purely within the ministerial responsibility but I ruled that the second part was totally out of order. Would the Minister please respond. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can confirm that the ministry is constantly lifting the skills of its staff around all sorts of areas including computers. If people are enrolled with the ministry as some people may well be at some time in their lives then they will have the opportunity to go on computer courses as well. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Freedom of Expression 
8.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he agree with the Hon Peter Dunne regarding the Electoral Finance Bill that “It is little wonder that groups including the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society have condemned the bill as a massive attack on free speech.”; if not why not? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I certainly agree with Mr Dunne’s comment that the proposition behind the bill is difficult to argue against. He also makes some constructive comments on ways of addressing concerns raised by submitters. I welcome this and I stand by the comments I have repeatedly made—that the select committee process will add value by further refining the bill. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the Minister stand here and defend a bill that another Minister of the Crown has likened to something the KGB would have struggled to match; and why does he not give up defending this bill and throw it out as the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission have suggested? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because again if the member were a little more careful with his reading he would note that the Minister he is referring to suggested that changes needed to be made to the bill. As I have said repeatedly the select committee that is considering this bill—and of which that member is apparently a member although he shows no evidence of it in this House—I am sure will suggest useful changes. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that in the 2005 election year campaign billboards began appearing early around February or March but that the cost of those was not attributed to that party’s campaign costs; and that these facts alone highlight why change is necessary? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Indeed I can confirm that the National Party had such billboards along with of course a $350000 Exclusive Brethren - funded campaign followed by a million-dollar Exclusive Brethren - funded campaign—none of which managed to find their way into proper accounting processes around electoral finance. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that freedom of speech can be protected while ensuring that elections are not bought by those with the most money if we are able to narrow the definition of third-party electoral activity so that third-party election activities genuinely aimed at influencing an election’s outcome are the only ones affected and we are able also to have a real crackdown on secret trusts and anonymous donations to protect the public’s interest in knowing how political parties are funded? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I do indeed agree that if a narrowing down of the definition of “third party” is achieved then it will indeed further help the protection of freedom of speech. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Noting that answer and also the speech by the Leader of the Opposition to the National Press Club in August in which Mr Key accepted the need for some change to electoral financing law including a cap on third-party expenditure and more transparency of donations why has the Minister not engaged directly with the Leader of the Opposition and his party to bring about a solution that everyone seems to be broadly in agreement with? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because the bill concerned is in front of a multiparty select committee. That select committee— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That’s not an excuse. That’s a weak excuse. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Oh Dr Smith should calm down. That bill is before a select committee whose membership was enhanced and significantly enlarged to ensure that full political party participation could indeed take place and that the discussion could take place around the submissions from many submitters. I think that that is the precisely correct place for that consideration of the bill to take place—including I might add useful amendments to it. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: When the Minister said in the House yesterday: “I am persuaded by relevant case law by contrary legal advice” with regard to the compatibility of the Electoral Finance Bill with the right to freedom of speech what “relevant case law” was he referring to and what “contrary legal advice” was he referring to? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Again the member should recall that  
Harper v Canada 
 was the relevant case law. Contrary legal advice came from Crown Law of course which included reference to that case law and which also made reference to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and its view on these matters and the European Court of Human Rights which also supported that. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can the Minister explain why he thinks the New Zealand Law Society got it wrong when it said the legal advice provided by the Crown Law Office was deficient and did not engage with the points raised in its submission? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: It is not for me to judge the debate between the Law Society and the Crown Law Office. I am persuaded by the appropriateness and value of the Crown Law Office advice given the references and the considerations I have referred to already. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Can he explain why he thinks the Human Rights Commission got it wrong when it said: “By limiting freedom of expression and creating a complex regulatory framework in the way it does the Electoral Finance Bill unduly limits the rights of all New Zealanders to participate in the electoral process. The Commission therefore considers that the Bill is inherently flawed and should be withdrawn.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: One of the great things about our select committee process is that it enables all sorts of views to be expressed. I do not think that the Human Rights Commission’s analysis is correct. I have explained that at length to the member including the fact that the Human Rights Commission failed to make reference in its submission to the most relevant and up-to-date case law. But it made some useful points and I am sure the select committee will give careful consideration to the primary issues it has raised along with many of the other submitters and make useful refinements to the legislation. 
Hone Harawira 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. Does he agree with Garth Wyllie executive of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc. who told the Justice and Electoral Committee that the Electoral Finance Bill will impinge on democratic rights by suppressing freedom of speech and what difference does he see between freedom of speech and an ability to pay to promote a particular political view? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I do not agree with that submission and I am confident that when the select committee has completed its work it will offer some suggested changes that will further improve the legislation to ensure that the freedom of speech of ordinary New Zealanders and their right to participate in the electoral process is protected whilst ensuring that there is not an overwhelming and undue influence of those few who have large sums of money to spend on the election process. 
Hone Harawira 
: What guarantees can he make that the revelation of third-party advocacy will not be used to persecute individuals such as happened in the case of Amokura Panoho a Department of Labour employee who was forced to resign because false allegations were made in public against her by two Government Ministers? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I think that that question is getting to the very edges of relevance in this particular question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I would agree. But would the Minister try to address the question within the context of the primary question. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can say to the member that the parameters of this legislation are clear and they are about defining provision that enables ordinary New Zealanders’ rights to participate in their electoral process without their voices being drowned out by those—as we have seen in recent experience—who can and will spend vast sums of money to try to overwhelm the voices of the many. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does he agree that the Electoral Finance Bill is too broad in its sweep when South Pacific Pictures’ movie  
We’re Here to Help 
 about Dave Henderson’s fight with the Inland Revenue Department is captured by clause 5 as “words and graphics” that will persuade voters not to vote for a particular party especially in light of Michael Cullen’s repeated attacks under privilege on Dave Henderson and does he not think that that is absurd given that the Government through the Film Commission has poured $1.9 million of taxpayers’ money into the movie which none the less under his bill would be declared election advertising? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Perhaps the relevant part of the member’s question in particular is around clause 5(1)(a) and I would suggest in particular clause 5(1)(a)(iii) which has been the focus of a considerable number of submissions. It is I believe an area in which the select committee will offer its view and I would not be surprised to see a suggested refinement to that clause. I would be happy to consider that as I have indicated all along. 
State-owned Enterprises—Diversification 
9.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What reports has he received on the benefits of diversification in the State-owned enterprises portfolio? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 This Labour Government supports State-owned enterprises expanding their scope of business into new markets. Kiwibank is an obvious example of one that is successful and is a core asset. Express Couriers a subsidiary of New Zealand Post is another example. This joint venture with DHL has made a real and positive contribution to New Zealand Post’s financial position— 
Hon Member 
: You sold it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No we actually own half the joint venture. It is very successful internationally because DHL has international assets which has meant that our profits are higher. The taxpayer gets a bigger return. We will however take the profits from selling non-core assets such as the $800 million profit from the sale of an Australian wind farm; from memory it was a return on the original investment of about 130 percent. Where we can use that cash for better purposes—in this case building roads in Auckland—we will do so. 
Lesley Soper 
: Has he seen any reports that propose an alternative to diversifying State-owned enterprises? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I have—several. Bill English wants to sell all of them all or at least part of all of them John Key wants to sell a few and Gerry Brownlee is too confused between a share and an asset to make any sense at all. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister describe the benefits to the climate of the State-owned asset Landcorp clearing forest for dairy farms with the resulting double whammy of carbon dioxide and methane emissions? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Landcorp managing that process for the landowner—which it is not—is no different from any other enterprise doing that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister explain why his Government sold Southern Hydro why it sold off some of Mighty River Power’s geothermal assets why it sold AgVax Developments why it sold numerous State farms and why it sold numerous State buildings and most important can he explain the extraordinary sale of the southern transmission grid? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I shall take a couple of those as examples. Landcorp sells farms. That is part of its job. It is the old Department of Lands and Survey. For more than 100 years it has bought land developed farms and sold them to cockies. That is what it does. It is a good thing to have a Government agency doing that. Southern Hydro is another very good example. We bought into a development—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are in danger of having the Minister repeat his answer in silence so would members please keep the level of intervention down. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Southern Hydro is another good example. We bought into an Australian wind farm development. Buying into it meant that we got a bulk deal on windmills for that development and for New Zealand. So we got our windmills a lot more cheaply than we would have. But not withstanding that for our $600 million investment we got a $1.4 billion return. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Ah asset sales are good. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It was an asset sale but a bloody wind farm in Australia is not a core asset of a New Zealand State-owned enterprise. If Gerry Brownlee is too thick to understand that there is no hope for him. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister answered—inadequate as it was—only half the question. Could he answer the rest? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Opposition members insist on asking lots and lots of questions but there is no requirement to answer more than one of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is totally correct. That is consistent with the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister explain how the deal works whereby the South Island transmission grid was sold? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No because it was not sold. 
Police Recruitment—Standards 
10.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her statement that the Cerno report on police standards and assessment practice “provided assurances that the Police are training recruits to an acceptable standard and that police are capable of doing their jobs when all their training has been completed.”; if so does she have the same level of confidence that the standard of recruits being accepted into Police College has not declined? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes and I can do no better than quote from Dr George’s report: “On balance the assessment processes used by Police seem capable of ensuring that those achieving permanent appointment as Constables are able to perform the job. Primarily this is because of the multiple hurdle approach adopted by Police whereby any weaknesses in one aspect of the assessment process are tempered by other subsequent parts of the process. Indeed the demanding and broad range of tests that aspiring Constables must pass are significantly greater than those required for entry to most New Zealand organisations.”—and I would add including this Parliament. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm the finding of the report that when it came to the performance of new recruits on the general mental ability entrance test “Overall the changes in pass marks in Examination support the claim that there is a decline in performance” and is that not an acknowledgment that more people are going to the Police College who would not have made it in the past and who require extra tuition before they can graduate? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The report does point out that the police do spend in the report’s view too much time on helping recruits during their training. But I think it is important to point out that the report stated that those who graduate meet the standard required and are fit for purpose. What do New Zealanders want? They want police officers on the street who can do the job. That member among others claimed they could not. This report shows they can. 
Jill Pettis 
: Does the report conclude that constables who go out on the beat are fit for purpose and probably thinner today than some former serving officers—that they are able to perform the job—or does it support the unfortunate headline in the  
Dominion Post  
that described New Zealand police as the “thick blue line”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Dr Dave George who was the author of the report said that Professor Hattie’s conclusion was that the police were actually at least at the population average of intelligence or greater. The speed at which some politicians and some media attacked and denigrated the police was unfair and gratuitous and no doubt had an effect on those officers who are out on the street trying to do their job 24 hours a day. I think it would help if some people would withhold their judgment on the police on some occasions and engage their brains before their mouths. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm that when it came to the reasons why recruits were doing worse on entrance tests the report stated: “It is not clear that any decline is attributable to the change in assessment but is more likely related to decisions about the standards”; and can she confirm that one of those decisions was to exclude the bottom 23 percent when the police had previously excluded the bottom 40 percent after the agreement signed between Labour and New Zealand First? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm the final part of that member’s question. I can confirm that Professor Hattie said the police should not use stanines in testing. He said they should not use them and the police are as intelligent today as previously—probably more intelligent than when that member went through. The constant attack on New Zealand police by saying they are not fit for purpose is proved by this report to be untrue. I ask the member to get over it. He has lost it because this report shows the claims that member was making were wrong. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm the finding of the report that the decision last year to make two of the physical standards for recruits easier the new run times based on age and gender and the lowering of the height of the scaling wall from 6 feet to only 4 feet “did not follow a sound and rigorous process” and “lacked a sound rationale or research evidence on which to base the changes” and that this drop in standards came after the Labour - New Zealand First agreement; and was not the real reason for that to meet the target of 1000 new police which the Prime Minister had stated before the election was simply not credible? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No no more than the National Party’s decision to allow shorter people in the police meant that they are not good police officers. This report showed that the people who graduated met all the standards that were required at graduation. The member is trying to say that people who came in and who may not have met all the standards when they started were therefore not capable of being police when they graduated. This report showed that they met the standards and that they were capable of graduating and capable of doing the job. I ask the member to stop attacking New Zealand police officers. They are out there doing the work that he used to do but is not capable of doing now. 
Taxation—Tax Evaders 
11.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that Mr David Henderson or “Hendo” is “one of the biggest and nastiest tax evaders in this country … who ran the sex industry in Christchurch and avoided tax thereon” and has he any evidence to support his claims? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Mr Henderson has exercised his right to make a formal response to this House and I have no further comment to make on the matter. 
Rodney Hide 
: How then can Dave Henderson ever get fair treatment from the Inland Revenue Department when the Deputy Prime Minister has already declared him guilty of criminal tax evasion and he has never even been charged or had any evidence produced against him and why is the Deputy Prime Minister not big enough to apologise and say that he got it wrong? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Under the Tax Administration Act of course the Inland Revenue Department must not take any instructions from Ministers on such matters at all. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does the Minister not find it richly ironic that the taxpayer through the Film Commission has put $1.9 million into a movie  
We’re Here to Help 
 showing that the Inland Revenue Department unfairly victimised Mr Dave Henderson—a victimisation that continues to this day because of the wild allegations that were made by the Deputy Prime Minister under privilege and that to this day have not been retracted? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that under the Tax Administration Act the Inland Revenue Department must act independently and cannot be directed. The fact that the Film Commission has helped fund a film shows what a democracy this is. But I would like to quote to the member from the blurb for the film: “This film does not purport to be an accurate account of the events involving Mr Henderson and the IRD.” 
Accident Compensation—Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and  Compensation Amendment Bill 
12.  
PANSY WONG (National) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she stand by her statement made during debate on the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill: “Business people—whatever their company structure—like to have some certainty. …if we have no smoothing policy at all then we will get back to the good old bad days when people had no idea from one year to another what their levy was likely to be. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation.”; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. The smoothing policy of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) gives some certainty to employers while also ensuring adequate funding to pay for the treatment and rehabilitation costs of injured workers. 
Pansy Wong 
: What does the Minister have to say to Mr Douglas Bull who is self-employed and facing a 34 percent increase in his ACC levy for 2008 and who was told that it was because of the merging of the self-employed work account and the employer account? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If the increase was in the levy then that is quite different from an increase in the rate. Obviously an increase in the levy could also be contributed to by a considerable increase in income. That would be logical because it is rated against income. The way the self-employed work account is now worked out—the way the rate is determined—has separated the income and non-income parts of the account which is fair given that we are now moving them to be on the same basis as employers. 
Pansy Wong 
: What does the Minister have to say to Mr Gray who is self-employed and has had increases in his ACC levy of at least 10 percent a year since 2003 and who is now facing a 35 percent increase in the levy for 2008 for similar cover? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It would depend on the question I was asked to address as to what I would say to him. If I was asked whether a privatised competitive scheme under National would make it better then the answer would be no. As has been shown in a country as close as Australia when insurance companies undercut their prices they loss-lead so that they give lower bills. They end up going bankrupt. That is what happened to the National Party’s ACC privatisation adviser HIH which left the taxpayers of Australia with millions and millions of dollars for them to fund. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House by how much the work account is currently overfunded and what ACC will to do to rectify that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The ACC work account has substantial reserves which have arisen from strong investment from ACC strong economic conditions particularly high employment and lower than forecasted injury rates. As noted in the levy consultation papers that are currently out for discussion it is proposed that ACC returns $250 million to employers in the 2008-09 year. 
Pansy Wong 
: What does the Minister have to say to Mr Armstrong a truck owner and driver who is facing an increase of 47.5 percent in his ACC levy for 2008 and who has been told by ACC that this increase is only the beginning in the phasing in of the new work account which covers both the self-employed and employers? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I can tell Mr Armstrong—as I would say to any employer and employee—that under this Government the cost of his injury treatment and rehabilitation will be met by income gained from the scheme. Under that member’s proposals of a “pay as you go” privatised scheme that would not be the case. People’s cost of injury would not have the funds collected so who would pay it? 
General Debate 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. What is going on in the Labour Party? What is going on? The big deadly dastardly attack fizzled out like Steve Maharey facing a hard decision. What has happened to the Labour Party? I will tell members what is going on. The deadline for candidate nominations was put back by the Labour Party to early November. Half the front bench are trying to watch the polls to decide whether to stand again. That is why they are preoccupied. At the same time a Cabinet reshuffle is going on. How can Helen Clark reshuffle the Labour Cabinet when half the front bench cannot decide whether to stand again? 
I will make some recommendations about who should stand again. I think Pete Hodgson showed himself today to be ably qualified to be a leading member of the Labour Government. He is the man who said we should not waste a dollar of taxpayers’ money paying rent to private landlords and that it should all go on services. It is just that he forget to tell us that one of the most recent openings he went to was a breast-screening unit at Palmerston North Hospital that is owned by the private sector. The district health board pays rent to the landlord—whoever that is. The Minister opened the breast-screening unit. He should stay. We want Pete Hodgson to stay. 
Then we have Steve Maharey. He is the man who said we will die in a ditch over private money in public services. If he stays then he will get the choice of which ditch to die in and on which side of the road. He was trying to curry favour in a last desperate effort to get the left wing of the Labour Party to tell him he had a future. It was killed off today when we found out that there are a number of exceptions to Labour’s position. That is why we need Trevor Mallard to stay because he is the guy who seems to know the policy. He said we can sell assets. That is the first thing. Steve Maharey will die in a ditch over it but Trevor says we can do it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Every cloud has a silver lining. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Every cloud has a silver lining. Here are the exceptions: we can sell it if it is a spin-off a joint venture or a farm. In fact they are selling so many farms that Michael Cullen told us last week that we need a system to stop them selling sensitive farms. Labour has just brought that in and paid Landcorp $50 million to stop them doing it. Then Trevor said they can sell it if it is a building but Steve Maharey said we will die in a ditch over school buildings. Pete Hodgson said if we rent a building it is bad and that we would never do that but Mallard says we can. 
 Then he came up with another new beauty—non-core assets. Helen Clark is trying to decide which one of them is not a core asset. Well Michael Cullen has become a core liability. Steve Maharey is certainly a current liability. Trevor Mallard we never know about; he is a contingent liability every single day because one does not know what he is going to come up with. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: He’s a non-current asset. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No the Minister of Justice is the non-current asset. He will find himself on the select committee sorting out the Electoral Finance Bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s below the line. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He is below the line. Then we have the non-trading assets. We can sell a building a non-core asset a non-trading asset a spin-off a joint venture and a farm; and that is just what we heard today. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: But we can’t sell assets. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We cannot sell assets. So what happened about Labour’s vicious attack on National from 2 weeks ago? Where has it gone? I do not know; it has just disappeared. Then we have Dr Cullen and he is just as consistent as Trevor Mallard. Dr Cullen has ruled out big tax cuts; he has ruled out small tax cuts; he has ruled out rate tax cuts; he has ruled out a change to thresholds which might bring tax cuts; he has ruled out tax cuts when the economy is growng fast; he has ruled out tax cuts when the economy is slowing down; he has ruled out tax cuts when there is a big surplus and he has ruled out tax cuts when there is a bigger surplus but now he is promising tax cuts in election year. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 One of the things we know about the National Party is that when the leader is away we get the best performances from its members. That was Bill English peaking. That was “peak” Bill English at his best. That was the signal to Mr Key who would have heard that speech—given the volume—all the way from London. It said: “Don’t come back because over the last few weeks you haven’t been doing too well but I’m doing quite well.” Bill English would also be saying to John Key: “I’m no deficit; I’m a surplus. I’m trying to make sure that I’m stamping myself here in New Zealand while you’re away.” Do members remember the last National leader who got off a plane and was met and then told: “No don’t come back now.”? I think that is what Bill English is saying to John Key today. 
One of the things I want to do today is ask a little question about youth apprenticeships. I think that the issue of youth apprenticeships and the way the National Party criticised this straight away goes right to the heart of the difference between the two parties. The National Party has told us over the decades that the main reason that it is in politics is the market. National wants to be in politics to set the market free. It ran policies like that throughout the 1990s on training with devastating results. 
Let me tell the House a bit about National’s training policy in the 1990s. National slashed the funding to Career Services then privatised it. One could not get any careers advice for love or money. National downgraded the technology area in the curriculum. It did not want it to be taught any more. It told the teachers of this subject that they were not valuable any more. It told them to go away. It told them that it was “yesterday’s subject” and not to bother at all. National did not do anything about the transition from school to work. Kids actually transited from school to unemployment under the National Government. That was the transition policy—go from school to the dole. National abolished the apprenticeship system. It made sure that industry training was also downgraded. In other words it said the market policy should be followed and the market would provide. Unfortunately through the 1990s we discovered that the market did not fill the gap: training collapsed and we are still living with that problem today. 
Members should contrast that with Labour’s approach. We believe that the market is a good thing but it needs to be worked alongside a good strong public sector. So what have we done? We have restored the funding to the Careers Service and it runs great services for kids right across the country. We have made sure that the curriculum has a strong emphasis on technology. The new curriculum will make it a real emphasis for young New Zealanders. We put in place things like the Gateway programme in order to ensure that young people—9000 of them today—can make the transition from school to work. We have 13000 young New Zealanders training in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme and 176000 people now in industry training. We are rebuilding industry training—that is skills. These are real genuine policies. 
I thought that the National Party had learnt about the faults of the market and that it had eschewed all that. It has been haranguing us to death over the last little while saying that everything Labour wants to do National wants to do too. But the National Party cannot change its spots. Members should look across the Chamber at Dr Lockwood Smith. We see the “market” sitting on the front bench—like Mr Maurice Williamson who is proudly pro the market. When National got pushed recently to say what its policies were it said: “Sell State assets”—not just sell them but partially sell them so that mums and dads could get access to 20 percent of all these assets. We know what happened in the 1990s. Mums and dads did not get access; big business immediately got access—that is people who support the National Party. 
