Volume 637 Week 36 - Wednesday 21 February 2007 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 637 Week 36 - Wednesday 21 February 2007 
[Sitting date: 21 February 2007. Volume:637;Page:7533. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 21 February 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Taito Phillip Field—Proxy Vote 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday in the House there was quite a bit of discussion about the validity of the vote cast by the junior Labour whip Darren Hughes as proxy for Phillip Field’s vote. There was a discussion about the definition of “public interest” and so on and you made a ruling that had— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No we are in the middle of a point of order—if perhaps we could just hear the completion. I remind members that points of order should be succinct not accompanied by long speeches. So I thank the member. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: You made a ruling and it seems fit today that the House tests whether that ruling actually applied in this case now that we know more facts of the circumstances surrounding the use of Phillip Field’s proxy vote. We have become aware through the media as I am sure you have yourself that yesterday Mr Field was being interviewed by the police. Your ruling stated that if the member was on public business then his proxy vote could be cast and that whether a member was on public business was entirely in the hands of the member. So we would like to ask you whether that activity which has been documented publicly does constitute public business. 
I also want to raise another point and it is to do with the way your ruling relates to the custom and practice of the House. When a whip casts a party vote the whip is in the particularly privileged position of knowing what the business of every member is because MPs apply for leave. They can be absent from the House only if they have that leave from the whip. The whip gives it to them for particular reasons. So when a whip votes on the member’s behalf the whip knows what is happening and is in the position of knowing whether the member is on public business. In the case of Mr Field of course that cannot be the case because the Labour Party had made it clear that it regards his conduct as so negative that it has thrown him out of its caucus. He does not have to apply for leave. So when the Labour whips cast his vote they cannot know what business he is on and therefore they cannot pass that test. 
So the question is whether you believe that being interviewed by the police constitutes public business and if you are not willing to answer that because your ruling is that it is up to the member then it may be fit for the member concerned to explain to the House by way of personal explanation as to whether he considers that what he was doing yesterday—being interviewed by the police—constitutes public business and therefore the casting of his vote was valid. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
: 
 With due respect I say that I think it is a rule and an understanding of this House that when members are addressed they are to be addressed by their correct names. Mr Bill English referred to me as Phillip Field. He has been in this House for a long time and knows very well that my name is Taito Phillip Field not Phillip Field. I would like to point that out to him first and foremost. 
In relation to the point of order I say that as far as I was concerned my involvement in the request made by the New Zealand Police to speak to me yesterday was public business. That was the reason for my absence yesterday. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 The Hon Bill English raised an interesting point. In fact his stance today on the back of Mr Key’s performance raises probably two points. The first point is that it would be in order Madam Speaker if you were to confirm to the House whether Gerry Brownlee has relinquished the role of shadow Leader of the House because it would appear that Mr English and Mr Key have taken that role. 
The second point is this—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Paula Bennett that I thought points of order were heard in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: They are but the member will stick to the point of order please. 
RON MARK 
: That was the first point Madam Speaker and it is a point of order. We have a right to know who the shadow Leader of the House is. 
The second point is that Mr English raised the question of whether time spent by an MP being interviewed by police in response to allegations and possible charges that may or may not be laid by the police is time spent on business. That is questionable and it needs to be clarified whether that time is actually parliamentary time or time spent on public business. I ask you Madam Speaker when you consider and deliberate to address whether the time spent by Gerry Brownlee and Nick Smith facing charges for which they were convicted—all the preceding interviews in respect of those charges—was parliamentary time whether their votes at that time should have been counted and whether they should be refunding their wages for the hours spent on that matter for which they were successfully prosecuted. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 My point is quite succinct. It is very clear that what Taito Phillip Field was up to was public business because with this Labour Government MPs former MPs and indeed Prime Ministers being interviewed by the police is almost a daily occurrence. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that member wishes to stay in the House she will make no further interjections. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I draw the attention of the House to Standing Order 156(4)(d) regarding proxy votes which states that “illness or other family cause of a personal nature” is also part of that particular issue. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the members for their comments. The first point to make is that there is no right to know on a point of order who has shadow responsibilities. That is not a matter for the Speaker. 
The matter raised about addressing members correctly is one that members will of course know and I am sure note has been taken of that point by all members. 
Mr Field may have been interviewed by the police yesterday; however as I understand it that interview did not last for 24 hours and it is not for the Speaker to inquire into how members spent their time away from the House. It is for him as a member to inform the proxy holder if he was not performing his public business if he was not attending to family business or if he was not ill. The member informed the Government whip that he could exercise the proxy in accordance with the Standing Order and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the matter. I just add however that I shall be meeting with Mr Field after question time to clarify the position. 
Personal Explanations—Interjections 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your clarification about your ejecting me from the Chamber yesterday afternoon. There are four pertinent facts. The first is that  
Hansard 
 is absolutely clear that my interjection was made during a personal explanation not a point of order. Secondly the Standing Orders make it absolutely plain that a personal explanation is different from a point of order. Thirdly there is no Speaker’s ruling that there cannot be interjections on a personal explanation; in fact I have  
Hansard 
 reports of several occasions last year when you Madam Speaker were in the Chair during a personal explanation on which interjections were made and recorded in  
Hansard 
 and absolutely no action was taken. Madam Speaker we all make mistakes and if what happened yesterday afternoon was a mistake by you I will drop the matter and move on. Alternatively you need to make a formal Speaker’s ruling so that members know what the rules of the House are with that ruling being that interjections on personal explanations in future will result in an immediate kicking out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Yes I will make a ruling tomorrow. 
Privilege—Hon Matt Robson 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Last week the House received a report from the Privileges Committee in which the Hon Matt Robson was required to tender an apology to this House and to me. None has been forthcoming to me so far. I just wondered whether one had been delivered to the Speaker’s office and what steps were being taken to ensure that it is actually obtained. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have written to Mr Robson and I am awaiting a reply. 
Questions to Ministers 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—2006 Examination Administration 
1.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received on the administration of the 2006 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) examinations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am informed that students sat 1.9 million papers marked by 1920 markers and watched over by 4000 exam supervisors and that results have been turned round faster than ever before. As with a process of this size individual issues have arisen. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has dealt with those swiftly and appropriately. I am therefore very pleased to say along with the sector that the 2006 examination season has gone smoothly and we can be proud of our examination system. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister been able to sort out yet the two cases raised in the House yesterday by Katherine Rich? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In the House yesterday Katherine Rich asked me without notice about two students whom she asserted had been receiving bad service from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. I asked her to provide me with case details but unfortunately she did not do that. However the authority has informed me that both of those students’ cases had already been fixed prior to the question being asked yesterday. If the member had a genuine concern about those students rather than attempting to run stunts like those of her leader she could have asked questions through the normal channels and she would have found that both of those cases had been dealt with appropriately. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it not disturbing that a Minister who earns over $200000 a year has not got better things to do than to arrange lame patsy questions to himself about how supposedly I have got it wrong when yesterday’s questions were based on written advice from his own officials; if his own officials have been scurrying about fixing the issues that I raised yesterday in the House how come one of the students I have spoken to has heard nothing about her inquiry except for an email that confirms she will have to wait until April-May before she gets her corrected results? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If the Opposition spokesperson on education knew anything about the NCEA she would know that all students get their final results in April which is when this student will get it. She would also know that the results are updated on the Net daily which is why students are referred to the Net. That of course is why it is important for me on my salary to clarify these issues—because people like Mrs Rich occupy positions but do not understand their portfolio. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What advice would the Minister give to schools students or parents who want to discuss aspects of NCEA results? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The advice I would give them is not to ring Opposition spokespeople like Bill English and Katherine Rich because they never understand their own portfolio. They always end up exploiting and misrepresenting the cases of individuals they always name but whose cases they never understand. People should go to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and have their case dealt with appropriately and swiftly. 
Taito Phillip Field—Ingram Inquiry Consideration of Letter to Prime Minister 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she receive a letter dated 3 August 2005 from Mr Keith Williams in relation to Taito Phillip Field and was that letter considered by the Ingram inquiry? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes that letter was received in my office. It was addressed to me and to the Minister of Immigration and was considered by the Ingram inquiry. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that Mr Phil Goff’s personal explanation yesterday to the House confirms the facts set out in that letter that along with other Ministers he met two people at Mr Field’s house in Samoa in about July 2005? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I was not here yesterday for the personal explanation and I have not been apprised of what was said in the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did she see a story published in the  
New Zealand Herald  
and appearing on Television One in September 2005 alleging that an immigrant applying for a work visa through Mr Field had done unpaid work on his house in Samoa and would she expect that Mr Goff was aware of this same story in the  
New Zealand Herald  
referring to people working on Phillip Field’s house? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is the normal practice in the course of an election campaign to read the headlines in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and if it was a headline I am sure it was read. 
Hon Bill English 
: Did Mr Goff at any stage since the publication of that story talk to her about his meeting with people at Phillip Field’s house in Samoa or is it the case that he has not raised the matter with her at all? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The particular angle that the member is pursuing has been knocked around in this House before. I understand that Mr Goff had no idea that workers somehow connected to Mr Field’s electorate practice were working on that house. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that no allegation is made on page 32 of the Ingram report—or anywhere in that report—about my having any knowledge that was inappropriate and furthermore that Mr Ingram QC described the claims made by the said Mr Williams as entirely implausible? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I accept entirely the information in the member’s question. On this side of the House I trust my colleagues; Mr English does not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the House please come to order. Does Mr Hide have a point of order or is he seeking to ask a question? 
Rodney Hide 
: I thought I might ask my one question now. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is fine. 
Rodney Hide 
: In respect of her trust in her colleagues and the Taito Phillip Field affair does she stand by her statement that Taito Phillip Field’s behaviour was “unethical” and “immoral” and given that her Government now rests on the word of her former colleague—who was not fit by her own light to be in her caucus—as to what business he is up to what does that say about her Government that she is relying on the vote of someone whom she has declared to be unethical and immoral? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I in no way resile from the statement I made. I do believe that the people of Mangere who voted for a member to support Labour policy are entitled to have that counted. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has Phil Goff ever discussed with the Prime Minister the fact that he visited Phillip Field’s house in Samoa met people who fitted— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Only a few minutes ago it was pointed out to Mr Bill English that my name is Taito Phillip Field. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is true. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: He continues to ignore what is required of him in this House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please address the member correctly. 
Hon Bill English 
: My apologies to the member. Can the Minister tell the House when if ever the Hon Phil Goff spoke to her about the fact that he had visited Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa and met people there who were doing the tiling—people who exactly met the descriptions published in several media stories in September 2000? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have been well aware from the time this matter was first raised that Mr Goff and others visited a colleague’s house. Mr Goff had no idea there was any personal connection between those people working at that house and Mr Field. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister now trying to tell the House that Mr Goff still does not know that there was some connection between the people he met and what Taito Phillip Field was up to; and would she expect that a senior Cabinet Minister having been to the house having read the stories and having been part of the discussions about the Ingram inquiry never raised the matter with her or explained his own role? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I suggest the member get his hearing checked. I have been aware from the outset that Mr Goff visited that house. I am also aware that Mr Goff is now well aware—as I am and the whole House is—of the contents of the Ingram inquiry which brought out clearly the relationship between the tiler and Mr Field. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister whether she is aware that Mr Keith Williams at the time he approached me did not disclose to me that he was illegally employing Mr Sunan Siriwan; that by his own admission Mr Williams is an unrepentant unreformed alcoholic and is a witness entirely without credibility; and that he attempted to use his letter of 3 August 2005 as a form of blackmail prior to an election? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that the member believes that to be the case. I have no independent verification that it is the case. 
Hon Bill English 
: When did the Prime Minister herself first become aware that an unusually large number of visa applications funnelled through Taito Phillip Field were being approved by the then Associate Minister of Immigration? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The numbers being approved or processed by the then Associate Minister of Immigration were not known to me until the matter started to come into the public arena and Ministers were preparing for questions on it. 
Carbon Neutrality—Road-building Programme 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How does his proposal to embark on the “biggest road-building programme this country has seen” implement the Prime Minister’s goal of being carbon neutral and what reports if any has he received on the climate change impacts of the new road-building programme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I note first of all that the member misses the end of the quotation which was that it was at least since the 19th century when clearly the largest amount of New Zealand road building occurred. Completing the Auckland roading network in particular will reduce congestion. It will also improve economic efficiency which should assist in paying for the expensive programmes that will be required to move towards the goal of carbon neutrality. Land Transport New Zealand’s funding methodology does take into account the assessment of both congestion and environmental benefits. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: So is he saying that this project simply meets the objectives of economic efficiency and does not contribute to carbon neutrality; and if he is not saying that then could he answer the question of how it contributes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I will try to repeat the answer. Firstly there will be a reduction of congestion of course. The most inefficient way of running a transport system is for motor vehicles to be sitting still going nowhere and pouring out emissions. They normally pour out more emissions sitting still than they do when they are actually moving so it is even worse when it is just a static situation. Secondly I am afraid—and the member is more than well aware of this having announced somewhat prematurely perhaps a billion dollars’ worth of tax credits for carbon neutrality—that programmes to achieve that long-term goal will be very expensive. That has to be paid for and improved economic efficiency which is what transport improvements do generate will be an important part of enabling that to happen. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister dispute the international research that shows that when new roads are built any gains made by freeing up congestion are more than lost by the increased number of cars that travel on those new roads—in other words net greenhouse gas emissions increase even though emissions per car may decrease? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That may well be true in some circumstances but of course there are a range of other measures as well. A good part of the road-building programme is also related to improving the safety of roads. The saving of lives is a major gain in economic efficiency as well as to social outcomes and that will also contribute to the future. 
Shane Jones 
: How much has Government spending on public transport increased during the member’s time as Minister of Finance? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Proportionately it is far more than the increase in spending on roading. In 1999-2000 Government funding for public transport was $45 million. Public transport funding for 2006-07 is estimated to be $437 million nearly a tenfold increase. This level of increase is unprecedented at any time in our history. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How much longer will the Government continue to say in response to those who question its love affair with motorways that it has spent a lot more on public transport than was being spent when it came to this Parliament recognising that at that stage the Government was led by climate change deniers anyway; and when will he accept that increasing almost nothing to very little even if it is a sixfold increase will not meet the Prime Minister’s goal inside a century? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Those who wish to tread lightly upon the Earth might regard the statement that $437 million is a trivial amount as a somewhat broad approach to the problems of Government financing. We will continue to say that we are increasing the level of public transport spending faster than that of roading spending as long as it is true—and as long as I am the Minister of Finance it is likely to be true. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister be categorical and give this House an assurance that this Government will not renege on its road-building programme no matter what pressure the Greens exert? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Certainly that is the intention. We look forward to working with other parties in the House to ensure that we complete the Auckland roading network. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How can the Minister say that this new roading programme is mainly about safety as he said yesterday when he talked about shoulders on roads passing facilities and so forth when four of the five projects that he has so far announced will be funded in this way are entirely new large roads or motorways not safety upgrades of existing roads; can he also tell us how many passengers have died on trains in the last year? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware of any passengers having died on trains though some may have done so through the long wait on not very long journeys. As far as I am aware the deaths were all of natural causes not of unnatural causes. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
4.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that two guards have been suspended from Christchurch men’s prison for smuggling contraband and what further investigations are being conducted into allegations that recruits are too inexperienced to handle prisoners searches are not conducted properly and guards are fearful of identifying corruption? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that two guards have been suspended and a small number are under investigation. We are boosting the training for all incoming prison officers and providing support for anyone—be that person a prison officer a probation officer or a member of the general public—who has information about any illegal activity taking place in our prisons. 
Simon Power 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s assertion that corruption is not widespread in the prison system following the statement in this morning’s Christchurch  
Press 
 made by a Christchurch prison guard who said: “It’s just so corrupt. It’s happening everywhere.”? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes I do agree with the Prime Minister. It is not rife. It is all very well for an individual to make claims. It is more difficult to substantiate those and we welcome any information that anyone might have to assist us with our inquiries. 
Simon Power 
: Is the Minister concerned that corruption amongst prison staff and management could be widespread further than Christchurch Prison and Rimutaka Prison given that earlier in the week he stated that it was only at Rimutaka; if so what action is he taking to ensure that all other prisons in New Zealand are subject to a similar review and are also not rife with contraband and corruption? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: It is a sad reality that contraband gets into every one of our prisons. It comes into them in a number of different ways. We have a large number of prisoners—over 7000—who spend too much of their time devising ways to bring it in. The vast majority of contraband coming into our prisons comes in through visitors and we are working to toughen up in that area. 
Simon Power 
: How does he reconcile the statement he made yesterday that the Department of Corrections Chief Executive Barry Matthews is “an exceptional chief executive” in agreement with the Prime Minister’s assessment of Mr Matthews with reports of corruption at Christchurch men’s prison Rimutaka Prison and the failings of the probation service in not recalling Graeme Burton on 5 December—as it could have done under the provisions of the Parole Act—when it was first made aware of his breaches of parole on that date and not 2 weeks later? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There are currently a number of investigations under way relating to the Burton situation. I will not comment on those until those reports are out. Barry Matthews is an exceptional chief executive working in a very difficult area of social responsibility. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Over the roaring coming from the other side of the House I have not heard whether you have called me. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I call the Hon Phil Goff. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In respect of his comments about stopping contraband coming into prisons can he confirm that the drug testing currently being carried out shows that the level of drugs present in prison is the lowest it has ever been since the testing began and that the level of testing shows half the amount of drug taking that occurred when National was in Government? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I just happen to have those figures. In 1998 when the previous National Government was in charge of prisons 34 percent of inmates in our prisons were identified drug users. We have that figure down to below 15 percent now. 
Simon Power 
: How can the public have faith in the ability of the Department of Corrections to conduct an independent investigation into any issue regarding corruption and other matters when in respect of the release of convicted murderer Graeme Burton Barry Matthews—an exceptional chief executive according to the Minister and the Prime Minister—has already stated in the media that the investigation will clear the department of any wrongdoing when the report has yet to be released? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I suggest that member waits to see the results of that inquiry. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the member confirm that one of the biggest cultural differences to do with prisons is—and this is not taking away from the problem of contraband coming in—that in the last 10 years escapes have reduced by 80 percent so instead of people hopping out to get their contraband as they did under the National Government there is a little bit of a problem with people bringing it in? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am happy to confirm that by any international standard our prison system is doing well. It has lower suicide rates it has severely reduced the number of escapes and the number of identified drug users in the system is half that of when the National Government was in charge of prisons. 
Simon Power 
: Why would anybody in an environment with LCD flat-screen TVs along with such things as under-floor heating and PlayStations want to leave or escape from a New Zealand prison? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As usual that member gets it wrong. Prison is not a pleasant place for any sensible New Zealander and I would suggest that that member encourage as many New Zealanders as possible to stop breaking the law so they do not end up there. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Minister recall that under the National Government the only security around Manawatu Prison which is close to Mr Power’s electorate was a 6-wire farm fence and people used to hand contraband through the open windows? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Can I say that since we have come into Government we have built 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing around the prisons in this country to provide better security because that previous Government had ignored the issue. 
Maternity Services—Improvements 
5.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he consider that the granting of extra funds for primary maternity services is all that is needed to ensure a nationally consistent service; if not what else is his ministry doing to improve maternity services? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I would like to thank the member for her continuing interest in maternity care. The additional $11.4 million announced in early February will greatly assist retention of the primary maternity workforce. Doctors and midwives have been supportive of the funding increase. Funding is only part of the story and they have especially welcomed being involved in developing even better services for pregnant women by improving connections between services for them. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Does the Minister consider it likely that his call for “primary providers to continue to develop integration between services and professional groups so as to maximise services to women” will be acted upon without more leadership from his ministry than is currently being displayed? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: This Government is supportive of the cooperation between doctors midwives district health boards and the ministry that was signalled by the parties involved after the announcement on 2 February. 
Lesley Soper 
: Does he know of any other initiatives that will support the provision of better maternity services for New Zealand women? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes there are more initiatives. Just this month a pilot midwifery entry to practice programme has been rolled out. Over the next 2 years a total of $4.7 million has been allocated to pilot a programme aimed at supporting new graduate midwives in December 2005 the Government injected $18.4 million into primary maternity services across the country and late in 2006 the Government announced a $2 million fund for rural midwives. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Has the Minister’s Ministry of Health considered bringing midwives into primary health organisations to have them work with general practitioners in order to provide a more consistent service; if not why not? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I believe that this has been discussed between the parties and we welcome progress in this matter. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Number of Recipients 
6.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 free hours of early childhood education from July this year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 From 1 July this year Labour’s 20 hours’ free policy will be available to up to 92000 3 and 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister explain to parents how this Government’s position has slithered from the Cabinet objective of “no fees for 3 and 4-year-olds up to 20 hours a week” to access for only some 3 and 4-year-olds: if their parents can enrol them in a centre if the centre offers the service and if the service is available in their area at all—a long way from the campaign slogan used at the election? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The statement at the last election was that from 1 July 2007 Labour’s 20 hours’ free policy would be available to up to 92000 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres and nothing has changed since then. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any reports as to how many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 free hours of early childhood education under a National Government? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The answer is none. The National Party’s policy as set out on its website is to scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister sees reports; he cannot comment on the actual policy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The reports say that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes the reports say that. The report from the National Party website says that it would scrap the 20 hours’ free policy. So no children at all would get access to the policy despite the fact that the early childhood sector through agencies such as the Waikato Free Kindergarten Association have described it as a wonderful initiative by the Government. It was therefore surprising to hear last week Opposition spokesperson Paula Bennett complain that thousands of children will miss out. They will miss out only if there is a National Government. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that the figure of 92000 was derived from the numbers of 3 and 4-year-olds who currently attend some early childhood education service but that only 82.8 percent of decile 1 children who enter school have had any early childhood education experience and that only 94 percent of children overall have done so—leading to the conclusion that even if some for-profit centres reject the 20 free hours policy participation increases in the non-participant sector could more than compensate for that negative? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is right. The 92000 figure comes from the current enrolment of 3 and 4-year-olds who will be there on the date of 1 July. What we are looking forward to—as a part of an overall strategy of course—is that as the strategy rolls out towards its completion in 2012 we will get 100 percent of enrolment in those centres. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that chipping at each other with comments across the Chamber does not lead to good order in the House. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Minister has confirmed that this service will not be available to all 3 and 4-year-olds—as the Prime Minister has actually said herself—how come ministry officials came before our select committee this morning and said they have no idea of how many centres will take up the scheme no idea of how many children will be able to enjoy 20 free hours and no idea of what parents can expect from the scheme; is he not worried about that given that the policy is to roll out in only 5 months’ time? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government has consistently said that up to 92000 young people will be eligible for this policy on 1 July. As to the second series of questions I say the ministry said no such thing. This member is now establishing for herself a good record of being totally misleading and inaccurate. What parents can expect on 1 July is to begin to access 20 hours’ free early childhood education as the policy promises. 