National has said: “Leave doctors alone. Let them set their own fees. Let the market decide on where people get a doctor from.” National has said it would make sure the system was run by allowing the market across the country to set the cost of going to a doctor. National has said: “Let us have more private schools. Let us have more funding for private schools. Let the private sector build own and run the property in schools.” That is the thing that Labour will die in a ditch over. We will not allow the National Party to destroy our public education system—the sixth-best education system in the world. We will not allow National to replace that with a competitive market based upon people getting money out of our schools and sending it off to Macquarie Bank in Australia. We do not like that idea. New Zealanders do not like that idea. That is the problem. 
The National Party has not learnt the lesson that the market does not deliver. But National is back again with that view and when we scratch the surface we see that that is what it would bring back to this country if it were ever in Government. That is what New Zealanders need to know. They need to have a comparison next year between the parties in order to decide whether they will take the record of huge success of the last 8 years and of a balanced approach to policy that has led to things like industry training coming right or whether they will return to the horrors of the market-led policy of the National Party. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I wish to address the issues raised by the police arrest of 17 people on arms charges and possibly further charges to be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act. I first say that the Green Party is totally against the use of violence in the pursuit of political aims; one of the four principles in our Green charter is non-violence. The Green Party cannot pass judgment on the guilt or innocence of those charged. The evidence has yet to be brought before the court and tested there. However we are concerned about talk of using the Terrorism Suppression Act in those cases. We opposed that Act when it was brought in back in 2002 just as we oppose the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that is currently before the House. Any offence that those arrested could possibly have committed is already covered under the Crimes Act or other criminal legislation. The Crimes Act covers everything from planning violent acts to criminal conspiracy and to being a member of a criminal group. 
To use the Terrorism Suppression Act is to say that those who commit crimes from a political motivation are doing a worse thing than those who commit the same crimes for pecuniary advantage such as in an armed robbery of a bank or for other selfish reasons such as in the violence and intimidation conducted by gangs. Also to single out those who use force to achieve political goals and to charge them under the terrorism laws which carry heavier penalties than if those crimes had been non-political tends to tarnish those who are trying to achieve similar political goals by peaceful means. For example both violent individuals and a peaceful group might have the same aim of saving a rainforest or helping Maori to hold on to some land. 
Having a special category of politically motivated crime can also help to create an atmosphere of belief that very peaceful political groups somehow spawn violent extremists. The peaceful groups then find themselves facing unnecessary hostility and sometimes undue harassment and surveillance by State agencies. Rather than being reservoirs of violence community groups are the seedbeds for peace. The fact that we are nuclear-free today and did not go into the Iraq war are to a large extent due to many years of hard work by peace groups and by many many community organisations. We must always welcome the diversity of issues groups non-governmental organisations and community organisations of all sizes and complexions in New Zealand. They are the lifeblood of our democracy. Parliament is an important platform for political debate and we are the technicians of legislative change but the driving force of progress in New Zealand is our active civil society. 
Now and again individuals who have been active in peaceful community organisations go off the rails but that is not new and it is in no way a reflection on the peaceful nature of community groups. It happened in the 1960s when the Bower brothers went to prison for blowing up an air force depot in Auckland to protest against the Viet Nam War. It happened again during the 1981 Springbok tour when someone sabotaged the microwave link used for broadcasting the rugby tests. Individuals from any political organisation right or left can go off the rails but they are less likely to contemplate violent solutions if the institutions of the State are known for their respect and tolerance of dissent and for their respect for the work of community groups. 
Over the past few days concern has been expressed by Tuhoe elders and leaders of community groups in Wellington and Christchurch that the raids were conducted in a way that did not show sufficient respect. The police have a bit of explaining to do as to why they inconvenienced so many Tuhoe in order to arrest the well-known public figure Tame Iti at his Ruatoki home. And they could have shown a bit more patience in Wellington before smashing glass and breaking into— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to caution the member that charges have already been laid and he can no longer make any further comments in relation to the subject he is narrating. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I am talking about the raids not the charges. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I am cautioning the member. He needs to be very careful— 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: —given the Speaker’s ruling yesterday. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. I am not going to refer to the charges. The police could have shown a bit more patience in Wellington before smashing glass and breaking into 128 Abel Smith Street which the police knew was a well-used community house. They also knew that it was the residence of Sam Buchanan and his family Sam being a longstanding and respected activist on peace and social justice issues. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It is a real privilege to speak in the general debate this afternoon. My colleague and friend Steve Maharey mentioned the market madness of the National Party in relation to investment in training particularly of our young people through support of apprentices. New Zealand has a very proud history of supporting apprentices except in the 1990s when the then National Government said to leave it to the market and it would sort itself out. We ended up with a huge deficit in skills—a deficit that has cost New Zealand dearly. 
When we introduced the Modern Apprenticeships scheme National opposed it. As we expand that now National again in the House today demonstrated its commitment to just letting the market take over. It does not work. The market will not make investments in skills in infrastructure or in the future needs of our country. Investment requires Government support and understanding. That is the big difference between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government. 
National had another rash of market madness during the most recent non-contact time in the last adjournment from Parliament. I am not quite sure whether National’s communications and public relations team were all at the beach overseas or just out to lunch but we had an extraordinary outbreak of National Party honesty. Bill English said: “We’ll have privatisation of our education system.” John Key announcing National’s education policy said “Yes we’ll have private commitment in both the ownership and management of our schools and we will increase the amount of money that goes to private schools because it is getting a little unfair that people have to pay such a lot to go to private schools.” 
I noticed throughout this entire contribution from both Bill English and John Key that the National Party education spokesperson was silent. Katherine Rich who stood up to the previous leader and got the sack remained silent. When she was finally dragged in to communicate with the media when she finally fronted up on  
Morning Report 
 and was asked directly what her view was on this market position of the National Party and whether she supported it she said: “I support the leader.” She would not answer the question. That is another sign of Katherine Rich being the only voice of sanity in the National Party and that she is clearly overwhelmed by National’s return to the market. 
Then we had the icing on the cake when Tony Ryall launched National’s health policies. He said: “We don’t support Labour’s fees control system. We’ll be knocking it on the head.” Why would National do that? Why would it stop the unjustified escalation of general practitioners’ fees? Once again it is because it thinks the market will sort it. 
John Key raced in to the defence of his poor old hapless health spokesperson who came under huge siege from mothers senior citizens groups and ordinary working New Zealanders saying: “Wait a minute—we can finally afford to go to the doctor. Don’t do it. Don’t return to the market madness of the 1990s.” John Key leaping to Tony Ryall’s defence said: “In the end it’s called a market and if they”—meaning the general practitioners—“decide to charge a lot more then probably some [people] will go down the road.” 
Which planet does that man get his policy advice from? People in some parts of this country do not have a general practitioner down the road who they can go to. 
Hon Member 
: They might not have a road. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: They might not even have a road. They certainly do not have the sort of theoretical competitive market that would deliver fair prices for general practitioners so that ordinary New Zealanders—particularly the most vulnerable the youngest and the oldest—can afford to get to their doctor when they need to. 
That is the commitment this Labour-led Government has made. That is the commitment we have given. We know that in the 1990s too many people did not go to their local doctor because they could not afford it. They did not have the extra money in their pocket. Mind you people have a lot more extra money in their pocket since Working for Families came in since the increase in the minimum wage and since we have restored the level of superannuation to the level it was at before National Government cuts and more. But under a National-led Government we will be back to the market madness and back to most people missing out. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 About 5 years ago this Labour-led Government passed legislation called the Land Transport Management Act. At the time of passing it not only Minister Paul Swain but a number of Government members crowed about what a fantastic new innovation the Land Transport Management Act would bring to the funding of roads. Mr Swain said that the bill would finally allow the private sector to be able to fund the building of roads through public-private partnerships. 
I say to Labour members on the other side of the Chamber that National fully supports the idea of the private sector being involved in the funding of roading and we are very happy the Government is thinking along those lines—even though the Land Transport Management Act was very restrictive and prescriptive. 
A really interesting thing happened earlier this month. Steve Maharey did an interview with Colin Espiner in the Christchurch 
 Press 
 about how dreadful it was for private sector money to be involved in things that the State should be doing. He said he did not want private sector money being involved in schools or hospitals. Then Steve Maharey got hoisted by his own petard because when he was asked about the building of roads he said that the Labour-led Government was opposed to private sector funding for building roads. That is what he said; I have his statement here. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He didn’t say “building them”. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes that is exactly what he said. He said that the Government is opposed to private sector funding for building roads. So then I asked Annette King in the Chamber on 10 October a question about whether she stood by her colleague Mr Maharey’s statement that the Government would not countenance private sector funding even when it came to the building of roads. Poor old Annette King had no option but to support her front-bench colleague. She said that the Government had ruled out private sector funding for the building of roads. She said it was public-private partnerships for this Government whereby the public sector funds it and the private sector goes out and lays the tarseal and scoria and so on. 
I have news for the Labour Government. That is how every road has ever been built in the history of road building. Michael Joseph Savage built schools under that model of the public-private partnership. The chippies plumbers and electricians who went and built those schools were all private but the Government funded them. We did not need a Land Transport Management Act. We already had what Labour members now say is the public-private partnership model. 
It gets really serious. One project in this country is now in grave danger of falling over because of that foolish comment by Steve Maharey: the Penlink project to put in a major road and a bridge out to the Whangaparaoa Peninsula. I have spoken today to the Mayor-Elect of the Rodney district—Penny Webster a former member of this House—and she said that the people of Rodney are absolutely hanging on the decision because the Government has been working with them to prepare this whole package. About a quarter of the funding for the Penlink project will involve private sector funding. 
If the Labour Government hangs on to what Annette King and Steve Maharey said then Rodney district has to say goodbye to Penlink. Here is the consultation document. It states that around a quarter of the funding will come from ratepayers and development levies; a quarter will come from the private sector funder which will be a concessionaire on the project; and around half will come from the Government through Land Transport New Zealand. That document is what the Government has been out consulting on with the people of Rodney and that funding is what the people are expecting. 
I can tell the House that Penny Webster was gobsmacked this morning when I said that Annette King in the Chamber last week ruled out something that Paul Swain did—it was the right thing to do and I congratulate her on that—which was to enable the private sector to fund the building of roads. But no the obfuscation goes like this: “Well what we meant by public-private partnerships is that the Government funds it and the private sector does the building of it.” So what was the need for a Land Transport Management Act? Why was that legislation passed 5 years ago? And why was there all the crowing of Paul Swain and others in Labour that this was a new world a new venture and a new way to fund it? 
What they have done—and I am happy to say this—is create really serious concern in Rodney right now that a $160 million project which is absolutely vital to getting the Whangaparaoa link is hanging in the balance because it is expected that the private sector will be a part funder in a public-private partnership. But Steve Maharey could not help himself in his interview with Colin Espiner on 3 October. He could not help himself but say: “I want to make it clear that even when it comes to the building of roads we are opposed to private funding.” He ruled that project right out. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 What a delight it is to finally hear from Maurice Williamson the invisible National spokesman on information and communications technology. How many press releases has that member issued in the last year? Not one! How many good ideas has that member contributed to the broadband debate in the last year? Not one! How many supporters does he have in the sector? It is the same answer. 
But if Maurice Williamson’s problem is that he is invisible John Key has the opposite problem. It was once said of our former colleague Michael Laws that in his last unsuccessful race for member of Parliament he made one mistake: he ran a long campaign and the public got to know him! The same is true of John Key; he is flouncing around like an ageing fiancé who has had one too many first dates. He is starting to look a tad jaded. Bill English knows that which is why in the House today he could not help himself—he could not get the bush out of his tail he could not keep the grin off his face. Poor old John! 
John Key’s dilemma is an old one: to tell or not to tell. He tried not telling for so long. He was an expert at turning up at the Hero Parade in a pink T-shirt and at turning up at Waitangi with a “rent a poor person” under his arm saying nothing but being full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. The trouble was that the press was on to him. Here are a few samples. An article from 3 August stated: “His focus is blurry.” and “He says there will be more policy later.” An article in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 from 8 August stated: “Key needs to be braver on policies.” and “None of [his] ideas are exactly new or inspiring …”. An article from 8 August stated: “… the inconsistent statements and shift in positions have been on the rise.” and “… National and its leader were a long way off magnificent.” 
So John Key changed tack. He started to let out what he really thought and that was just marvellous—“Marvellous!” as John Campbell would say. What did National do? It said it would send troops to Iraq then it said it would not then it said it never would have. Well which version of John Key’s thinking is the public supposed to believe? National said it would sell State assets then it said that it would not. Then it said that it would as long as Labour did not or that it would if its members thought of it first. What version of National’s State-owned enterprises policy are we to believe? 
National will make people pay for the healthcare they have already paid for; it will take the ceiling off general practitioner charges. That will keep a few of National’s rich mates in the health system happy but it will prove to be a turning point of the 2008 campaign. It will keep National where it deserves to be for the good of New Zealand which is on the Opposition benches for another 3 short years until it gets another try at fooling the public that it has changed. 
But the public knows better; the public knows that the “Hollow Men” are still in charge. The public remembers that John Key was the right-wing candidate that Bill English was the centrist candidate and that the right wing won. The right wing of the National Party has so much money it can hire the very best spin doctors to pretend that it is not what it is. The trouble is that the public knows that it is what it is so one statement about flogging the family silver or market-based healthcare brings it all rushing back like a hangover—the 1990s when the rich got richer and the poor got poorer and when ordinary Kiwi families missed out. It has taken us a decade to claw our way back to a society that we can be half proud of now. 
The problem is not that we can never countenance a National Government but that New Zealand cannot afford a 10-year experiment of going backwards. We cannot afford another mistake like the 1990s. For the good of our economy and for the good of our society and community we must face the future—and that means facing the future with an inclusive progressive and social democratic Government led by Labour. That is what New Zealanders have voted for the last three times and that is what they will vote for again. They will vote for building coalitions with other parties in the House showing real leadership and using the power of the State for good. They will vote for active progressive Government not market-based Government—we have had enough of that. It has been tried and it has failed. The press is on to National and I think that some of the most recent comments are very instructive. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Conroy Removals is a nationwide removal company with its head office in Napier. It shifts furniture. It is a great business and I might say that it is one of a number of fantastic businesses based in Hawke’s Bay. Do members know that right now they could have a truckload of furniture moved from Napier to Christchurch for $4000? For $5500 they could have that same truckload of furniture shifted to the Gold Coast. Do members know where most of Conroy Removals’ business is going to from around the country? Unfortunately it ain’t to Christchurch as much as I would like it to be. It is going direct to the Gold Coast—to Australia. Do members know whom this removal company is moving? It is moving young hard-working Kiwi families with young kids with big aspirations and with big dreams. In fact just recently a family from my son’s rugby team picked up sticks and moved their kids to Melbourne. 
For Conroy Removals it has become a bit like Groundhog Day. One Kiwi family after another has been packing their bags and moving across the ditch. This has been exacerbated by Dr Cullen’s personal version of Groundhog Day. It is called “Tax Surplus Groundhog Day”. Last week Dr Cullen announced another huge surplus—$8.7 billion. This came on top of the $11.47 billion surplus in 2006 the $6.24 billion surplus in 2005 and the whopping $7.42 billion surplus in 2004. Over the last 4 years this Government has had tax surpluses of $34 billion. That equates to $8450 per man woman and child in this country based on a population of 4 million. According to Dr Cullen much of the $8.7 billion has already been spent with contributions made to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and to the purchase of new infrastructure. That aside even under the current Government’s policies there is still a $2.7 billion cash surplus available to give back to hard-working Kiwis—$2.7 billion has been unnecessarily collected off New Zealand taxpayers which is $675 per man woman and child. 
Under this Government taxpayers have had no tax relief. Taxpayers now pay an average of $2400 more in tax per annum than they did in 2000 despite their being no better off in real terms. National believes that at the very least that $2.7 billion cash surplus belongs to the taxpayer. It was unbudgeted; it should be given back. Tax relief is long overdue in this country. 
I also believe that New Zealand needs to debate the management of the State balance sheet particularly in regard to the use of the cash surplus to pay for our ongoing infrastructural needs. National has made it clear that the funding of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund will remain unchanged—it needs to keep coming out of that surplus; there are no questions about that. But as a country we need to have a big debate about how we finance alternative ways of building our infrastructure such as through new roads new schools and new hospitals because right now we are paying for them with cash. 
I ask members across the other side of the House whether they paid cash when they bought their most recent homes. Well when I bought my last home I was certainly unable to pay cash for it that is for sure. Take the example of a new road for instance. Right now we are paying cash for it but the value of that road will be of value to the country for 30 or 40 years. Yet under this financial management we are paying cash for it upfront to pay for the value of that road for many many years when it will return value to the country for years. I think the country needs to have a debate about whether future taxpayers should contribute to funding that level of infrastructure. 
There is no doubt that a combination of the free cash currently available in the surplus a potential change in our approach to the way we finance the purchase of infrastructure and a reining in of the year-on-year increases to Government spending above the consumer price index will give our nation the headroom to implement tax cuts without there being a reduction in social services. Did members hear that? Without a reduction in social services! 
I would like to contrast the Groundhog Day Budget surplus—the “no tax relief” experience in New Zealand—with the Australian regime. The philosophy could not be any more different. Australia too has enjoyed Budget surpluses in recent years—surpluses of around 1.3 percent of GDP as opposed to our own surpluses which are in the vicinity of 7 percent of GDP. They have simply been whopping. Philosophically Australians have a totally different attitude to that of hard-working Kiwis. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in this House and acknowledge that there is a celebration going on at the moment in the union movement—20 years of the Council of Trade Unions and 70 years of the Federation of Labour. My gosh what a pleasure it was to go to that celebration and to meet with the talented committed people who are proud to have advocated for workers in New Zealand. It was a pleasure to be invited and to see other parties represented there. But was the National Party there? No it was not. And I ask why not when the National Party has been advocating so strongly for unions such as the Post Primary Teachers Association around the Electoral Finance Bill? National members have said: “We’re acting for unions. This bill is not in their interests.” So why when they had that strong advocacy were they not invited to celebrate with the unions? It is because every single one of those workers and unions know that every single one of the National Party’s policies is designed to deal to workers and families in New Zealand. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee meets tomorrow. I suggest that Chris Finlayson listens carefully to the hearing because he picks up nothing from the select committee and has to get all his information through questions in this House. But the majority of that select committee and my good friend Charles Chauvel who is sitting beside me are working hard to ensure that the Electoral Finance Bill ensures that all organisations can advocate lobby and have their say but—and I mean but—avoid the rorts of the friends of the National Party the big money friends like the Exclusive Brethren. This party and indeed most of the parties in this Parliament do not want to see a political system where those with the biggest wallets have the biggest voices. 
Jill Pettis 
: And cults. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. I also find it really offensive that the National Party is going on about human rights when it is on record that every single member of that party voted against the New Zealand Bill of Rights legislation. They voted against it. 
To go back to the union celebration I say that despite the National Party’s attempts to destroy the union movement this was a time to celebrate all the things that the movement has campaigned for right through the gloomy 1990s on behalf of working people and Kiwi families. Many positives have been achieved: paid parental leave early childhood education apprenticeships interest-free loans for students tax credits for Kiwi families—and the previous speaker Chris Tremain spoke of there being no tax relief—4 weeks’ leave health and safety laws public holiday payments getting rid of that ghastly ghastly Employment Contracts Act KiwiSaver and cheaper doctors’ fees. 
We are really proud of our policy on cheaper doctors’ fees. What did we do? This Government put a bucket of money into primary health into subsidising health visits to doctors and it has worked; people are healthier. Why are they healthier and why are our children healthier? It is because we see that if we put that money into subsidising doctors’ visits then our children will be healthier our families will be healthier and our older citizens will be healthier because they can afford to go to the doctor and have very cheap prescriptions. What—after hearing nothing about what the National Party would do? 
David Cunliffe spoke about the honeymoon period of all care and no responsibility with not a policy to be seen but just a bit of rhetoric about how much National likes people. But what did the Nats say? Whoops! They said they would remove the cap on doctors’ fees. What does that mean? It means they will let the market decide. All the improvements that I spoke about before and all that has been campaigned for by workers and families and organisations in this country—every single one of them—was opposed by those people over on the other side of the Chamber. Why was it opposed? Because they will let the market decide. They say that the market will work it out. We know in this Labour-led Government that we cannot rely on the market to sort out things for people in this country whether for families for older people or for our businesses. We are proud to be a Government that supports all those people. 
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
: 
 As is now well known in this House I left United Future to start a new party that will have a constitutional commitment to Judaeo-Christian values. I thought I would like to take the opportunity afforded to me by this debate today to talk about those values and give a few examples because I get asked by so many people around the country: “What do you mean Gordon?”. 
I want to start with a list of things that flow from that tremendous values tradition. The first one is the equality of dignity of all people. It is something that is very much to the fore for those people who have seen the film  
Amazing Grace 
 and know of the wonderful work by William Wilberforce and what was known as the Clapham Sect to bring about the abolition of slavery. Why did they decide that slavery was wrong? It was because it offends against that principle of equality of dignity. 
Flowing from that and with real significance for New Zealand—and someone who was in the film as well—was the work of James Stephens later Sir James Stephens who as the British Foreign Secretary shaped British policy to bring into being the Treaty of Waitangi. When we read the Treaty of Waitangi we immediately see that it no longer treats indigenous people as inferior. It no longer suggests that indigenous people should be conquered which was what the way of the world had been right up until that time. It is obviously a treaty drawn up between two peoples on the basis of their equality of dignity. 