Katherine Rich 
: When Helen Clark said herself: “We will see 3 and 4-year-old children in our licensed teacher-led early childhood centres being funded for 20 hours’ free education a week.” does the Minister agree that most parents took that to mean all 3 and 4-year-olds not just a lucky few; will the Minister finally confirm to parents who had an expectation as a result of the last election that they would have access to it that it is nothing more than a campaign slogan? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Prime Minister was absolutely right; 3 and 4-year-olds will be able to access 20 hours’ free education from 1 July. That is exactly what will happen. This is not a slogan like the National Party’s slogans; this is substantial policy. The member I know does not know education policy herself and neither does her associate but I am sure parents do and will appreciate the policy. 
Paula Bennett 
: Is 20 free hours simple as the Minister told parents on 24 January or not easy as he told parents on 18 February and will he finally have reached impossible by 1 July? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I say in answer to that multi-choice question which must have stretched the member I am sure that on 1 July 3 to 4-year-olds in teacher-led centres—92000 of them potentially—will begin to have access to this policy. That is what will happen. 
Paula Bennett 
: When will the Minister admit that the slogan “20 free hours” might have sounded good around a Labour Party election table but is actually a cruel hoax to parents as it is obvious that the Government cannot deliver on its promise with regard to all 3 and 4-year-olds come 1 July? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am going to go on talking to parents and the early childhood sector about this hugely popular policy which will be rolled out from 1 July this year. I will also talk to them about the fact that the National Party would scrap that hugely popular policy. 
Agricultural Exports—Trade Barriers 
7.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What progress has been made this year in reducing barriers for New Zealand’s key agricultural exports? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 Good progress has been made in a number of areas. The meeting I attended in Davos in January has helped to breathe life back into the World Trade Organization (WTO) process though no breakthroughs have yet been achieved. Further progress has been made in the latest—the 10th—round of the New Zealand - Chinese free-trade negotiations. We have just learnt that following discussions I had with the Egyptian Minister of Trade in December Egypt has reduced or eliminated tariffs on our key exports to that country. 
Dianne Yates 
: What changes were signalled at Davos to give greater optimism that the WTO talks will now move forward? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Firstly at Davos I think an important formal signal was given by the Director General Pascal Lamy that formal negotiations would resume after being suspended in July. But I think the most important thing that happened was that the European Union and the United States had re-entered into serious negotiations to overcome the differences between them that had led to the suspension in July. It is important now that these talks are broadened that they are brought back into the multilateral process and that it happens quickly because the time frame necessary for the conclusion of the WTO round this year is a very narrow one. [ 
Interruption 
] And if Gerry has a question he should actually stand up and ask one rather than yelling it from his seat. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Does the Minister agree that Egypt’s recent reduction in tariff rates on New Zealand’s agricultural exports is yet another example of the great start to the Export Year 2007 agreement reached between New Zealand First and the Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do agree with the member and I thank New Zealand First for the initiative and support for Export Year this year. What is really important is that Egypt had negotiated a free-trade agreement with the European Union that competes directly with us on our key agricultural exports. That had largely removed the tariff barriers. When I met with Minister Rashid in December I pointed out that that left us at a competitive disadvantage. He agreed to respond positively to our representations and he has now delivered—eliminating tariffs on milk-powder and sheepmeats and reducing to 2 percent the tariffs on butter and cheese. That is great progress. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to indicate to the House that the Government is prepared to allow an additional supplementary question on this particular topic from Dr Worth if he can explain how when he was riding a camel instead of— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please would the member be seated. That is not a point of order. 
Sickness Benefit—Registered Job Seekers 
8.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How many sickness beneficiaries are also registered job seekers? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that as at December 2006 the number of Work and Income clients receiving a sickness benefit and also formally registered as job seekers was 4910. As at the same time December last year 2873 Work and Income clients receiving invalids benefit were also formally registered as job seekers. It is important for the House to be aware that clients on a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit do not have to register formally as job seekers to take advantage of work support under the new service approach. I am further advised that since June 2006 18564 sickness or invalids benefit clients have participated in the new service approach. 
Judith Collins 
: How many working-age adults registered as sickness beneficiaries could be working? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I can inform the member as I have on previous occasions that in the last 7 years well over 100000 people have left the unemployment benefit. [ 
Interruption 
] If the member will let me finish I will do so. Of those people just 8.5 percent have transferred to the sickness benefit. I am happy to repeat for the member’s benefit those extraordinary numbers I gave in my answer to the primary question. I am very proud of the professional and dedicated efforts of Work and Income people whose entire focus is on placing New Zealanders into real work for real wages. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister did not address the question which asked how many working-age adults on the sickness benefit could be working. He has talked about the unemployment benefit but that was not the question. He did not address it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. He related his answer to the primary point of the question. 
Darien Fenton 
: How does New Zealand’s reduction in benefit numbers compare with rates in Australia and the UK? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to inform the House that between 2000 and 2005 the United Kingdom has had a net reduction of 6.4 percent of people in receipt of an unemployment benefit or of some form of incapacity benefit. Australia has in the same area achieved a 0.8 percent reduction. Over the same period New Zealand I am delighted to inform members has had a 25.8 percent reduction. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Say that again. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: 25.8 percent. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The primary question was about sickness beneficiaries. I do not know how it is that the Minister is able to get away with those sorts of supplementary questions and answers. They have nothing to do with sickness beneficiaries; they focus simply on the issues the Minister wishes to promote. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I listened carefully and the Minister did address incapacity in those figures as well. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware that there has been an increase in the proportion of Maori in receipt of the sickness benefit in the past 6 years; if so what conclusions does he think can be drawn from the corresponding decrease in the proportion of Maori in the unemployment statistics over that period? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The important factors in that observation are found when we look at the respective trend lines for the various parts of the population. I am sure the member is as pleased as I am that Maori unemployment has more than halved during the period of this Government. That is not to say it is not an important focus for my colleagues and me and for the efforts of Work and Income. 
Judith Collins 
: When the Minister stated last year that one in five sickness beneficiaries or 20 percent are capable of undertaking paid work what numbers was he relying on then and where did he get them from? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am pleased to confirm that the latest advice I have received is that the new service approach shows that 24.9 percent of clients who indicate that they should qualify for a non-work-tested benefit have indicated that they are willing to work immediately be it part-time or full-time. I should also share with the member the fact that in December 2006 11 percent of sickness benefit clients approximately 5300 declared earnings and 15 percent of invalids benefit clients approximately 11500 declared earnings. 
Judith Collins 
: Why are only 11 percent of sickness beneficiaries seeking work when the Minister confirmed today in the House that at least 24.9 percent—in other words 25 percent—are capable of undertaking paid work; why is there such a difference? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I refer the member to the detail of my primary answer. It makes it quite clear how successful Work and Income is in achieving those results. 
Judith Collins 
: What evaluations have been done on the initiatives taken to get sickness beneficiaries into work and when will the Minister make those initiatives public? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The member will recall that Mr Hughes the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development told her and the other members of the select committee that those evaluations were nearly complete that they had yet to come to my desk and that they would be made public when I had seen them. I have not yet received that report. 
Buildings—Sustainability 
9.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: What reports has he received on improving the sustainability of buildings? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports commending the Government on its leadership in this area. A recent example of this leadership is the new Department of Conservation head office building in Wellington. This building is New Zealand’s first fully refurbished equivalent five-star eco-sustainable building in the country and it is an example to building owners and developers of what can be achieved to retrofit existing buildings to a sustainable level. The new building uses 40 percent less power than a conventional building and uses 60 percent less water through technologies such as water recycling heat pump systems wind generation an improved use of natural light and automated lighting systems chilled beam air conditioning and automatic opening windows. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What other initiatives are under way to improve the energy efficiency of buildings? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The Government has a number of initiatives under way to improve the energy efficiency of buildings. These initiatives represent the most significant energy efficiency reforms for buildings since the introduction of compulsory thermal insulation in new homes in 1977. Current proposals for new houses include higher levels of insulation of walls ceilings floors and double-glazed windows which will save homeowners up to 30 percent of their current energy bills. For commercial buildings both existing and new proposals include improved lighting heating ventilation and air conditioning systems which will save building owners up to 30 percent of their current energy bills. Homeowners and building owners will also benefit from investment in energy efficiency through the higher capital value of their home or building if and when they come to sell. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by the Registered Master Builders Federation in the  
Weekend Herald 
 accompanied by a picture of a house buried in red tape that it now costs $30000 more in compliance costs these days for an average house and with the comment that it was now a standard joke amongst builders that it takes longer to get a consent for a house than it does to build it; and with those sorts of statements is it any wonder that homeownership rates have plummeted under his Government? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: No I do not. But I do agree with Mr Burghout when he was reported in the Christchurch  
Press 
 of 5 October 2006 in regard to energy efficiency polices as saying that the Registered Master Builders Federation backed the initiative as New Zealand had traditionally lagged behind Australia in sustainable building. 
Pita Paraone 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Is the Minister confident that those people suffering from the effects of leaky homes are having their problems dealt with adequately and as part of that solution that the problems will be addressed in a manner that will meet the issues discussed in the primary question? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes. 
Drugs—Benzylpiperazine (BZP) Regulation 
10.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: When will he put his recommendations on the regulation of BZP pills before Cabinet and does he believe that this timeline is satisfactory given that people like Ben Rodden continue to suffer life-threatening reactions after taking BZP pills? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The consultation process on the possible classification of benzylpiperazine and related substances closes on 23 March. I expect to put my recommendations on any further regulation of benzylpiperazine before Cabinet no later than May. That time frame is based on legal advice and natural justice requirements that if not followed would inevitably lead to legal challenge in regard to the administered decision-making process that was followed. I am of course concerned about Ben Rodden—I am meeting with his parents in my electorate office this weekend. But it is precisely life-threatening situations like the one he is in that I was warning New Zealanders about in December when I made public the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that it has assessed benzylpiperazine as having a moderate level of harm which included the possibility of seizures. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Given the Minister’s delays in announcing a ban and progressing it to Cabinet is he worried that in the meantime manufacturers are developing and marketing further psychoactive drugs that he admits he knows nothing about? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I admit no such thing nor have I done so. I am fully aware that an industry that makes $30 million a year by selling substances that many of the people who buy have no idea exactly what is in them will resist any attempt to stop it making that $30 million a year. This Government has an evidence-based and led system of drug regulation. I am bound by law—not that the member seems to notice that—to follow due process. That is exactly what I am doing and it is the fastest way to get a result. If we followed the member’s advice we would be in difficulty for years because we had not followed due process. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on party pills other than the report from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have seen many reports some of which are in relation to the concern of the member for Otago about the potential harm to young people. In some reports she wants the pills to be regulated and in some she wants them to be banned—I am not sure which is which. But when the member was given the opportunity to make a difference with regard to the most debilitating drug in this country for young people—alcohol—she voted against raising the purchase age of drink to 20 years. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister beyond 23 March be asking for an assessment of the health consequences of benzylpiperazine including having more strictly controlled and regulated party pills with the dosage and ingredients clearly marked and labelled versus an outright ban on benzylpiperazine; if so what does he expect the result of that assessment to be; if not will he undertake such a comparative assessment? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The increased regulations around benzylpiperazine or so-called party pills—for example no sale to those aged under 18 and no electronic or print media advertising—are a result of recommendations that I took to my Cabinet colleagues and to this House. The proposal for further regulation comes as a result of the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to me. After four research programmes that this Government commissioned—and no other research programmes were available anywhere in the world—the committee indicated that in its opinion there are inherently serious and adverse effects from the use of benzylpiperazine-based party pills. That is what the consultation process which I am bound by statute to follow is now about. As soon as the results of that consultation come before me I will be asking officials for advice on that consultation and reporting to my Cabinet colleagues and to this House taking the most expeditious route that I can possibly manage to take. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why is the Minister refusing to act swiftly given that this Government managed to pass retrospective legislation to validate election spending within 24 hours; when will he follow through on his promise to tighten up the controls on benzylpiperazine pills? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I certainly would not have followed the practice of the National Party which took years not to reclassify methamphetamine. This Government did that in very quick order. We are following the fastest process that we can under the law. The member of course has no experience in executive government and therefore clearly does not understand the processes that we have to follow. Hopefully she will never get such experience so this Government can continue to do the right thing. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr John Fountain and Dr Paul Gee of Christchurch Hospital who question whether it is necessary “to await an outcome such as severe illness neurological damage or death before risk of harm is established”; if so why is he allowing the sale and use of benzylpiperazine pills to continue? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Because in New Zealand we follow a rule-of-law process. But the member might like to reflect on this fact. Cigarettes kill 4700 people a year in New Zealand. I am awaiting a submission from the member to say that this Government should ban cigarettes tomorrow but she keeps talking about benzylpiperazine. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How can the Minister reassure young people that when they are taking legal benzylpiperazine pills they are not also inadvertently taking illicit substances with them such as methylenedioxy-methyl amphetamine or Ecstasy; what does he plan to do about this new and potentially dangerous development in the drug scene? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Firstly when asking an old conservative on drugs like me what people should do about drugs the answer is: “Don’t take them.” and I say that often. The best use of benzylpiperazine or any other drug is no use at all. But the member may be surprised to know that the manufacture sale or promulgation of drugs like Ecstasy is illegal. It is a class B1 drug. People end up in prison for a very long time. Whether people call something benzylpiperazine a party pill or a herbal high will not protect them from the law if they deal in illicit drugs. 
Jacqui Dean 
: When is the Minister going to stop wasting time by attacking this member and start attacking the real issue of the growing drug culture in New Zealand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I will stop right now by not answering silly questions like that. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an article from the  
New Zealand Medical Journal  
dated February 2007 and showing that party pills have not had a major impact on the overdose database of Auckland City Hospital as compared with alcohol which is responsible for more than half the admissions for overdoses. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: In addition I seek leave to table a Ministry of Health report prepared for the Minister and released under the Official Information Act which shows that natural justice is needed to make sure that all stakeholders are consulted on any decision to ban these drugs and that the long-term effects of a ban may well lead to young people increasing their use of alcohol tobacco and illegal substances. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Landcorp Properties 
11.  
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What did he mean when he said that “the Crown’s policy is that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlements.” and in what situations would Landcorp property be available? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Such property is generally not available for use in settlements because the Crown prioritises the use of other assets in settlements including those held in the Office of Treaty Settlements land bank specifically for use in Treaty settlements and of course Crown forest land. As to the second leg of the member’s question generally the Crown would look to the possible use of such property where existing holdings were insufficient to provide adequate or appropriate redress. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Where is the justice in the people who have lost 10000 hectares being told they can buy back their land when the 10-hectare block being offered for sale by Landcorp is worth $4 million and how would the Crown suggest the remaining 9990 hectares be purchased when it has offered a total compensation package to Ngati Kahu of only $8 million? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would not suggest anything to Ngati Kahu in the course of the debate in this House or through question time but I would suggest that the duly mandated negotiators rejoin the Crown and continue negotiation. That is the place to engage in negotiation. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What impact will the proposed sale by Landcorp of the Ngatea and Whenuakite properties have on iwi in the Hauraki region particularly in light of the findings of Judge Wainwright on 9 February 2007 that NgatiHei’s claims were generally well founded and that the Native Land Acts ultimately resulted in the tribe’s virtual landlessness? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I would suggest to Hauraki that it would be good to move forward to get into negotiation; of course they are currently not in negotiation. I can say to the member that the Crown already has significant assets available with which to enter into a negotiation process and potentially to use in redress. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What downside to the Crown would there be were the Crown to make Landcorp properties generally available for use in Treaty settlements and would not a change in policy be consistent with the Prime Minister’s statement in the House last week that reconciliation between Crown and Maori matters? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: If the member were to look at the difference between the legal framework around properties held by State-owned enterprises and other Crown-owned properties he would see there would be complications arising from his suggestion. What is more there is already in place a protection in section 27B of the State-Owned Enterprises Act that enables under appropriate circumstances such property to be used as redress. 
Hone Harawira 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Is the Minister aware that as with the foreshore and seabed all those lands in the Rangiputa Station are still Maori customary land and belong to Te Whanau Moana and Te Rorohurihapu; and why are the people of Ngati Kahu being asked to pay market rates for land that the Waitangi Tribunal found the Crown does not hold proven title to? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: As I indicated to the member in an earlier response Ngati Kahu have mandated negotiators. The place to negotiate is face to face with the Crown and those mandated negotiators and not by proxy by non-mandated persons in this House. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I seek leave to table the directions of the acting chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal Judge Carrie Wainwright dated 9 February 2007 which stated that NgatiHei’s claims were well founded and that the Native Land Acts ultimately resulted in the tribe’s virtual landlessness. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would just like to point out that I am Ngati Kahu myself and as the elected representative of Te Tai Tokerau I am the mandated speaker in this House for the people of Ngati Kahu. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not a point of order. 
Problem-gambling Service Providers—Reports 
12.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received regarding problem-gambling service providers since his statement of 24 October 2006 that he hoped “to have a report by the end of next week” and will he be making those reports public? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 On 3 November 2006 I received an interim report on 12 providers identified as being high-risk and I am expecting a final report on these providers by 2 March. The Ministry of Health has also been undertaking routine audits of problem-gambling service providers and I am expecting a report on 7 March. The results of these audits will be made publicly available. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What is the Minister doing about problem-gambling service provider contracts worth hundreds of thousands of dollars when the Minister and his officials have seen reports showing that providers are falling well short of contracted levels; or is he just waiting for the best time to dump those potentially embarrassing reports in the hope they will go unnoticed? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Far from it. Three providers will have their contracts terminated four providers have had their funding reduced all nine remaining providers are being monitored on a monthly basis and we are currently negotiating some repayments. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement that if these people are not able to meet the targets then they will be required to give money back; if so what money has he received back if any? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not sure whether that member is deaf. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Correct me if I am wrong but I think I just heard a member standing to ask a question and being subject to consistently loud interjections from Mr Trevor Mallard while that question was being asked. Yesterday in dubious circumstances you threw out one of National’s members who had interjected on a personal explanation although that is allowed under the Standing Orders. You took no action in this case when what the member did is absolutely not allowed. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: One of the bases of questions is that there are questions and answers that members listen to the answers that they are intelligent enough to take on board what is said and that they adjust their supplementary questions accordingly. This member seems incapable of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further comment. I have asked members to moderate their interjections. If there are several it does lead to disorder in the House. I would ask the Minister to address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That does not address the matter that was raised with you. I would suggest to you that in any reasonable circumstance you would conclude that Mr Mallard worsened the situation by his extremely pompous and arrogant non - point of order which you appear to have accepted. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member did not raise the point of order; Mr English raised the point of order and it was a perfectly valid point of order. The point Mr Mallard was making was a perfectly fair one. When members get up and ask a question that actually asks the Minister to say what he had just said—which is exactly what she did—then they do invite a certain degree of ribald comment from this side of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have asked members to moderate their interjections. I think particularly members on both sides of the House who sit near the Speaker do in fact persistently make interjections. They are loud and unfortunately they are probably heard more than other interjections. I would also note that in relation to Mr English’s point of order I am to rule tomorrow on personal explanations and I would just ask all members to note that the Standing Orders do not allow interjections on anything in fact. Would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: For the second time we are currently negotiating repayment with some of those providers. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What action will he be taking in regard to contracts with district health boards when targets are not being met—with the Waitemata District Health Board for example receiving $172200 to treat 13 problem gamblers at a cost of $13246.15 per user? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I will go through those answers once again. Three providers will have their contracts terminated. Four providers will have their funding reduced. All the remaining nine will be monitored on a monthly basis. Some will have to repay money to the ministry—that is what we are negotiating. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Will the Minister ever release the reports he has received on problem-gambling service providers; if he will when—or is he worried they will highlight his incompetence? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No and yes. 
General Debate 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members please keep the noise level down. It is very difficult for members and the Speaker to hear while there are such interjections. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will take the call even though the National Party is down to take it. Obviously it was not organised enough to take the call. We have been watching over the last— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry if that was the case. As I said it is very difficult to hear when members are guffawing in the House. Do you want the call Mr Brownlee? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I want to make a point of order Madam Speaker. We received the new roster and were told that it does not kick in until next week. Until then we are still on the old roster which means that the Labour Party should start the general debate today. We have obliged by allowing that sort of thing to happen and if you want to declare that the general debate is now a free-for-all whereby the first on his or her feet gets to speak then we are happy to oblige that as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry. According to the schedule I have it is National that has the call. I looked to see who rose for the call and I responded to that person. I am happy to give the call to National in accordance with what should have happened but if members do not call—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Brownlee would you please sit down. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Certainly Madam Speaker because you asked me—as opposed to your assistants over there. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am really tired of your constant interjections and references to the Chair. I am sorry Mr Brownlee. I was on my feet. I was attempting to clarify the position for you and you were constantly interjecting while I was doing so. 
Gerry Brownlee withdrew from the Chamber. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Today in the general debate the order is that National leads. I apologise that I did not hear the member call but I did see the Hon Phil Goff rise. That is why I called him. But the member is right; we are on the old agenda until tomorrow. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. This now leaves us with something of a dilemma when one considers the decision you made last week in this Chamber. You pointed out despite my leader Winston Peters’ objection that you had taken a call—that you had awarded a member the call—and that under the Standing Orders you could not change that call. Mr Peters despite his objections had to sit down and accept it disgruntled as he was. Now you have taken a complete reversal. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on that. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Last week politics in this country witnessed one of the most tragic things that I think we could ever witness. We saw a Prime Minister who has for 18 months been prepared to tolerate behaviour from one of her members of Parliament that in my view was disgusting. She is the Prime Minister who would never have tolerated that behaviour from other Ministers in the past. When a Minister was caught drink-driving she was gone that day. When two Ministers were caught not even knowing at what address their house was they were both gone—Phillida Bunkle and Marian Hobbs were gone by lunchtime. When Lianne Dalziel was caught lying she was gone. When Dover Samuels had even an accusation made about him he was gone. What was the difference? In every one of those cases Helen Clark could afford just to boot them out and show she was in charge because they were not her majority. 
But then along came Taito Phillip Field and he was this Government’s majority. So what did Helen Clark do? When all of the revelations started emerging about 18 months ago she said Mr Field had done nothing wrong. Members should listen to this quote from the  
New Zealand Herald  
of 14 September 2005 as it is a purler: “I think the only thing he is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.” Yeah right! None of the things Mr Field had done had accumulated on him; it was just from 18 July when the Ingram report was released that things began to change. 
Members should remember this quote because I know they will forget some of this. Here is a heading from the  
New Zealand Herald  
dated 22 September: “Field inquiry gets nine days to complete report”. The Prime Minister wanted a real whitewash; she wanted a cracker of a whitewash. Instead of giving Noel Ingram a reasonable period she gave him 9 days to investigate a very complex matter. 
Well as we all know Noel Ingram did not take 9 days; he took 9 months to report. But he still had all sorts of limits put on him. He was not given the powers to call witnesses and to interrogate in a proper fashion. He came up with what I think is a partial whitewash. But how did Helen Clark respond to that? Helen Clark stated: “While the report does not find wrongdoing by Mr Field it does imply errors of judgment.” She said Mr Field had some matters to work through with the Labour leadership and the Labour whips and Michael Cullen stated: “But he works incredibly hard on behalf of his constituents. He has people coming to him from all over Auckland for assistance”—I bet he did! I bet he had people coming from all over Auckland for the sort of assistance he was offering—“not just in immigration cases but in many other cases.” I think we should start to inquire into some of those “other cases” as well. Dr Cullen stated: “He works harder on those matters than I suspect the entire National Party …”. I have to say that if it comes to using constituents to tile one’s house for almost subsistence level pay—if not for no pay at all—I agree that he does more of that than does the entire National Party. There is no doubt about it. Michael Cullen said in the urgent debate that he suspected that Mr Field was guilty only of working hard for his constituents. 
But then things started to change. It was not that Taito Phillip Field had done anything more or less or anything bad; we are still working with stuff he had done. But last Tuesday when Helen Clark gave her major speech to the House Taito Phillip Field somehow cut across it and somehow rained on her parade. It was not a problem that he had been corrupt had been doing things with constituents that were just unconscionable had not been paying minimum wages or had been doing all of the other things that Labour goes on and on about. All of that was all right. Helen Clark had excused all of that over and over again for 18 months. But then he did the unconscionable thing. He cut across her parade last Tuesday—and he was gone by lunchtime. “I am not having that” she said. In fact she actually stated: “You cannot have a situation where someone appears in the media cutting across my statement to Parliament as Prime Minister …”. There we go—it does not matter whether one is a crook one is corrupt or one is whatever else one is but one does not cut across her statement as Prime Minister. 
It gets better. On 13 February after all that had happened she stated: “I’ve made it clear for quite a long time that the behaviour was unacceptable”— 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 There goes an absolute lesson in double standards. Is this really Maurice Williamson a Minister in the previous National Government that was kept alive by the vote of Alamein Kopu who was elected as an Alliance member of Parliament? She voted for National to keep it in power—National desperate to hold on in the dying days of that administration and now— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: She didn’t break the law. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: She did not break the law but what about the situation in the previous term of this Labour-led Government? There was the National Party being supported consistently by Donna Awatere-Huata. When did the National Party step aside and say that it did not want Donna Awatere-Huata’s vote? Of course it never did. Double standards and hypocrisy—that is what we have been hearing. 
More than that we saw at the start of this debate the absolute disarray and confusion in the National Party whose members did not even understand they were to lead the debate—but then we saw something even more interesting. The man who stormed out of this Chamber abusing the Speaker was the demoted leader aspirant Gerry Brownlee bitter and frustrated about his leadership loss. 
I have been watching the body language along the front row of the Opposition benches and I have been watching Bill English—the loyal deputy. Bill English is the man John Key went to see that evening in 2003. John Key went to Bill English’s home sat in Bill’s lounge with Bill and his wife and said that he was for Bill and would vote for him in the leadership caucus the next day. Then at their next meeting John Key went back on his word and voted against Bill English. He double-crossed and betrayed him and there on Bill English’s face we can see the desire for revenge. That man the deputy leader is waiting for the first chance he can get for John Key to slip—and the hand will not be a hand to help John Key up; it will be a hand to give him the finishing coup de grãce. That is what we will see in the National Party. And then there is Nick Smith. He was the deputy leader of the National Party—for 2 weeks. 
But I want to raise some other questions of credibility about the National Party. I recommend that National members who have not read  
The Hollow Men  
should read it carefully because I want to talk about lack of credibility in leadership. I see in the appendix of this book an email to Mr John Key from the leader of the Exclusive Brethren telling John Key that he would spend a million dollars to support the National Party through the party vote. Was that the same John Key who 2 months later stated that he knew nothing about the Exclusive Brethren after meeting them? Every National MP—Maurice Williamson was one—said they did not know what the Exclusive Brethren were about to do but this book shows quite conclusively that National caucus MPs were shown the pamphlets attacking the Greens. Lies were said in that election campaign I say to Mr Williamson and denials were made that were untrue. That National Party has no credibility. 
But here is another great quote from this book—let me read it directly from the book. The National Party was doing very badly so it employed a guy called Peter Keenan. Peter Keenan said that National members had to improve—that everybody had to go to “presentation skills courses” so they could pull off “sincerity”. He said: “The secret of success is sincerity and conviction.” and “Once you can fake that you have got it made.” Is that what John Key’s taking little Aroha Ireland up to Waitangi was about? Is that what the concern about the disadvantaged in my electorate was about? It was about faking sincerity. 
I say to National members that if they are really sincere about low-income folk in this country how about they support a regular increase in the minimum wage—which this Government has given and which the previous National Government never did. How about them backing off from what Bill English said about decile 1 schools being overfunded and awash with cash? John Key turned up to a decile 1 school in my electorate feigning concern feigning support when his deputy leader was saying that those low-income schools were getting too much cash. 
When will National members come clean on what they intend to do about Housing New Zealand Corporation rents? If they are worried about low-income people are they going back to the policy they promoted in office and in Opposition about market rents for low-income folk? That is how people are pushed into poverty—by taking low-income people and putting up their rents to the point they cannot bear the rents and then by selling the houses on the basis that they are not needed. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 What we have seen in this House in the last few days has been an utter disgrace. We have seen this Labour Government relying on the vote of a man whom the Prime Minister has described as unethical yet yesterday we saw this Government continuing to rely on that vote—in fact happy to use his proxy vote. We also saw that investigations and interviews by the police of members of Parliament are now apparently parliamentary business. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Well they are in the Labour Party. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They are in the Labour Government as my colleague Mr Williamson has said and the reason they are is that there is a huge list of people who have consistently come into the sight of the police. 
I am one of the members who has been absolutely sickened and saddened by the fiasco of Taito Phillip Field’s case and one reason I am is that every Pacific Island New Zealander was thrilled when Taito Phillip Field was made a member of Parliament. However I have just read David Lange’s autobiography over the holidays and I have read of how he was concerned about Taito Phillip Field. David Lange raised those concerns yet the Labour Party continued along its path—under Helen Clark—to put Taito Phillip Field into Mangere. The Labour Party under Helen Clark knew what was going on. Labour knew it; it has been going on for 12 years. Labour knew what was happening yet with this Government and with this Prime Minister we have a whitewashed inquiry—the Ingram inquiry—which was put into place only once we had brought this issue to public attention. Only when the public said that they would not accept it did the inquiry occur even though the public might have accepted “paintergate” “corngate” and Helen Clark saying that she could not tell whether the car was speeding at 140 kilometres per hour across the South Canterbury plains as she with Jim Sutton was too busy reading papers in the back seat. She was too busy reading and she let that driver take the fall. She let those men take the fall for her because she did not have the spine to deal with it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member now is implying a lack of courage. That is a personal reflection and outside the rules governing the House. I ask the member to withdraw that comment. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I withdraw. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the past people have always been required to apologise for implying a lack of courage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. That in fact is the case. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
We have a Prime Minister who is happy to take the perks of office and to strut the world stage in Norway at the ski fields but she was not happy to stand in the dock when she should have been the one there—she should have been the one on trial. Instead with Taito Phillip Field we now have a situation where that man has been treated differently by the Prime Minister and he has been treated differently from all those other Labour Cabinet Ministers. 
And why has that been so? It is because the one thing he did was to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade. He stole the camera shots and gave an interview. She has had to stay quiet for the last year; she has told him to shut up to not give interviews and simply to take every sling and arrow that has been thrown. He has in fact become the pincushion. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who is throwing them? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I tell Mrs King that there has to be some mud to throw in the first place. Mrs King knows full well that that Ingram inquiry unfortunately was set up by Helen Clark to fail. Nine days is what she gave Dr Ingram. Dr Ingram’s name has now become mud in this House and that is really quite unfair because he should have been asked to look at Mr Field’s conflict of interest as an MP not just as a Minister. It was never going to be about Mr Field as a Minister; it was always about his behaviour as an MP the relationship he had with Mr Damien O’Connor and the little deals that were going on. The fact that Mr Field put up about 200 applications in 1 year for different criteria for immigrants should have sent the alarm bells ringing. Yet when we look at the situation we see that it has been going on year after year. Why is it that Thai tilers from the North Shore came to Mr Field? Why is it that people from all over Auckland—as the Prime Minister knew and as she stated—came to Mr Field? Because they knew they could be in! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 It is really hard to tell where to start on this particular speech. I think the first thing is that we have established today that the speaker who preceded me did not get any of Mr Keenan’s lessons on how to fake sincerity. 
Judith Collins 
: I don’t need them. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She says she does not need Mr Keenan’s lessons on how to fake sincerity. Well I tell her that she gives no indication of sincerity at all in this debate. Point No. 2: that was a member who was part of the parliamentary caucus who cast the vote of Donna Awatere Huata. She cast the vote as part of that caucus when ACT would not on a principled basis cast a vote. Right through the trial she did that. She was part of that. Let us just have a little bit of consistency. 
Darren Hughes 
: And when Nick was in court. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: When Dr Nick Smith was in court and when Gerry Brownlee was in court their votes were cast by the National— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: That was a civil suit—don’t you know the difference? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh no it was a civil suit! He was still found guilty of assaulting a pensioner by throwing the pensioner down the stairs. But Nick Smith thinks that is all right; well I do not. But the point is that his vote was cast. 
But I want to get to another point because it is something that is not really widely known by the public and it should be drawn to their attention. I want to refer to chez Key. I am not referring to the mansion—the $8 million to $20 million mansion with three sections tennis court and things like that. I am not referring to that. I am referring to the inability of the new Leader of the Opposition to stand in this House hold a piece of paper and not have it shake. I am referring to the inability of the National Party leader to stand in this House and hold a piece of paper in his hand to ask a question without it shaking so much that he cannot ask it. 
He has got to the point within days of the House starting of having to grip the bench with two hands in order to avoid the public through the television seeing his hands shaking. Is this the confident person who has had the Peter Keenan lessons? Is this the confident person whom Peter Keenan has been training to fake sincerity? Or is this just the fact that when one is being run as a puppet by a puppeteer it is very hard to do it in the House without a little bit of wobbling going on? The point I want to emphasise is that the co-leadership is not going very well. 
Hon Member 
: That’s not what Bill says. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh it is not what Mr English says. Mr English says that it is going quite well for now but at some stage I am sure he will say: “You live by the sword John and you die by the sword. You had my vote Mr Key for a while but you haven’t got it any more.” Of course he did not have his vote because there was not one and that was something that was pretty obvious. But I still have not heard Bill English deny the fact that he has told people that he wrote the Burnside speech. The fact is that he said he wrote it because John Key knows very little about social policy. 
John Key tells the country he spent much of the summer writing it and Bill English says John Key knew so little about social policy that Bill English had to do the speech for him. Now one of them is telling the truth. I am not allowed to say that one of them is a liar and I will not but one of them is telling the truth and only one of them can possibly be telling the truth. I believe Bill English. I do believe Bill English in this case because I think he is the puppeteer rather than John Key knowing what he is doing. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. This Government through its now land-grabbing agency the Office of Treaty Settlements is embarking on a further theft of land from traditional Maori owners. I hope that the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Burton is listening to this because this is a serious issue for both the claimants and the integrity of the Treaty settlement process which is designed to provide justice and redress to those Maori iwi and hapu who are wrongfully bereft of lands that were taken from them. Ngati Kahu are now fighting to stop the sale of Rangiputa Station which is owned by Landcorp but which had a section 27B memorial placed on it in the late 1980s. Those memorials are placed on land owned by State-owned enterprises in order to identify them for return to Maori owners in Treaty settlements. It is the only system available for the protection of those very significant and often very valuable properties currently owned by State-owned enterprises. But the memorial process is failing to properly protect those lands because the Office of Treaty Settlements is giving Landcorp permission to sell them off and that includes Rangiputa Station. 
It is 20 years since the memorial was placed on the title to that station and Ngati Kahu are finally very close to finishing their Treaty settlement negotiations and getting that station back. But the Office of Treaty Settlements in its utter failure to protect or advocate for the interests of the claimants has allowed Landcorp to sell off a property that was and remains the major purpose for the settlement claim in the first place. The Office of Treaty Settlements has even failed to help Ngati Kahu when they looked for financial support from joint-venture partners in order to try to secure this land. 
Paul James the director of the Office of Treaty Settlements is reported as saying that he approved the sell-off because although those memorials are designed to protect Maori lands State-owned enterprises should still be allowed to trade in those assets. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: But there is still a memorial on it! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: He has basically refused to protect those assets for Ngati Kahu in favour of the Government making a huge profit from the private sale of valuable Maori land. The Minister keeps saying a memorial is still retained on that land but the land is being sold. Currently a large part of the land is being sold for $4 million. That sale is going ahead and the Office of Treaty Settlements is doing nothing to protect that land from sale so that it can be returned to Ngati Kahu which is what they have wanted for many many years now. Some commentators have called the process by which those lands are sold off an “exit profit” derived by the Government as part of its settlement process. 
Part of the reason for the failure to protect this property and make sure it does go back to Ngati Kahu is that the Office of Treaty Settlements has severely restricted the value of the settlement to them to only $8 million. Therefore Ngati Kahu cannot afford to buy the station from Landcorp and still retain any hope of providing financial security for their people into the future. The Office of Treaty Settlements often argues that those amounts are negotiated between it and claimants but that is frankly not true. I have seen a large number of settlements where the Office of Treaty Settlements turned up to the table with a figure and that figure was not resiled from during the whole process of the negotiations which can take many many years. 
This case highlights also the absurdity of relying on the Office of Treaty Settlements to deal fairly and in good faith with claimants because the benchmarking policy does not recognise the cultural value of land nor the changes in the economic value of land over time. The fact is that Rangiputa Station is very valuable and is increasing in value. But claimants’ settlements are benchmarked against settlements that were made 10 years or more ago. That means there is no means by which the benchmarking process recognises the changing value of land nor does it reflect the current economic conditions. The benchmarking policy is a process that rips off the later—and often the smaller—claimants who have come 10 or 15 years after the early claimants at the end of a settlement process. For those claimants the settlements are the only means for them to gain financial security and to have their traditional lands returned to them. 
The settlement process is supposed to be a fair and just process; it is more clearly simply about the Government getting away with as cheap and easy an offer as possible. It certainly is not the claimants’ fault that their settlements take so long and therefore the value of land increases so significantly. That fault can be laid squarely at the feet of the Government and the Office of Treaty Settlements because they use the delaying tactic to bully the claimants. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Today we have seen the extraordinary spectacle of a Government in meltdown. In my 17 years as a member of Parliament I have never ever seen the spectacle of a Prime Minister and a former Labour colleague in open warfare. We had the Prime Minister threatening Phillip Field as to what he could or could not do with his vote. That is a sign of a Government on the way out. The saga highlights just how— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very clear in the Standing Orders and in Speakers’ rulings—it goes back to  
Erskine May 
—that no person can threaten a member around the use of his or her vote. A member making that allegation is in fact alleging a contempt and there is a proper way of bringing that up. Therefore that is something that can be raised only one way—that is by way of a letter to you Mr Assistant Speaker not through this sort of vacuous assault. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker. I say that it is important to recall the exact interchange that occurred between the Prime Minister and Taito Phillip Field. The Prime Minister told Mr Field that he needed to reflect on the fact that his voters in Mangere had voted for Labour and the Labour programme. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: In fact the Prime Minister was addressing the House—and members of the Opposition in particular—at the time. They should reflect on the fact that Taito Phillip Field had been elected on that basis. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a very valid point and there are actual ways to deal with the issue that the member raised. I ask the member to be very careful in how he addresses the House on that issue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This whole saga just highlights how unethical and immoral our Prime Minister has become. The Prime Minister will do anything say anything— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You may have been distracted because it happened in the first sentence following the previous point of order but the member has now reflected on the Prime Minister in an unparliamentary way. I ask that those comments be withdrawn and apologised for. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that it is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister referred to Phillip Field as both unethical and immoral—she said those very words in this House. We cannot possibly have the situation that Mr Mallard would have us have: that it is OK for the Prime Minister to refer to another member Mr Field as unethical and immoral but not proper for others to use those exact two words of the Prime Minister. I put it to you Mr Assistant Speaker that twice now during my speech—and also during my colleague Judith Collins’ speech—a very defensive Mr Mallard has been deliberately breaking up the 5-minute speeches. There is a longstanding principle that during a 5-minute general debate speech there should not be continuous points of order that break up members’ speeches. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When you are ruling Mr Assistant Speaker you should consider the facts. The Prime Minister did not make those comments about Taito Phillip Field in the House. She was asked about those comments and said she had not resiled from them. There is a big difference between a member repeating comments and that member indicating that he or she has not resiled from comments made earlier. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: First of all a personal reflection was made. Members must always be careful under Standing Order 116 in making reflections on other members. I read to the House Speaker’s ruling 38/2: “Reference to the private affairs of members or personal reflections would have to be of a strongly undesirable insulting or offensive nature to come within the meaning of the terms used [in Standing Order 116].” That is the first point. The second point which Dr Nick Smith raised is the issue of the constant raising of interjections during a 5-minute speech. That in itself is out of order. Such tactics can lead to disorder in the House so I would ask members to please be careful about what they do—recognising of course that where there are valid points of order then that is an issue that can be raised with the Speaker. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point now so that I will not be accused of interrupting again. I want to get this point very clear. Are you now stating and ruling in this House that the word “unethical” can be applied to a member in this House without it being an unbecoming reflection? Unless you make the member withdraw and apologise for making that comment that is the effect of your ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am saying to members that under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections” imputations of improper motives offensive references to members’ private affairs and personal reflections are out of order. Members need to be very careful in how they address those issues. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know there is a list of prescribed words and I think all of us know of that list. Every time in the past when I have been in this House when the word “unethical” has been used of a member and objection has been taken to it Speakers have consistently ruled that such a term is a personal reflection. It is a reflection on a member and every Speaker in the past has required it to be withdrawn and apologised for. In differentiating—if you do differentiate—in this case I think you are lowering the standards of this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his considered viewpoints on the issues. It all depends on the circumstances that prevail in the House at the present time or during the course of the speech to the House. I did not take anything untoward from what was being said but had the issue been much stronger then the member would have actually had a valid point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking you now to continue to reflect on this ruling because it is a very very important one. I cannot think of any circumstance where one can refer to a member of this House as being unethical and it not be a reflection on the member. If I called you unethical Mr Assistant Speaker it would automatically be a reflection. It would be a deliberate reflection on you. If I called John Hayes over there unethical that would be a reflection on him. If I called Dr Nick Smith unethical it would absolutely be a reflection. There is no other way of interpreting that comment. There is no circumstance in this House where a member can be described as unethical and it not be a personal reflection. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is actually a matter for members themselves who are indicated as being in that position to raise that issue not someone else on their behalf. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You know that that rule cannot work for members who are currently engaged in other activities and Government business outside of this Chamber. That ruling applies when people are in the House and they choose not to take it up. It is the choice of a member who is here to not object. It is just vacuous to suggest that members who are not present are required to come down to the House to raise an objection especially when an unprecedented ruling like this is being made. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you again Mr Mallard for your consideration. I have been in this House for some considerable time and accusations have been levelled against a number of members who have not been in the House. Those members are often called by the party whips to come down. I am prepared to seek some guidance on this issue and I will rule accordingly. In the meantime I am going to call Dr Nick Smith and he will start his speech again. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: I am well aware that you have just made a ruling. I am asking for a point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He’s touchy today. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it normal for a member to interject— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated please. I just say to members that points of order on the floor are to be terse and to the point. There needs to be no interjections whatsoever because if there are interjections and the person takes longer to make the point of order then it leads to disorder. This place needs to just calm down for a little while. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I apologise Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I already have a point of order on the floor Dr Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This is taking up members’ time on members’ day. We have now had 11— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I already have a point of order on the floor Dr Smith. The member’s speech time is not affected. 