I would also like to mention Kate Sheppard and the tremendous work she did to extend the vote to women. As members know we gave full voting rights to women in New Zealand—the first nation in the world to do so—in 1893. Therefore I say on my international visits that we are actually the world’s oldest democracy because any system that leaves out 50 percent of the population on the basis of their sex is clearly wrong. That again is a reflection of the equality of all human beings—male female whatever nationality whatever race whatever colour. 
I move now to the Ten Commandments. Keith Holyoake when he was the Prime Minister of New Zealand always had in his House folder every time he came into this House a copy of the Ten Commandments. He told me personally that it was his reference point while he was Prime Minister to ensure that the laws being passed here did not breach those important commandments—now 5000 years old. 
I move to democracy itself. Moses said: “Choose unto yourself wise respected and understanding men and women and I will appoint them over thousands over hundreds over fifties” etc. That was the model of democracy that all these many generations later we have managed to implement in some of the nations in the world with many still to go. Many other things came out of that Jewish law: sanitation education etc. I commend to the House a book by Thomas Cahill called  
The Gifts of the Jews 
 which expands on that in great detail. I do not have time to do that today. 
Let us now move to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enacted by the United Nations with strong support from New Zealand in 1948. It is known around the world as having its origins in Judaeo-Christian values. Indeed some of the values in it such as freedom of religion and the right to change one’s religion are sometimes criticised by nations on the basis that it just reflects Judaeo-Christian values not necessarily their point of view. 
I want to move on to the churches’ great patrimony of social teaching. It rests on three foundations. The first is social justice. It was well understood by Michael Joseph Savage and I would have to say by parties on the left pretty much ever since. Michael Joseph Savage in bringing in the first welfare provision in New Zealand said simply that it was applied Christianity. It was bringing Christian values into policy and again New Zealand was a world leader in that regard and we can be very very proud of that. 
The second principle is solidarity—the solidarity of all people; the understanding that a prosperous and successful nation is simply the sum total of all the people who live in that nation. If their lives are prosperous and happy then we will have a prosperous and happy nation. One goes with the other. That I think has been very much misunderstood and misapplied since I have been in Parliament. I refer particularly to the Prostitution Reform Act which in my view is completely contrary to the whole concept and teaching of this tradition in relation to solidarity. It pretends somehow that private and personal actions do not affect society when they certainly do. 
The third one is subsidiarity—the principle that political decisions should be devolved to the lowest practical level starting with the family going on to the community then to the town the city and finally the nation in that order. As the Catholic bishops pointed out the anti-smacking bill was contrary to that principle. Then we can go on to perhaps the highest of all Christian values which is love of one’s neighbour—love of spouse love of children love of neighbourhood love of community love of city and love of nation. These are good values for the future. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to direct my comments to Labour’s economic management because there are some very good things to say on this score. We have enjoyed the longest period of economic growth in this country for 30 years. Average growth rates since 1999 have been higher here than in Europe Japan the United States or the United Kingdom. Company tax returns show that recent profit growth has averaged over 20 percent a year. Business is doing very well in this country. 
New Zealand has also consistently been rating highly in international comparisons of openness competitiveness and ease of doing business. Again this year in the ease of doing business measure from the World Bank we were rated second in the world and we came first in the world for transparency and lack of corruption in the recent survey in  
The Economist 
. Let us compare that to the dismal economic performance of the 1990s which included two recessions. Labour success; National failure. 
Let us also think about reduced unemployment. Labour-force participation and employment are at all-time highs. Unemployment is at its lowest level ever at 3.6 percent. More Kiwis than ever are in jobs. Our unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the world and it is the second-lowest in the OECD. I watched John Howard call the Australian federal election on Sky News over the weekend. One of the things he said he would strive to do if he were re-elected was to try for an unemployment rate that started with a “3”—the very thing that we have had here for the last 3 years. Again we can compare this with the record of the 1990s when we had record high unemployment. Labour success; National failure. 
It was interesting to hear Mr Tremain talk about tax earlier. I think we should consider the record of this Government particularly in business tax reform. As we heard Dr Cullen note during question time this Government has introduced the most comprehensive package of business tax reform in 20 years. The $3.4 billion involved in the business tax reform package included cutting the headline corporate tax rate tax credits for research and development and measures to help New Zealand companies grow their connections around the world. If we add that to the targeted tax reductions in the Working for Families package and those under the portfolio investment entity regime we see that there are now real incentives for private savings. These are sensible targeted tax cuts which this Government deserves credit for. We can compare this to the record of the 1990s when there were untargeted irresponsible personal tax cuts under the National Government and to the fact that Bill English is still promising come what may to cut taxes and fund that by borrowing. No wonder Jo Doolan in the  
Independent 
 today has called for the National Party to release its true tax policy. No one knows what it really is. Again—Labour success; National failure. 
Let us look at KiwiSaver. This Labour-led Government has established KiwiSaver to give New Zealand families greater security by helping Kiwis to save for their retirement and for their first home. KiwiSaver will also help fund New Zealand investment in New Zealand and will reduce demand on other forms of capital thus taking pressure off interest rates. More than 200000 New Zealanders have already been helped with their personal savings. Let us compare the record of the 1990s when there was no action to promote savings—Labour success; National failure. 
Superannuation tells a similar story. There will always be New Zealand superannuation for people’s retirement under a Labour Government. We have invested heavily in raising the rate of New Zealand superannuation for married couples to 66 percent of the average wage. This year we removed discriminatory situations for those with partners in care and we continue to phase out asset testing. Labour will not back down on its universal superannuation and it will not let the level of superannuation fall to the shameful level of 60 percent of the average wage for the married rate as it was in the 1990s. Again this is Labour’s success in the economy and National’s failure. 
Finally I come to the matter of keeping costs down. The consumer price index rose just 0.5 percent in the September 2007 quarter. Statistics New Zealand told us that the lower than expected result came from lower prices for pharmaceutical products early childhood education and general practitioner fees. This Labour-led Government has helped to keep down the cost of living. Our reduction in the cost of prescription drugs to $3 per drug the introduction of cheaper doctors’ visits and the 20 free hours early childhood education policy have had a significant impact on helping people make their dollars go further. Let us keep the country moving forward not going back under this excellent record of economic management. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Well we have finally had it; we have been building up to it for the last couple of weeks. We were told when we came back from the adjournment that there would be big hits—that attacks from the left would be hitting the right. And we were told to brace ourselves for the moment when Labour members would come at us at National and that we should be prepared for that. So we fronted up on the first day after the adjournment. We came in and sat here and we wondered where they were. The Labour members were not to be heard; they could barely be seen. In fact they sat there grey dishevelled and not quite sure what to do with themselves. So we have got through the situation. We have held them to account for yet another few days and today I think we had the attack. I think today I tell my colleagues we saw the attack and was it not like being hit with a wet bus ticket? Was it not actually just a little sad? The Labour members ran out a few lines—the lines had obviously been passed around them from the research people and they had been told to mention the cap on the costs of general practitioner visits. We have just heard some good lines from the member who spoke before me who said “Labour one; National tired” or something a bit like that. 
But the fact that we all have to accept is that the Labour members over there are nervous. They have a Cabinet reshuffle coming up they are not sure about their jobs and no one knows who is standing. We have members of Parliament who ran for councils with some getting in and some not getting in. We can ask who will be standing as Labour candidates next time and the announcement of that has been bumped backwards. Then we have a Cabinet reshuffle to be announced as well as that. There is too much on the minds of Labour members for them to be worried about what is actually going on over on this side of the House. So the attack has been all on. We have had “Angry Ruth Dyson” and Ruth Dyson does “angry” pretty well we have to say. Well I think it was the best we could see. 
But I am going to enter into this debate by saying I make absolutely no apology for demanding on behalf of New Zealanders that they get some of their own money back. And I will stand up here—and I stand here proudly on behalf of the National Party—and say I make no apology for asking for some of New Zealanders’ money to be put back in their own pockets. Quite frankly they deserve it. Australian workers have received their share of the Australian Government’s Budget surpluses and back-to-back tax cuts and now it is New Zealanders’ turn. There should be no more “chewing gum tax cuts”: no more taking tax cuts away from people when they wanted them and no more thinking that something can be dangled before people in an election year and made to count. 
The arrogance of the Labour Party is starting to trickle through. So we hear some Australians will be receiving only 20 bucks a week. Let us talk about what average New Zealanders—perhaps parents with a family of two—could do with $20 a week. The reality is that with that sort of money they could buy three loaves of bread—which would equal $5.49—500g of butter a bag of apples and some peanut butter and they could feed their family lunch for a week. A couple could feed their family their school lunches for a week. That is what some of those families might choose to do; those families might choose to do that for themselves. But at no point does this Labour Government think that it can have a sense of trust in people—that people could spend that 20 bucks for the benefit of themselves and their own families. At no point is there a level of respect for the fact that New Zealanders might actually do what is best for themselves and their own families. 
We stand in front of New Zealanders today and say to them that welfare dependency is not fair on them. We stand in front of New Zealanders today and say to them that they know what is best for themselves and their families. Even some of those who are currently welfare dependent and even some of those who are struggling from week to week will look us in the eye and nod in agreement with that. They know that they can do better for themselves if given the chance and if given a little bit of respect. So I say: “Give the money back!”. It is not rocket science; it is not very hard to do although one would think it was. One would think Dr Cullen had to reach into his own pocket and hand out his own money. It is time that a timely reminder was put to the Labour Government that the money is New Zealand taxpayers’ money and that the Government should take only what is needed in order for it to get by. The issue is as simple as that. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker; tena no tatou. As this general debate concludes out at the Police College in Porirua a group of 27 Maori wardens from around the country will be saying their farewells to police staff and to one another following a 3-day training course that was intended to assist the wardens in their work of caring for their respective communities. The feedback I have received clearly indicates that the wardens and others involved are all speaking highly of the experience and its value to all involved and saying that the experience should be continued. The course is the first of a number intended to provide similar training to all Maori wardens. 
Members in this House might ask what the significance of this is. The significance is that this is happening because of New Zealand First. Budget 2007 set aside $2.5 million to fund wardens and this fund will be further extended for ensuing years. Today sees the beginning of this funding start to kick in for the benefit of not only the wardens but this country. I regard Maori wardens as being amongst the unsung heroes of this country. It is no coincidence that New Zealand First’s confidence and supply agreement with the Government required enhanced funding for wardens and I am very pleased to have been part of the process that has achieved this outcome. I take the opportunity of acknowledging that our Labour Party colleagues have kept their word unlike those members in previous agreements we have had with other parties. 
One could rightly describe the New Zealand First Party as being the “Postman Party”. Why? Because we deliver. For Maoridom we have done just that in regard to Maori wardens. I might say that unlike other parties in this House who also take pride in representing Maori we deliver. In previous years our leader Winston Peters has been responsible for ensuring that regular annual funding was made available to both the Maori Women’s Welfare League and to kapahaka. It seems strange that Maori wardens and the contribution they were making to our society and our communities were not being recognised. This $2.5 million over the next year with further funding in excess of $4 million over the following 4 years is in recognition of that contribution. The Maori wardens have their legislative responsibilities set out in the Maori Community Development Act 1962. Maori wardens are appointed for a period of 3 years and are specific to the district in which the warden resides. Although the Act was passed in 1962 the initiatives of working with other organisations in their communities are not new but have evolved over a long period of time to give Maori a degree of self-management in their own affairs. 
I want to take this opportunity of acknowledging the contribution of a former colleague of ours Mr Edwin Perry to the work of the Maori wardens in his particular community. But I also want to congratulate him on his recent election as a councillor in the Masterton District Council. Maori wardens work in close association with Maori committees and with the police in their areas. Their role is to promote respect among Maori people for the standards of the community and to take appropriate steps to prevent any threatened breach of law and order. Maori wardens play an integral role in our communities working with both Maori and non-Maori to keep our streets safe. Although most work done by the wardens is voluntary the Government recognises its value and this funding should ensure it is continued. Just as important it will provide much-needed resources to assist them in their role. 
The Maori wardens are indeed an asset to the community. The role they play has certainly changed from the time when Maori migrated from their homelands to the cities particularly during the 1960s and 1970s when this country witnessed a great migration of Maori families from rural areas into the towns. The contribution that Maori wardens made to help assimilate members of their Maori community in those areas was huge. Can I say that during my time working in the South Auckland area and in particular in Otara I can recall a number of Maori wardens patrolling the streets of their communities at 2 and 3 o’clock in the morning in the hope of helping their families to assimilate into the towns. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill be now read a second time 
. Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. As the local member of Parliament for Mana and the member in charge of this local bill on behalf of the Porirua City Council it is with much pleasure that I rise for the second reading. 
At the time of the first reading in June this year I was called away suddenly to Samoa to attend the funeral of the Samoan head of State the late Malietoa Tanumafili II. I am therefore grateful to my colleague and the member for Otaki Mr Darren Hughes for carrying out the necessary duties in this House in my absence. I also wish again to acknowledge before this House the descendants of the Stace family and the supporters of this bill who are present and following the proceedings of Parliament today. This bill has now been reported back without amendment by the Local Government and Environment Committee and I thank very much the chair Stevie Chadwick and all the members of that committee for their careful and efficient consideration of the bill. 
This bill resolves management problems relating to one of the more historically significant Pakeha burial sites in New Zealand. The bill confirms the vesting in Porirua City Council of the Pauatahanui Burial Ground. It also provides for the status control and management of the burial ground into the future. Legislation is the most efficient way to confirm the council’s ownership of the burial ground to dissolve the associated trusts and to extinguish the interests protected by a caveat. 
The burial ground is an important part of early European history both of Pauatahanui and of the wider Porirua district. It was mentioned in the first reading debate that Pauatahanui is also an important and sacred place for tangata whenua. Again I wish to affirm acknowledge and recognise the important cultural heritage the burial ground and surrounding land has for local Maori. A pa of well-known Ngati Toa leader Te Rangihaeata once stood proudly on the site surrounding the burial ground. Te Rangihaeata was forced to abandon his pa under siege from British forces on 1 August 1846. He fled north to Battle Hill and British soldiers moved on to his pa. Thomas Hollis Stace and his family arrived from Tasmania 7 years later in 1853 and purchased the 113 acres of land at the head of the Pauatahanui inlet. The site of the burial ground was given by Thomas Stace by deed of trust dated 6 December 1856 with the first interment taking place in 1860. 
Today if members were to visit the burial grounds they would see many beautiful roses. For those members in this House who can see them samples are here with me. Many of them were planted by our pioneers and early settlers from cuttings brought here from Britain and other parts of Europe. They are beautiful they are colourful and they have fragrance and they continue to maintain that link from the settlers’ original homes and countries to their homes in New Zealand today. The roses have been nurtured for decades by small and dedicated groups of the Pauatahanui Burial Ground local volunteers. They have committed their time their energy and their love to this task. Many of these volunteers are present here today and I thank them for their dedication and their commitment and for penning histories and stories and working on this issue to keep the life journeys legacy and history alive not only for the peoples of Pauatahanui and our wider district of Porirua but for our country New Zealand. 
For the benefit of the House the Pauatahanui Burial Ground is located between Paekakariki Hill Road and St Alban’s Church. I want to mention that the great-grandfather of our Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson is buried in that cemetery in one of the unmarked graves. It is important to fully acknowledge both these Maori and Pakeha histories behind the burial ground. 
The Porirua City Council has conducted a comprehensive round of consultation on this bill including consultation with the Stace family and local iwi. Both have indicated that they are happy with the intent and objects of the bill. I note also that the select committee in its report commended the Porirua City Council for its thorough preparation of the bill and particularly for the establishment of good relationships with Ngati Toa. 
The select committee received 14 submissions all of which were in favour of the bill passing. I say thank you to all who wrote submissions and to all who appeared before our select committee. The committee considers it desirable that the council the Pauatahanui Residents Association Ngati Toa and other parties maintain their ongoing relationship and dialogue and I know that this will happen. 
To Maori the appropriate and respectful burial of those in our community who have passed on is of immense importance. It is important to both Maori and Pakeha that the mourning tangi and burial processes are recognised and that the mana of the person who has passed away is observed. These things are also important to me as a New Zealander of Pacific descent. Professor Albert Wendt once said: “Inside Us the Dead” and “Our Dead are the splendid robes our souls wear” which acknowledges our sacred genealogies and our ancestry we all share today. This is why I am pleased that this bill will protect the burial ground and the memory of those who lie at rest within it forever. 
I again say thank you to all the people—the volunteers the select committee and groups—who have assisted with getting the bill to this point. I just want to correct the reference to Ross Robertson’s great-grandfather. It is actually his great-great-grandfather Walter Robertson who is buried in Pauatahanui. I thank you. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Billand to say that National joins with the rest of Parliament to support the passing of this bill through the rest of its stages today. There are a number of lessons that Parliament and indeed the country can learn from this legislation that is before us today. The first thing is that I want to congratulate the community the council and all those involved on the way they have brought this bill together. I must say that it is a true compliment to a community that is united. Those involved deserve every compliment that this House can give for bringing this piece of legislation in such a way that not only is not controversial but indeed has moved all of us on the Local Government and Environment Committee who had the privilege to sit listen read and study it to want to give it our support. 
I am reminded that earlier in the week before we had a bill promoted by the local member for Palmerston North Steve Maharey which was indeed very controversial. It got to the stage where he had to withdraw the bill because the community was not able to bring its thoughts together. There is a lesson for all of us when we are asked to bring bills to the House to get to understand how it can happen and how a community can work together. So in my view it is a true compliment to that community in that regard and a lesson to be learnt by this Parliament today. 
The second thing is that I want to compliment the community particularly those who are directly involved on the way in which they have attended the cemetery. The cemetery is beautiful; there is no question. Not only is it a place where people rest in peace but it is a place of beauty for those who can attend it. I am sure that the descendants of those who attend the graves get a great deal of pleasure out of visiting that cemetery. I am sure that a number of the public no doubt go and view it because of its beauty. Again it is a true compliment to all those who have been involved and who have made submissions. Again they need to be complimented on the endeavours they have made to bring it about. 
The cemetery has a history and it is one of great interest. I think that is the third point that I want to make. Although the tangata whenua obviously have an interest in this it is a compliment to them and the way in which they are prepared to work—and have worked—with the community to bring this bill together rather than create any controversy at all. They too have put their efforts into making sure the respect that needs to be shown for this area is shown and that as a consequence this bill can move forward in the pleasant and peaceful manner it deserves. 
I acknowledge the comment that was made Mr Assistant Speaker about your ancestors and I want to say that I recently had the opportunity to represent this Parliament and this country at the commemorations at Passchendaele where I found a grave of a long deceased uncle who had given his life in the service of this country. So I understand to some extent what it means to find one’s relatives. It was a sad and poignant moment for me to see my great uncle’s name on the wall as one of those who was lost and not found but who was acknowledged. So today it is fitting I guess that I have the opportunity to speak to this bill. 
There is not a lot to add other than to say congratulations to those who have asked for this bill to be vested in their tender care—as it is tender care that they have shown over the years. The reason the cemetery is in such a lovely condition is that the community does genuinely care for it. It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak today as a member of Parliament and as a member of the National Party in joining with other parties to extend my congratulations and support for this bill and to see it move forward. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 As we consider the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill it is worthwhile reflecting that history really is a wonderfully tangled web. This afternoon we consider the fate of the Pauatahanui Burial Ground and the history involving this piece of land. It is of real interest to me that another piece of history has been revealed here today with the revelation by Luamanuvao Winnie Laban that the great-great-grandfather of our present Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson is buried in this burial ground. 
I want to talk about the strand of history during the 1830s and 1840s. On the site of the burial ground there was a pa located within the rohe of Ngati Toa. It belonged to Te Rangihaeata who has an important part to play in our history because he was Te Rauparaha’s son-in-law. It was the killing of Te Rangihaeata’s wife that caused the rage that ended up in what has become known as the Wairau massacre an incident of not insignificant import to New Zealand. So the strands are connected. 
Another strand of connection that I talked about in the first reading is close to this site. On land bought by Thomas Stace is what is known as the Taylor-Stace cottage which is a Historic Places Trust building. It is actually the oldest building in Porirua. It was initially built by William and Ann Taylor who arrived in Wellington with their six children in 1840. They built a simple Georgian cottage constructed with rough sawn timber which was later to be bought by Thomas Hollis Stace who extended it. The great-great-granddaughter of the Taylors is one Cathy Davis whose husband Ernie is known to many around these buildings because he has been a senior staff member of New Zealand First since 1994 and has certainly contributed significantly to the ongoing achievements of our party. 
The further history of this particular piece of land that we are talking about the burial ground itself relates to the deed of trust which was dated as Winnie Laban said on 6 December 1856. At this particular time Thomas Hollis Stace conveyed the land that is the burial ground to five people: William Bromley Edward Bolton William Jones James Mitchell and himself. These were the people who were named in the trust. The trust had certain purposes: to permit a chapel to be built on the land for religious worship by the Protestant denomination; to permit the chapel to be used as a schoolhouse for the education of children of the neighbourhood; and to permit the land to be used as a public burial ground. One of the parts of the deed of trust was to reserve a particular part of the burial ground as a family plot for Thomas Hollis Stace and his heirs and descendants. In some respects this is part of the issue that we are having to resolve with this bill because at present the burial ground is full. It has gone through various different legal modifications since the time that it was first put under the trust but now it is full and there are no further plots; obviously there are no further plots for the descendants of Thomas Hollis Stace. 
There is no legal access to the burial ground. The entrance from Paekakariki Hill Road was closed for reasons of road safety several years ago. Consequently the only access is via the road leading to St Alban’s Church. Although the church allows its road to be used for access all parties would prefer to have a legal agreement to this effect. However because the legal title remains subject to the caveat that we are talking about and the land itself remains subject to the trust it would be difficult for the council to formalise access. The council which actually owns the land unfortunately is caught by the caveat. Furthermore as I have said there are no more plots in the burial ground available for sale. So really what we have here—as people have described—is a beautiful piece of land and an important part of our history and really this is a common-sense approach to preserving the history given the happenings over time. 