Ron Mark 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I will be quick and to the point. I now have two points of order which I will deal with quickly. Firstly other members have been thrown out of the House for interjecting on a point of order. Another member was thrown out of the House just a few moments ago for challenging the Speaker speaking over the Speaker and refusing to sit down. I want to know why Dr Smith is being treated differently from Mr Brownlee. That is the first point and I would love to hear the explanation on that. 
The second point is that you have just issued to all the members of the House—not just Dr Smith and not Mr Mallard—a warning about making spurious points of order that are designed to break up members’ speeches. As a result of that warning to all members of the House you have also given Dr Smith an opportunity to restart his speech which will effectively give him an 8-minute speech out of what was a 5-minute speech. It sounds to some people at this end of the House as though Dr Smith is being given some sort of leniency for a reason that is based around your decision that all the points of order you have heard thus far have been spurious. I put it to you Mr Assistant Speaker that the first point of order was raised because Judith Collins called someone spineless. You accepted the point of order as being valid and you required that she withdraw. The second point of order was raised because she did not apologise. You accepted that point of order—therefore it was not spurious—and you required her to apologise. Then there were other points of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would you get to the point of order Mr Mark. 
Ron Mark 
: The point of order is that none of those points of order that you accepted and ruled on were spurious. They were obviously not so because you ruled on them. To give this member an extended period of speaking time when no spurious points of order were raised is wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I say to members that this is a House of robust debate and one expects that. It is up to the Speaker’s judgment call at the time as to the atmosphere and what is happening in the House. What I want in this House is what everyone wants and that is order. It is my duty to keep debate within the Standing Orders. After all these are the rules that have been crafted for well over a century of parliamentary practice in New Zealand and it is my duty to ensure that they are upheld. I understand where Mr Mark is coming from but I tell him that Dr Smith had been speaking for only a matter of 15 to 20 seconds. Having said that I point out that one must recognise that when there are constant interjections that are designed to interrupt a member’s speech then it is up to the Speaker whether he or she will recognise that—in this case I do. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the Government is so super-sensitive. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise point of order Mr Speaker. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Get a life! 
Ron Mark 
: I point out to the member that I do have a life unlike some people with convictions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I have explained to the member that when a point of order is made it is to be terse and to the point. Members should not get into interjections with other members because that in itself leads to disorder. That is not what I require in this House. 
Ron Mark 
: I thank you for that Mr Assistant Speaker but your job is to protect all members of this House and to treat all members of this House as equals. Your job is not to— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is what I am doing. If the member has a valid point of order he will make it please. Otherwise I am going to call Dr Nick Smith. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. I already have a point of order on the floor. 
Ron Mark 
: My point of order is that I raised two issues. You have not addressed the first of those issues which is why given that Mr Brownlee was thrown out of this House for challenging the Speaker and refusing to sit down and be quiet you have not thrown out Dr Smith for doing precisely the same thing to you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I did not notice Dr Smith doing that but if he did then I will be taking note in future and we will do it on that basis. 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to bring to your attention that those of us on this side of the House believe that Mr Mark is challenging the Speaker. He should be asked to leave the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a judgment for the Speaker to make. I have considered the matter but I am going to call the Hon Dr Nick Smith. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can understand why the Government is so sensitive. Let me set out very clearly why the conduct of this Government is unethical and immoral. You see we had the Prime Minister in the newspaper—the  
New Zealand Herald 
—and on  
One News 
 saying quite clearly that Mr Field’s behaviour was unacceptable unethical and immoral. They are the words of the Prime Minister. Yet she is prepared to have her Government propped up with a one-seat majority by a man whom she says is immoral and unethical. We say that is not good enough. 
What is even worse is that we have a set of rules in this Parliament about when votes can be cast. Standing Order 156(4)(d) states that a vote can be cast on behalf of an Independent member only when he or she is ill or when there is a good family reason which is fair enough or when he or she is on public business. This Government is now saying that being interviewed by the police for corruption is the public business of members of Parliament. If I were a member of a Government that was hanging on by that thread I would say its time was up and it was time to move on. 
Let us look at the contortions of the Prime Minister’s statements. Let me read this quote to members. She said quite clearly: “I think the only thing Mr Field is guilty of is trying to be helpful to constituents.” Was that just the first newspaper report? Was that statement made way back in 2005? No it was made in September 2006 which was after the Ingram inquiry and after it was a matter of public record that Phillip Field had been using Thai tilers to do slave labour work while he jacked them up with visitor and immigration status in New Zealand. What sort of Prime Minister and Government do we have that can say: “That’s just helping constituents.”? What sort of moral vacuum is there amongst Labour members opposite when they think that is just the normal work of helping constituents? I wonder what Michael Joseph Savage—a fighter for the rights of the unprivileged and the workers—would think of a Labour Party today that thinks it is OK for a member on a ministerial salary to use the slave labour of desperate Thai migrants. 
But the saga gets worse! Let us look at what has happened this week. On Monday the unethical immoral Government says it is going to have a proxy for Phillip Field. On Tuesday the Labour whip casts the vote to prop up this tired decrepit Government with that vote of Mr Phillip Field. And today the position has changed again and Mr Phillip Field says he has withdrawn that proxy. Is that the basis on which the Government of New Zealand operates? Is that what it has deteriorated to? Is the state of affairs we now have in New Zealand that a Government is propped up on the single-seat majority of someone whom the Prime Minister herself says is unethical and immoral? 
Let us look at some of the other things that the Prime Minister has said. Last week she said: “I have made it clear for a long time that his conduct was unethical and immoral.” 
Judith Collins 
: How long ago? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That statement was made on 13 February 2006. 
Judith Collins 
: How long had she thought that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well in September she said: “I think Mr Field is guilty of trying too hard to help constituents.” 
Judith Collins 
: That doesn’t sound like her. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well what is this business that she has been saying for a long time? Can we believe anything the Prime Minister now says? The answer is we cannot. This Prime Minister will hang on to power by the barest of threads and by the ends of her fingernails. The further disgrace is that we have heard all those Labour members give speeches in this Parliament about ethical conduct about standing up for the rights of workers about minimum wages etc. but how many of them have we heard talking about the Thai migrants who were abused by Mr Field? Not one. That is disgraceful. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 There are many things one could say about Dr Nick Smith the member who has just resumed his seat but most of them are unfortunately outside the rules of this Parliament. It is a shame that that member does not comply with them a little more often. But I will say that he has very mixed morals because for that member to come into this House and call this side— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to do it for one of my own colleagues but it is my view that the description that the Minister has just applied to Dr Nick Smith is outside Standing Orders 115 and 116. Clearly he does not have to take objection to it but I do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say that the House has been tested. The member has taken no objection. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I withdraw and apologise because the member has taken exception. Under Standing Order 115 it is not necessarily the member to whom the member has referred so on that basis I will withdraw and apologise. It is hypocritical for any member of this House to come in here and attack another member but it is more so when that member himself has been held to be in contempt of court in this country. That member Dr Nick Smith should not lecture anyone in this House on ethics and morals when he has been held to be in contempt of court. Not only that when he returned to this House having been held to be in contempt of court he received a standing ovation from his so-called moral and ethical colleagues. I am just pleased that I am on this side of the House and that member with those so-called morals and so-called ethics is on that side of the House. 
In fact I feel very very good to be part of a team that is very ably and competently led by Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. They are a very experienced and very competent leadership team that not only delivers visionary and competent plans of action to take New Zealand forward but are a leadership team that delivers those plans. Furthermore they are a leadership team that actually likes each other that works well together that gets on with each other and that sits next to each other as if they are on a shared bench not as if they are not even on a shared planet. Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are a leadership team. It is envied by many including I know many in the National Party and they are an absolute pleasure to work with. 
That has to be in very stark contrast with the co-leadership of Bill English and John Key—the nightmare team currently leading the National Opposition. The co-leadership as Bill English describes it is the “face of John Key and the mind of Bill English”. But that is not the only contrast in the National Party. What about the contrast between Bill English and Judith Collins? Bill English described Judith Collins as being “pushed beyond her capacity … with an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence”. They must be just as close as anything! He said that she had spent too much time cultivating the media herself “and believing the resultant publicity”. The atmosphere in the caucus must be so cosy! 
She then said she would find it very hard to recover her credibility in caucus where she had been a tough critic of her colleagues behind the scene but now they know it. That leads to very close friendships I am sure! What are Judith Collins’ colleagues saying about her now that they have found out what she said about them? In fact it seems the only person who is now prepared to back Judith Collins publicly is John Key who says she is terrific. He is the only one on record who has been able to say that so far. 
What about Murray McCully and Bill English? Bill English said: “You need to know now that the experienced people in National will not work in a Government run by McCully. I and others will not tolerate him exercising the same influence he does now.” That was said when Don Brash was leader; it was before the leadership change. John Key made quite a strong play about moving Murray McCully aside except when it came to writing John Key’s first speech except when it came to organising his first visit—right up to today literally because Murray McCully is with John Key in Gisborne today. Murray McCully organised the visit and I am sure that Bill English is really happy about that! It is just like Maurice Williamson on Bill English. He said that Bill English does not have “anywhere near the excitement the charisma the humour the personality or the talent to be the leader.” 
It is getting to be such a warm friendly family! Maybe those National members think all that is needed is to do a flip-flop on the comments made about their close colleagues and hope no one remembers. Does anyone think that Bill English can flip-flop like he does on policy on his view of Judith Collins? 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 What a fine example we have seen of two Ministers of the Crown performing for the gallery and the radio because they know there may be a few extra listeners given we are about to debate an amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act. It is a disgrace to our profession that they stood up and made personal attacks on people. It is a disgrace that the only thing they can do is stand up and make those sorts of comments. They are tetchy and it is understandable. The defensiveness that is coming out is understandable; so is the behaviour they are currently displaying. I suppose if we learn nothing else we know that they show a lack of taking responsibility and lack of acknowledging exactly what is going on. 
 The Labour backbenchers must all be nervous at the moment and the Ministers as well because when their leader says one thing that may not be the same thing she means the following week. We have a Prime Minister who chooses her quotes and chooses her day to actually get up and make them. So let us understand that on 14 September 2005 this Prime Minister said: “I think the only thing that he”—Taito Phillip Field—“is probably guilty of is trying to be helpful to someone.” Let us leap to 13 February 2007 when the Prime Minister said: “I have made it clear for quite a long time that the behaviour was unacceptable. It was unethical and immoral.” 
I ask what will happen to Steve Maharey when his promise of 20 free hours of childcare does not get fulfilled when thousands of children miss out on the very promise that this Government has given and when centres are openly not taking up the offer. What will happen to Steve Maharey and his job? I notice that Phil Goff has been a little bit upset in the last couple of days. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Agitated. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: “Agitated” is a word I would use—a bit nervy. He is making a few mistakes with personal statements and things. I am a little bit concerned about him. He has put out a press release to say he will go parachuting this Friday. I felt that maybe he should check his backpack a few times because this Prime Minister has a way of cutting people off when she does not agree with what is going on. So let us remember not to rain on the Prime Minister’s parade. We can have people like Ruth Dyson and Lianne Dalziel who have all felt the effects of this Prime Minister and we can have people like John Tamihere and Dover Samuels but when it really comes down to it it is the Prime Minister’s call. She believes that unethical and immoral behaviour is OK but do not rain on her parade! When her day has come and she is making her statement goodness help people who rain on her parade. 
Let us talk about what will happen with the policy of 20 free hours of childcare. Let us talk about some of the facts and some of the policies. Just today the Ministry of Education said it had no idea how many childcare centres would accept the 20 free hours. The ministry will have no idea until May and parents are expecting it on 1 June. This Government campaigned on a promise to parents that come 1 July 2007 those children—all 3 and 4-year-olds—will get 20 free hours. Now the facts are coming clear and it will not be available for those parents and their children. It is as simple as that. 
This Minister needs to stand up and be honest with parents who are relying on those 20 free hours. He made a promise he cannot deliver on it and it is time that the Minister came clean on it. What will happen to his job though? Does the fact that he is not fulfilling a promise make him unethical? I pose the question: is it unethical if someone cannot fulfil a promise that he or she has given to the New Zealand public? As such what will the Prime Minister do to cover it? Mind you she probably needs his vote and it is a different story when a leader has only a one-vote majority. All of a sudden all the rules change because it is not based on facts it is not based on ethics and it is not based on principle; it is based on how to keep that woman in power. That is the only thing that is considered by that Government. 
We have the interesting situation at the moment of having a member who is in the House but usually not in the House whose vote goes to the Government to use but only when it suits him. The Government is not sure when it can use his vote and it certainly does not know what he is doing when he is not in the House and it wants to use his proxy. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 And—scene! What a fine theatrical performance from Paula Bennett—another one. I ask Paula Bennett whether National will abolish the 20 free hours policy. 
Paula Bennett 
: It’s not our policy. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: No I ask Paula Bennett to answer the question. Will National abolish the 20 free hours policy which will be in place at the time of the next election? Oh we hear nothing. What a big surprise! The National Party finds it very easy to point out the problems but I have listened to a week’s worth of responses to the Prime Minister’s statement and I have listened to the general debate and I have not heard a single alternative policy from National members—not one. I ask National members to please give us one policy that will make a difference for this country. We had the food in schools policy which has now been dropped because the schools do not want it. 
I heard today that apparently John Key has confirmed that National’s policy on State house rentals is market rents. That is the one policy we have from this National Opposition. Today John Key is in Gisborne. I hope he will be honest with the people of Gisborne—but I doubt it—and tell them while he is going around cuddling all the poor disadvantaged kids and giving them a ride in his limousine that their families will face a rent increase of possibly 140 percent like they did last time National was in Government when it introduced market rentals. National members have gone quiet now. As we know the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said that the impact on Housing New Zealand tenants of market rentals was the single biggest thing that contributed to poverty when National was last in Government. The council’s report on market rents stated: “The move to market rents has had a serious impact on HNZ tenants as they had to pay significantly more for their accommodation than under income-related rents. According to the latest census median weekly rentals increased by 135 percent…” for the poorest families in this country whom Mr Key is now trying to cuddle up to. It will take far more than a politically correct T-shirt some nice slogans and saying things nicely to explain to those families that they will not be able to afford to put food on the table or indeed a roof over their heads when National gets back into Government. It was very interesting. 
John Key got on the plane to Gisborne today saw a young Maori guy bowled over to him and started talking to him saying: “Hey I’m John Key. I’m your man. I’m the iPod generation. Look at me. I’m cool. Do you like my tiki T-shirt?”. Then John Key started talking to him about what he could do to help him without realising that it was Parekura Horomia’s son. His son got some information out of Mr Key and found it all very amusing. 
I get sick of National members coming into Gisborne and telling us how bad we have it—I am sure Dr Smith knows. National members came in the middle of the tourist season which has seen Gisborne rebound and on TV basically told people not to go to Gisborne because there were gangs drugs and violence there. Well I say thank you very much to the National Party because one of the single biggest things that held Gisborne back when National was in Government was the reputation Gisborne had around the country of being the economic and social yoke around the country’s neck. We have fought hard to get rid of that reputation. I will read a passage from a letter that our mayor MengFoon sent to the Prime Minister: “I write to convey my appreciation of all your Government’s policies and funding support you have given our region over the past few years. Your Government’s support has certainly given us economic transformation.” That was from the Mayor of Gisborne and I could not put it any better myself. That letter was from just last month—January. We know we still have problems in Gisborne but I say to Dr Smith that we do not need outsiders coming in telling us how bad we have it then swanning off back to Parnell when they have not made any effort to actually talk to people on the ground in Gisborne. 
Let us be clear as to why John Key is back in Gisborne today. He decided to announce the fact that he was going to abolish the Maori seats and the seat of Ikaroa-Rawhiti. That did not go down well so he is now on a “Maori fact-finding mission” which means: “Please tell me any facts about Maori because I do not know anything.” He is there trying to suck up and saying: “Let me say it nicely…”. Even Don Brash was going to consult with Maori about the abolition of the Maori seats. I say to those Maori who were National Party supporters who fled the party under Don Brash’s leadership that the John Key and Bill English co-leadership is far more extreme than the Brash leadership ever was. Mr Key and Mr English will not even consult with Maori on one of the single biggest issues of our time. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Last week the Hon Ruth Dyson the Minister with responsibility for Child Youth and Family acknowledged during question time that the department is responding to United Future’s call for a complaints authority to provide a place of recourse for adults dealing with her department. Although United Future is thrilled to hear that a work stream is developing on this issue we want to make it perfectly clear exactly what it is we are asking the Government to consider. Our call has been for an independent complaints authority with independence similar to that of the Police Complaints Authority. The independence of such an authority is necessary for two reasons. Firstly it is necessary because of the statutory powers that Child Youth and Family has to execute serious interventions into families based on a lower burden of proof than is required by the police seeking an arrest warrant. United Future understands and supports the need for this lesser burden of proof due to the very private and highly confidential nature of abuse within family contexts. However this necessarily liberal approach to legal interventions only strengthens our insistence that decisions should be subject to independent scrutiny if and when a family member believes he or she has been wrongly judged and/or dealt with in an unfair manner. 
The second reason we believe that this complaints authority should be independent is that we want complainants to have faith in the process. A complaints department at the local Child Youth and Family office for example is far too much self-referral for a department that has such immense and wide-reaching powers. United Future does not see the outcome of such an authority as being punitive. Identifying systemic weaknesses and poor practice should be for the purpose of correction and continuous improvement. Quality assurance activities should be the normal response to a complaint being upheld either fully or partly. United Future’s suggestion is that if in the opinion of the proposed complaints authority serious misconduct by a social worker has occurred then it is the social worker’s registration body not the authority that should decide that person’s fate. 
What then could this new authority look like and what could it be in practice? United Future notes that the Police Complaints Authority receives approximately 2000 complaints a year and about 13 percent are upheld. This works out to be about 343 complainants. Most complaints are resolved through mediation. About six or seven staff work there and it costs around $1.5 million to $2 million a year. This is a small outlay for the credibility it gives to police work in New Zealand and a similar situation could apply to the independent complaints authority for Child Youth and Family that we are proposing. 
When families feel so backed into a corner that they join forces with others to name and shame Child Youth and Family workers on a website then the best action this Government could take to protect its staff is to provide an independent complaints authority so that issues can be fairly investigated and addressed. United Future is not proposing a “shame and blame” authority but an open and transparent investigative process that gives both complainants and Child Youth and Family staff the chance to appropriately articulate their position in a way that is helpful and able to bring closure to a dispute. In short we believe that this independent complaints authority would be a vast improvement on the current situation. It would allow people who feel that they have been wrongly dealt with some recourse and it should result in a far better system for the all-important goal of the complaints authority which is of course to protect on an ongoing basis the best interests of the beautiful children of New Zealand. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 One of the worst reality programmes ever produced is playing in a town near us. It is playing right here in Wellington and it is called “The Taito Phillip Field Saga” or better still “50 Steps Too Far”. It has all the ingredients of every bad show one can think of—deceit denial cover-ups disgraceful behaviour and allegations of bribery and corruption. The name of one such reality show— 
The Biggest Loser 
—sums it all up. Unfortunately the biggest losers in this case are the New Zealand taxpayers who for months have paid Taito Phillip Field to do nothing. Also we must not forget the workers who have been exploited and ripped off in the process. We have to ask ourselves what Labour really means in relation to its much-vaunted ideology of standing up for the workers. Clearly Labour members have not stood up for the workers in this case. The workers have been left and hung out to dry. It is an absolute disgrace. 
Helen Clark has directed the whole show. Her latest production is as John Key so aptly describes it “The Grand Coalition of the Unwilling”. Or perhaps it would be best called “Survivor” because that is what this saga is all about—cynical political survival. Clinging on to power is all that motivates this desperate and dangerous Government now. How else can Helen Clark justify accepting the proxy vote of someone whom she has just slung out of caucus—someone she has described as immoral and unethical? Previously she said this person had been vindicated by a half-million-dollar Clayton’s inquiry. It was an inquiry that she set the parameters of so that she got the result she wanted. But she has not been getting the results she wanted of late because one day she has this person’s proxy vote but the next day she does not. Of course this person was absent from the House yesterday speaking with the police. 
If we want to talk about denial the former Minister of Immigration Paul Swain has to take the cake. He denied any involvement in the overstayer’s case despite meeting the overstayer at the member’s house in Samoa. Another name that features in this sorry saga is that of Damien O’Connor. He is also starring in a few other bad-news reality shows called “Problem Gambling” and “Corrections and Parole”. We certainly know what is happening in each one of those episodes. If we take “Problem Gambling” talk about a lack of ministerial responsibility in the construct and oversight of contracts! If we take “Corrections and Parole” there have been constant failures and a lack of accountability and responsibility in those two areas. But just like all those reality shows bad management wasting money and no responsibility are par for the course under this current regime. 
Long gone are the days of Helen Clark’s so-called collegial Cabinet. We see it time and time again with this Government—cover-ups and an endless supply of stuff-ups and shameful acts of irresponsibility. One of Helen Clark’s own Ministers was once quoted as saying: “She demands very high standards of herself.” Are these the same high standards she employed during the disgraceful episode of “speedgate” “Doone-gate” and “paintergate” just to name a few or is it a case of “Do as I say not as I do.”? Never mind Helen says that she will reveal all in her autobiography. 
There should be enough material in that for a full-length feature film. After all Ruth Dyson was sin-binned for drinking and driving Marian Hobbs was done for location perks and Parekura Horomia is rolling through the credits unscathed while his ministry the Ministry of Maori Affairs cannot even justify its own expenditure. He was castigated by the Auditor-General for failing to be able to account for the expenditure of a whole ministry. In my view that is an incredibly serious matter. Where is that on the airwaves? Nobody is standing up and saying: “Hey I’m responsible for that.”—certainly not Parekura Horomia—and no way is Helen going anywhere near that. I can think of nothing worse than having a ministry that cannot even account for its own expenditure. 
The teflon is finally wearing off. The audience is about to call time. It has had enough of this Government’s failed ideologies and its insistence that the State knows best and should be in control of everything. The cast of this show has truly lost the plot. We have only to look at what is happening with the amendment to section 59 of the Crimes Act in relation to the children-smacking bill. We have received a huge number of emails on that issue. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I call the honourable member— 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would just like to read from this last page— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I seek leave to table this document which states: “This show is due to be canned in 2008. And to Helen Clark I say in the words of Donald Trump ‘You’re fired!’.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there is any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 There has been a wee gap since I last spoke in this House. But as I was saying before being temporarily interrupted by the 2005 election I am proud to be part of a Labour-led Government that is about delivery and a sustainable future about uninterrupted economic growth about reducing unemployment—something a National Government never achieved—to the second-lowest rate in the OECD about promoting thousands of Modern Apprenticeships and industry training about setting up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and launching KiwiSaver this year about delivering cheaper doctors’ visits and prescriptions and about delivering to thousands of families through our Working for Families package. Some of the issues I mentioned in my inaugural speech were delivery for women through the Action Plan for New Zealand Women education investment and the tertiary education revamp a legacy of good housing for the people and investment in public health. The Labour Government has delivered on those issues and continues to deliver on them. 
In contrast to the positive vision and reference to the real issues in the Prime Minister’s speech last week—real issues like climate change and commitment to carbon neutrality Working for Families new family violence prevention strategies 20 hours of free early childhood education providing a sustainable pathway forward for New Zealand—what I heard in the House yesterday and today from the so-called Opposition which I have heard from those members for months was the usual sound and fury signifying nothing. There was carping and whingeing and groaning irrelevancies. There was not one glimmer of a good idea or even a bad idea. There was no vision and no reference to actual policy. 
Just as Mr Key’s lame attempt at a food in schools programme was gone by lunchtime when he realised his hollow mistake the National Party confirmed yesterday and today that its members are the hollow men. There was no substance and no reality. There was a ghostly wraith of echoing nothingness. But wait. Perhaps the National Party nothingness will be filled with market rents as Moana Mackey has just referred to benefit cuts an Employment Contracts Act to penalise workers asset sales and the creation of an underclass. After all National has done it all before. There is such a dearth of talent in National’s ranks and they are so deeply divided in the leadership stakes and on the backbench ranks. Let us think about where Brian Connell is. He has been left hanging somewhere I believe. 
Lockwood Smith was surprised by Mr Key’s flip-flop on nuclear policy Bill and John are differing on the mortgage levy idea. Mr English said: “I am easily underestimated.” and “I do the policy and write the speeches.” Mr English is not ruling out having another go at the leadership. He sent the “hollow men” emails that rather deeply attacked a number of his National colleagues but they are so deeply divided that falling back on the old the tired and the outdated must look good. It certainly appears to look good to Mr Key who has as recently as December last year and this very month managed to say: “So really in a sense all I changed is probably the tone.”; “Broadly speaking we weren’t planning to make major changes.”; and wait this is a really good one—it is the most telling of all—Mr Key said: “If you go back to the 1990s we proved what National believed in in the 1990s.” 
Let me think. Was not that market rentals benefit cuts bulk funding of schools the Employment Contracts Act the destruction of the apprenticeship system and bed night charges in hospitals? Yes it was. And who is writing Mr Key’s speeches? It is the puppet master Mr English the disastrous 1990s Minister of Health and Associate Minister of Education who fortunately will never rise to such positions again. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
 We are engaging in a historic debate this afternoon. It appears that a majority of MPs in this House including some from nearly every party represented here will vote for this bill to proceed to the next stage of the parliamentary process. I know that MPs have various and at times contradictory reasons for supporting my bill through its second reading but nevertheless I would like to thank all of them in advance for being willing to show leadership and take some personal political risk on an issue that divides our country deeply. 
From engaging in public debates around New Zealand and hearing the submissions during our long select committee process it is clear to me that the issue of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act cuts really deeply into our national psyche. All I am seeking to do is to get rid of a law that allows a defence of reasonable force when parents beat hit or otherwise assault their children. Removing that defence would give our offspring the same protection we are kind enough to extend to other adults police officers and animals but not to our babies children and young people. Opponents of repeal continue to argue that somehow parents have an inalienable and indeed at times a God-given right to hit their children in the name of discipline. For example let us listen to this extract from one of the submissions opposed to the bill: “Like most children ours are strong-willed. Their wills are untamed and often applied in ways that can be disruptive or dangerous. They should be taught to respect others and this requires bending their wills which in turn requires force.” That submitter in her unassuming way reflects an underlying attitude towards children that my bill very directly tries to change. 
When Pakeha colonists first arrived here they brought a culture that taught that children along with women and servants were the property of their father husband or employer and that they were mere chattels to be brought into line by force. Section 59 is the last legal vestige of that culture. It is no longer legal for employers to beat their employees or their servants or for husbands to beat their wives. It is still in this supposedly enlightened 21st century within the law for parents to beat their children. Our babies and children are physically smaller than us and they know a lot less about the world than we parents do. Surely our job as parents should be to nurture and protect them until they reach independent adulthood not to use force to physically coerce them into submission. 
The Unicef report released last week makes that point very clearly. The damning figures on child safety contained in the Innocenti report and our low status compared with that of other developed countries are an indictment of the way we view and treat children in this country: as second-class citizens not deserving of the same rights and protections as adults. This legislation before us today is a small but very necessary step towards beginning to turn those attitudes around. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee worked hard on this bill. We received thousands of written submissions and heard hundreds of submitters in person. As a result of the select committee process my original bill has been substantially amended. However I would like to make it very clear that the bill that has come back to the House still clearly and plainly reflects my original intention—that is to abolish the use of parental force for the purposes of correction. Some supporters of the repeal of section 59 have been concerned that somehow the bill now waters down that intention or in some way still allows parents to legally use force as punishment. That is not the case. The intention of the newly amended bill is simply to clarify that no parent will be prosecuted for restraining his or her children when for example that parent is acting to prevent them from hurting another person or themselves or to stop them from engaging in offensive or disruptive behaviour. The new amendment does not provide a justification for the use of force for the purpose of disciplining a child. 
On the other hand my select committee colleague from the National Party Mr Chester Borrows has made it clear that he intends to put up a different amendment during the Committee stage in the House aimed at defining reasonable force for the purposes of correction. I will fight that amendment tooth and nail as I believe it is the worst possible thing we could do in terms of legitimising the use of force against children. I know that Mr Borrows is well meaning but unfortunately he like others who want to somehow define “reasonable force” does not seem to accept or understand that that is the worst possible thing we could do. The effect of any attempt to define “reasonable force” including Mr Borrows’ is that we would then have the State telling parents that we should hit our kids in some ways and not in others and that it is still perfectly OK to use force on children and babies that we would not consider using on adults who are actually much more able to look after themselves. Defining “acceptable force” also undermines the fantastic work being done by the SKIP programme and by church and community groups all over New Zealand in teaching and supporting parents to use other ways of bringing up their children that do not involve the use of physical discipline. 
Our country has made some progress in ensuring domestic violence against adults is unacceptable and illegal—even inside the privacy of the home. It is high time to give children the same protection that we give adults and to bring an end to the situation in which police are able to prosecute a husband for assaulting his wife but do not prosecute him for assaulting his child because he has a defence for that act. 
The debate around repealing section 59 is very intense and I think it is good that we are having a national discussion on an issue of such concern to so many people here. However some of the opposition to its repeal has been led by a very small group who claim to represent Christians. Of the 2 million people in the last census with any Christian affiliation I believe only a small minority would subscribe to the belief of some that children are little bundles of depravity who deserve and in fact need to have sin beaten out of them even as toddlers. The leadership of the Christian Churches and many individual Christians have dissociated themselves from such statements. But I think it is a pity that the views of a vociferous minority have dominated this aspect of the debate when many people of faith believe that in fact the attitude of Jesus to children was one of welcome and kindness. Nowhere did Jesus advocate physical punishment and the infliction of pain upon children nor is he reported to have advised any parents to use physical discipline against their children. 
Some of the opposition to repealing section 59 has been even more extreme than that of the most immoderate of the Christians. Just today there have been postings on the cyfswatch website that talk about the possibility of assassinating me with one contributor saying for example: “… I would like the opportunity to drive my fist straight into her face as hard as I can hopefully breaking her nose or jaw in the process.” There is more that I am not keen on repeating. A later posting asks anyone who knows my residential address to send it in to the website so it can be published as “… MP’s should no more be immune from consequences as the rest of us.” I would not normally relate that kind of thing to the House but I do so for two reasons today. Firstly I do it because I think the best response to this kind of intimidation is to make sure as many people as possible know about it and know it is not going to silence me or any of the other thousands of people—literally—who are working for this bill. Secondly I do it because I think comments like those indicate the violent nature of some of those who so fiercely defend the rights of parents to legally assault their children. 
Finally I want to say a few words on criminalisation. Much of the opposition to this bill has been driven by those who are spreading the message that if section 59 is abolished suddenly tens of thousands of loving parents will find themselves arrested by the police and prosecuted by the courts for lightly and occasionally smacking their child. Although it is true that if this bill succeeds the use of force for correction will technically be an offence that does not mean that our already very stretched police force will be taking that kind of action. The police investigate the maltreatment of a child only after a complaint is made. The investigation takes into account a whole series of guidelines such as the facts of the case how serious the offence is and whether there are alternatives to prosecution. Every day in this country many minor and technical assaults take place that are not investigated and/or that no prosecution eventuates from. The situation will not change with the passing of my bill. A real campaign of fear has been created around criminalisation and I am sorry that so many parents have felt unnecessarily threatened. 
The time has come to change this archaic law. My bill on its own will not change the culture of violence against children in New Zealand but it is one of a wide range of measures that are necessary if we are ever to be able to hold our heads high in the community of nations as a country that really is a great place to bring up kids. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It has been a privilege and an education to sit as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee’s subcommittee considering the evidence and hearing submissions in respect of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I am grateful for the respect each member showed and I thank Sue Bradford Ann Hartley Lynne Pillay Nicky Wagner and—later on—Russell Fairbrother for that. After sitting on the subcommittee listening to the submissions and reading the material the group of five became relatively close in spite of the gulf that lies between us on the fundamentals of the bill. 
I find myself in the unusual position of indicating that I will vote for the second reading of this bill as the mechanism for introducing an amendment that will protect parents from prosecution for assault if they even lightly smack their children. The fact that I am doing this may seem a bit strange but I am sure it will not be the first time that people outside the House look at what we do in here and wonder what the hell we are up to. I strongly confirm my intention to vote against the bill if my subsequent amendment fails; I will not vote to criminalise good parents and happily 80 percent of Kiwis agree with me. The threat that if my amendment is successful the proponent of the bill Sue Bradford will withdraw the bill and so scuttle any decision in respect of this matter would really put pride before principle. She would be saying that section 59 as it remains today is so abhorrent to the country in relation to the good upbringing and raising of children that she would rather leave it in that state than in the better state it would be in should my amendment be successful. 
The bill as it was outlined to us on day one by the proponent seeks to stop child abuse—and who would not? But everything gets pretty murky after that. Everyone on both sides of the debate knows that this bill will not stop child abuse so the best the bill’s supporters can do is to say that it can send a message. But who does it send a message to? Does anybody really think that the killer of the Kahui twins thought about the law before or during the horrific and fatal assaults? Dragging out the names of other tragic icons of our child homicide legacy should not even feature in this debate because nobody believes for a single moment that Delcelia Witika “Lillybing” James Whakaruru or any on the list of pathetic victims would have been saved by this legislation. 
I believe we would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate for parents to love their children more than golf or work or horses and pokies or booze or the women they run off with or TV or fishing and more than scoring points against their estranged partner and the parent of their children. We would have a better chance of stemming child abuse if we could legislate to ensure that parents cared enough about their own children’s security and happiness so that they did not slag off one another and make the children the meat in the sandwich of every family argument. 
The fact is that that legislation will not work. If it does not work it is not worth the paper it is written on if there is no intention of enforcing the legislation. I say to those pledging to vote for this legislation to go right through the process and past the third reading that they offer no hope to those they most want to protect. If this legislation passes into law without amendment those it will most affect will be ordinary caring parents who will either smack and feel the guilt of breaking the law or who will not smack because they do not want to break the law. It is plain as the nose on one’s face that the children of such parents have never been in danger. 
The huge point to make here is that changing the behaviours of parents including the parents of children at risk is best being addressed by programmes such as the SKIP programme. We are achieving the whole “send a message” objective now through education and not through legislation. Fantastic results after only 2 years show that 34 percent of parents of small children are aware of the SKIP programme which offers realistic alternatives to corporal punishment but Labour will not back its own programme to succeed. 
 So given the goals of the legislation what is the definition of child abuse? Those in favour of the bill as proposed place child abuse on a continuum from the mildest touch to child homicide. The fact is that child abuse is not defined by any independent authority. Of course section 59 does not offer a defence to child abuse; it offers a defence to the use of force for the purpose of correction. It does not defend the use of force because a parent is drunk angry or stupid but offers a defence solely to the purpose of correction. The application of force becomes relevant in the crime of assault and section 59 provides a defence to the crime of assault. 
So what is the definition of assault? The definition of assault is given in section 2 of the Crimes Act: “Assault means the act of intentionally applying … force to the person of another directly or indirectly or threatening by any act or gesture to apply such force to the person of another if the person making the threat has or causes the other to believe on reasonable grounds that he has present ability to effect his purpose; and to assault has a corresponding meaning.” The definition of assault does not help much because it does not define reasonable force or as the wording of section 59 states force that is “reasonable in the circumstances.” But we know from this definition that only a least amount of force is necessary for an assault. So for instance as distasteful as it may seem the amount of force contained in a spit is an assault. A swing and miss is an assault. Just raising a hand is an assault under the definition. For a parent a smack on the hand or the bottom is an assault. Currently the existence of section 59 prevents a parent from being prosecuted for this but if this bill is passed it will make that smack no matter how light justifiable or timely illegal. 
The argument from the other side goes that the police can be trusted not to charge parents for smacking. Well this is not about trust. This debate is about who the lawmakers are and who the social agencies are. If we are going to protect parents their situation needs to be enshrined in legislation. This is a free and democratic society. A fundamental tenet of the rule of law in this country is that the law is clear and concise; it is not at the end of a social worker’s tongue or a police officer’s tongue when facing a parent who having been driven mad by an estranged partner in the middle of a custody dispute threatens with phone call and lawyer’s letter that if action is not taken it will be plastered all over the newspapers or some ratings-grabbing documentary. After every supermarket incident or every schoolchild’s morning talk it will mean that every whiff of a complaint is fully investigated on the basis that the teacher the social worker and the police officer will be scared stiff that if an investigation is not completed then there will be another child homicide statistic. Those people just know that they will be hung out to dry by yet another Minister who voted for this pig’s ear piece of legislation and hid behind his or her department. 
It is an MP’s job to make laws that Government agencies enforce. The agencies have their job and we have ours. I look forward to proposing an amendment to protect parents from criminalisation by a “sect” of parliamentarians and interest groups who in spite of the statistics and in spite of history are prepared to put window-dressing ahead of the families of New Zealand because in their arrogance they think they know best for all of us. I look forward to holding them to account. 
The question to those members of this House especially to those conservative members of Labour who are being whipped on this debate is how they will respond to this. How will Damien O’Connor respond to this? How will Harry Duynhoven Clayton Cosgrove Dover Samuels and George Hawkins respond to this when they know and are prepared to say privately something slightly different from what the leaders of their party are proposing? They will have to carry the can. When that first parent gets prosecuted for giving a smack on the bottom which at the moment is legal and defendable under section 59 he or she will be dragged before the court—and I look forward to hearing those members’ responses then. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 It is a pleasure and a privilege to speak on behalf of a unified Labour caucus and indeed a unified Government on this important measure. The recent debate on and around this issue has been vigorous and I welcome that vigorous debate because it is part of the light of day being shone on an issue that must be debated and confronted by any civilised society. The issue it deals with has also been brought to light and into sharp focus more generally in recent days by the recently released Unicef report on child well-being. 
I think because of the interest and debate it is important that we do not lose sight of what this member’s bill is aiming to achieve. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill aims to abolish the shield of so-called reasonable force as a defence by those who perpetrate acts of violence and abuse against children. That is the purpose of this provision. Of course the bill is not a panacea for all of our social ills nor is it claimed to be so but it will make a crucial difference and I think it is important that this House recognises that the bill will at an important time make an important statement. 
That is why this Government has been addressing the sorts of issues that have been raised in the Unicef report through significant programmes such as Working for Families. Of course this bill is not the panacea for all of the underlying issues and concerns that affect many of our families. The Working for Families tax credits are a good example of something that will substantially change the well-being of many many New Zealand families. By 2008 we will have reduced the percentage of children living below 50 percent of the median income level from 14.6 percent to just 4.5 percent. This will put New Zealand in the top four countries in the OECD along with Denmark Finland and Norway. That is something we should be proud of because that indeed starts to address in a serious and meaningful way some of the many other underlying issues that affect the well-being of our children and our families. 
To return to this bill I say that in effect the bill will give children the same right as has the rest of society—that is the right not to be assaulted. As many commentators have pointed out even animals currently enjoy stronger legal protections in some regards than our children do. How can any member of this House accept that that is a tolerable situation? So today we are presented with an opportunity to demonstrate an enlightened leadership and to make a difference in a critically important area—the welfare and safety of our children. 
One of the people who spoke at considerable length on this issue and who I believe appeared before the Justice and Electoral Committee also the manager of Barnardos Mike Coleman summed up well the problem with the current situation. This is a man who represents an organisation that I think every member of this House would respect in terms of its front-line work. He said: “Every day our frontline staff see the consequences of inadequate and confused parenting in our country. Whether to use physical punishment or not is one of the points of confusion. On the one hand the Domestic Violence Act says that it is an offence for a child to even witness or experience the threat of physical violence in the context of family life”—so it should be I say to members opposite. So it should be that it is wrong and it should be held illegal that children are subjected to the witnessing of acts of violence in their family life. Mr Coleman continues: “On the other hand Section 59 …”—and this is legislation that has its genesis hundreds of years back in English law—“says that it is OK for parents to use ‘reasonable force’. What parent is going to say in court that the force they used was not reasonable?”. 
When we talk about court we are not talking about the sorts of situations that Mr Borrows referred to; we are talking about situations in which cases of serious violence and abuse are being brought. This existing provision has enabled people to mount a defence that has worked. People have been able to sustain a defence under section 59. I say to members that society changes and progresses. It is the mark of a civilised society that we develop new and more effective ways of doing things of thinking about things and of living our day-to-day lives together as a society. If it is true of our cars of our televisions and of our cellphones then surely it also has to be the case for something as profoundly important as raising our children. 
As I have noted section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is a remnant of an earlier time. It is available as a defence to parents or caregivers charged with offences involving the use of physical force to discipline their children. I say again to members that in the type of case in which charges are usually laid people who have violently abused children—for instance those who have beaten them with a plank of wood—have used this section to successfully defend their actions. So this bill seeks to protect our children and to remove a defence that is used by a small group of people who are charged with this sort of violent abuse. It is not there to punish and this is not about punishing good parents. 
Our Government is determined to balance the need to make sure that good and caring parents are supported while ensuring that children are protected absolutely from abuse. This is something that I believe New Zealanders overwhelmingly support. Changing this archaic statute is one part of the strategy needed to address the issues confronting us—they are many. But let us be clear: the stresses and pressures of raising children—and many of us in this House have done or are endeavouring to do that—cannot and should not be underestimated. It is a tough job and it is getting tougher I believe as the world becomes a more rapidly evolving and complex place. 
Our Government recognises there is a real need for more public education to provide people with support and information about alternatives to the physical discipline of children. In considering the bill the Justice and Electoral Committee recommended that this focus should be strengthened further and our Government certainly agrees with that. We have invested nearly $11 million over 3 years to establish the SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents programme which Mr Borrows referred to. The programme promotes positive parenting and actively assists parents by informing them about effective non-physical ways of disciplining children—and contrary to the suggestion made by the Opposition Budget 2006 provided a further nearly $15 million over the next 4 years to enable this valuable programme to continue. The issues we are dealing with are complex ones and they require a range of solutions. Clearly public education is an important factor in that mix. Parenting as I said before is a difficult job. It is far too important not to help provide all the tools possible in order to support parents in this all-important activity. 
In November along with a number of my parliamentary colleagues from around the House I took part in events to mark White Ribbon Day which seeks to end domestic violence in our country and around the world. It was noticeable and I thought encouraging how many men were supporting this initiative and who were getting out on the street to say that domestic violence is not OK it is not acceptable and it cannot be tolerated any more. Like stopping domestic violence against women stopping violence against children demands support from across our society. 
This bill of course will not fix all the ailments of society; nor do its supporters contend that it will. However I would encourage members to recognise that this legislation is an important component of a broader effort to address the issue of violence against our children. The current legislative provision frankly belongs in the Dark Ages. 