I must make the point that I endorse the statement made by John Carter about the manner in which the community has worked together in a constructive fashion to bring this legislation before the House. This is proven by the fact that the select committee made no recommendations. Select committees make no recommendations when people have put in the hard yakka and got everything right when there is nothing controversial about the legislation and when the people doing the work have the details correct. The fact there were 14 submissions all in favour of the bill and the select committee made no recommendations for any change is a reflection of the work that has been put in by the different groups within the community to bring this harmoniously together. 
New Zealand First is very pleased to be able to support the passage of this bill through its second reading and through its other stages this evening. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. I am proud to speak to the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill and to honour my whakapapa relationship to Ngati Toa Rangatira through the connections that we as Ngati Apa and Ngati Rangiwhakaturia have. Our hapu occupies the lands around the Whangaehu Marae on the lower reaches of the Whangaehu River which also forms the boundary of the rohe of Ngati Toa. Te Rangihaeata Te Rauparaha’s nephew consolidated this relationship by marrying Te Rangi Pikinga of Ngati Apa so our connections are ever strong. 
I am proud too that the Maori Party’s call at the first reading of this bill to enable an opportunity for the full story to be heard has been recognised in the select committee process. At the first reading debate my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell raised our concerns that this bill could be debated in this House with absolutely no mention of the mana whenua Ngati Toa Rangatira. They are such simple questions: whose story is being told whose voices are being heard and from whose perspective are the memories shared? Similarly who is missing from the record? The Maori Party will always stand to ensure that the independent view of tangata whenua is able to be heard in every debate. It is of course a great disappointment that we have to even raise that point. But as the first reading of this bill demonstrated it is still unfortunately the case that legislation makes it to this House without bearing the distinctive contribution of tangata whenua. 
Today is Ngati Toa’s day. Indeed it has been a very significant month for Ngati Toa. Just 3 weeks ago on 25 September Ngati Toa and the Crown signed an agreement to negotiate their claim on behalf of the iwi of about 5000 registered members. In speaking to the negotiation process executive director Matiu Rei said: “The scale of our claims and the serious nature of the Crown’s breaches mean that the Ngati Toa claim is a complex one. Ngati Toa was subjected to a co-ordinated military and political campaign by the Crown including the kidnapping and exile of our leaders the loss of life through military action and public executions as well as land sales under duress.” 
Despite the omission of Ngati Toa from the first reading of this bill this history forms an absolutely essential context for this bill to vest the Pauatahanui Burial Ground in the Porirua City Council. Although the cemetery is now of special significance to the Hollis Stace family and the descendants of early pioneers buried there it is also the site of land that was alienated from Ngati Toa by Crown coercion in 1847. The history of the Hollis Stace family’s association to the land is a remarkable one dating back to 1856. But inevitably the question must arise: what is the history of this land prior to it being purchased from the New Zealand Company in 1856? 
I want to pay tribute to Ngati Toa for sharing their precious history with the Local Government and Environment Committee—a history in which Ngati Toa bore the full assault of a state of martial law and suffered the consequences of military attack by British Imperial forces in which lives were lost. It is a shameful history that this House has a right to hear lest we forget. The telling of their story is now of course stained with history repeating itself given the events of recent days. Ngati Toa recount their experiences in their submission. They tell how Te Rangihaeata was forced into exile his supporters were captured by the Crown and publicly executed by hanging while others were banished to Tasmania to be held as prisoners until their deaths. These were innocent people who were never given the opportunity for a trial. Justice was denied. 
It was at the time immediately preceding the Hollis Stace purchase of this famous pa site that Te Rauparaha was kidnapped by Governor Grey and held captive for 18 months again without being charged with an offence. While the leader was held captive Grey held Ngati Toa Rangatira to ransom by demanding their lands in exchange for their leader. 
The Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill could have been another episode of writing Maori out of history but we in the Maori Party are not prepared to let that happen. Ngati Toa Rangatira will never let that happen. So they came to the table and reminded the select committee that Matai-taua Pa which is now the site of the burial ground is what they describe as being “pivotal to Ngati Toa’s wider Treaty claim. It represents the last bastion of Ngati Toa resistance to the British Crown.” 
In the ultimate manifestation of manaakitanga Ngati Toa have the generosity to support this bill recognising that it will provide for the ongoing protection and acknowledgement of important cultural heritage. They speak of the urupa as a “sacred site to Pakeha as the final resting place of many early settlers to the Porirua district”. This was a point that most of the 14 submitters reiterated many of them being direct descendants of the settlers who are buried in the cemetery that is at the heart of this bill. 
The Pauatahanui Residents Association brought together these concerns by describing the unique value this bill offered in establishing procedures that would enhance genealogical research and provide for retrieval and storage of records and in doing so preserve and maintain the history and heritage of this place. But as Ngati Toa identified and indeed as the Porirua City Council and other submitters confirmed the site at the centre of this bill is regarded as wahi tapu to Ngati Toa. Such a site of special significance is considered to be so by virtue of its history as the pa of Te Rangihaeata—Matai-taua—and because of its significance to other iwi that predated the arrival of Ngati Toa. 
The requests from Ngati Toa Rangatira are humbling in their simplicity. They asked that if signage were to be developed for the site that it be done with the full knowledge and consent of Ngati Toa. They want to know that any earthworks and repairs made to the burial ground will be discussed in consultation with Ngati Toa. They are happy to confirm council ownership by means of this legislation in order to ensure that the burial ground is properly cared for and maintained in perpetuity. Most important of all they seek to support the possibility for both the Maori and the Pakeha cultural heritage of this site to be preserved by means of this bill. 
We too in the Maori Party want to ensure that the protection and management of the burial ground serves to treasure the opportunity to give expression to the unique histories that have shaped this sacred site. We want to pay tribute to all of those who have spent considerable time maintaining this burial site on behalf of the descendants of those people buried there. We will therefore support this bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 The Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill is a nice bill. I applaud the Local Government and Environment Committee for the work it has done on the nice bill that is before us which is why I thought I would take a call. It is interesting; the bill is a history lesson enabling us to learn about Pauatahanui and about the history of the burial grounds. It reminds us that we go overseas to travel and visit other places and we think “Wow!” about the history of Rome or Paris. We do not think that New Zealand has a lot of history because we are such a young country. But then we find out about these stories and about these little areas of New Zealand. There is significant history in New Zealand; history that we just do not know about. I enjoyed the fact that I learnt a lot about Pauatahanui and about its history. We should respect that history. 
I applaud people like Roger Beauchamp and the Pauatahanui Residents Association who care so much about the fact that this history is important not only to Pauatahanui and Porirua but also to New Zealand. They have spent countless hours and years and much energy in making sure that their space and area—this cemetery and burial ground—is well maintained. 
I congratulate Winnie Laban and Chris Finlayson. They were both given special mention when the submitters came before the select committee to talk about the bill. The submitters said how well both members worked together on the bill which I think is important. It is important as a signal to the community. 
I say “Well done!” to Porirua City Council. Something that needs to be raised in this process though is a signal to Porirua City Council that there will now be an expectation of it. Porirua City Council has made all the right noises and it has sent all the right signals that it is happy to look after the burial ground and that it will maintain it. A new council has been elected in of course. We must now put on the council that it needs to make sure in the long-term council community plan that money is set aside to make sure that the burial ground is maintained and has value added to it. 
I know from experience in my former job as Mayor of Wellington that it is easy for councils to forget doing these sorts of things and to forget to put money aside to maintain some of the older burial grounds. I know the issues we had with Karori cemetery when I was Mayor of Wellington. We probably did not do it justice put aside enough money or put a focus on having that cemetery maintained as well as it should have been. I know it became an issue for the locals and for those who have ancestors there. We need to send a very clear signal to the Porirua City Council that it has been fantastic up to now—and the community is on its side—but it cannot now forget that it has made an obligation and a commitment which very much need to be maintained. 
Other than that I just wanted to applaud the process and applaud in particular people like the Pauatahanui Residents Association and Roger Beauchamp who came along. My goodness me—do we not need those sorts of heroes in our community? Do we not need those people who just give up their time and energy and really get into maintaining these areas? They do not get thanked enough really. We are not good at it are we? I just want to take my hat off to them and applaud them. I am sure that this process has served them well. We will look forward to the Porirua City Council playing its part. I am sure it will under Jenny Brash; I am sure it will. Thank you. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Burial Ground 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Following up on the previous contribution I would like to take just a brief call on the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill. I hope that the council will reflect upon the sentiments that have been expressed in the House here tonight. Some have been expressed on the importance and beauty of the burial ground in terms of recounting our Pakeha history in this country. I think the contribution by the member from the Maori Party Tariana Turia also showed that there is a shared history on this particular site that we need to not forget. It is important that we remember that shared history. It is important in different ways to what we might call both partners of the Treaty. 
We have up in Northland in Ruapekapeka a very very important site historically and culturally. In fact it can be connected historically with the trench warfare of World War I. It is where something happened in little old Northland that actually impacted back then. There have been times when I have been to the site and I have seen that it has not been well cared for. Part of the reason it has not been well cared for is that the local tangata whenua are concerned that the spirits of their tipuna will be trampled over so they want it somewhat left. But there has also been a neglect by the council in terms of doing what has occurred here. It came through so well in Tariana Turia’s speech that people were able to sit down talk put their different perspectives on a piece of land and respect those different perspectives. 
Very very important messages are coming through this House on what we might call a very simple bill. I hope that those who have responsibility as a result of this bill for continued maintenance of the burial ground hear the voices from both sides in this particular case. Thank you Mr Chair. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to respond to my colleagues Mark Blumsky and the Hon Brian Donnelly and to say that the Porirua City Council—and it has a representative here sitting upstairs with the Pauatahanui Residents Association—is hugely committed to the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill. The council has committed a lot of resources and time together with the Pauatahanui Residents Association to make this bill a reality. Early this afternoon the Mayor of Porirua Jenny Brash called me to further endorse the council’s support for this good work. What is also heartening is that the council has a process whereby it is working in partnership with Ngati Toa Rangatira as well as with the Pauatahanui Residents’ Association. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I move  
That the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill be now read a third time 
. I wish to take this opportunity to thank all those involved in getting the bill to this point. I wish to acknowledge and thank the Stace family for their support of this bill as a way of dealing with management issues relating to the Pauatahanui Burial Ground and of ensuring it is looked after in perpetuity. 
I wish also to acknowledge Ngati Toa rangatira and to thank them sincerely for their support of this bill for their assistance to the Porirua City Council and for supplying some of the early history of the site. I wish to acknowledge the strong history that Maori share in the burial ground and in the wider Pauatahanui area. I hope this bill and the debate on it in this House have adequately reflected that history and recognised the many local Maori who fought and died in skirmishes in the area to protect their land their whanau and their livelihood. 
I wish to thank the Porirua City Council and particularly Mr Chris Linnell who should be commended for his work over the years to get the bill to this point. I note that the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee made special mention of the Porirua City Council and commended it for its thorough preparation of the bill and its wonderful relationship with the Pauatahanui Residents Association and Ngati Toa. 
I want also to acknowledge especially the hard-working volunteers—the wonderful women and men of the Pauatahanui Residents Association and other volunteers who tend the beautiful roses as well—for their support of this bill for their positive submissions and for their strong commitment to ensure the burial ground is properly looked after just as they have done for many decades. Similarly I especially thank the local Pauatahanui rose group which has cared for the beautiful roses in the grounds which date back over 150 years to the time when the first cuttings were brought there by early settlers. 
I also acknowledge my colleague Chris Finlayson of the National Party who has also worked with me on this bill. 
Finally I thank all my parliamentary colleagues for their support of this bill their thoughtful contributions to the debate and their support for the remaining stages to proceed today. This bill is the first piece of legislation for which I have been responsible and it has been an honour and a humbling experience to acknowledge the wonderful history of New Zealand for the sake of past present and future generations of Pauatahanui and to support this legislation. It has been a pleasure not only to have this bill proceed in such a timely manner but also to have all my parliamentary colleagues and members of Parliament vote in support of the bill. And also I thank the submitters for all the submissions that went to the select committee in favour of the bill. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 May I begin by offering my congratulations to the member on her careful stewardship of the bill and if I can say so on the courteous and pleasant way in which she has kept me briefed on the bill. I think one of the reasons this bill has sailed through the House effortlessly is that the Minister took the time and trouble to keep everyone informed and adopt a very pleasant approach to the conduct of the legislation. I really do commend that approach to her colleagues when dealing with other business of the House because there are quite a few pieces of legislation that are not party political but are in trouble and if they adopted the approach of Winnie Laban I think they would find that the Opposition would be so much easier to work with. 
I also join with her in congratulating the Porirua City Council which has assumed the responsibilities for the Pauatahanui Burial Ground. The council has worked hard to produce this legislation which is exemplary drafting and I particularly refer to its lawyer Duncan Laing—who happens to be a former partner of mine a very competent lawyer—who has done a good job in drafting the legislation. 
I too in closing want to refer to the very fine people who work on the ongoing beautification of the site. It seems a bit of a contradiction in terms I suppose in some ways but this is a beautiful burial ground. It looks out to the edge of the Pauatahanui inlet up to the new houses being built on the edge of the Whitby area. It is as the Minister said a very historic piece of land and to wander through it is to see the history not only of Pauatahanui but also of the Greater Wellington area. I know that Mr Robertson has referred to some of his ancestors who are buried in this site. So it is extremely important that it be kept to the highest of standards and the good people of the Pauatahanui Residents Association and the friends of the burial ground are doing a tremendous job in maintaining a high standard. 
I think in my first reading speech I referred to the heritage roses project. After that speech someone asked what would I know about roses. It is funny but sometimes male politicians like flowers. It was said that Sir Robert Muldoon liked lilies. Well I happen to prefer roses. That cemetery is full of them; some of the old English roses—red and white being of course the colours of York and Lancaster but I never know what is the right combination. 
Shane Jones 
: What did Shakespeare say? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I do not think Shakespeare would have a lot to say about the Pauatahanui Burial Ground but he certainly would approve of the efforts of the people who have done a great job in ensuring the site will be preserved for future generations situated as it is next door to that beautiful Anglican church in Pauatahanui. As a humble list MP who is happy to do some work in the Mana area and to be working with Winnie Laban who as I said has always been so pleasant and inclusive I happily join with her in indicating that the National Party will be supporting the third reading of this legislation. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 First of all I just want to bow to the greater recollection of history—particularly about the relationship between Te Rangihaeata and Te Rauparaha—that Tariana Turia has than myself. She was correct; Te Rangihaeata was of course the nephew of Te Rauparaha. 
When I mentioned a hope that the council would hear the voices in the House in terms of the maintenance of both the heritages of the area there was no hint in that statement that the council does not and will not adhere to that. Rather I was trying to say that what we have here is in fact a model that should be picked up on around the rest of our country in terms of the way things should be done. 
Chris Finlayson has said that even politicians may be interested in flowers. Actually some former rugby league players in the House are interested in flowers too and I am quite happy to invite the Pauatahanui rose group to come up to Ngunguru and look after my ones because in Northland they take a fair bit of looking after. The Pauatahanui Burial Ground must be a wonderful site—and certainly I have heard of it—and a lot of that has come about because of the work the rose group has put in over many many decades. 
I want also to congratulate the Pauatahanui Residents Association on its celebration of history. It recognises the importance that history has to us as human beings and that it is there for us to be able to see feel touch and smell rather than just something within dry textbooks. I think that is incredibly important and as I say and as Tariana Turia has said the same applies to the history of Ngati Toa. It is of great importance to them that the site is maintained in such a way that people can actually get a sense of history happening. 
I congratulate Luamanuvao Winnie Laban. Obviously she has put in an enormous amount of work to get this bill through but also the fact that it has gone through with the full support of the House is due to the manner in which she goes about things. As Chris Finlayson said often that non-adversarial inclusive way has better outcomes and enables goals to be achieved somewhat better than the adversarial culture that is in fact the Westminster culture and is still very very much a part of this House. I think we should move away from that as much as we possibly can particularly given we are now in a world where what we do in this House is projected into the households of our families and our young people etc. Again I congratulate Winnie Laban; she has obviously done a marvellous job. 
Without further ado I say New Zealand First is very very pleased to be able to support this legislation in its third reading. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to take just a very brief call in support of the Porirua City Council (Pauatahanui Burial Ground) Bill. We are very thrilled to see the bill progressed so speedily. I congratulate the Minister Winnie Laban on the work she has done on this. 
I have to say that when I was flicking through the commentary on this bill it took me back to a circumstance that I myself was involved in. I lived all my childhood on a farm just out of Raglan and directly over the road from our farm was a hill that had once housed a country church which I have some very very early memories of attending. The church was demolished with a memorial left in place. My paternal grandparents are buried in the cemetery there and my father as a local farmer was the sexton appointed by the local district council years and years ago. The only plans for this cemetery were ones that we found in the mess of my father’s office after he himself died and had requested to be buried there. We scrambled up to the top of this hill with this map. We had to try to figure out which way around the map went because typical of country gravesites there were lots of unmarked graves and because dad did not think to leave us any suggestion as to where there might be a spare plot for him. 
When one visits these places one finds that the rich sense of history is just amazing. My parents had been active members of that community. My grandparents had been farming in the area and beyond and there were family names that dated back all around the district. It was just absolutely amazing in the middle of our own personal sadness to wander through this cemetery and remember names that I had heard my parents speak of for years and years and see the family connections. 
I understand the value of cemeteries like the one we are dealing with today. They are rich in history and I am thrilled to see the way that the families involved—such as the Stace family—and those in the authority who have sought to find some resolution to this situation have gone about this. We are very happy to support the third reading. 
Bill read a third time. 
New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This is a private bill promoted by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd for Parliament’s consideration. The bill substitutes the name of the Guardian Trust’s parent company Promina Group Ltd with Suncorp-Metway Ltd in order to enable the company to transact business with its parent company. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
As honourable members will recall—those who have served more than a term in this House—this is not the first time that this company has needed private legislation. Nor indeed is it the first time that the other three companies that provide trustee services have come to this House for private legislation enabling them to have the privilege to transact business with their parent company. I will briefly outline the history of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Ltd and members who want more detail can go back to the 2004 bill which has a great deal more history involved. 
The Guardian Trust has been operating as a trustee in New Zealand since 1883 when the Guardian Trust and Executors Company Act was passed. Indeed the trust was part of the old New Zealand Insurance Co. Ltd which was established in Auckland in 1852 so the history of this company goes back almost as long as the history of New Zealand as a country. In 1982 the Guardian Trust merged with the trust department of the New Zealand Insurance Co. necessitating the passing of a New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act in that year. The trust has 14 branches throughout New Zealand at present and acts on trusts and estates for many thousands of New Zealanders. The Guardian Trust is a trustee company authorised under the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982 to carry on business as an executor a trustee and a trustee company and in other fiduciary capacities. 
This Act currently allows the trust the privilege of transacting business with its parent company which is named in any subsidiary or company associated with its parent company. It also allows it to attain the financial benefit from such transactions which would otherwise be precluded under trust law. The ability to transact business in these circumstances is necessary given the size of the corporate group in which the Guardian Trust is associated and the opportunities that may be lost if the ability to transact business with such companies is not available. Similar concessions exist for all other trustee companies. However it has been pointed out in this House that this concession is a privilege. 
I think that the House needs to consider seriously how Acts of this sort—and this Act in particular—are dealt with. The Act currently defines the parent company to mean Promina Group Ltd. In March this year the businesses of Promina Group Ltd and Suncorp-Metway were merged by way of a scheme of arrangement. Under this scheme Suncorp-Metway acquired all shares in Promina Group Ltd and accordingly Suncorp-Metway is not the ultimate parent company of the New Zealand Guardian Trust. This now renders the name of the parent in the Act inaccurate. 
As I mentioned earlier a number of select committees and indeed Parliament have dealt—wrestled one would say—with this issue of whether generic legislation would better protect people who have dealings with this trustee company and other trustees. I am asking the select committee to recognise that most select committees have recommended that generic legislation be introduced to deal with the need for various trust companies to bring legislation of this sort before the House. Although I hope that the select committee will be able to deal with this particular issue in relation to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. in this bill I also hope that we will get to an understanding of how to deal with these issues in future for the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. and for other trustee companies. 
I am concerned—and the matter has been raised in this House in 2004 and 2005—that the committees have tended to see this issue as a frequent irritation and perhaps even a time-waster for select committees and for the House. I thank Stephen Franks the former ACT MP who made a very spirited opposition to this legislation passing when it came before the House last. He made the point that the Reserve Bank had grappled with this area and indeed the Governor of the Reserve Bank had made a number of speeches around the fact that the Australian banking law means that Australians have an Australian preference. Now as members will understand both Promina Group Ltd and Suncorp-Metway are primarily Australian banks. I quote Stephen Franks where he said: “Quite nakedly Australian banking law states that if there is a banking collapse Aussies will come first—the Kiwis come second.” He said: “That I fear is what will happen to people dealing with trustee companies if the trust assets are allowed to be deployed through a head office treasury or through an accounting system that is in Australia—suddenly the shutters will go up.” 
I ask the select committee to take those words—and indeed the words of Alan Bollard the Governor of the Reserve Bank—very seriously and discuss the matter of whether it is a useful exercise that the owners of and subsequent owners of trustee companies are required to reflect on their duties as trustees to those New Zealand beneficiaries. I have made the point in previous private bills that have come before the House for this organisation that it tends to be people who are very vulnerable in some cases who use trustee companies and they are not necessarily people who are able to make the most informed decisions about the structures of the companies they choose to deal with. 