Parliament is where we make laws that affect every element of our day-to-day lives in our society. The issue of the well-being and safety of our children is something that we simply must not turn our backs on. On 1 March we celebrate Children’s Day. This is a day for reflecting on what we have done to nurture and to protect our children. I urge all members to take this opportunity to send our children the right message. But I say to members that it simply cannot any longer be tolerable that in 21st century New Zealand we afford greater legal protection to our animals than we do to our children. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make it clear from the outset that the New Zealand First caucus has been divided along the full spectrum regarding this Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. I started at one extreme and have long held this position—that is for full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. Ron Mark on the other hand started at the other end of the spectrum and in fact it would be fair to say that he has not moved very far from that position. 
It is a hallmark of New Zealand First however that we have always been able to accommodate diversity within our caucus when it comes to conscience issues. However it would be fair to say that diversity around the issue has now congealed over whether we need to state clearly in the law that a simple smack is not illegal—â la the Chester Borrows amendment—or whether full repeal of section 59 would assume that situation. 
In my case I have long been persuaded of the need for full repeal by my experience as a schoolteacher and a principal. I used to use corporal punishment. Teachers were protected by section 59 which allowed teachers—and principals as in my case—to hit children as hard as they could up to six times on the hand or the buttock with a leather strap or a cane. I can assure members that it left considerable bruising. I had grown up in a schooling system that made liberal use of corporal punishment and I simply continued what I had learnt. 
However in 1990 whilst I was on a stint with the Education Review Office the Government removed teachers from the protection of section 59. At the end of that year I took over as principal of an intermediate school. I soon found that the school was rife with violence both physical and verbal. However I could not fall back on my old control mechanisms and I have to say that this really challenged me. 
What I was left with was the need to turn my whole philosophy on its head. We declared the school to be a non-violent territory both verbally and physically; we trained the teachers in non-violent management methods; and we focused on catching the kids when they were good. We still had negative consequences for unacceptable behaviour and we applied them rigorously—indeed as a principal I was considered a martinet. 
The result? The school became a much happier place. Parents sent their children along in increasing numbers because they saw the school as a safe place for their children to go to. Teaching positions became highly sought after so we had the pick of the crop of teachers who were available. 
However about 6 months into the process I had a young lad who was really trying to rark me up. In the past I would have become angry as a precursor to applying corporal punishment. I suddenly realised that this was not happening—I was not becoming angry. In other words as a result of that law change and the knowledge that we had put in place a system that ensured there would be consequences for bad behaviour I had changed and I believe that I had changed for the better. 
I hope therefore that people will understand why I believe in full repeal. It is critical that we establish the mindset in this country that children are unbeatable. Of two things I am sure. Firstly very few New Zealanders want a continuation of the physical punishment of children at the upper level at which section 59 allows an offence—for example the hitting of children with wooden sticks riding crops etc. The second thing is that I know of no one who wishes to criminalise parents who give their child an odd smack. 
It is my view that it is extremely important that parents establish clear boundaries for their children—anything less I believe is a form of child abuse—and that they follow up with appropriate consequences if those boundaries are breached. But parents have at their disposal a whole range of negative and positive consequences that do not require their hitting their children. The mistake we have made has been to meld the two concepts of discipline and hitting when in fact they are extremely separate constructs. The organisation that arguably is the most dependent upon discipline of its members is the armed services yet hitting is not used in the armed services as a means of achievement of discipline—and we must remember that in the past members of the armed services were flogged. 
The arguments made by those opposed to the bill seem to have focused on one particular point which is that parents—or people in the place of parents—who provide the odd smack would automatically be dragged before the courts to be found guilty of assault and would forever have that mark against their name. This belief without a doubt has frightened many many good parents in this country who do not regularly beat their children but may from time to time give them a smack on their hand. It seems to me that if this argument can be refuted then a large proportion of the opposition to full repeal simply melts away. 
A law that has been on our statute book since 1877 creates quite a significant imposition on parents: it states that parents are responsible for ensuring that their children are at school whenever the school is open for instruction. But virtually every parent of a school-age student breaches this law on more than one occasion every year. Yet we do not see hordes of parents being dragged before the courts. The law is a form of declaratory law that is used only when non-attendance is seriously affecting a child’s rights to an education and even then only after significant intervention by a range of agencies. 
Opponents to this law change point to the immutability of the law. They conveniently ignore some significant legal principles most especially the legal principle of de minimis non curat lex which says that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Even if a technical violation of the law has occurred the judge can simply strike out the charge on the grounds that the offence is too trivial. 
Let me explain. At present it is a breach of the law to travel faster than 100 kilometres per hour on the open road. Police would be laughed out of court if they tried to prosecute a motorist for travelling at 100.1 kilometres per hour yet that motorist would have been breaking the law. That is the application of the de minimis principle. 
I will give members an example closer to the issue we are debating. At present it is an assault under the Crimes Act for a teacher to forcibly take a child by the hand and remove him or her for example to a place of time out. Teachers do not have a defence under section 59; Phil Goff removed that defence in 1990. Let me tell members that teachers particularly those in the early childhood and new entrants classes breach this law on almost a daily basis. Yet have we seen even one such case brought to the court in the 16 years since the law for teachers—supposedly in loco parentis—was changed? The answer is no. 
Yet there are those who are still not convinced. They still say the police will be required to bring prosecutions against parents who give the odd smack. I have a letter on file from the Commissioner of Police that clearly states that is not the truth. However for those who are not convinced let me read out some of the 17 factors to be considered when deciding to prosecute—or not—as set out in the 
 New Zealand Police Manual of Best Practice 
. The factors include evidential sufficiency; well it is pretty hard to get that on a smack. They include the public interest—is it in the public interest to prosecute parents for giving their kid an odd smack? They also include the seriousness or triviality of the offence whether the consequences of any conviction would be unduly harsh and oppressive and a number of other things such as the attitude for example of the victims and the prosecution the likely length and expense of a trial the cooperation of the accused and the degree of culpability. If members go through those 17 principles I can assure them that they will see that no policeman would prosecute for a simple smack. 
I finish by making a comment about Chester Borrows’ amendment. For this amendment to become law this bill must pass the reading today. It is therefore utterly hypocritical for those who claim they wish to retain the right to smack to be lobbying for MPs to oppose this second reading. 
Chester Borrows’ amendment which I can say a number of New Zealand First members support would no doubt be an improvement on the current law—of that I have no doubt. However it still sends a message that it is all right to hit children. This is not a message one should be sending to the parents of New Zealand. The message we should be sending is that we understand if from time to time parents smack their children and rather than criminalise them we would prefer to help them to develop a different and more efficacious repertoire of responses to their children’s behaviour. 
Let me make it clear that the children who were recently stabbed by their father would not have been saved by this law change. Neither would Coral Burrows or the Kahui twins. In these cases we are dealing with totally different social phenomena. 
My experience and research heads my conscience to only one conclusion: the need for full repeal of section 59. However I wish to reiterate that my New Zealand First colleagues’ consciences have not necessarily led them to the same conclusion. 
There is one point however that I do wish to finish with. If the public does not wish me to use my conscience on issues such as this I should not be allowed a conscience vote. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker tenatatou te Whare. If one went into any kohanga reo throughout Aotearoa chances are that one would hear a waiata being sung with huge gusto: 
He taonga o tokungakau ko taku mokopuna e. 
He mokopuna korikori hei aha hei aha ra. 
Ko te mea nui ko te aroha. 
Kaua koe e patu taku mokopuna. 
Hei awhiawhi mai taku mokopuna korikori e. 
[ 
A treasure of my heart is indeed my grandchild. 
Even if he or she is a fidgety one it is not a concern. 
Loving is the most important thing. 
Don’t hit my grandchild. 
My fidgety grandchild is for cuddling 
.]  
This waiata talks about our mokopuna being truly precious—the treasures of our heart. It is a waiata that reminds us all not to hit our children and that promotes the messages of caring kindness and love. It is a call that restores the traditional values of our ancestors as being values for action—values that ask us to consider the way in which we bring up our children as fundamental towards setting standards to live by. There is such a rich archive of knowledge—moteatea whakatauaki karakia and waiata—that reinforces the special gifts required to cherish our children. It holds messages such as the kohanga song that inspire us to be the best parents and to love our children and our mokopuna with all our hearts. I am also aware that other messages are vigorously promoted as providing guidance on how to raise a child. 
Over the last year our office has been bombarded with correspondence from advocates opposing this bill. We have heard a common refrain that offers one interpretation of the biblical phrase: “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” as the argument has been put that this phrase justifies the use of corporal or physical punishment. From my understanding of Christian beliefs the rod referred to was a shepherd’s crook. It was used to guide or to nurture a flock on to the right path. It was not a directive to pick up a cane and wallop a child. In Te Ao Maori we have a concept similar to that of the shepherd’s rod in the saying: “He aroha whaea he potikipiripono”. This is a message to us that essentially parents who care for and nurture their children will find that their children will stay longer with them. If time is given to pass on values and to give guidance on responsibilities and obligations then children are less likely to deviate from these—“as the twig is bent so shall the tree grow.” 
Maori history and literature provide ample guidance about the difference between discipline and the violence of assault against children. The first extensively published ethnographic work by a Maori scholar  
The Old-Time Maori 
 by Makareti Papakura of NgatiWahiao Te Arawa described the experiences she had observed: “The Maori never beat their children but were always kind to them and this seemed to strengthen the bond of affection which remains among Maori throughout life.” Indeed there have been so many sources similarly describing the promotion of peace and care for children as a traditional value amongst tangata whenua that Professor Dame Anne Salmond described pre-colonisation as a “golden age” in her book  
Two Worlds 
. Tuhotoariki of Ngai Tara composed an oriori for his nephew Tuteremoana that was dedicated towards assisting the whanau to support that child in acquiring the vital life skills necessary to achieve his optimum potential. Another source te oriori mo Matareta guides a child in the history and traditions of its people demonstrating that both women and men were the carers and that children were entitled to security respect and protection. 
By sharing some of these time-honoured stories and values I do not want to suggest that everything is rosy in our homes today. For the reality is as this House well knows that New Zealand is suffering from a shameful record of epic proportions in terms of the way in which we mistreat our children. Last week’s United Nations’ Unicef report displayed our filthy washing for the world to see. We have the highest rate of children dying from accident or injury in the 25 OECD countries studied. Dr Gay Keating director of the Public Health Association summed it up with her call for a major rethink to show that we value our children. She said: “The health of our children is the responsibility of us all. Investing in our children now will reward us a thousand-fold in the future. If we ever needed a wake-up call this report is it.” 
The Maori Party is of the view that the decision to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act is exactly the type of investment we need to be making if we are committed to our children living in an environment free of violence. This bill will in effect place parents in the same position as that of any person who uses forcible action against another adult—in other words who assaults someone. This bill now removes the opportunity for assault against children to be recognised as reasonable by defining the types of actions one may take to remedy a situation requiring discipline. The bill sets out a range of approaches—such as pulling a child away from harm or when it is harming others or putting a child in a room for time out—and defines what is an appropriate preventive measure. 
I was raised firstly by my grandmother. At no time did she raise her hand or her voice in taking care of me or my cousins who were all loved nurtured and cared for by her. She lived kaupapa and tikanga and I hope that that is what my children grandchildren and great-grandchildren remember about me when I am gone. Speaking as a mother grandmother and proud great-grandmother I know too well the challenge of child rearing and of how it is easy even with the best intentions for one’s patience to wear thin and for the weapons at the end of one’s arms to become too easy to apply. I believe that when we smack a child we send the message that it is OK to hit others if we think they are doing something wrong to us. 
As a general rule I am not someone who smacks but that is not to say that I have not been sorely tempted over the years. Wherever I go whether it is to the supermarket the marae or a shopping mall down the street I know how frequently smacking is used as the first resort. Yet as Littlies Lobby research tells us 97 percent of over 1300 parents of preschoolers who were surveyed did not believe that physical discipline was highly effective. So we are in a catch-22 situation. Parents know that smacking does not work yet it has become so commonplace that the repeal of section 59 was vehemently opposed and created a near-record number of submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
This bill has raised many complex issues for parents and caregivers right around the country. The Maori Party has certainly appreciated the insights of submitters to the select committee who have shared their frustrations around the apparent State interference in the autonomous right of parents to care for their children. We too would be concerned if the new requirements had the impact of criminalising parents of children being removed from their care and of the family becoming another statistic in the State welfare records. This morning Greg O’Connor from the Police Association basically said that the police will prosecute people who break the law which must cause us some serious concern. The new section 59 will still beg interpretation. What for instance is understood by “performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting.”? As has already been suggested monitoring of judicial decisions and child discipline cases will be necessary to ensure that abusive behaviour is actually being recognised and stopped. 
So what we have had to weigh up are the concerns of parents and our kaupapa. We believe that it is critical that a line in the sand be drawn. The time has come for a very strong message of no hitting and non-violence to be promoted in every possible way. It is because of our kaupapa that we therefore see the aspirational value of this bill as being a beacon of pride for all whanau to hold as they establish the pathway forward for their tamariki. Kia ora. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 This will be a conscience vote for United Future. I will be voting against the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill. But should the bill pass the second reading I will be voting for the amendment that will replace the current wording of the bill with the alternative—and in my view the much superior alternative—that has been suggested by the Law Commission. The bill as it stands in my view is gravely flawed. I say that because of my deep conviction that the right and the responsibility to train and discipline children belongs to parents. The role of the State should be limited to ensuring for the common good the safety of New Zealand children. But subject to that overriding criterion the choice of which particular means parents use to discipline their children belongs to them and to them alone. 
This bill in my judgment is therefore a gross intrusion by the State into an area that goes way beyond its confidence and responsibility. That is why some people have labelled this bill the “Home Invasion Bill”. The State does not belong there. It would be inconceivable for example for this House to be passing a bill saying that all New Zealand parents must smack their children. It would not get past first base. If that is the case by what logic could Parliament decide that it should intervene in the child-parent relationship to outlaw a simple smack with the hand—which is all that is proposed in Chester Borrows’ amendment—in the context of loving child discipline? 
It is my conviction that love and discipline go together; they are two sides of the same coin. That has always been the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Indeed the scriptures are quite clear on the matter. They state that parents who do not discipline their child do not actually love that child. They scriptures go on to say that of course any punishment is most painful at the time and far from pleasant but later it bears fruit in peace and goodness in those on whom it has been used. This is backed up with the extensive research—including some in New Zealand—and the life experience of millions of people who as children were smacked within the context of a loving family environment and grew up to be good and peaceful adults. I am one of those people. 
Of course the beating or the thrashing of a child in anger is a totally different matter. That is exactly the point. There is a dichotomy between a smack in the context of loving discipline on the one hand and the beating or thrashing of a child in anger on the other. The first should be lawful; the second is already—and should remain—unlawful. That is actually pretty simple is it not? So why is there so much confusion? The Judaeo-Christian tradition and the Greek philosophical tradition through people such as Aristotle have held for millennia that children are not born virtuous; that they are designed to be trained to be virtuous. With training and discipline they will become virtuous because of the satisfaction that virtue itself yields in the life of an individual. 
That is the Western tradition. But as some members may know the 18th century French author Rousseau began a reversal of that view in relation to child discipline. He wrote an essay backwards. In his essay children were born into a wonderful Garden of Eden—literally a kindergarten—virtuous loving and kind from the moment they were born. It was the corrupting influence of their parents and society that then robbed them of that original state and converted them into aggressive angry and nasty adults. That thought has since penetrated deeply into Western society—and tonight’s bill as drafted reflects exactly that philosophical position. However the truth is that Rousseau wrote that essay as a joke. The tragedy is that so many people in the Western World—including some educationalists—have never got the joke but have instead decided that his essay sets forward the truth. He never intended that. Indeed believing that to be the truth people unwittingly believe a lie. 
Let us move on to Dr Benjamin Spock. His book  
Baby and Child Care 
 became the best selling book of the latter part of the 20th century. It was a great book of huge help to countless millions of parents—including my wife and me. However we disagreed with Spock on one point and that was in relation to smacking. Spock opposed smacking and millions believed him. But it is true that Spock publicly apologised later in life and freely admitted that he had got that particular part of his book completely wrong—something that he deeply regretted—admitting that with the best of intentions he had simply had a direct role in the raising of a generation of spoiled brats. 
This bill is opposed by around 80 percent of New Zealand parents. It breaches the principle of subsidiarity: that political power should be devolved to the level where it coincides with responsibility. When it comes to child discipline as I have already stated that power belongs exclusively to parents. We must not—and we dare not—step over that boundary. In the future when a parent at his or her wits’ end decides to resort to a smack then remembers that it is now unlawful and will make that parent a criminal—because we are talking about the Crimes Act here—I suggest he or she ring a member of this Parliament and tell that member to come and sort out the situation because we will not be doing that. Parents have the responsibility at the time to take some action. It is their responsibility and we should encourage empower and support them in that role. 
That is why I will support the amendment that is to be proposed at the Committee stage by Chester Borrows so that a smack using the hand only and provided it results in no more than trifling and transitory injury will remain lawful in the context of the discipline of a child by his or her parents. Implements of all any sort—wooden spoons and rulers etc.—are outlawed under the sensible drafting by the Law Commission. I have no doubt that that is the right position but I will go further. It is of fundamental importance that as a Parliament we clearly signal to the parents of New Zealand that they have the sole responsibility to discipline train and raise their children to be good citizens of New Zealand. They should do so with confidence secure in the knowledge that in the complex circumstances whereby a child of theirs is throwing a fit and being disobedient and violent etc. they can smack that child as one of their disciplinary tools. It is not compulsory; it is an option that is all. No one is saying that people should necessarily smack their children. But in those situations in their judgment we should have the confidence to say to them that they can use a light smack on their children. 
We should not even go near the point where we are going with this bill. I hear so many parents saying on talkback radio: “Parliament is undermining my confidence. I no longer know whether or not I am allowed to smack my children. Furthermore I am dead scared of the consequences from both Child Youth and Family and the police.” That is not the kind of nation we want where parents live in fear. We want to instil confidence in them. We want to train them. United Future is for every form of parental education going. We would like to see massive resources being put into it. We would like to see every parent in the country properly trained to be a good parent. But we must not overstep the mark. We must build confidence in them. Norman Kirk would turn in his grave if knew that the Labour Party is supporting this bill because he was very strong on that point. It is not experts who raise children. It is not teachers or social workers; it is parents and we should be totally on their side—100 percent without fear or favour. 
I say that if misguided members of this Parliament are prepared to brand New Zealand parents as criminals when they smack a child who in their judgment deserves it because of the circumstances—in the context of love not anger—with the view of producing good citizens in this country then we have failed them. If we brand those parents as criminals then we have failed them and failed them badly. Thank you. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 There is not one MP in this House who condones violence or abuse of any kind against children. Every one of us wants every Kiwi child to grow up in a loving environment safe from the abhorrent treatment meted out to the Kahui twins “Lillybing” and James Whakaruru. Sadly the list goes on and on. There will be more cases like those. Our natural inclination is to take action immediately. 
As legislators we are in a powerful situation. We can try to make a difference by changing laws to reflect the sort of society we want for our children. But the laws we make need to be enforceable and regularly enforced otherwise they are mere words and completely meaningless. The Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill fails on both those counts. Sadly if it is passed it will not save the life of even one child or stop the abuse and violence to children who are subjected to terrible maltreatment that would make our stomachs turn. For this reason ACT opposes the bill. 
I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity or good intentions of the sponsor of this bill. Sue Bradford like many of us has long campaigned for initiatives to end the violence and abuse suffered by our babies toddlers and vulnerable youth. But good intentions alone are not enough. This debate which has been going on for some time now has relied on emotion rather than reason and on rules rather than results. 
The easy option for me today would be to vote in favour of this bill to show that violence is being taken seriously in the hope that it would change those who victimise our defenceless children and to clear our consciences. But I fear that all that will be achieved by repealing section 59 is to turn loving parents into criminals and in the course of doing so we will make no difference to the real problems that exist in too many Kiwi communities. Caring for those who cannot defend themselves is one of the finest things about our civilisation. But the unintended result of the bill is that it will criminalise thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands—of very good parents. 
The original version of the bill outlawed any form of physical punishment or restraint. It made even the lightest uninvited but deliberate touch punishable by law. Holding still their child while dressing that child would have turned parents into criminals. The bill changed significantly during the select committee process and is now a watered-down version of that. 
I do not need to be persuaded that it is essential to reduce our level of family violence. That is why I am participating in the joint-party initiative to look into this matter despite the fact that I have some scepticism about the ability of large committees to make positive change. Violence is a plague that haunts our New Zealand communities and I agree that violence begets violence. Stopping the violence is imperative but this bill is not the answer. 
Our existing law against child abuse and violence against children is already strong. Under section 194 of the Crimes Act assaulting a child under the age of 14 attracts a maximum sentence which is double that of common assault. Under section 195 of the Crimes Act cruelty to a child brings a 5-year maximum sentence. And abandoning a child under 6 means a 7-year prison term under section 154 of the Crimes Act. 
The key is in enforcement. Enforcement involves doing three things properly. The first thing is reporting or detection. We in New Zealand have failed our children in this respect. Everybody—all of us in this House everybody in the gallery and everybody living in a community—owes it to the children living near and with them to report and to detect violence against those children. The second area of enforcement is trial. Again trials frequently do not happen. The third area is that of conviction and sentencing. Again I believe we have let down our New Zealand children in this regard with our sentencing and parole Acts and the level of conviction we have. If any one of these three elements of enforcement fails criminals will go free. 
We as legislators should be striving to help encourage the enforcement of the laws that already exist. The police are already struggling to cope. Child Youth and Family is already struggling to cope. Repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act will not aid either of those agencies. Most abuse is not reported to authorities until severe damage has been done to too many young lives. Around 70 percent of serious abuse occurs in families not already known to Child Youth and Family. As the speaker before me Gordon Copeland pointed out much of this debate rests on the difference between smacking and violence. I would like to say that I agree entirely with his comments on that matter. As a parent I certainly do not believe that those two things are one and the same. 
 Reasonable people know when discipline ends and violence and abuse begin. The rest of the people—an abusive minority and we should not forget that fact—will not notice or care that a law change has been made. The threat because that is what this bill is actually intended to be will be ignored by the very people who should heed the warning. Those parents who care for their children already and take their responsibilities seriously will be the only ones who suffer. 
The greatest good in my view can be done by helping vulnerable families directly. There are many wonderful initiatives operating around New Zealand and sadly we too often ignore the very good work that they do. There are mentoring programmes such as those promoted and put into action by the Family Help Trust in Christchurch where social workers go into homes and give people the advice and help they need whether about health issues education issues or welfare issues. There are many well-established programmes that help parents directly such as the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters that exist around the country. 
We could have a great deal more promotion of antenatal education preparation for vulnerable expectant parents about the pressures of raising a family. We know those families that are at risk and we should be targeting them directly. We could be promoting wholeheartedly child protection services for the whole country like the single programme that operates out of Starship Children’s Health in Auckland. There is much work to be done and much work that should happen immediately. 
Many of us in this House are parents—in fact I think most of us are. So those of us who are speaking today stand here wearing two hats. Many of us have very different parenting philosophies; that is not to say that some are good and some are bad or some are right and some are wrong. We all have different ideas about what is best for our children. All of those philosophies are aimed at bringing up happy and healthy children. 
ACT opposes this bill but that is not because we do not care for our children. We simply want caring parents to be able to make the best decisions for their children; decisions that we as legislators cannot anticipate or control from our comfortable green seats in this House. I would like to finish with this thought: acts of abuse and violence against children are already illegal. Unfortunately enforcement of this illegal behaviour is patchy and frequently totally inadequate. This bill will succeed only in criminalising an act of parenting. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Parenting in my opinion—speaking as a parent—is the toughest job in the world. It is also the worst paid. It is the most difficult role; and I remember being a parenting expert—before I was a parent! I remember knowing how other people should bring up their children. I remember thinking very very smugly in my latte days: “I’d never let my child behave like that at a cafe.” then a few years later having exactly that thing happen and knowing full well that I would just have to deal with it the best I could and get myself and my child out of there so that I was not such a disruption to everyone else. I understand that smugness. I understand as well the feeling of most parents who say that they do their very best because most parents do. 
I have been listening to the debate tonight and it has been very reasoned and sensible. I would like to congratulate all the speakers on that. But what I have not been happy about has been the amount of emotional language used not just in this House but elsewhere. I have been visited by many well-paid taxpayer-funded lobbyists who have talked to me about why it is that apparently I support child abuse—because I believe that we should not criminalise a parent who uses a light smack with a hand on a child’s bottom once as a form of discipline. I do not believe that that view is in the best interests of children. 
I was also seriously disgusted to be approached yesterday by another lobbyist—at no doubt great taxpayer expense—and advised that I was therefore supporting child violation. How in the world could anybody with half a brain cell consider that a light smack on the bottom with a hand a violation of a child? That is unfortunately some of the language that has been used around the section 59 debate. 
I have listened very carefully to the former teachers who have talked tonight about the fact that they used to strap children. They realised once they were not allowed to that they had to find other ways. I say: “Good on them!” because I suffered from a teacher who every chance she could would get a ruler out and slap me—and I have to say I was the most strapped child in standard 2. Frankly I was rather proud of it at the time. But leaving that to one side I think we need to say there is a huge difference between the responsibilities of a teacher and the responsibilities of a parent—a huge difference. We do not expect our teachers to love our children. We do not expect our teachers to go the extra yard for our children; we expect them to be teachers. We do not expect them to mortgage their homes so they can give our children what they need. We do not expect to go without for our children. We do expect that from our parents. 
I am not one of those people who believe that parents have a God-given right to discipline. I do however believe that parents have a God-given responsibility to their child. I believe that is the most robust relationship there is. When I looked today at the Unicef report yet again I saw that the countries with the very best relationships between children and their families and between children and their peers—every single one of the top eight countries—allow a defence of reasonable force or words similar to that. What that says to me is that those kids want to be with their parents. I am one of the people in this House who can remember being slapped—on only two occasions because that was all I needed—by a parent. I got the message and did not do it again. 
But of course the children whom we are most concerned about are those children whose parents do not give them a light slap on the bottom with a hand. We are most concerned about the children who are killed and the children who are seriously emotionally damaged by their parents. I ask members to think about themselves as children and what it must be like to be called stupid ugly fat or unwanted. All of those names can be and are routinely used against children and every single one of those names will hurt a child significantly more than one slap on the bottom. 
This bill will change nothing. This bill will allow emotional abuse. It will for instance still allow a mother or a father involved in a custody dispute over a child to say to the child: “Your other parent can’t see you this weekend because they don’t love you.” What is worse for the child? Instead this bill will criminalise parents who are good parents. It will criminalise parents who in fact do their very best—around 83 percent of those parents who have replied to polls. Those 83 percent of parents have said they have slapped their child on the bottom with a hand. None of this will help those children whom we know are killed by parents or caregivers—people who should know significantly better. 
I believe the police when they say to me that the police will prosecute parents who smack their child with a light smack on the bottom. I have had people say that that will not happen but I tell them it will. If the police arrest someone they will generally prosecute. There is a reason for that: if they do not prosecute they end up getting sued for wrongful arrest. That is why they do it. I hate to talk practicalities amongst all the fluffy words that we would like to think about on this issue but people get picked on in this society. People who are poor people who are brown and people who are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap will be the people who suffer the most from this legislation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: As I was mentioning before the dinner break the people who are most at risk from this legislation being passed are the poor the brown the people who are often marginalised the people who are picked on in society and the people who are easy prey to the State. Those are the people who are most likely to be arrested and prosecuted. Recently I met with Pacific families and Pacific New Zealanders who told me how concerned they were that this legislation would condemn them. These are good parents who are very deeply committed to their children. They are parents whose children are going very well at school and who will be good citizens of New Zealand. They feel at risk. 
There has been a lot of talk in the media about just how at risk they will be. Let us just look at a few situations. The police have said absolutely categorically that if they are advised that a child has been smacked they will investigate and if they find that a crime has been committed—which on the face of it it will have been—they will prosecute. They have to do so for various reasons. One reason for that is that if they do not they will open themselves up to a charge of wrongful arrest. They have seen many instances of that situation so they have learnt to prosecute. The second reason is that if we say the police will use discretion then we are in fact giving to the police a discretion that generally they do not have and do not use because in giving to the police this overall discretion over whether to investigate or take any action we are saying to them in these situations that they can choose whether they prosecute over something that is on the face of it an assault. 
I believe absolutely that the people who will be most disempowered are those who are already disempowered. What will be the result for those children? It will be that they will have a parent with a criminal conviction for assault on a child. The result will be that they may well be removed from their homes because the parent has a conviction for criminal assault on a child. The result for that child may well be that that child is placed in a far less safe environment than he or she was in his or her own home. The result may will be a completely dysfunctional family at the end of the day; we have in fact not helped the situation. 
Parents need to be given alternatives. Those are the reasons that I completely support the amendment of my colleague Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows is bringing forward an amendment that is sensible and that makes very very plain that repeated smacking is not OK but that a light smack on the bottom of a child by way of discipline will not result in prosecution. This is after all not a House where we should be indulging in social engineering. This is a House of law. This is where laws are made. We do not make laws for the purpose of not having them obeyed. I believe that it is an absolutely fundamental purpose of this Parliament that when we make laws we expect them to be obeyed; we do not tell the police not to bother prosecuting because we do not really mean them to do so. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I know and other members do of course that we do not want the State intruding into people’s homes. But of course we do it every day to protect people. We do it when we protect Mum from being hit by Dad. We do it when we set limits on the use of violence against children. The change I want to see is for the limit to that violence to be set at zero. That is no more of an intrusion in the home than we already make. 
Someone in my electorate who was against this Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill has been sending out an email letter comparing my support for the bill to the actions of the Nazi State as an example of intrusion into the home. That person even wrote the following to my constituents: “The fact that Ms Bradford and Mr Anderton have both had children who committed suicide elicits our sympathy. However their very sad misfortune does not by any means make them experts at bringing up their children.” 
What a sad and sick way to promote one’s cause. That is the hysterical extent that people will go to in order to defend their right to hit children. Well they could not have picked a less favourable example for their cause. The root of Nazism and of all hatred is the use of violence and bullying by one group of people who feel they have a moral claim higher than those of others. Without violence hatred cannot flourish and that is a strong reason why we should strip violence out of our homes. 
I will address the people who turn to scripture and recite misplaced lines such as “Spare the rod and spoil the child”. I caution anyone about trying to set the quality of his or her faith above that of others. The message in scripture is of course not literal; it is much more powerful more eternal more meaningful and more encompassing than that. The message is that humans should love one another. Violence is not loving and can never be loving. I am not in the practice of reciting articles of faith in this House but anyone who seeks to invoke the name of the teachings of Jesus in the cause of beating children has not understood Jesus’ message. 
Time and time again in recent years I have come to this Chamber and asked the House to protect our young people. Time and time again I have heard this House mouth platitudes about the importance of protecting our young and then declining the opportunity to do so when it is presented to it. Time and time again this House has exposed young New Zealanders to risks that we know will harm them. Now we are being asked again. Now we are once more deciding whether this House will stand up for young people and protect those whom we can protect. We are being asked to stop violence against children. We are being asked to send the message that our children should not be hit or brutalised and there is no room for equivocation here. 
I will vote for the amended bill because it is the best way to ensure that we make some progress but I say quite strongly that I would support a straight repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act if that were before the House now. This House should be sending the strongest and clearest message that we will not condone physical violence against children. Repealing section 59 would send the strongest possible message that it is not OK to hit and beat children. 
I believe in the persuasive power of this House otherwise I would not have been here for as long as I have. I believe that changing the law can help to change antisocial attitudes. When I voted for homosexual law reform in the 1980s—and the supporters of that initiative were right—I believed our social attitudes changed. I believe that when we passed the antinuclear legislation we made our proud moral stance a cause that all New Zealanders could be proud of. I believe we have a responsibility to lead public attitudes now. 
Leadership is something that this House has a poor record of when it comes to protecting our young. This House declined to show leadership over the drinking age when members knew that the very young had every access to alcohol and that the results were causing mayhem. This House refused to show leadership when it made prostitution a career option for young people. This House is again failing in its duty to show leadership because this bill has been watered down and still allows children to be hit. 
It is against the law for Dad to hit Mum. Why is it not against the law for Dad to hit the kids? There is no reasonable force defence for Dad hitting Mum—one cannot use that. Why should there be a reasonable force defence for hitting children who arguably have even less ability to defend themselves? It is one law for all. I support one law for all—one law that says no hitting. Loving parents will still be able to change their children’s nappies when their children are struggling against them. 
This House has some double standards. We had a privileges case brought against Winston Peters for giving John Banks a shove. He was to be arrested for assault and Lord knows what else in this House. It was a rather mild form of assault too—and I was involved in it I must say as a witness. But for goodness’ sake we are not talking about a mild shove in the corridors of Parliament; we are talking about the example we are asked to give in terms of the law of what one can or cannot do with the kids. 
This bill will still enable parents to stop their kids from running out on to the road. They will not be able to beat their children with a stick with their belts or with their fists—nor should they. Our community used to tolerate men hitting women. I lived in that community; I was in a house like that. Thankfully attitudes have changed—although with some people that I hear I doubt it—but our community still tolerates adults hitting children. It is time for that attitude to change too. A change in the law will bring that about. The law has never supported the use of violence between adults—never. It is time for violence to be removed from the home altogether. It is time to send a message that physical discipline for children is unacceptable. 
I believe that New Zealand has one of the best records in the world in respecting international conventions. When the world looks around at the most humane most lawful most civilised countries in the world I want to stand up and proudly say that our law is faultless. But our treatment of children is a glaring scar on us. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international standard setting out the way we should treat our children. Until section 59 of the Crimes Act is repealed we cannot comply with it. 
International law and international conventions are a friend to New Zealand. They are the only tool we have to repel bullying and “might is right”. If we want to thrive as a small proud independent and sovereign nation then we should and must respect international law and conventions with every tool we have. So our breach of the Convention on the Rights of the Child tears at the fabric of our respect for international law. Just as an assault against one of us adult or child is an assault against all of us—which is why we prosecute as a society and do not leave remedies to civil courts any more—so too a breach of the convention is an assault against all the authority of international conventions that we ask others to respect. 
I want us to raise healthy adults and I want them raised in a culture of respect care and protection for our young. Time and time again this House has declined the opportunity to step in and protect our young when we could have. I say that we must not let them down again. Let us not send a message that violence and physical discipline against children is OK. I am disappointed as I have said that we are not going to pass the whole repeal of section 59 today but I believe that the amendment makes sufficient progress and I will support it for that reason. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There will be no expressions of approval disapproval or otherwise from the gallery. Thank you. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the abolition of section 59 of the Crimes Act and I oppose it absolutely. I am angry that despite the input of 1700 submitters the skills of the Crown Law Office and a huge desire by all MPs in this House to do something to stop the terrible abuse of children in our country not one child will be safer happier or even better off if this legislation is passed. This bill is flawed. It is a cop-out that we have created just to show that we are trying to do something. In an attempt to pussyfoot around an issue that has polarised the people of New Zealand the Labour-Green majority on the Justice and Electoral Committee has produced a bill that is an untidy jumble of words that confuses rather than clarifies and that threatens to criminalise rather than support parents who are responsible for the protecting and nurturing of our children. This is not the way to look after our kids; it is not the way to strengthen families; and it is not the way to break the cycle of violence in our homes. 
Supporters of the bill talk of the importance of using this legislation to send a strong message to the community that using physical force to correct children is not OK and they believe that if that message gets through child abuse will miraculously stop. I do not follow this logic. The beating bashing and abuse of kids is already illegal under the existing section 59 and is abhorred by all New Zealanders. The anti - child abuse message is already strong in our communities and it is still not getting through to the right people. Do we really think they will respond to a change of wording in a piece of legislation in Wellington? 
Let us be very clear about this bill. It legislates against the smacking of children only at a level below that of reasonable force. It does not even attempt to deal with the main factors that lead to child abuse. The latest Unicef report identified poverty stress family breakdown and drug and alcohol abuse as the primary factors contributing to child abuse—not smacking. When we analyse the behaviour of the countries that have the best record in terms of looking after children and the lowest child abuse death rates six out of the top 10 allow smacking. So just how closely are smacking and child abuse linked? 
We are debating this bill for the very best of reasons. We are debating this bill because the people who care about kids and we as politicians are so concerned and shocked about the level of child abuse in New Zealand that we want to do something about it. But passing this legislation as it stands is not the answer. When we began debating the bill I was hopeful we could make a difference. Just having the discussion has been worthwhile because it has proved that despite the passion and robustness of the argument philosophically all submitters had a lot in common. Whether they were individuals child experts voluntary organisations the police or Government departments they came to submit because they were concerned about the welfare of kids. 
I think every submission made the point that there is too much violence in our society and it erupts far too often. The sadness and hopelessness we all feel when we read of another child-abuse death quite rightly shocks hurts and angers us. Equally the vast majority of submitters understood that kids need good parenting if they are going to do well. They realise that being a good parent is a very difficult job and that parents have to be encouraged and supported. There was also agreement that kids needed boundaries to feel safe and secure and that there were many strategies and parenting methods that could be used to educate discipline and control kids. 
And that is where the agreement came to an abrupt halt and all debate focused on just one of the many methods of parenting control—the smack. Instinctively we all know that repetitive physical violence and abuse are very bad for children. Research confirms that but it also shows that occasional light smacking does not cause harm in healthy family relationships. Parenting gurus will tell us that smacking unless fully discussed and explained is not effective in the long term but in the short term it works and often parents find that that is just long enough to put other strategies in place. Research also tells us that children need those consistent boundaries and often a light smack is what parents do to reinforce them. 
Actually only a very few submitters were prepared to be hard and fast and say that all smackers were criminals. Even Sue Bradford herself has said she does not want to see good parents criminalised—but that unfortunately is what this bill in its present form can do. 
The debate on this bill is nothing to do with the philosophy of bringing up kids and everything to do with the parenting strategies people use every day in their families. This is why the issue has become so emotive. What mandate does Parliament have to control or shape the very personal and very intimate relationship between parent and child? This relationship involves 24-hour 7-day-a-week care and attention over many many years. How do we devise a law that is relevant at all times under all conditions and in each and every circumstance? Logic says we cannot. Unless it is a really general statement of course the law requires specifics if it is to be enforced. 
Research and our own intuition tell us that the most critical factor in keeping a child safe and happy is its relationship with its parents and the quality of its family life. We need to have faith in families to encourage and support them. We need to embrace diversity in child-rearing methods and we need to give good parents credit for using the right parenting strategies at the right time and in the right place. Parents have this understanding from knowing and loving their kids and I believe that they absolutely understand the difference between smacking and child abuse. 
The argument that using physical force to correct kids causes child abuse is as valid as the idea that just being able to drive a car causes dangerous smashes. We need to be more discerning. Even parenting experts cannot always agree on the best way to handle all kids. 
So in conclusion I believe that this bill is technically a poor piece of legislation. It cannot fulfil the expectations of its promoters. It does not address the issues that are identified as the core factors of child abuse it restricts the options of parents and it has the ability to criminalise good parents—the very people whom we need to rely on to provide a protective and nurturing environment for their kids. The bill has a very unhealthy Goody Two-Shoes Government-knows-best attitude when every scrap of evidence on successful child-rearing indicates that happy homes and strong families are the best place for kids. 
If we really want to do something about child abuse in this country we should be using every effort to support parenting programmes and mentor families in the community rather than bickering over a piece of legislation that bullies and threatens parents and undermines their relationship with the very children we are trying to protect. In presenting this bill I believe we have failed the children of New Zealand—children like the Kahui twins the “Lillybings” and the Coral Burrows. With all Parliament’s resources and the time and the energy that have gone into this bill we should have been able to come up with something better. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I speak in support of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill as reported back to Parliament. I wish to congratulate Sue Bradford on her courage and commitment in introducing a member’s bill to this House to make better provision for our children to live in a safe and secure environment free from violence. I give my thanks to the committee members and to the hard-working staff and officials of the committee. We received 1718 submissions and heard around 200 submitters including parents caregivers young people and representatives from organisations—some of whom had Judith Collins quaking in her boots. Every submitter who requested to be heard was heard. 
I acknowledge the many individuals who made submissions on the bill based on their own experience of raising their children and looking back on their childhood. For many it was painful. I commend them for the courage it took to tell their stories. For some the issue was the impact of violence on their young lives and the ongoing effect of it on them as adults; for others it was their regret for having hurt their own children. Then there were those parents who were genuinely fearful that they would be prosecuted for physically disciplining their children and those who believed it was not only their right but also their responsibility to strike their children. 
Many organisations spoke strongly in support of the bill. Barnardos Plunket EPOCH the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges Save the Children Unicef the Families Commission the Children’s Commissioner and many others worked determinedly to advocate for and educate about the need for change—for support for our children our families and our communities. The Body Shop petition of Barry Thomas drew some 20750 signatures in support of Sue Bradford’s bill. I am proud to say that the Waitakere City Council in my own region led the charge in speaking out in support of the bill and it was followed by both the Auckland City Council and the Porirua City Council. 
The bill has been dubbed the “Anti-Smacking Bill”. That trivialises the seriousness of the issue. It is not about introducing a prosecution. It is about removing a legal defence not about introducing a prosecution—a defence that has seen serious violence against our children deemed to be reasonable and seen parents not held accountable for their violent behaviour. Opponents claim that such cases are rare. To me that is unacceptable. Do we really want to stand by while our children are at risk in that way? In the type of case in which charges are laid people who have violently abused their children such as by beating them with a piece of wood a belt or a riding crop have used section 59 of the Crimes Act to successfully defend their actions. The majority of New Zealanders are appalled at such actions. 
Most New Zealand parents are good parents and want to do their best for their children’s welfare and safety. However the recent Unicef report has highlighted the fact that some of our children are amongst the least safe in the Western World. Our country leads in many ways—with the first women to get the vote our nuclear-free policy and our commitment to addressing climate change—but on the issue of our children’s safety and well-being we are lagging behind other Western World nations. We must work together to change that. 
It is said that it takes a village to raise a child and this Government is proud to support the many community organisations throughout New Zealand that help parents to raise happy healthy children who are able to reach their full potential. The education and public awareness programmes that promote positive parenting have been adopted by many thousands of parents community groups and educational groups throughout this country. The SKIP programme—which for the benefit of those who do not know this is Strategies with Kids - Information for Parents—is a fine example of that. As a select committee member I say it was great to hear from so many parents and organisations about the effectiveness of that programme. Our Government has invested—and very happily invested—$10.8 million over 3 years to establish the SKIP programme and we will continue to provide an additional $14.8 million over the next 4 years to enable the programme to continue. Raising children is the most valuable job in our society and providing education and support to families is a vital job of the Government. 
While considering this bill the committee noted the high level of public interest stimulated by the possible repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act and was concerned that there was widespread misunderstanding about the bill’s potential effect. There was a view that parents would be criminalised for disciplining their children and the situation was not helped by a deliberate scaremongering and misinformation campaign by opponents to the bill. For the sake of clarity the select committee requested assistance from the Law Commission in drafting changes to the bill to ensure its intention was clear and to address parents’ concerns. In doing so the majority of the select committee did not want to undermine the effects of positive parenting programmes. 
The changes suggested by the commission and agreed by the majority of the select committee encapsulated a new title and purpose clause and a substituted section 59 that clarifies when it is acceptable for parents to use reasonable force: in situations such as protecting a child from harm providing normal daily care and preventing harm from being done to others. Those amendments ensure the bill gives assurance to good parents. I thank the Law Commission for its invaluable advice on this matter. 