 So I would ask the select committee to look very seriously at this matter and to look at this bill. Obviously we need this private legislation. I am happy that the petition of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill is required otherwise I as MP for Auckland Central would not have agreed to bring this bill to the House. But in accordance with the Standing Orders the notice of my intention to promote this bill has been distributed to those persons who have a direct interest in the subject matter of the bill and it has been publicly advertised. I commend the bill to the House and to the select committee. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Let me make it clear at the outset that National will support the first reading of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill for the obvious reason that we must not leave this very important trust company in a situation where it cannot operate legally. In fact the legislation is needed not only to change the name of the parent company—as the Hon Judith Tizard has just mentioned—from Promina Group to Suncorp-Metway but it is needed to validate any transactions that have already taken place since the change in the parent company’s status after 20 March this year. So the legislation is undoubtedly needed. 
I think the comments the Hon Judith Tizard has just made are useful. One has to ask oneself why we have to have this kind of legislation. In fact when I had a look at this bill I took some trouble myself to research back to 1982—as this bill amends the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act 1982—to see why we actually needed specific legislation to cover the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. It is easy to say that the legislation is needed because of the activities of the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co.—the fact that it carries out functions as executors trustees or fiduciaries who are persons who hold positions of trust in relation to another person and therefore have to act in the interests of another person. 
The legislation empowers the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. to act as an executor of wills as an administrator of estates of any deceased person and that kind of thing. Even though those are special functions I still ask myself why we need to have legislation for each one of the companies that are empowered to carry out these activities. Why is it beyond the wit of us as legislators to make the Trustee Companies Act of 1967—an Act that includes this company as a trustee company and that is the principal Act that covers issues relating to trustee companies—have a more generic component to it that can cover these companies which at the moment have to have specific legislation? 
This bill will establish a schedule so we will not need to have this legislation come back to Parliament every time the parent company changes its name or changes itself in substance. I am not sure whether the parent company just changing its name requires an amendment to the legislation but if the substance of the parent company changed in the past then the legislation certainly had to come back to this Parliament—as happened in 2004 as the Minister just mentioned. 
I think the amendment to schedule 2 that a new parent company can be handled by Order in Council rather than by taking the time of this House is certainly a sensible step. But the select committee hardly needs to devote great time to adjust the change of a name or to the possibility of amending schedule 2 to enable this process to be done more simply in the future. 
It would be worthwhile for the Finance and Expenditure Committee to take some advice on whether it is possible to handle these trustee companies in different ways because there are not a large number of companies carrying out these kinds of functions. Is it possible through amendment to the Trustee Companies Act to cover the activities of these particular companies? I do not know the answer to that; I suspect that not very many members of this House would know the answer. The Hon Judith Tizard has raised a number of issues that are rather more generic in nature which she has asked the select committee to consider. I certainly would like the select committee to have a look at whether it is possible to cover these particular kinds of companies through more generic legislation rather than have a separate bill for each company which is what I presume we have at the moment. It seems to me somewhat unnecessary to have a separate piece of legislation for every company that like the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. carries out these particular functions; I would have thought it possible to have legislation that covers them all. So I hope the select committee can look at that for the future and see whether it is possible. 
But in the meantime National fully accepts that this legislation is needed. We must change the name of the parent company in the legislation so that the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. can transact business with the parent company legally. We must validate those transactions as long as they are proper transactions that have taken place since the merger of Promina Group and Suncorp-Metway back on 20 March 2007 and we must validate any transactions that take place between then and when this bill becomes law. 
So with those thoughts I again indicate that National will support this legislation to the select committee. I hope the select committee looks at some of the wider issues rather than just stamping the legislation through under the simple provisions of it. I think there are wider issues that it would be worth the select committee having a serious thought about. I confirm that National will support the bill to the select committee. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. First of all I would like to thank Doug Woolerton for giving me the opportunity to speak before him. 
Three weeks ago on the summit of Tangi te keo 4000 native shrubs and grasses were planted from the legacies of gifts administered by the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. Tangi te keo also known as Mount Victoria was named after the soul of Whataitai who flew up to the top of this hill in the shape of a bird and proceeded to tangi—to weep to mourn. It is a site of great significance to Te Atiawa so the grant of $36500 from the Guardian Trust towards the cost of landscaping this area is one way of supporting the ongoing cultural heritage of this place. 
From the coastal flaxes of Tangi te keo to the Nikau Centre in Napier the Guardian Trust plays an important role in maintaining and supporting people and places across Aotearoa. The Nikau Centre is a programme to support young people who have found the prospect of mainstream education daunting and require individualised and specialised relearning programmes. The programme offers a second chance an early intervention to guide young people into a future based on hope rather than their being caught in a situation of injury of neglect or of helplessness. It provides an opportunity for success for young people to thrive. 
Back here in Wellington another field of work that upholds a commitment to health and well-being is being pioneered by the Wellington asthma research group. This group has identified major differences in prevalence and severity between Maori and non-Maori regarding asthma prevalence and management. Its research activities have led the way for developing long-term strategies for prevention and intervention. 
Coastal flaxes alternative education and asthma research are but a few of the outcomes and opportunities provided by the Guardian Trust. I believe that it is really important when we look at legislation such as this that we know the substance of the role and responsibilities the Guardian Trust undertakes. In effect this bill is but a paper exercise to amend the 1982 Act in order to authorise the company to transact business with its new parent company Suncorp-Metway Ltd. But in order to comment on whether this is a useful exercise it is critical that we understand the context of the banking insurance and financial services undertaken by this company. 
The company has been around for a long time. It was first formed in 1882 and this year is its 125th anniversary. It is still doing pretty much the same line of business: taking care of the growth and protection of assets for its clients. They are fairly significant assets too. In excess of $30 billion of assets and investments are managed by the company’s corporate trust team. Inevitably the Guardian Trust works alongside Te Kooti Whenua Maori in the administration and care of titles and investments related to Maori land. In order to do so the trust must work in such a way as to respect the profound spiritual and emotional importance that land has to Maori. In the Court of Appeal case  
Re Ham 
—in relation to 
Mahu and the Guardian Trust—the court affirmed: “when dealing with Maori families the Court must pay regard to the strong attachment of the Maori to the land and to closely held deeply felt feelings within the family in that respect.” 
The bill we are debating today therefore cuts to the heart of so many issues of importance to Maori: education health land conservation and the ethic of kaitiakitanga. The Resource Management Act specifies that kaitiakitanga means “the exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori in relation to natural and physical resources; and includes the ethic of stewardship”. I have taken the initiative to explore the meaning of guardianship of kaitiakitanga and of stewardship as they relate to this bill because I believe they are concepts worthy of supporting. 
The focus for this bill is very much about the basis for business transactions. The 1982 Act in its simplest form authorised the Guardian Trust to transact business with its parent company Promina Group Ltd and with that company’s subsidiaries. Twenty-five years later the Promina Group merged with Suncorp-Metway and as a result the Guardian Trust has a new parent body Suncorp-Metway. Of course this is not a new scenario. Over the century and more there have been many previous mergers including with the South British Guardian Trust Co. the New Zealand Insurance Trust Department and this latest one. 
There are two key issues that I want to raise about such a merger. The first is to do with the work of Parliament. The Guardian Trust most recently came before the House in 2004 and 2005. I remember at that point there being debate around the value of this company basically having to come before Parliament every time it entered into change of ownership arrangements. The object of this bill is basically to rubber-stamp a commercial transaction and one has to ask whether it is a useful exercise for Parliament to undertake when a simple change by Order in Council might suffice. As such we welcome the fact that the effect of this bill is now to authorise the Governor-General by Order in Council to amend new schedule 2 of the principal Act by changing the name listed there without the need for legislative amendment whenever it has a new parent company. 
The other point of interest I would raise is simply to point out again the continuing trend towards closer economic relations between Aotearoa and Australia. The Promina Group is a major enterprise listed on the New Zealand and Australian stock exchanges and it hosts over 200 offices in Australia and New Zealand. It has joined hands with Suncorp-Metway. Suncorp-Metway is Autralia’s sixth-largest bank and has some 450 branches throughout Aotearoa and Australia. These are two big companies and we note the new combinations of risk and profitability that are being extended outside our own domestic shores making us move further towards a single economic market. Inevitably we wonder how the indigenous people of Australia are involved in such a merger and whether there is an opportunity for recognising these relationships in the discussion of this bill. 
We support this bill going forward and recognise the importance of doing so in order that the legislation will most accurately reflect the current ownership structure of the Guardian Trust. We support the bill also in the hope that 2 years from now if Suncorp-Metway seeks to branch off into other arrangements or if the Guardian Trust considers that other options may assist it in enhancing the financial stability of its business we know that they will not have to come back here for approval to do so. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take just a couple of seconds. New Zealand First supports the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and we trust that the debate there will bring out any shortcomings if there are any. As usual our interests are that New Zealanders are protected as much as they can be alongside our Australian neighbours and that we do not end up in a situation where people in this country are playing second fiddle to Australians. We will look to ensure that that is not the case in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. So New Zealand First obviously supports the bill going to the select committee and it looks forward to the debate. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I begin by saying that National supports the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. We will be taking the bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee where it will be ably steered through by the chairman Mr Shane Jones who sits on the other side of the House. 
It is probably quite easy to be flippant about this bill. It is one of those bills that comes before the House and one wonders why the House’s time is being wasted on it given that it is such small and insignificant legislation. I will pick up on a couple of points raised by members who have spoken earlier about why the bill is important and why it is important that we change the way that we look at dealing with the change in names going forward. 
The first point I will pick up on was made by Minister Judith Tizard when she quoted Stephen Franks who said that if there were a banking collapse the Aussies would come first and the Kiwis would come second. The point that Stephen Franks was trying to make was that we owe it to ourselves as a nation to look at the ownership of the Guardian Trust and to look at the parent company and to run it through a parliamentary process. We need to look at the company that will ultimately be the parent trustee and to pay due consideration to whether we should allow that legislation to pass and allow that parent company to be allowed to continue to transact in that way. 
That raises a bit of a point because the reality of the situation is that Suncorp-Metway has been trading since 20 March with transactions in this regard anyway. The size of the transactions that take place between the parent company and the minor company is significant so that brings me back to thinking that maybe the fact that the bill is coming through the House is somewhat flippant and does not pay due consideration to the situation. I will have to ask the Minister whether we could change the legislation and stop the parent company from being acknowledged. I do not think we could do so and that is why we have to bring these other changes to the bill that are proposed. 
Before moving on and getting to the guts of the bill I acknowledge what Tariana Turia said in regard to the support of the Guardian Trust for community groups particularly the Nikau Centre in Napier which is a school that has been set up to support young children who fall through the cracks and need a second chance. I want to emphasise that this school in Napier is supported by the Guardian Trust and it is doing a very good job. 
This bill has three purposes. Firstly it is to enable the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. to transact business with its parent company Suncorp-Metway. 
The second purpose is to allow for the identity of the parent company to change in the future without having to amend the legislation every time so that we do not have to come before the House time after time whenever there is a change in the parent company. New section 2(2) which is to be inserted into the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Act by clause 5(4) states: “The Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice given after consultation with the Minister of Commerce … (a) add the name of a body corporate that is a holding company of the new company: … (c) omit the name of a body corporate that ceases to be a holding company of the new company.” So that section will allow that particular purpose to occur. 
The third purpose is to retrospectively validate transactions that have occurred between the change in the parent company on 20 March 2007 and the commencement date of this bill. That is where I wonder how much power or authority Parliament has in actually making these name changes. If we decided for instance that the parent company was not of good merit that it should not be the parent company for the Guardian Trust in New Zealand do we have the authority to go back and stop the transactions? I would doubt it and I would be interested in the Minister taking a call on that. I am not sure what authority or power we have to do that. If it is just a box-ticking exercise then I totally agree that perhaps it should be done by Order in Council. If Parliament does not have the ability to reverse the transaction then it is just a box-ticking exercise. 
The New Zealand Guardian Trust as the Maori Party member Tariana Turia said has been in existence for 125 years. In fact its anniversary is this year. It currently has about $30 billion under management through its corporate trustee. The Guardian Trust is empowered by a special Act of Parliament that facilitated the merging of the trust operations of South British Guardian Trust which was originally formed in 1882 and of New Zealand Insurance. The trust department is authorised as a trustee company. The primary operation of these companies has been as a trustee acting for their clients in the growth and protection of their wealth and this continues to be a core competency of the business going forward. The trust on its website states that its aim is to be New Zealand’s premier provider of trustee and financial solutions. 
Since its inception the trust has been through many ownership changes. More recently as Minister Tizard pointed out the parent company was bought by Promina Group and a change to the legislation was required back in 2001 and 2004. The Act currently defines Promina Group as the parent company but earlier this year Promina Group was bought out by Suncorp-Metway. Incidentally Promina Group which is defined as the parent company currently owns Asteron Guardian Trust Vero and—members will be interested to know—the Tindall Foundation. 
Promina Group’s merger with Suncorp-Metway is a deal worth about $7.9 billion so it is pretty significant. I had a mind to vacillate about Suncorp and its sponsorship of various rugby venues in Australia but I thought I would not bore the House with that particular line of attack. In essence the merger between Suncorp-Metway and Promina Group brought about the name of the new parent company that has now taken on the ownership of the New Zealand Guardian Trust. That merger requires a change to the legislation and that is what we are discussing in the House today. 
In summary the purpose of the bill is to enable the New Zealand Guardian Trust Co. to transact business with its parent company. I argue whether in allowing that to happen we have any ability to change what has already happened and whether it is a box-ticking exercise. In that regard I agree with the Minister that there should be a change to the legislation through the amendment in clause 5(4) to allow it to happen by Order in Council without having to go through this legislative process. One way or the other and whether or not I agree validating those transactions is important going forward. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. I stand to support the other speakers this afternoon and to endorse the content and direction of this bill. I look forward to the bill coming to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Of course that committee met today and we noted the absence—sadly really for the smooth proceedings and good humour of the committee—of Dr Lockwood Smith although we did celebrate the absence of Mr Foss so it is a case of swings and roundabouts. 
I will come very briefly to the New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Amendment Bill. I have no doubt that when the bill arrives at the select committee my colleagues will pay particular attention to ensuring that any changes we make meet the threshold of ongoing fiduciary responsibility. This is not the first member’s bill that the committee has dealt with in the short time I have been a parliamentarian and a number of submitters raised the issue of the importance of parliamentarians paying attention to corporate restructuring in the context of fiduciary responsibilities. What is being promoted here is not unusual and the device strikes at the heart as to why Parliaments have inherent sovereignty and why in New Zealand one Parliament cannot bind another. What this Parliament has been asked to do is to effect a modest restructuring change that will leave in law the ability for the Governor-General to pass by regulation a host of other changes when they are needed and it will not be required for such a bill to come back to the House. 
The trust plays an important role in the corporate infrastructure of the nation. I need not outline or repeat what other parliamentarians have had to say this afternoon other than to say that the bill will be in capable hands when it falls to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. I look forward to hearing what submitters might have to say and we will pay particular attention to ensure that none of these changes weaken administrators or cause them to overlook their ongoing responsibilities of a fiduciary nature. I look forward to receiving the bill as chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 I move  
That the Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
The Melanesian Mission Trust Board was established back in 1862 by deed under an Act of the New Zealand General Assembly with the objective of applying income from land in New Zealand to charitable education and religious purposes in the South Seas. In 1974 the Melanesian Trusts Act was passed by this Parliament focusing the efforts of the trust on the province of Melanesia and placing the control of the trust under the Church of Melanesia. The trust has therefore had a long history of charitable works in Melanesia made possible by Acts of this Parliament. 
Today 94 percent of the income of the Church of Melanesia is from trust board distributions utilising this funding predominantly in the Solomon Islands but also in Vanuatu and to a lesser extent New Caledonia. The church runs nine schools in the Solomons and 10 schools in Vanuatu educating approximately 4600 pupils and employing around 210 teachers. It also runs seven vocational training centres for 620 students employing around 46 teachers. In addition it provides theological training for another 80 students. The Church of Melanesia runs two medical clinics in the Solomons where it employs a staff of 23. The church runs a ship for mission work in the Solomons and Vanuatu which is also used to freight cargo and people. 
Distributions from the trust board are also used for various projects including building construction and renovation and the purchase of vehicles and canoes. A Christian care centre east of Honiara caters for women affected by domestic violence and for women and girls who have been abused. The church’s mothers’ union assists women in family life matters including life skills and literacy training. 
From that we can see that the trust is a board that does valuable and charitable work in countries to the north of us in the Pacific with whom we have a close relationship and that that work is extraordinarily valued by the people who live in those countries. Any reduction in the estimated $7 million income from New Zealand would clearly affect and impact heavily on these activities. 
The Income Tax Act 2004 gives trustees two tax exemptions for income received for charitable purposes. These exemptions are in section CW 34 and CW 35. They provide that income received by trustees for charitable purposes is non-taxable if it is non-business income or if it is applied for charitable purposes in New Zealand. The latter exemption does not apply to the trust board as it uses its distributable income almost exclusively for charitable purposes outside of New Zealand. The trust board however has always considered that it has the benefit of the first exemption as its long-term investment portfolio is not a business and its income is therefore not business income. However in 2002 this longstanding approach of the trust board was rendered uncertain because of a New Zealand Court of Appeal decision:  
Dick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 
 (2002) 20 NZTC 17 961. In Dick the Court of Appeal held that trustees of a charitable trust with investments in four commercial properties were carrying on a business. 
This raises uncertainty about the tax-exempt nature of the trust board because it could be argued that it is carrying on a business in respect of its commercial and residential properties and that income from the properties could therefore be deemed business income. The trust board sought and received expert tax advice that there was a reasonable prospect of the Court of Appeal distinguishing Dick from the trust board’s position and accepting that the first exemption did in fact apply to the trust board. That advice was premised on the fact that Dick was an unusual factor situation and the decision was given without full argumentation in relation to the issue. However the uncertainty created puts the trustees in a very difficult position in terms of discharging their fiduciary and other obligations and potentially puts the current charitable activities of the church in Melanesia—and in fact of the church itself—in jeopardy given its heavy dependence on New Zealand funding. 
If the tax exemption does not apply the trust’s income would be reduced by up to $2 million. That would significantly affect its ability to continue to deliver essential services and support in particular to the Solomon Islands through the province of Melanesia and the church infrastructure. That reduction would in fact work in the opposite direction to what New Zealand is trying to achieve in Melanesia through its Official Development Assistance programme. Furthermore this Parliament has always assumed that the trust money to be applied to the social services it delivers in the Solomons and elsewhere was tax-exempt. 
The solution proposed in this bill is to amend the Melanesian Trusts Act to provide that all income received by the trust board including any business income and all distributions by the trust board are exempt from income tax. This in fact represents the situation we have believed to have been the case since 1974. It would apply from the commencement date of the Melanesian Trusts Act 1974. This would give the trustees certainty and enable the trust board’s income to continue to be available in full to deliver essential services. 
The solution has been discussed by the trust board with officials in the Inland Revenue Department and has been approved by them as being the best means to remedy the current uncertainty. The department is satisfied that the bill is unlikely to give rise to calls from other New Zealand charitable trusts for legislation exempting them from income tax. The department is unaware of other entities in the same position as the Melanesian Mission Trust Board. The department does not in any case consider that granting an exemption would bind the Government to extending tax-exempt status to other entities. The Minister of Revenue has acknowledged that in this case a tax exemption is warranted because of the wider Government objectives this trust is meeting. These wider objectives would not necessarily be met or apply to the same extent in other cases. 
This bill is supported by the Minister of Finance the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. After contact with parties around the House I believe that this bill will receive the support of all parties to go to a select committee for the hearing of further evidence. Indeed I urge all parties to support the first reading of this bill and its referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the hearing of submissions and further consideration. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 National will support the first reading of this Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill 2007 but I will not say too much as I think the Hon Phil Goff gave a fairly extensive background to the legislation. 
One of reasons why it is important to support this bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee is that if this organisation which does charitable work lost its tax-exempt status then as the Minister mentioned maybe $2 million a year would be involved and that would be a shame. But there is an even wider issue than that: clearly the trust would not want to give up its tax-exempt status without a bit of a fight. Therefore there is a risk of litigation a risk of wasting money on sorting out the matter in court. 
At the end of the day there is not only a risk of having to spend money on sorting out the matter in court but a risk that the court may in fact rule against the tax-exempt status because of the circumstances around the Court of Appeal case that the Hon Phil Goff just mentioned  
Dick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  
(2002). Some of the facts of that case have remarkably similar parallels to some of the activities that have gone on in respect of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board yet I think everyone accepts that the work of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board is charitable work. The Minister mentioned that the trust runs many schools medical centres and training institutions in a number of countries and New Zealand has a very significant interest in making sure that the interests of those countries are advanced—perhaps in particular the Solomons and Vanuatu. New Zealand is very heavily involved in trying to advance the interests of those two countries. There is no doubt that the Melanesian Mission Trust Board is very much involved in charitable work and it would be a shame if technicalities were to waste money that it has raised for that charitable work. 
When one looks back at the foundation of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board it is quite staggering to see that in 1855 some people had the vision to purchase land in an area of Auckland that was clearly going to become very valuable land. The mission is able to raise funds for this charitable purpose because of the vision of those people involved a long time ago—well over 150 years ago. One has to admire the vision and commitment of people prepared to enter into arrangements for the benefit of people less well off. It was certainly quite a visionary investment back in those days. 
Although this bill is an unusual piece of legislation National feels that in the interests of avoiding loss of money in litigation and in the interests of making sure that the charitable work of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board is not disadvantaged this bill should go to the select committee. If there are any issues that Parliament should be considering I am sure they will come forward at the select committee. In the meantime we are happy to support this legislation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I will take a brief call tonight on the Melanesian Trusts (Income Tax Exemption) Amendment Bill. National will be supporting this bill going to a select committee. I understand that it is to go to the Finance and Expenditure Committee where it will be chaired through that committee and then the bill will pass through its remaining stages. The bill clarifies beyond doubt that the Melanesian Mission Trust Board is exempt from paying income tax on its earnings and on the distribution of its income. 
Let me just go over some of the points that Minister Goff raised tonight in respect of the mission just to remind members what the Melanesian Mission Trust Board is all about. The mission was originally established by the Anglican Church in 1855. Those members who visit Auckland or who are residents of Auckland will know the mission building in Mission Bay just around from Kohimarama. It is a lovely building which has been there I understand since 1872. That was the original base of the mission trust and the surrounding land originally formed the asset of the trust. 
The mission trust was set up as a charitable entity to support mission work in the province of Melanesia including the Solomon Islands the New Hebrides and New Caledonia. The mission trust undertakes as Minister Goff canvassed a range of charitable work including housing schooling and hospital work. I will not go into more detail about the specific charitable works of the trust; it is just so that people know that this organisation does a lot of good work in the South Pacific. Currently the trust is the beneficiary of some $7 million per annum in income and this arose as I said earlier from the subdivision of the mission-owned land in the Mission Bay area and in the Kohimarama area. The trust did not just subdivide and sell the land; it subdivided it and leased it out on a perpetually renewable Glasgow lease - type arrangement which was subject to periodic rent reviews. 
We are quite familiar with those types of leases because we have a number of them in the seat of Napier. Members will recall that the 1931 Napier earthquake caused a significant amount of land to rise out of the marshes—it rose nearly 6 feet in some areas. We ended up with suburbs such as Onekawa Pirimai and Marewa which now have significant tracts of leasehold land. These lands are now under a Treaty claim and quite understandably. But the beneficiaries of those lands were the original harbour board and also more particularly the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council which are now the beneficiaries of a significant amount of annual income as a result. 
Most of the leases are 21-year leases and they have been the cause of some angst in my electorate. They come around for renewal every 21 years and the leases are based on the new values of that land. As members will be aware obviously land values have gone up significantly around New Zealand and particularly in the city of Napier I might add but many of the residents who have been in these properties for some period of time—many have been there for 21 years—are now faced with significant increases to the value of their leasehold payments. It is an issue because it is pricing some older residents out of their houses. 
I come back to the similar situation with the Melanesian Mission Trust Board. It is in that situation and it has property like that around Kohimarama and Mission Bay. So the value of the leasehold payments from that land now is significant and it allows the mission trust to do its charitable work in the South Pacific in the area of Melanesia. That income is at issue tonight—the $7 million that the trust is concerned about—and it is why we are debating this bill tonight. 
The decision in a recent case in the New Zealand Court of Appeal  
Dick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 
 placed the tax-exempt nature of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board at risk. I will not go into the details of that particular case as Mr Goff has covered it fully tonight. Let us say that advice to the trust both legal advice and accounting advice has put it in a position where it believes that its tax-exempt status is at risk. We are here tonight with this bill to avert that problem to solve the issue for the trust and to put legislation in place that puts beyond doubt the tax-exempt status of the trust. I will not get into the details. I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that the Melanesian Mission Trust Board will be put in a situation with this bill where its tax-exempt status is beyond doubt and it can go on doing the good works within the South Pacific that it has become legendary for. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Tena tatou katoa i te Whare. When one goes for a stroll down the affluent streets of Kohimarama Mission Bay and St Heliers it is hard to see the connection with the Solomons Vanuatu and Noumea until we find that up to 20 percent of the land around there is still owned and leased out by the Melanesian Mission Trust Board. It is interesting too because Mission Bay’s first connection with the Melanesian Mission dates back to 1849 which is where the name “Mission” comes in of course dating back as far as 1856 when Bishop Selwyn brought Melanesians to Auckland for training in Mission Bay. 
In 1859 the Melanesian Mission House was opened to coincide with the arrival of 38 Melanesians on board the mission vessel  
Southern Cross 
. [ 
Interruption 
] I would like to thank Mr Pita Paraone for always listening intently to the speeches of the Maori Party because they are so informative and educational. Nowadays the Melanesian Mission dining hall on Tamaki Drive has been transformed into a restaurant but what it probably does not include in its menu notes is that 14 of the original training students died at the mission from an epidemic of dysentery in 1863. It would probably not be that good for business. 
This bill is about amending the Melanesian Trusts Act 1974 to establish certain income tax exemptions. When it first came up at caucus I was reminded of a couple of things from my days at Hato Tipene College—firstly the Melanesian cross I used to carry for padre when I was an altar boy and secondly the number of Melanesian students who attended Tipene courtesy of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board many of whom have gone on to leadership positions back in their own countries. So I understood immediately the connection and the relevance of the assets of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board to the work and indeed the aspirations of the Maori Party. 
Maori people’s relationship with Melanesia exists on many levels. Our tribal histories detail relationships and negotiations between the islands of Polynesia and Melanesia many many centuries ago. Back in 1772 the French navigator Crozet came to the Bay of Islands and amongst his descriptions of the fine and outstanding breed of people known as Ngapuhi he also noted a presence of people he described as “more Melanesian” who were shorter in stature had “slightly frizzled” hair and were “more swarthy”. Our Mataatua whanaunga from Ngati Awa also include in their tribal histories the arrival of some black-skinned people on board a canoe that reached Whakatane some 500 years ago with links to Melanesia. 
Then there is the language that we speak. Maori is often described as a Malayo-Polynesian language categorised as Indonesian Melanesian Micronesian and Polynesian. Although it would be fair to say our language bears more in common with Rarotonga Tahiti Hawaii and the islands of French Polynesia than it does with Fiji Vanuatu or Papua New Guinea still the connection is important. 
The relationship between Maori and Melanesian art forms has also been noted. As far back as 1915 in an article on “Maori and Maruiwi” Elsdon Best describes koru-like motifs and spirals so frequently applied in our arts as “abounding in the tribal arts of Melanesia”. 
Perhaps the greatest connection we amongst Maori share with the islands of Melanesia is the common history we have endured as supposed protectors came in the form of traders whalers sealers and missionaries bringing with them diseases guns and the prospect of unsettled settlement. So the islands of Polynesia and Melanesia became occupied inhabited and influenced by British French Spanish Dutch German and American visitors. 
What does all this connection between Aotearoa and Melanesia have to do with income tax? Well it sets the tone for the Maori Party’s position on this bill. All those citizens out in Kohimarama St Heliers and Mission Bay boosting up the income of the Melanesian Mission Trust Board will probably not be too worried that their leases are not subject to income tax. The same goes for the distribution of income by the Melanesian Mission Trust Board. 
But for people like Brian Corban who is chairperson of the trust Peter Brook William Somerville Derek Firth and the other members of the board this bill is very important to tidy up any uncertainties that have emerged since the 2002 decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in  
Dick v Commissioner of Inland Revenue 
. The trust board has always treated its income as tax-exempt considering that its charitable status was based on it being vastly different from mainstream business operations. 
When one looks at the definition of “charitable purposes” in the Charitable Trusts Act one can see that there is not a lot of commercial profit in supplying—and I quote from the trust board’s documents—for “the physical wants of sick aged destitute poor or helpless persons or of the expenses of funerals of poor persons”. That list of charitable purposes goes even further to specify “the education of the poor or indigent or their children; the reformation of offenders prostitutes drunkards or drug addicts and the employment and care of discharged offenders”. True to form the Melanesian Mission Trust Board helped set up the Auckland Industrial School in 1882 to provide for destitute and neglected children. 
The central question that this bill aims to address is whether the income from the residential tenure on church leasehold land should be taxed. The Maori Party has three key principles that guide our decisions on this bill. We support tax exemptions for charitable purposes. We support tax exemptions for beneficiaries and low-income earners. We also support this bill because of our common history with Melanesia. But we will also be looking at the Committee stage to understand the accountability and connection of the trust board back to the Islands of Melanesia. 
In considering those peoples—our whanaunga—from Melanesia the story of Vanuatu bears a specific mention because it is estimated that the impact of imported diseases brought to the country by British and French missionaries sandalwood traders and blackbirders decimated the population in Vanuatu from approximately 1 million in 1800 to just 45000 by 1935. If that were not savage enough during World War II the Yanks moved in building their own infrastructure and buildings and then just as abruptly departed in 1945 leaving the island struggling. 
The ni-Vanuatu particularly in urban areas such as Port-Vila are still burdened by their lack of economic independence with their economy in a fragile position. It is so fragile in fact that the United Nations has listed Vanuatu as one of its least developed countries with the average economic growth continuing to fall 2.5 percent behind the average rate of population growth. Mission Bay Kohimarama Port-Vila—well maybe there is very little in common after all. 
This bill on its own will not do much for Vanuatu but on this International Day for the Eradication of Poverty perhaps together we in this House can do something to help create a more socially just world and stand up and speak out against poverty everywhere. For those reasons and for many others expressed by speakers in the House before me the Maori Party will be supporting this bill. Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 19 September. 
Clause 3 Purpose ( 
continued 
)  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is something that the National Party has thought long and hard about. It is a piece of legislation that has been brought forward by Sue Kedgley as a member’s bill. It relates to some very important issues that I think everybody in this Chamber will be greatly aware of and desire to see the best results possible in our work environments and in our community as well. However the National Party cannot support this bill at this stage. We do have some reservations in regard to the bill and it was a difficult process for us to go through. We really do appreciate the way that it was put forward by Sue Kedgley and the way that she showed such dedication to the process but we feel that it was not quite what is needed at this stage for the New Zealand work environment. 
Today we are looking at certain clauses of the bill and in particular new sections 69AA to 69AAJ in new Part 6AA inserted by clause 6A. They cover the basic requirements of the legislation such as the employee’s statutory right to make requests the duties of the employer and the process for resolving disputes. These are based primarily on the British approach which Sue Kedgley used as the basis for this legislation. However in doing that there were a number of additions that the Green Party put into the bill that I think made it unsatisfactory from our point of view and it is something that we need to look at again as a political institution at some stage in the future should this bill not come into force. 
One of the key things that I think the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee accepted—and it was very grateful for the submissions made by people who came in—was that there is a genuine need for flexible working hours within the work environment. However it was also made clear to us that many employers already do advocate and give flexible working hours to their staff. It gave us great heart to see how employers took on board this need. They did recognise the need to look after their staff but also recognised that they had employment contracts that had to be dealt with and they had to keep their employment relationship in a manner that enabled them to continue their business and that entire employment relationship. 
One of the key things that I think many submitters focused on was the fact that they already offer flexible working hours especially in the economic environment we have at the moment. It is very difficult to get good staff it is very difficult to retain good staff and employers take a lot of pride in their staff. They want to look after them they want to train them they want to make the staff feel valued and they want to make the staff want to come back and stay with that employer. In doing so they will be willing to negotiate and offer flexible working arrangements to their staff—it is in their best interests to do so. That was the message that we got from the employers. When we look at new Part 6AA— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry we are on clause 3—the purpose clause. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: If we look at the purpose of the legislation it is very much a case of whether there is a need for change or whether there is existing flexibility within the workplace to enable employers to offer flexible working hours. 
The key conclusion from employers was that they did have the ability they did have the desire and—more important—they did actively engage in giving flexible working hours to their staff. It became obvious that in a tight labour market as there is in New Zealand that was something the employers were going to do and would keep on doing to retain their staff. There did not seem to be a need to change the rules. There did not seem to be a major issue out there of employers not being willing or able to do so. They would bend the rules where they could to give these flexible working arrangements to their staff and the legislation as it currently stood was not an impediment to their doing so; it was merely a case of negotiation. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to clause 3 of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Bill. This clause deals with the purpose of the bill. I need to make it very very clear right from the start that this legislation has no purpose in it at all. Anybody who has had the privilege of employing people understands well that legislation like this is the last thing that we need to govern the relationship between employer and employee particularly when legislation already exists that makes provision for this sort of flexibility and makes provision for this sort of matter to be sorted out in good faith between employer and employee. 
I have noted with some interest the willingness of those who are promoting this legislation to turn to and quote UK examples. Let us be very very clear that the New Zealand economy and the structure of New Zealand business are very very different from the position in the UK. New Zealand for example relies for so much of its prosperity and so much of its employment on small firms—firms with a relatively small number of employees in a close working relationship with their employer. We cannot legislate for the quality of that sort of relationship. When Governments seek to do that and when members seek to bring this sort of legislation into the House we have to question very very carefully what the purpose and motivation is for wanting to make this sort of change. I suggest to the Committee that legislating for flexibility is just one more example of legislation that this country does not have a need for and frankly I suspect does not really want. 
But of course for some people this is good politics: they get their name in the paper they put up a bit of legislation and they get some of those people who want to advocate for employees onside. But if we sit down and think about what this legislation is trying to do—its purpose—we have to question the legislation. What does this legislation add to the quality of employer-employee relationships? [ 
Interruption 
] No nothing—my colleague Kate Wilkinson is right; it adds absolutely nothing. All it is is another example of legislators wanting to throw in more law wanting to change things— 
Bob Clarkson 
: Bureaucratic! 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Yes they are throwing in more bureaucracy to give their mates more jobs. We know that bureaucracy does not add to GDP; it does not add one dollar to GDP. 
Peter Brown 
: You wouldn’t have a clue what it was about. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Ah—there is a distant voice from New Zealand First talking about clues. We will have to tell the members of that party that they do not have a lot of clues. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Is it appropriate for the deputy leader of New Zealand First to shout at me across the Chamber while leaving the Chamber on his feet? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it is not. I am sorry I missed that; it is not right. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Thank you Madam Chairperson. The point I am trying to stress the point I am asking this Chamber to consider carefully is the question of why we need further legislation to come between employer and employee particularly given that so many businesses in New Zealand are relatively small and rely very very strongly on good-faith provisions in legislation that already exists. 
So we come back to one conclusion and one conclusion only: this is legislation for legislation’s sake. When we examine the purpose of the bill we can come to no other reasonable conclusion. Legislation for the sake of legislation is not good legislation. Frankly I think it is increasingly apparent that New Zealanders are sick and tired of this sort of interference in the way they conduct their daily lives. New Zealanders in employment are more than capable without this sort of legislation of conducting their relationships with reasonable fair employers. [ 
Interruption 
] It is common sense as my colleague Kate Wilkinson points out—straight pure common sense. That is what governs relationships. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 That last speech was just so ironic. It was extraordinary to hear that member Allan Peachey attack Sue Kedgley who introduced this bill because she based her consideration on a successful model in the United Kingdom. He was attacking her for that. That attack was from a member whose leader bases the way he breathes lives turns his head and looks at the gallery and in the mirror on the way that the leader of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom does. It is just extraordinary; every single thing that John Key does is based on what David Cameron does. Frankly I think it was very sensible of Sue Kedgley to ask where in the world they have done this in employment and got it right. What can we learn from them? How can we apply it to the New Zealand employment situation? That is exactly what she has done. 
I want also to commend the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is clear from its report back that on the purpose clause—clause 3—that we are debating this evening the select committee members struck out the original. It sounds like they did a lot of work on the bill and there are a lot of alterations which have good consideration behind them. The committee put in a new majority recommendation for clause 3 which we are considering now. I have two further amendments that I want to propose through my two Supplementary Order Papers. The first is in Supplementary Order Paper 148 and it changes the new clause 3(a)—to omit the words “certain persons” and replace them with “any person”. The reason is that I do not believe that the specificity and narrowness that was agreed by the select committee go far enough. I think that would cause tensions that can be avoided particularly in small workplaces. 
I have discussed the amendment with other party colleagues in the Chamber and it seems to have received some understanding and support. I want to express my appreciation for that. So that is the purpose of that amendment in Supplementary Order Paper 148. I want also to commend the Hon Lianne Dalziel’s Small Business Advisory Group which specifically raised this issue with me some time ago. I have taken the opportunity now to follow up its recommendation and put it in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The second amendment I am proposing in my Supplementary Order Paper 153 is again to clause 3(a) but to a different line. The proposed amendment is to line 18 to remove the words “as to the period of their employment”. Members will see in subsequent amendments that I will discuss when we are into other clauses that that makes sense. In my view even though the recommendations by the select committee were well considered and were certainly supported by the majority of the select committee they do not go quite to the point that I think would give us the best satisfaction. 
The aim of this legislation is to promote work-life balance to ensure that employees are able to apply for jobs that are suitable for them. We know we have job vacancies and we have people who would like to apply for them but the jobs do not suit the hours they want to work. This bill will assist that mesh between employers and employees. It gives a legal back-up to something we know is happening in many workplaces already but in some it is not. This bill gives the trigger that will drive a change in practice. I think it will be very important for employees and employers. It will help many people to return to or go to a paid job. It will help many employers to fill the vacancies they have. Indeed the purpose of this bill is that people will be able to change their work hours when they have responsibilities that make that essential. 
I commend Sue Kedgley and also the rest of the select committee who have worked very hard with Sue. Sue has listened to the views of submitters. She has listened to the views of her parliamentary colleagues. I look forward to further debate this evening in the Committee stage of this bill. Obviously I also look forward to my Supplementary Order Papers 148 and 153 having the support of the majority of the Committee of the whole House. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I was heartened to hear from David Bennett that the National Party had thought long and hard about this legislation and that it had been a difficult process for National. I note that people like Katherine Rich are not here today— 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member just withdraw and apologise. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. I am sorry to say that Katherine Rich is not able to contribute here in this particular debate because I am sure that someone like Katherine Rich would strongly support the right of people who are parents—such as herself or others—to request to work flexible hours. We have heard a lot about how this bill will force flexibility. It is about the simple right to request to work flexibly. It is about the right to request. We have heard over many years how utterly dedicated the National Party is to the family and to supporting the family. Here we have simple practical legislation that is aimed at making it slightly easier for people with caring responsibilities and people with families to try to balance their paid work with their family life. The point is that in New Zealand at the moment the norm is long and inflexible working hours. Yes there are some employers—and we have heard about them; employers like EziBuy—that genuinely offer flexible hours. We applaud that. But what about all the others that do not? The UK has said that it needs a safety net and needs to make sure that all employees—not just those who work for a progressive employer—have this right to request. 
I think it is a particular concern in New Zealand because we have not only an inflexible working hours culture but a very very long working hours culture. Forty percent of us work more than 45 hours a week and 21 percent of us work more than 50 hours a week. On average we work something like 500 more hours than the average German French or Danish worker for example. Yet oddly enough we are less productive than they are. 
The problem is that as we have worked ever-longer hours over the last few decades we are spending less and less time with our children. Surveys such as that undertaken by Paul Callister have demonstrated that more and more families are working for a variety of reasons so they are spending less time with their children. As a result there is a huge social cost that all of us have to pay when parents are not able to parent well because they are so stressed and exhausted. We have had some research here showing the effect on children and families of parents not being able to have enough time to spend with their children. All this bill is doing is saying that we should try to arrange our working hours in a way that enables us to take into account our caring responsibilities. 
It is extremely interesting that one of the most ardent advocates of the legislation in the UK is none other than the leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron. It is interesting is it not that the National Party here would oppose something like this legislation. Over in the UK the Conservative Party is such an ardent advocate for flexible working hours that David Cameron is wanting to extend its legislation. He says that flexible working hours are the key to modernising workplaces. He says they are the key to increasing productivity. He points out that when workers have more control over their lives they will be more satisfied and productive. There is ample research to point that out. It is interesting—it speaks volumes—that we have someone like the leader of the Conservative Party in England who sees flexible working hours as being the key to modernising workplaces increasing productivity and assisting families when our so-called family-friendly National Party is opposed to something as simple as the right to request. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the purpose of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill which as we know is to provide a statutory right for employees to request a variation of their working arrangements. But it also places a duty on the employers who receive those requests. I say at this stage as a bit of an introduction that I think it is appropriate to repeat that what we are debating tonight really is an important issue—that of flexibility in the workplace. If we were debating only the importance of flexibility in the workplace then there would be no disagreement. But that is not what we are debating; we are actually debating legislating for that flexibility. We do not need to debate the advantages both to employee and employer of flexibility in the workplace because we know there are advantages. We applaud that and we support that flexibility. We recognise the importance of flexibility not just for women or parents but in order to facilitate good productive employment relations for the benefit of both employee and employer. But we do not applaud or support unnecessary rigid legislation. We support education as to the benefits of flexibility but not the legislation. 
I refer to a previous Committee stage speech by the honourable member Mr Peter Brown. At that stage he admitted that all employees have the right now to ask for flexible working arrangements. That is what he said: “all employees have the right to ask for flexible working hours”. He also said: “I do not think anybody is arguing that it is not [true].” Obviously that is right. But then when we asked why we even need this legislation his response was to refer to the purpose clause of the bill which we are debating tonight and which includes an obligation on the employer to consider seriously a request for flexibility. Mr Brown said: “The employee can already make a request but under this bill the employer will have to consider it seriously.” as though under the current legislation the employer does not have to consider it seriously. 
 So what exactly does he think happens or can happen under the existing legislation? What does he think “good faith” means if it does not include taking any reasonable request seriously? [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Brown that that is exactly what good faith means—it means taking any reasonable request seriously. In fact the current legislation specifically provides for “good faith” applying in relation to a variation of working conditions. Variations are provided for; good faith is provided for. Already the employer must act in good faith and consider such a request so why do we even need this legislation? We say that legislation is not needed. We should have the debate by all means. Debate is good; flexibility is good. We say we should use the debate to educate and promote the benefits of flexibility but not to impose unnecessary legislation. 
It was interesting that Ms Fenton said in that prior reading that “there is a lot stopping people from asking for flexible working hours at the moment;”. Well what exactly is stopping them asking? Because it is certainly not in the law; it is already covered in existing legislation. But then I liked her example of parties that “understand the realities of the working lives of many New Zealanders.”—that is what she said! She said cleaners here in the House here in Parliament might want to clean the House during the day and not at night and asked “do members think that under the current legislation they would have a prayer?” but under this bill she said they would. Well firstly they can make any reasonable request under the existing legislation and secondly all I can say is that I look forward to the interruption of a debate in the Chamber so that the cleaners can clean because they want to clean during the day. 
We have heard twice tonight about the UK legislation—that we should mimic the UK legislation and that if it works over there it will work here. I refer to the official advice we were given when we were considering the bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and were cautioned on the use and value of such comparisons. I will quote the advice because I want to get it exactly right: “There are questions as to the extent of the impact of the UK flexibility legislation because there are methodological inconsistencies in DTI-sponsored research on the impact. The DTI results are not necessarily supported by research from other organisations. There is no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from and often the surveys do not distinguish between those eligible to request and those not eligible.” 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 It is really sad to hear members of the New Zealand National Party announce that they will not vote for this progressive legislation. I have even heard one of its speakers tonight say that employees do not want this legislation and that it is legislation for the sake of legislation. Perhaps that member needs to talk to the leader of the British Conservative Party Mr David Cameron who said amongst other things that the Tories would go further than the present Government in encouraging flexible working. Mr Cameron has actually said that his ambition is to make the right to ask for flexible working available to as many people as possible. He says he understands that flexible working reduces absenteeism and means that staff are more likely to remain with a company. He also says that human capital is the natural resource of the 21st century and that Britain must be a trailblazer of innovation in the way people work. If Mr Cameron understands all that how is it that the New Zealand National Party and its leader who seem to model themselves on Mr Cameron’s style do not get it? 
The Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is wanted and needed by New Zealanders. They want and need work-life balance. Here is the truth: the purpose of this bill under clause 3(a) is to “provide a statutory right to employees who meet specified criteria … to request a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements because they provide care of certain persons;”. Here is the truth of what that means. In my previous career I spent 10½ years caring for an elderly father while working full time. In that 10½ years of that career—and I was an experienced person with 10 years experience in that particular field—I would not have considered asking for flexible working arrangements without this bill in place. This bill means that people in my situation—women caring for elderly parents—will actually be able to make that request and get the agreement of their employer. It creates a level playing field for women in my situation. 
The bill also creates that same level playing field for parents with young children for those experienced people who want to go back to work but perhaps on reduced hours and for those people who want an extended period of looking after their young children. The bill creates a way of keeping our experienced people in employment and contributing to businesses and to economic conditions in this country. 
This is good legislation. It means that it is a fair playing field for employers and employees. Many employers in this country recognise the fairness of what this bill sets out to deliver. Many of them have talked to me and other Labour members about why it is important to have this bill in place. I pay tribute to the Minister and Sue Kedgley for having put forward and supported the purpose the Supplementary Order Papers the thinking behind this bill and the contribution it will make to our economic life and to the work-life balance of thousands upon thousands of New Zealand workers. The bill is an important delivery to the workers of this country. 
I am very proud of this bill. I wish it had been in place 10 or more years ago. Many of the people who come into my office will for the first time realise there is legislation that makes this sort of request possible. I feel that this is another of those fair deliveries by this Government both to the employers and the employees of this country. It is a good bill. The purpose is good the entire bill is good it is a delivery we can be proud of. Thank you. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I have never heard such a diatribe in my life. I do not believe that the previous speaker has employed anybody in her life. I stand in the Chamber tonight to oppose this legislation and first of all to make the point that the National Party believes that flexible working arrangements are in principle a very good idea. The bit that we are opposed to is the Government’s view that it needs to legislate for flexible working arrangements. This country is sick and tired of being a nanny State. It is sick and tired of a Government that makes rules for every conceivable contingency. People are fed up. I invite the Government to look at the opinion polls and it will see how much support there is for this legislation. National members are convinced that the legislation as proposed is absolutely unnecessary in order to secure flexible working arrangements. It will be counter-productive in securing truly flexible working arrangements. 
I am an employer and have been an employer for about 30 years. When a staff member says to me: “John my father is ill.”; or “I’ve got a funeral.”; or “My daughter has the flu.” I say “Listen take the day off.” It is in my interests that employees deal with their family circumstances. If they have a problem at home they will not be any use in the workplace. That is a perfectly normal arrangement between employers and employees. I say to the Labour Government that this legislation which it is forcing on people will destroy initiative in this country. 
 Let me tell the Labour Government about employers in Dannevirke who recently said to me: “Look we want you to know John we are supporting you because this Government is destroying initiative and entrepreneurship.” 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The member on the other side of the Chamber has had her 5 minutes and you actually spoke to one of my colleagues about being over-the-top with interjections. That member has consistently spoken in opposition to my colleague who is on his feet. Let him have a go Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is a fair comment I think but I would say that the member who is speaking has interjected consistently. I ask the members to keep it down. It is when members constantly talk that it is unacceptable. 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is the constant chipping away by this Labour Government at the rights of employers and decent employees and the putting of rules red tape and bureaucracy into the workplace that is killing this country. This constant chipping is sending 700 people a week permanently out of this country to Australia because they have had a stomachful of this Government and its rules and red tape. 
But let me come back to the employer in Dannevirke who recently said to me: “John this Government is destroying initiative.” I asked “How?”. The employer said: “Have you heard of Working for Families?”. I said I had. The employer said to me: “Well we’ve got a bit of a problem John. When we’ve got an export order to fill and we want someone to work on a Saturday or a Sunday or a Friday night and we ask our employees to please come in and help us get this order filled they say to us they can’t come because if they earn more money it will come off what the Government is already paying them.” 
Darren Hughes 
: So what is the lesson in that? 
JOHN HAYES 
: I say to Mr Hughes that the point of this as he will find out in Otaki when the rug is pulled from under him next year is that people are sick and tired of this Government creating rules and red tape that destroy initiative and discourage people from going to work. We do not need that and we do not need this legislation. I say to the people of New Zealand that clause 3(a) of this bill at the moment states that the purpose of the Act will be to “provide a statutory right to employees who meet specified criteria as to the period of their employment to request a variation of certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements because they provide care of certain persons;”. 
Now the great contribution from Madam Dyson from the South Island is to delete “certain persons” and insert “any person”. So anybody can invent any reason why he or she does not have to come to work. Can I say that clause 3(a) is incomprehensible English. Nobody will understand what this clause means. No labour lawyer will be able to fathom what this moribund intellectually defunct Labour Government is trying to promote in this legislation. This legislation certainly will not encourage people to have flexible working arrangements. National believes that employees and employers are already free to bargain in good faith over flexible working arrangements. That is certainly my experience as both an employer— 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 6A New Part 6AA inserted 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 6A of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill which really is the substance of the bill. This is the clause that provides the employee with the statutory right to request a variation of working arrangements and it also provides for the prescriptive statutory duty of the employer in relation to that request. 
Before I continue though I will spend a little bit of time on Supplementary Order Paper 148 from the Minister Ruth Dyson which omits the word “reasonably” from new section 69AA(c). That might sound innocuous enough but at the moment that paragraph provides that “an employer may refuse a request only if it cannot reasonably be accommodated on certain grounds;”. This Minister has said that the paragraph should read that “an employer may refuse a request only if it cannot be accommodated on certain grounds;”. There is a big difference between a request that cannot be accommodated and one that cannot reasonably be accommodated. “Reasonably” brings in the notion of objectivity which obviously that Minister is totally unaware of. By removing the word “reasonably” it virtually means that unless it is impossible for the employer to accommodate the request the request must be granted. By removing it it takes away objectivity and the Minister should be aware of that. I think it is a very dangerous precedent to set in relation to that Supplementary Order Paper. 
This clause is the real substance of the bill. I know that National has said that it supports flexibility but we are concerned firstly that the legislation is not necessary and secondly about the cost to the employer. In fact a  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial back in November was entitled “Don’t turn flexibility into a cost”. It is an interesting article and I would like to quote some excerpts from it because I think it is very useful and adds to this debate. The article reads: “Flexibility with reference to working arrangements is a word long favoured by employers … Previously flexibility was advanced for the good of firms industries and the whole economy; all of which needed to be as competitive as possible once they were exposed to global markets. Now flexibility is being argued on principles of ‘work-life balance’ particularly for working couples trying to meet the demands of children and a career. There is no reason that both interests cannot be served by mutually convenient working arrangements but mutual is the crucial word.” 
This legislation is simply not necessary. The article continues: “But the more concrete proposals are those intended to help employees make requests for flexible terms have their requests reasonably considered and arrangements adhered to. It suggests legislation could make more specific provisions for employees’ rights to request flexible arrangements the procedures employers must follow when they receive a request and the permissible grounds for a refusal. If this begins to sound ominous for employers it is.” That is what the editorial says; I will repeat it: “If this begins to sound ominous for employers it is.” The article continues: “The principle needs restating that flexibility is best left to individuals and firms to find in their infinitely varying needs and circumstances. As soon as flexibility is codified even as a negotiating procedure it is in danger of becoming just another cost of employment and a discouragement to growth.”—“As soon as flexibility is codified” which is what this bill is trying to do—“even as a negotiating procedure it is in danger of becoming just another cost of employment and a discouragement to growth.” 
Concerns have been expressed—and we will get practical here—that employers will have to prioritise the demands of parents and carers who qualify ahead of requests from other employees. Warnings have been given that this bill could also lead to personal grievances if employees feel that their demands for flexible working arrangements are not heeded. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is interesting listening to the National speakers on this issue tonight talking about what New Zealanders want and so on because I think that they live in some sort of cocoon. We have had thousands of letters from workers and organisations that say this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is a good thing. Maybe what National members do not understand and need to get their heads around is that we have flexibility in our workplaces all right but it has been going all one way. That is what this bill is about; it is addressing the imbalance. 
I particularly want to address new section 69AAEA which is proposed to be inserted by Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Minister Ruth Dyson. It lists the grounds on which an employer may refuse a request. It amends new section 69AAE(2) and (3) which is to be inserted into the Employment Relations Act by clause 6A of the bill to omit the ground relating to undermining the terms of a collective employment agreement. Before National members rejoice about that it replaces it with a requirement under the new section 69AAEA(3) that an employer must refuse a request if it is from an employee who is bound by a collective agreement and the working arrangements that the employee requests would be inconsistent with the collective agreement. This is a very important provision and I am very pleased it is there. 
New Zealand has no working-time limits. We have no maximum or minimum hours of work. We have no legislative provisions for overtime pay or for weekend work. Our breaks are not even legislated for yet. With Labour Day and the celebration of the 8-hour day coming up this weekend I think it is very timely to reflect on these issues. 
We all know that the reforms made to the national employment legislation during the 1990s delivered the ultimate in flexibility. But “the ultimate” meant no protection for workers—no protection in bargaining and no protection of working hours. Working hours were decided at the whim of the employer and dismissal resulted if the employee did not agree. So when members opposite say that employees can just ask it does not work like that because National has set up a situation where workers are fearful to ask and what should seem like a simple thing is no longer so. The outcomes are serious not least on workers and their families. National directly caused many of the problems we have been debating during the stages of this bill. 
The challenge we have today is to combine greater flexibility with the need to maximise job security; the two have to go together. It is interesting because when management and unions work together that combination is more likely to be reached and the real potential of working-time reorganisation and flexibility is more likely to be realised—and it is done through collective bargaining. Working hours are critically important to workers and are often at the top of the list of their concerns when it comes to bargaining. Usually their concerns are about unpaid overtime long working hours shift work and weekend work. Bargaining for agreed working time and collective agreements is the main way that workers today have a say in their working hours and often collective agreements provide the only instruments with a sensible limit on working hours. 
That is why the amendment proposed on the Supplementary Order Paper that an individual right to request flexible working hours should not be able to undermine collective agreements and arrangements that have been made between a union and an employer on behalf of all of that workforce is really important. Key to the success of this and this would be foreign to the National Party is the detailed cooperation between management and unions and that is what this clause supports. Instead of approaching flexible working arrangements as a benefit to be handed to out to those individual workers with deserving special circumstances—which is what a nice boss like the member over there would do—the focus needs to be on finding solutions for everyone including improving business competitiveness job security and the balance between work and the personal lives of those in the workforce. Most important collective agreements have proven that far from limiting flexibility the regulation of hours can enable a sensible compromise to ensure that everyone wins—not just the employer but all the workers and their families as well. 
The problem with a lack of proper control over working hours is that it continues a vicious cycle of inequality. I love hearing the National members going on about this; this is a sensitive issue for them I can hear that. The reality is that when one person works long hours that person’s partner often has to reduce his or her hours to look after family responsibilities—and members can guess who that usually is; it is usually the woman in the relationship. This issue has an ongoing influence on pay rates pay inequity and career inequity for women. So as we enjoy Labour Day this weekend and the members opposite have the day off I hope we all take a moment to pause and reflect on the current expectations of the labour market where work comes before workers. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on clause 6A of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. I would like to begin by inviting the Labour list member who just resumed her seat Darien Fenton to perhaps table the thousands of letters she claims to have received on this matter because this side of the House would be very interested to see them. I am willing to yield to the member if she would like to do that. There is silence. 
Clause 6A the object of this part of the debate gives me the opportunity to reflect on some of the things that have been said by the other side of the House tonight and to reflect on comments made by the proposer of the bill Sue Kedgley. It seems to me that if we are really honest about the object of the bill we should be saying only one thing: the object of this proposed legislation is to take the New Zealand of 2007—a supposedly independent freethinking and democratic country—and turn it into— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to clause 6A. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: The object it seems to me is to turn New Zealand into a little England. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to speak about the details of clause 6A. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I was keen to make the point. 
Peter Brown 
: What’s wrong with England? We’re in the World Cup final. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Oh the mouthpiece of little England itself! 
Darren Hughes 
: Little Britain. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: No it is not little Britain; it is little England. That has to be of concern. I listened to the previous speaker Darien Fenton talking about balance and about adjusting the balance between employer and employee as if the relationship is currently out of balance. That line is the old left-wing trade union line that New Zealanders have listened to for the length of time the Labour Party has been around—90 long years. Its thinking has not moved beyond that. 
I would have thought that every reasonable fair-minded New Zealander would be concerned at a provision that allows a dissatisfied employee to take mediation. But what about a dissatisfied employer? You see the thinking that is behind this sort of provision is the thinking that we on this side of the House seek to challenge tonight. It is more than just about flexibility; it is also about efforts by the left wing in this House to shift the balance in employment relationships even further to the disadvantage of those New Zealanders who take the risk run the businesses create the employment and work very very hard to ensure that their employees have the opportunity to earn a reasonable income. 
When I look at the provisions that are contained in new section 69AA and subsequently I see the opportunity for more red tape and for the onerous imposition of further financial charges against the very people who create employment in New Zealand. When we talk about new part 6AA and subsequent provisions we have to ask why this Committee is debating a measure that has no further object than to make it more difficult for small employers—and New Zealand is a nation of small employers which is why the attempt to turn New Zealand into a little England is not valid—and for the men and women who work for them to manage their own employment relationships. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to be able to stand up in the Committee stage of the debate on the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. I have been a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I have not yet had an opportunity to enter into the debate on this bill so it is a great pleasure indeed to be able to do so. It was extremely noticeable that the previous speaker in the debate on clause 6A Allan Peachey had not been on the select committee did not really understand what this part of the bill was about and is completely out of touch with the needs of New Zealand families. 
Allan Peachey 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. As the father of four children I take exception to the allegation that I am out of touch with the families of New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. That is a debating point. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The whole point of what that member was speaking about was the supposed cost of this bill to employers. If he had been speaking with New Zealand families or even with employers in recent times he would have understood that the largest problem that New Zealand employers face at the moment is actually a skills shortage; it is the inability to recruit and retain staff. So what better way is there to address the modern New Zealand world than for employers to have legislation that gives them guidance and support in introducing flexible working hours as this bill does? I remind that member that he seemed in particular to disregard new section 69AAE(3) of the legislation which talks about the grounds for refusal. These are the grounds by which the employer can refuse a request from his or her employee. 
I want to remind people listening to this debate that the employees whom we are talking about here already bear costs. Kate Wilkinson talked at great length about the supposed cost to the employer. I would argue that there would be a cost to employers of not going down this track in fact. However we know in this day and age that New Zealand families carry costs of inflexible working hours all the time. I do not know whether any members opposite have in recent times paid for childcare and I do not know whether any members opposite have recently paid for caregivers to look after disabled relatives but these are the costs that are borne day in day out and week in week out by New Zealand workers and their families. So if we are going to talk about costs let us be equitable about it; let us talk about the true cost to New Zealand society of having inflexible working hours inflexible working ability and working arrangements. 
The previous speaker needs to read new section 69AAE(3) which covers the grounds for refusal. If members opposite understood the modern business environment then they would understand that these grounds are entirely acceptable because they are: the employer can refuse a request if there is “(a) inability to reorganise work among existing staff:”. Those members have gone very quiet because that provision completely blows away their entire argument and particularly Mr Peachey’s most recent contribution to this debate—it is completely blown away by just one sentence in the bill. 
Hon Member 
: And there’s more. 
SUE MORONEY 
: And there is more. Another ground for refusal is “(b) inability to recruit additional staff:”. So where are these hidden costs coming in? Employers can actually refuse on the grounds that there would be “(c) detrimental impact on quality:”. I would like Kate Wilkinson to take a call and describe exactly where these hidden costs are. Another ground is “(e) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work:”— 
John Hayes 
: Unions bashing employers—that’s what you’re up to! 
SUE MORONEY 
: A bit of union bashing is going on across the Chamber. What is happening here is family bashing from the opposite side of the Chamber. Those members are saying that workers with family responsibilities should not have the legal right to request flexible working hours. 
Chris Tremain 
: They already have. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well they should say it loud and say it clear because I think the vast majority of New Zealanders absolutely disagree with the National Party on this. They know that flexible working hours and quality family life are at the top of their agenda. The National Party will suffer for its position on this bill. 
I will continue talking about the grounds for refusal. These are grounds that employers can use for refusing requests. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 Unlike the member who spoke before me Sue Moroney I will not stand up and make allegations about members on the other side of the Chamber as to whether they are family-friendly whether they like children or whether they support them. Those sorts of allegations make members on that side of the Chamber be seen in the light of what they truly are which is quite frankly just nasty and a bit angry when it really comes down to it. 
New subsection (3) under new section 69AAI is one that I certainly have questions about and would be interested in discussing a little more. The subsection states: “An application under subsection (2) must be made within 3 months after the date on which the employer notified the employee that the employee’s request was refused.” Supplementary Order Paper 148 has changed that date to 12 months. That just seems absolutely incredible. So not within 3 months but within 12 months after a request for flexible working hours for whatever reason an application can still be made. That just seems absolutely incredible and far too long. It is simply too long. 
The other section in this part is the section stating that within 12 months an employee can make only one request. As we know flexible working hours are happening now. As we have heard many times from this side of the Chamber surveys and reports from employers and employees state time and time again that requests for flexible working hours are being made and are being met. So now we will have a law and once we start putting in laws we find that people do things to the letter. That is what most of our employers do—they do things to the letter. 
So a family can make a formal request—and let us just think about what might happen for that family. The family might need special circumstances around childcare for their 4-year-old so they put in a request noting the hours that would suit around childcare for that young one. They put that request in to the employer and it is—or is not as the case may be—accepted and that process can go through. 
But for 12 months after that family have made their formal request they no longer have the opportunity under this legislation—and the other side of the Chamber is arguing that we need legislation around this—to make another request. So with this legislation those members have actually restricted people’s rights to make more than one request. They can ask only once. 
What if the childcare arrangements change within that 12-month period? What could well happen is that the centre down the road drops 23 hours—because they see what an absolute hoax it is and can no longer keep in business if they have it—and that means that that child cannot go to that centre for 20 hours. That means that the family need to make other arrangements. 
If one is an employer and is going by the letter of this legislation—which an employer is likely to do because we have law-abiding employers out there; they do everything they can to stay within the legislation and the rules that are put around them—then that person will be worse off. I think that is an absolute tragedy and an absolute shame and it will more times than not work against parents and their families. 
There is no bigger argument than the fact that this is legislation for the sake of legislation. No one supports flexible working hours! We have heard it said in this House and we may as well say it again—any sensible employers will accommodate their employees in any way they possibly can and they do. They do it now as we know. They accommodate their staff whenever they can. The amount of informal arrangements that are made between employee and employer or employer and employee happen because of the employees themselves. What happens time and time again is that the employees get together and say: “Hey listen how about I start earlier and you start later. This will make sure the shop’s still open until this time.” and then everyone is happy and then that changes a month later because this issue affects people’s lives and that is what they do. More often than not they negotiate that among themselves and they make it work. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have sat here and listened to the debate thus far this evening and I have to ask those National members whether they are all on the same team. 
John Hayes 
: Absolutely! We’re not on your side that’s for sure. 
PETER BROWN 
: I hear all sorts of arguments coming from there and clearly some of those members have not got a clue what the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is about. My best advice is to read it in depth. 
Secondly I have to say that Paula Bennett made some good points. She is challenging the provision in clause 6A section 69AAD(2) which states: “The employee is not entitled to make another request under this Part to his or her employer earlier than 12 months after the date on which the previous request was made.” I say to Ms Bennett—she has just disappeared— 
John Hayes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders do not provide for someone to be referred to as having left the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Quite right. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Chairman I did not say she had left the Chamber. As far as I know she could be standing right behind me 
The point I am making is that if Paula Bennett wants to put forward an amendment to delete that clause New Zealand First will give serious consideration to supporting it. I cannot commit the Government to it but if Paula Bennett wants to delete that clause we will give serious thought to supporting her. It is unlikely she will be on her own if she wants to do that. 
John Hayes 
: Why don’t you do it then? 
PETER BROWN 
: Having said that I say to Mr Hayes that this has been put in here at the behest of employers the people whom he is supposedly standing up for and supporting. You said you are such a dang good employer that you do not need the legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: Not you Mr Chairperson. I would not dare say that to you. 
I say to Mr Hayes that I have no doubt he is a good employer. When I was an employer I thought I was pretty good and pretty fair. I used to let my staff operate pretty reasonable and flexible working hours. I do not doubt that he did the same or does the same if he is still employing people. I only hope he did a better job with his staff than he did with a little old Japanese lady whom he apparently ripped off to the tune of $900. Or was it $900000? But never mind. 
This bill will have little or no effect on the average good employer whether that employer is large small or in between—none at all. 
Allan Peachey 
: Then why have it? 
PETER BROWN 
: That is a good question and it has been answered. Kate Wilkinson quoted me earlier and I was quite chuffed to be acknowledged in her comments. She seemed to be implying that I was some sort of expert on labour relations. I took it as a compliment. She said that we do not need this bill because we have good faith. I know that Kate Wilkinson does not believe that every employer operates in good faith. If those members think that then they are out of touch with what goes on in this country. Many employers in this country work in a very competitive environment and from time to time that necessitates their taking short cuts. 
All this bill does is allow employee’s to go along to their employer in a formal sense and ask for flexible working hours because they are looking after somebody. I would say that most employers would comply with that without any shadow of doubt. But there are some who will not or do not and if those members do not know employees who work for those sorts of people then they are not in touch with the average New Zealander. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Bob Clarkson he should sit down and keep quiet. I know he would not need this bill. From what I have discussed with him I know he talks to his staff and he listens to their concerns. But I know that he knows that there are employers who do not do the same. 
John Hayes 
: So their employee leaves. That’s their right. 
PETER BROWN 
: I would not employ that member if he was the last man living but never mind. It is a sad fact of life that some employers are unapproachable to their staff. The staff might legally have the right to go along and ask for flexible hours but some employers are totally unapproachable. 
All this bill does is give the employee the right to formally go to the employer and ask for flexible hours. If the employer cannot accommodate that request he or she can refuse it. The bill lists a number of reasons for refusal—for example the inability to reorganise work among existing staff. If there is an inability to recruit additional staff the request can be rejected. If there is a detrimental impact on quality it can be rejected. If there is a detrimental impact on performance it can be rejected. If there is insufficient work during the periods the employee wishes to work it can be rejected. If there are planned structural changes it can be rejected. And so the list goes on. 
I do not think that for the most part this bill will have any effect at all on employment relationships between employees and employers but it will have an effect when the employer does not play fair. It will have an effect when the employer is not prepared to give reasonable consideration. The employee can go along formally—I have to emphasise “formally”—and request flexible working hours because somebody is sick or needs help or in situations where the employee is in a caring position and needs to adjust his or her working hours to suit. That is totally reasonable in a civilised society. 
Members should go home look in the mirror and say they are voting against this. I challenge them to go home look in the mirror and say “That is me and I am voting against it.” 
Colin King 
: So you’d legislate? 
PETER BROWN 
: I know the member; he will not do that. He will go in with the party vote but in his heart he knows that it is a reasonable request. 
Colin King 
: You don’t need legislation. 
PETER BROWN 
: Let me say that we need legislation if people do not comply with the reasonableness of this sort of thing. This bill has been reshaped and restructured to make it the fairest possible bill it could be in terms of employees and employers. The average decent law-abiding employer has nothing to fear—nothing to fear at all. 
John Hayes 
: More unnecessary law. 
PETER BROWN 
: It is not unnecessary if employees are not given a fair shake of the whip if employees are too scared or too nervous to talk to their employers or if there is an abundance of people who can be called upon. 
We are talking now about low-paid people—people employers can get 10 a penny so to speak. Employees cannot go along and ask for this without legislation supporting it. That is a sad fact of life in this country. It used to be the fairest country going but now elements about it are totally unfair. Low-paid and low-skilled people in particular who can easily be replaced need the protection of this sort of legislation simply to go along and ask whether they can have flexible working hours to look after their sick relatives or their sick sons or daughters. That is absolutely a reasonable request to make. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I would like to pick up from the point that the New Zealand First member Peter Brown made which was that we and in particular the Minister of Labour Ruth Dyson have bent over backwards to try to accommodate the needs of employers. Many of their requests are enshrined in the amendments that the Minister has made and I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for her hard work in coming up with amendments to improve this bill. 
In particular I commend her amendment that extends the right of flexible working hours to any employee who has the care of any person. I think the Minister has made a fantastic amendment. Indeed she has met with and talked with Business New Zealand and has made a series of amendments—I will not go through them all—that meet many perhaps most of its concerns. There is all this nonsense that someone could take this matter to the Supreme Court—not that anyone ever would—and just for the avoidance of doubt the Minister has proposed an amendment that will ensure that the matter cannot go beyond the Employment Relations Authority. So she has made a series of amendments and I think they have greatly improved the bill. 
I have made an amendment too which states that when the legislation is reviewed in 2 years’ time we will see whether the provisions of this part should extend to all employees. I personally would love to see the provisions extended now but I think that extending them first to those in greatest need who are caring for other persons whether they are children or elderly parents means that in 2 years’ time there will be general consensus to extend them to all employees. This is what has happened in the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom before the legislation was introduced it was vehemently opposed by the business community for exactly the same reasons the National Party is talking about today. Of course its members are talking here on behalf of Business New Zealand. But the point is that surveys now show that 90 percent of UK employers say they have had no significant problems in complying with the new right. Indeed I have a quote here from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development representing 127000 members in British management and personnel: “The existing right to request flexible working has been well received by employers has successfully encouraged rather than compelled them to experiment with flexible working practices” etc. 
The other point I would like to make concerns National Party members—rather weak in their arguments—saying that people can ask for flexible working hours. Well of course they can ask. They can ask to have their pay increased by $300 an hour. They can ask for 6 months’ holiday every year. They can ask but they are not likely to get it. Surveys done by the Department of Labour show that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders need and support more flexible working hours. The majority of them support this legislation. 
I also say that if most employers were providing flexible work hours as the National Party claims why would 93 percent of 5000 parents in a recent survey say that flexible working hours is the change they would most like to see in their workplaces to help them juggle their work and home responsibilities? In many cases what is claimed to be flexible working arrangements turn out to be little more than the ability sometimes just to work a lunch hour or to go to the dentist. Paul Callister who is an expert in this area said the situation is that employers say they are family-friendly and probably believe it—and some are—but employees are grinding their teeth. We are finding that employees are saying that despite all the rhetoric and all the talk about flexible working hours and work-life balance there has been very very little change. In particular in areas like nursing the union says that literally thousands of nurses out there have indicated they would like to work but they need more flexible working arrangements to accommodate their families. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to follow on from Sue Kedgley and to speak specifically to Supplementary Order Paper 148 in my name in relation to the clause we are currently debating. 
Sue Kedgley referred to two specific parts that I want to draw to the attention of the Committee of the whole House. The first one is the change that I have proposed in terms of replacing “disabled child” and “relative” with the term “any person” so that the primary carer of any person who is dependent is able to apply under this legislation for flexibility in his or her hours. 
I have heard National members say on regular occasions in their contributions that there is no need for legislation—that people currently have the right to request flexibility in their hours. That is absolutely correct and many do. Many who make such a request work it out quite reasonably with their employers. That is good and nothing in this legislation changes that. But we know—as a result of the work we have done with employers and employees—that some need the backing of the legislation. 
This legislation does not require an employer to grant the request; it requires the employer to consider the request fairly. Some employees particularly those in vulnerable situations are not only the primary carer but the only carer of another person. They not only need but frankly deserve the backing of the law so that when they ask for a change in their work hours their responsible employer—because of the law—gives fair consideration to that request. 
Frankly the grounds for declining a request are so extensive that employers would have to be out to lunch if they could not find one that suited them if they really wanted to decline it. But I think most employers will be guided rather than instructed by the legislation. As with many pieces of law that we pass these provisions will lead a change in behaviour so that the law becomes literally unnecessary but we are not at that stage yet. 
The second part of my Supplementary Order Paper that I want to draw attention to is one that Sue Kedgley also referred to and that is changes in the dispute resolution procedure. In the unlikely event of an employer and an employee not getting resolution of a request immediately if there is some dissatisfaction with it the first point of call will be to invite the labour inspector to come into the workplace to get some resolution in the same way as labour inspectors currently do with disputes over wages or time records. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Another bureaucrat. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would have thought Mr Clarkson as an employer in his previous life would understand that. Perhaps he never had any wage disputes. That is fabulous. I am glad that he was such an outstanding employer that he never required assistance from anyone else. But not every employer is as exemplary as Mr Clarkson previously was and no doubt will be when he leaves Parliament after the next election. 
So the first point of call will be the labour inspector then there will be two others if that is not satisfactory. The first is mediation which is already hugely successful not in minor considerations such as this—it is just about a procedure—but in quite complex disputes. It is already hugely successful. If that is not satisfactory the next and final point of determination will be the Employment Relations Authority. There will be no opportunity for a disgruntled dissatisfied employee to go any further than that. 
There did seem to me to be a limit to how many times someone can say to an employer “You must give this request fair consideration. Please do it again.” I do not imagine that these procedures will be needed. I am sure that the majority of employers are short of workers to fill job vacancies because of the success of the last 8 years of legislation passed in this Parliament. More New Zealanders are in paid work than ever before. 
The biggest challenge facing employers is to fill job vacancies. I cannot imagine that those disputes resolution procedures will be needed but if they are needed it will be the labour inspector first. If that does not work the matter will go to mediation. If that is not satisfactory it will go to the authority. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 This debate has been really interesting. I say to the people of New Zealand who are listening to this debate and not watching it that it is really interesting being lined up against a sailor who jumped ship and stayed here and a bunch of people who have never done anything in their lives except work for unions or organisations. They have never employed somebody and therefore do not understand the dynamic that we find in a small New Zealand company. 
Darren Hughes 
: Says the ex-bureaucrat. 
JOHN HAYES 
: I reiterate for the member for Otaki so that he can listen to us before he departs from this House next year that the National Party believes in flexible working arrangements. The bit we disagree with is that Labour is putting it into legislation that nobody in this country wants. 
Can I just explain something to Minister Dyson who brought in a Supplementary Order Paper half an hour ago where under clause 3(a) “certain persons” is turned into “any person”. Let us transfer that from the Supplementary Order Paper to clause 69AAA. If we are going to have “any person” in one provision for goodness’ sake why does the incompetence of this legislation have to be demonstrated—it is poor drafting—by defining in another provision things like a “spouse”? Is not a spouse any person? A “parent”—is not a parent any person? A “child”—is not a child any person? A “brother or sister”—is not that any person? A “grandparent”—is not that any person? A “grandchild”—is not that any person? A “spouse’s or partner’s parent”—is not that any person? For goodness’ sake! Why do we need the legislation written this way? If the Minister had had an overview if the Minister had read the appalling legislation that is before this Committee she would have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to straighten out this nonsense. We cannot put a finger in the dyke in one place without adjusting the rest of the template which as a result has been tampered with. This is—totally absolutely—poorly drafted legislation. 
We want to have flexibility. Mr King is a shearer. If the daughter of one of his shearers has a sore tooth then Mr King will want to have a flexible working arrangement on that day. Under this legislation that the ship-jumper from the UK is promoting we can find ourselves— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not take offence at that; the member is trying to promote something. But I have to clarify that ship-jumping is an illegal activity and I have never been part of that sort of activity. I came here many many years ago and I have a certificate and a letter of welcome signed by a National immigration Minister. 
The CHAIRPERSON 
: The member may not refer to another member in that way— 
JOHN HAYES 
: I will withdraw that comment but I acknowledge that even National Ministers can make serious mistakes. 
In the situation I am referring to with Mr King in the context of clause 69AAA if a person has an immediate problem and wants to make an adjustment that employee makes a request to the employer who then has a year to come up with an answer. Is that flexible? Come on! Of course it is not flexible. This Labour administration supported by the Greens United Future and New Zealand First is putting in rigid legislation that will give no flexibility at all to workers in this community. This is why we are arguing from a National perspective that for a business to operate effectively and efficiently there has to be a good relationship between an employer and an employee. 
I say to those trade unionists on the other side of the Chamber that there is one freedom in this country that every individual has and that is the right to sell his or her labour to whomever that person likes. If someone does not like his or her employer that person can move on. No one is going to stand in his or her way. It will be good for the business and it will be good for the person. We cannot legislate for good working relationships. We cannot legislate for good relationships within a business. It cannot be done. Talk to “Bob the Builder” because out of the members in this House he is probably the biggest employer of people right now. He knows that this legislation will be of no use to him. 
When we have challenged Labour members and asked: “Who are the companies that support this legislation; what are their names?” what companies do they name? There is Telecom. Who is the owner? It is the Government. Then they name Air New Zealand. Who is the owner? It is the Government. Then they talk about various organisations employing nurses and other entities that have lots of members. But they are not employers; they are not the people who are adding to the productive capital of this country. 
This legislation along with everything else this Government is doing is driving people offshore. We can fill the Wellington stadium the Cake Tin with 36000 people and what happens every year? That number of people goes to Australia. We can fill it up again with another 36000 or 37000 people and that number will go too. They do not all go to Australia but they are leaving permanently because they do not want clause 69AAA—absolutely they do not want it. They can see that inflexibility is coming into the workplace from the legislation and they do not like it. That is why they are leaving. 
This is bad policy. This is badly written law. The Minister has got her Supplementary Order Paper wrong. She brings in the word “any” to include every possibly conceivable situation and then in clause 69AAA she has paragraphs that run from (a) to (g) describing people who are already “any”. “Why not delete them all and just put the word ‘any’?” I ask the Minister. Then she will be tidying up what is at the moment bad law. 
 But then we have to think about the context. In the context is it flexible care we are going to be allowing? Is it temporary care we are going to be allowing? Is it permanent care we are going to be allowing? This legislation is poorly drafted. Do we define “care” in the bill? No we do not define “care” in the bill at all. 
Then we can talk about working arrangements. Working arrangements which workers can apply to their bosses for a change include the hours of work the days of work and the place of work. Well if people are apple orchardists like me the only place they can actually work is on their orchards. So what is the point of writing into legislation that we should enable employees to say: “No I don’t want to work on your orchard I want to go and work somewhere else.”? This is a nonsense; it is poorly drafted legislation. 
In relation to the question of hours of work I tell members that very often in rural communities—and I understand that this Government does not understand the slightest bit about rural communities—we have to work according to the weather. In the summer there is a lot of daylight so we have to work a lot of hours because that is when our lambs are born and our crops are grown. We need flexibility with our employees to cope with that. Of course there is no employer who is ever going to say to an employee: “No I don’t want to listen to your perfectly reasonable request.” because it is not going to be good for his or her business—that is the driver. This legislation is absolutely unnecessary and National opposes it totally. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 We have heard comments about fairness from members on the other side. Basically when they are talking about fairness why on earth can they not back this bill? It is obvious that they cannot back this bill and they certainly cannot back this Supplementary Order Paper because their friends and mates in the Business Roundtable have picked up the phone and said they do not like the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill because the so-called free market operates on one premise: free for the employer but not free for the employee. 
We have heard from people on the other side of the Committee who in their heart of hearts aspire to be the lord of the manor. In the middle of the night they actually believe that workers and employees should be grateful for having a job with all this bunkum about free choice and flexibility. Even my good friend from Tauranga was disparaged as a so-called ship-jumper from the UK. Well if he did jump ship he is a far better import than all of the Opposition combined. I bet every expatriate from the United Kingdom would be proud of him in terms of his contribution to date. 
But fairness and freedom are what this Supplementary Order Paper is about. It is about being for the family and being for fairness and reasonableness. Some of us never forget that the previous Government introduced something called the Employment Contracts Act. There was no contract it was take it or leave it. It was the “Employment (Take it or Leave it) Contracts Act.” As for the notion that the 18-year-old who turns up for a job at the gas station or the petrol pump is somehow equal with the employer who may be a very wealthy individual we know that for the sham it is. 
It is interesting that they were talking about filling cake tins or whatever to go to Australia. The reason people go to Australia is for higher wages and perceived better conditions. But watch this space. We look across the Tasman and we see the Employment Contracts Act in the form of the workplace legislation which I can say as a member without interfering in the domestic affairs of Australia is now up for very very vigorous debate. I personally believe that the people of Australia will deliver their verdict on that particular industrial legislation. 
I speak as someone who has some background in a small-business family company. I am also proud to have been a member of a trade union in my life. The two are not contradictory. In fact most New Zealanders are decent good hard-working people whether they work in a business or they are trade union officials. The one thing that I really remember was the wonderful relationship my late father had with an official from the Engineers Union the late Ralph Savage. They got on well. They were two reasonable decent Kiwis who talked across the table and came to a deal. The only reason they had to talk—and I am talking in terms of the Supplementary Order Paper—was when there was a need for negotiation; where the normal sort of agreement had broken down and one moved to the next point of reasonable people talking in order to get a fair and reasonable outcome. If the two parties could not agree then one moved to arbitration and mediation. 
This is not rocket science; this is the basis of building good industrial relations in this country. But the weasel words from across the table are: “Oh we really like this but it’s too restrictive.” What they want and what the real agenda is—as one can see across the Tasman with their sister political party at the moment—is “workplace choices”. Is that the word? 
Lesley Soper 
: Yes that’s right. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: There are no choices for workers. All the choices are for the Business Roundtable and big business. In fact this is giving us the next bit of the hidden agenda which is out there. Make no bones about it that crowd opposite will be reintroducing a new version of the Employment Contracts Act. Lest we forget they will be introducing a new version and they will be winding the clock back. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak again on Part 6AA of this proposed legislation. I want to refer back to a speech addressing new Part 6AA given by the Labour trade union list member Ms Fenton. That member made the big claim on the floor of this Chamber that she is in possession of thousands of letters. I have already invited that member once to table those letters. It seems to me that she has an obligation to do so for two reasons: one to actually substantiate the claim she has made in this Committee; and two we would actually like to see them. The invitation is there. 
I am addressing comments that that member made when speaking to Part 6AA of the proposed legislation. Will she table those letters so we can read them? Apparently not. 
I ask that that member be mindful of the extravagant claim she made in this Committee tonight that she has thousands of letters. Do members think that if I invited Mr Brown to table his certificate I would have more success? Actually I would love to see Mr Brown’s certificate. I have never seen one of those before. Why does he not show it to us? 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would be delighted to bring along to this Committee my master mariner ship’s captain—not ship jumper—certificate. I obviously do not carry it around with me. I could also bring along my certificate signed by a National Minister of Immigration and if I can find it the letter of welcome stating how delighted they are to have me here and what have you. I challenge those members over there because I am a New Zealander by choice; they are New Zealanders by accident. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you Mr Brown. Although the member does not object to the references made to him other members should not make those references. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I assume Mr Chairman that your instruction was to the member who just spoke not to myself. I want to take just a moment to speak to the employers of New Zealand. Goodness knows what those good men and women must be thinking listening to the debate in this Chamber. 
 The member from—I think—Hamilton West Martin Gallagher wants to take New Zealand back 60 70 or 80 years. If members listened to what he said—and the employers out there would have been listening—they would have heard that it was consistent with the little Englander argument that has been running through this debate all night. 
When I listen to members opposite trying to justify new Part 6AA I find time and time again that the only thing they have to come back to is “They do it in England.” I thought it was 50 or 60 years ago that we stopped doing things in New Zealand just because they do them in England. 
I want to say to the employers in New Zealand that National members respect them. We do not have a dim view of the way they approach things. We on this side of the Chamber understand how important employers are to the economy and to the people who work for them. We understand that and we understand that efforts by that Government over there—and I hear one of its Ministers squawking in the far distance—will impose onerous and expensive obligations on the very men and women in this country who create the opportunity for wealth for all. 
Coming back to new Part 6AA of the bill—and being mindful of the difficulty of concentrating with that babble coming across from the other side of the Chamber—I ask members to be very clear on it. The provisions and clauses in new Part 6AA are an extension of the nanny State that is unnecessary in the lives of New Zealanders. We find in one of the clauses reference to inspectors—more inspectors. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AA(a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AA(c) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AA(d) and substitute new paragraph (d) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAA be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAB(2)(a) and substitute new paragraph (a) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAB(2)(b) and (c) and substitute new paragraph (b) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAC be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to the heading to section 69AAE be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAE(1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; United Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to section 69AAE(2) and (3) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2 Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to insert new section 69AAEA be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Agreement agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAF be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAH and substitute new section 69AAH be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of Hon Ruth Dyson to omit section 69AAI and substitute new sections 69AAI 69AAIA and 69AAIB be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Sue Kedgley to section 69AAJ be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 6A as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 6A as amended agreed to. 
Clause 7 Jurisdiction 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to subclause (1) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 148 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson to omit subclause (2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 7 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Clause 7 as amended agreed to. 
New clause 8 New section 179B inserted 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I would like to take just a brief call in relation to new clause 8 which as Supplementary Order Paper 153 in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson states inserts a new section that provides that an investigation or determination of the Employment Relations Authority cannot be “challenged appealed against reviewed quashed or called in question in any court.” I appreciate that the Minister has introduced this Supplementary Order Paper with the intention of ensuring that matters in relation to flexible working hours do not actually reach the level of the Supreme Court but my concern is really in relation to the rule of law the notion of natural justice and the precedent that this sets for an authority—a lay authority for that matter which does not have to act judicially—to unilaterally make a decision that simply cannot be challenged. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.