In addition the select committee was advised that the police would not actively solicit reports on the use of force against children as there are safeguards. The Solicitor-General’s prosecution guidelines that are in place ensure parents will not be prosecuted for minor acts of violence. As the legislation is now the police are obliged to follow up any reports they receive but such reports do not require significant investigation. Currently if a child is sent to his or her room that constitutes kidnapping under section 209 of the Crimes Act but the police do not prosecute parents for that any more than they prosecute high-profile rugby players for hitting a team-mate with a handbag. I believe the select committee report and amendments balance the need to make sure that good and caring parents are supported whilst ensuring that children are absolutely protected from abuse. 
Legislation like that in this bill is not uncommon. Fifteen countries have introduced similar legislation and a number of others are looking at the problem at this point in time. I was disappointed to hear Chester Borrows and Judith Collins—who was quaking in her boots at people terrifying her—refer to interest groups in such a derogatory way. Those organisations are New Zealand institutions and leaders in the care of our children—hardly radical. It may be that because they dared to be critical of an amendment that undermined and counteracted their good work as they strive to support our families both parents and children the Opposition took that stance. In dog training trainers now advocate that the use of violence is counteractive and harmful to dogs being able to reach their full potential. There is no section 59 for puppies. There is no Chester Borrows’ amendment prescribing the level of violence that is OK. Do we see the police marauding and going around arresting dog owners? 
I support this bill and I commend my Labour colleagues and other speakers in this House from other parties who have committed themselves to ensuring that our youngest and most vulnerable citizens are safe and secure. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I give my wholehearted support to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill for the full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act as in fact do all of our Green MPs. I congratulate my colleague Sue Bradford on the hard work the persistence and the determination that she has shown in getting it this far—even in the face today of death threats. I acknowledge and thank other speakers tonight who have supported the bill for some very supportive and in some cases very moving speeches: Mark Burton; Brian Donnelly who gave us a lot of facts stemming from his experiences as a schoolteacher which I thought were a very valuable contribution to the debate; Tariana Turia whose heart is clearly with us; Jim Anderton who gave a moving speech; and Lynne Pillay who did great work as the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee and who has been so forceful in her support just now. 
Non-violence is one of the four core principles on which the Green Party is founded. We believe that non-violence if it is to prevent war and international destruction has to start in the family in the home in the school and in the community if it is to flow through to between nations. This bill is just part of a very long process of trying to build a non-violent society. 
I will tell three stories tonight from personal experience; I think most of the academic arguments have been made. I will tell stories about three children—one of them was me. All of the stories have the theme that if beating a child seems to work because it changes the child’s behaviour is anybody asking why and is anybody asking what is going on in the mind of that child at the time? 
My father was a schoolteacher of the old school and he believed in the strap—not child abuse nothing illegal—but he believed that one did not use it often but when one did one used it really hard. Part of the punishment were the words “go and get me the strap”. So I would go and get the instrument of my own beating bring it back and get a thrashing. I want to focus on what that did to me. The fact that it hurt is neither here nor there; it was completely not the point it does not matter. But did I feel sorry for what I had done? Never. Did I feel remorseful? Did I think: “Oh that was naughty I’d better not do that again.”? Never. Did I decide to change my behaviour? Only to ensure that next time I did not get caught. What did I feel? I felt resentment I felt anger I felt humiliation and I felt a determination to get even. Is that the sort of reaction that we want to provoke in our children? I would suggest that it is actually quite counterproductive to what we are trying to achieve in hitting a child. 
When I had children myself the instinct carried over and my first reaction when I got furious with them—as one does with children—was that I wanted to hit them. I made a decision early on that I was not going to do that and it was a task of a number of years to actually train myself not to hit the kids when I was angry but to use the other methods that I knew could be used. Most of the time I succeeded in that. But because one’s own conditioning carries over when one grows up it took quite a lot of effort. 
The second story I want to tell is about a father and his 2-year-old daughter who were visiting my home many years ago. She was engrossed in what she was doing and did not really take any notice of her father when he asked her to do something. So he said: “Come here I’m going to smack you.” Of course a 2-year-old being told she is going to get smacked does not “come here” so the demands continue: “Come here. If you do not come here right now you’re going to get a real thrashing.” When she finally did come it had worked up to such a point—for a really really small error in the first place—that he put her over his knee and really walloped her on the bottom. Now that was just a smacking. That is what most of the opponents of this bill think is perfectly normal and parents should be able to do. I looked at why that child’s behaviour changed and it was fear. I looked at the fear in her eyes as she looked at her father and I asked myself whether we want to discipline our children by making them so afraid of us that they cannot think for themselves and they just act out of fear. 
The third story is about another 2-year-old with his father. This is much more recent. Two-year-olds can be very trying. They have temper tantrums; they are testing the boundaries all the time. They do things like picking up their dinner and throwing it around the walls. If one can manage to persuade oneself not to laugh—which is important—something has to be done. As soon as that behaviour starts this particular father says: “No it’s time you sat on the naughty mat.” The naughty mat is in the corner of the room and if the child does not go of his own free will he is picked up firmly without violence sat on the naughty mat with his back to the rest of the room where he cannot see people and held there until he calms down. At the end of that time there are usually tears cuddles and reconciliation. I have never seen that child express fear of his father but he is a much better behaved child than the one I witnessed many years ago. 
This is not about opposing discipline. It is not about having no boundaries on children’s behaviour. Children need firm boundaries. They need to know where the limits are and those limits must be enforced. But it is about enforcing those boundaries in a non-violent way. It is about enforcing them with respect for that child as an individual in his or her own right. 
If we want to build a non-violent society we know that after this bill becomes law parents will need help to change the sort of discipline they use. I can imagine that it could be quite hard for a parent of an 8 or 9-year-old who has always thrashed the child to suddenly start disciplining that child without thrashing it. It is important that we provide opportunities and information for parents on how to change their methods of discipline to fit in with the new expectations that society has that that they do not use thrashings. The Greens will do everything we can to support that change in society and to support and encourage parents to use the many techniques that are available to set firm boundaries for children without beating the daylights out of them. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P Blue Borrows Hutchison Power Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly Woolerton Stewart); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 42 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Blumsky Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Connell Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Key King McCully Mapp Peachey Roy Ryall Shanks Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth); New Zealand First 4 (Peters Mark Paraone Brown); United Future 2 (Turner Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 6 (Bennett P Blue Borrows Hutchison Power Rich); New Zealand First 3 (Donnelly Woolerton Stewart); Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 1 (Dunne); Progressive 1 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 42 (Ardern Auchinvole Bennett D Blumsky Brownlee Carter D Carter J Clarkson Coleman Collins Connell Dean English Finlayson Foss Goodhew Goudie Groser Guy Hayes Heatley Henare Key King McCully Mapp Peachey Roy Ryall Shanks; Simich Smith L Smith N te Heuheu Tisch Tolley Tremain Wagner Wilkinson Williamson Wong Worth) New Zealand First 4 (Peters Mark Paraone Brown); United Future 2 (Turner Copeland); ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Field 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill. 
Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill one of two Easter trading bills that were brought before the Commerce Committee of which I was a member last year. That committee was ably led by Katherine Rich. Both bills enjoyed support from across the House. We worked together with Maryan Street and Shane Jones to bring both bills before the House this evening. We are bringing two bills that I believe can be well debated and well considered as we go forward to try to solve the anomalies that have existed with this legislation over many many years. 
As I said there are two similar bills. The one I will speak to tonight is the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill nicknamed the “Jacqui Dean Bill”. The second bill is the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill the “Steve Chadwick Bill”. The intent of the bill we are now debating is to liberalise shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday as opposed to liberalising shop trading purely on Easter Sunday as provided for in the Steve Chadwick bill. The bill tonight provides for a partial exemption from the requirements under the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 to be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday for shops located in two visitor districts—namely Tauranga and Wanaka. The bill specifies that the shops can open from 10 a.m. in the morning until 5 p.m. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I see that this bill is set down in the name of the member Jacqui Dean who is present in the Chamber. I am confused as to why the member for Napier is speaking on this bill when it is in the name of another member. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that. It should be obvious to you but Jacqui Dean was not here when the bill was called and any member can move it on her behalf. There will be no further comment on that thank you. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: I am always keen to take the opportunity to stand and speak in the House and I am pleased to continue at this point in time to make sure we debate this important legislation tonight. 
There was much demand from other regions around the country including from my own electorate Napier to be included in the Jacqui Dean bill and for their shops to be allowed to trade between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. As a result shops located in the district of a territorial authority specified in schedule 2 of this bill will be granted an exemption from the requirements in the principal Act to be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. It was beyond the scope of the bill to provide a nationwide exemption and that is why we have allowed for the schedule and for all the territorial authorities to be provided for in the first instance. Each territorial authority is listed in the schedule and at a later date—either in the Committee of the whole House or by amending legislation—a territorial authority may apply to be exempted from that schedule. 
 The Steve Chadwick bill seeks to liberalise Easter Sunday only in the sense of allowing territorial authorities the authority to decide whether shops in their districts remain open on Easter Sunday. In that situation those authorities should be able to consult their communities on this matter using the special consultative procedure set out in section 83 of the Local Government Act 2002. 
As I said the committee was ably led by our chair Katherine Rich and we had Chris Auchinvole Pansy Wong and indeed Jacqui Dean speaking on the bill. But in considering both bills we were also joined by Shane Jones Winnie Laban Charles Chauvel Gordon Copeland and Maryan Street from the other side of the House who sought to point out some common features in both bills particularly with regard to employee rights and to the leases applying to shops in shopping malls which may have been forced to open under a wider agreement. 
There are two strong sides to the debate which we saw in the submissions that came before the House. In submissions arguing for the bill we see the importance of tourism with advocates for the tourism industry saying that their industry operates 365 days of the year and that we need to account for that fact. There were arguments around economic opportunities. Businesses have invested a heck of a lot into their businesses and they need every opportunity to trade to make sure that the return on their investment is maximised. 
There were submissions from towns like Wanaka where employment opportunities were key to shops catering to overseas tourists or visitors working in New Zealand. People operating those businesses wanted to work over those weekends so they could service the community of Wanaka. There are regional events such as Wings over Wanaka whose organisers put in a submission arguing that local shops should be allowed to trade on that particular day. 
Another reason is the anomaly in the existing legislation. For instance down in Wanaka there was an exemption for some shops like those attached to petrol stations which could sell magazines quite legally but the Dymocks bookshop down the road was unable to do that. There are anomalies with regard to the location of shops within particular districts as well. In Wanaka again the back door of one shop was unable to trade on Easter Sunday but the shop was able to trade through its other door which is somewhat ludicrous. Also there is the anomaly of areas such as Wanaka versus Queenstown whereby in one situation shopkeepers could trade in Queenstown but just down the road in Wanaka shops were unable to trade. 
Another submission cited the ludicrous audit procedures from the Department of Labour. We had submissions coming in from some shop owners who had been audited and who had to go though and count particular items in an audit in order to list what had been illegally traded on that particular day. 
Lastly submitters supporting the bill did so through a straight-out belief in freedom of choice. Neither bill makes trading compulsory but right now shops have the freedom of choice to trade on 51 Sundays out of 52 in the year and by shops using that freedom of choice there are already many businesses that choose not to trade on Sunday because the people operating them want to observe Sunday for religious reasons and they choose not to trade on that day. They have the choice anyway and legally they are able to trade. 
The arguments against the bill came through pretty loud and clear as well. Firstly the submissions cited family community time. Given the number of days that shops are open now many families asked for that time to be protected and ensconced in law. The second point in submissions against the bill was the protection of employees. It was argued that employees have employment contracts and it was asked how if the law changed now they would they be able to fight for a right to not work on a Sunday if they did not want to work on that particular Sunday. So while working on this legislation the committee has spent a lot of time making sure that employees’ rights are protected so they can front up to the owners of their businesses and say they do not want to work on that particular day. 
A very strong theme in submissions against the bill was religious reasons. Many church groups oppose trading on the grounds of their religious beliefs and we have heard that throughout the submissions. 
I will now focus on a submission from Napier which is my own electorate. The Napier City Council put in a strong submission for the bill based on a number of key reasons and I will go through that now. Firstly tourism is a key industry in Napier and is continuing to grow in importance—[ 
Interruption 
]—as Dr Cullen would realise. Napier City Council is a part of many tourism events such as the concerts at the Mission which happen just around the corner from him. The art deco days are another tourism attraction. Tourism is becoming increasingly important particularly with the likes of British American Tobacco PDL Electronics and Medallion Foods closing down. It is important that we focus on tourism in our city. 
Napier’s inner city was one of the first regional shopping areas to introduce 7-day shopping each week. It is already very strongly supported as Dr Cullen knows. I am sure that quite regularly he goes into Emerson Street and enjoys a latte. I am not sure whether that is his coffee of choice but I am sure he goes there on a Sunday morning enjoys a quiet coffee and enjoys the fact that those shops are open. 
The other point Dr Cullen will be very aware of is the number of cruise ships that come into Napier now and cruise ships have come in over Easter and continue to do so. The member will know that the number of cruise ships coming into Napier continues to rise every year and the cruise ships are getting bigger and better each year. When we see 3000-odd people coming into the port on those days it is important that we show them a strong shopping centre that they can come and shop in. 
The other point the Napier City Council raised was about tourism services that are already able to open such as the swimming baths and the aquarium. There is an anomaly in that those services are able to open on Easter Sunday but on the other side of the coin many of the shops that support those businesses are unable to open. Again as Dr Cullen would be aware there is the anomaly between Taupo and Napier. Taupo shops are able to open on Easter Sunday but Napier shops are unable to. 
In summary there is strong debate between the two sides of the House on this issue. It has been before the House for many years and it is something I think will be brought to a head with this bill. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Would the member care to move on behalf of Jacqui Dean that the bill be read a second time. 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
 on behalf of  
Jacqui Dean (National—Otago 
): I move  
That the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Indeed we finally have a question before the House at the end of the member’s speech. I suppose one thing that I should note about that speech since the member chose to light upon Napier at some length is that I do believe that those who are engaged in such a great deal of phone canvassing and pamphlet distribution on his behalf—that is to say the Exclusive Brethren—will be somewhat disappointed by his voting record on this Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. Mr Tremain’s speech to move Easter Sunday trading—almost the second speech he has given in the House—will come as a terrible shock to the Exclusive Brethren of Hawke’s Bay who spent a great deal of time on the telephone lines attacking the Labour Party as being godless and goodness knows what else. That was about as good as we were as far as the Exclusive Brethren were concerned. 
I have voted in favour of Easter trading on a number of occasions but I will be voting against this bill for a number of reasons and I will make clear why. First of all this issue has come before this House on any number of occasions. On every occasion my friends associated with the industrial wing of the labour movement and my somewhat lesser friends from the religious movement in New Zealand have entered into an interesting coalition in order to defeat moves in favour of Easter Sunday trading in particular. I will deal with Good Friday later; I think that is a somewhat different kind of issue. 
The reality however is that clearly New Zealanders by and large actually support Easter Sunday trading because given the chance to do so they go and trade on Easter Sundays. People vote by going to the shops and every Easter Sunday we have the somewhat farcical situation where some shops open and are subject to the penalties of the law. People wonder quite why we continue to carry on in the way that we do in that particular respect. I do not think that when we have reached the point where the public clearly does not regard the law as sensible in respect of Easter Sunday it makes sense for us to continue to vote as if those views no longer really have any great meaning at all. That is not to denigrate those who hold very strong views particularly on religious grounds about the significance of Easter Sunday and I will come back to that point a little bit later on. 
The issue around workers’ protection is of course a crucial issue. It is absolutely crucial that nobody who holds strong religious convictions about the significance of Easter Sunday or Good Friday should be forced to work on that day. I think it is very appropriate that the Commerce Committee has put into both bills very strong protections in that regard because I think it would be quite against strongly held feelings of conscience for some workers to be placed in the position of having to work on that day. In terms of the general issue around workers’ conditions being protected on such a day of course there is the anomaly around the fact that Easter Sunday alone of all the days that we think of as being a public holiday is not in fact a public holiday and that has implications around the position of workers. Perhaps we might want to consider at some later point how we might rectify that particular position should either of these bills pass through the House. I think it would be appropriate to do that to ensure further worker protections in that respect. 
I have been consistently in favour of the bill because generally speaking I favour liberal laws around shop trading hours in any case. It is very interesting that the United States which is a very very much more religious society than New Zealand and which is a country where regular church attendance is very very much higher than it is in New Zealand generally speaking has much more liberal shop trading rules than New Zealand does including a number of days that nobody in this House would suggest should be open slather in terms of shop trading and we do not seem to find that inconsistent with the dominant Christian beliefs of the United States. I think however it is true that most of us would—perhaps illogically but then most of us are illogical at some point or other in our lives—draw a distinction between Good Friday and Easter Sunday in terms of the depths of religiosity that surrounds those two particular days. One of those days is so absolutely central to the story of Christianity which although it is not our State religion is certainly so crucial to our story for most of us in this nation as a people. I say this as a person who comes from a very long secular tradition. I proudly exited from my secondary school as the only baptised Anglican who was not a confirmed Anglican which took some degree of doing given the level of pressure that came on to be confirmed as an Anglican during those 5 years along with my record in not achieving any kind of status in the cadet corps. But those are my two proudest achievements in my 5 years at that school. There are a few other bits and pieces along the way but in recollection they pale into insignificance compared with those two particular things which says something about where I stand and where I come from. 
But when we face the two bills I think we face an interesting issue. At some point one or other of these bills has to pass. At the end of the day it does not make any sense for both of them to be passed because if they are both passed it will be rather strange. I understand that Jacqui Dean has indicated that she is prepared to move amendments to remove Good Friday from this bill at the Committee stage. Nevertheless the bill we are dealing with at the moment has both Good Friday and Easter Sunday. The other bill deals only with Easter Sunday. 
The reason why I will be voting against Jacqui Dean’s bill and in favour of Steve Chadwick’s bill in particular is because of the structure of the two bills—where they actually come from in terms of their structure. If we go through the Jacqui Dean bill we see that it bears rather too much the pains of its birth in the sense that it went into a select committee to provide for limited opening on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in two places in the country and came out of the select committee providing for full opening on Good Friday and Easter Sunday—the bill provides not just for 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. opening but open slather on Good Friday and Easter Sunday—effectively across the whole of the country by the rather artificial device of tacking on additions to the current very odd rules around visitor centres which no longer bear any great logic anyway. We say that some places are visitor centres and others which like Rotorua clearly are somehow or other are not covered within the current legislation. Napier which is not so much a visitor centre at Easter has its big visitor period during February with three weekends in a row: the Mission Estate Winery Concert the wine weekend and the art deco weekend. Nevertheless we have hopes of becoming a more continuous visitor centre during the year. As Mr Tremain rightly said we are getting more of the cruise ship traffic through the city and it seems strange that when people come in a cruise ship on Easter Sunday the entire city is closed except for a few bits and pieces around the place. That does not make sense. 
But a bill that when one reads through it and imposes it upon the original legislation actually says that shops will be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in all these places except for those listed in the schedule which includes every territorial district in the country is not good legislation. It is just a bad thing for Parliament to pass a bill that is so illogically structured as that bill actually is. On the other hand Steve Chadwick’s bill says that shops may open on Easter Sunday if the local authority decides that they should subject to the consultation processes in the Local Government Act 2002. That means then that before that decision is taken the local people have a right to be consulted around that—I think that is a good thing—so that localities can make their own choices in that regard. It is an exercise of direct democracy. And then shops can be open if that decision is made. I am sure that in an area such as Napier the decision will be taken that the shops will be able to be open. Perhaps Hastings may go first and we will follow afterwards which has happened in other areas of shopping in relation to our two cities— 
Chris Tremain 
: And Havelock North. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Well Havelock North maybe but it might be regarded as more for the workers if the shops open. Havelock North will remain closed so that the working-class areas of Hastings and Napier will remain open and “not in my backyard” will operate rather nicely in Havelock North. 
So my view given that at the end of the day the House has to pass one bill or the other is that—although in the absence of Steve Chadwick’s bill with its structure I would actually vote for this bill despite what I think are some fairly strange structures—it does not make sense to me to vote for it at this point. As Leader of the House I am particularly conscious that it will be quite difficult to pass either bill before Easter. Even though they may not be able to come into effect at least it will be a clear signal if they get through before Easter—at least probably only one of these bills can possibly proceed through to passage before Easter because of other business in front of the House. For those reasons although normally I vote always in favour of liberalisation of shop trading hours I will be voting against the Jacqui Dean bill and in favour of the Steve Chadwick bill. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 Before the battle commences—as I am sure it is about to do; I can see my colleagues over the other side of the House winding themselves up to enter the fray—I just want to take a moment to apologise to the House for not being here earlier today to speak to my own bill. I thank Chris Tremain for stepping in so well for me. Just to pray for an apology I was detained on a personal matter. 
Having got that out of the way let us let the games begin by acknowledging that the issue of Easter trading will always be and has always been utterly utterly contentious. I am acutely aware that I am just one in a long line of members of Parliament seeking a reform of legislation around Easter trading—seeking to bring some sense into the  
Groundhog Day 
 situation of retailers being prosecuted every year year after year for opening their doors on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. 
The arguments against the reform of the legislation have not changed much either. They range from freedom to trade to have a choice of when to open one’s doors for business— 
Mark Blumsky 
: You still pay rent on your lease! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: —yes whether or not one’s doors are shut—to the economic benefits that one might get out of trading over Easter versus concern to acknowledge a religious festival arguments of preservation of family life and preservation of just a few holidays in the working year and indeed arguments that traverse protection of workers. Each argument for or against the liberalisation of Easter trading has its merits of course and each argument needs to be taken into account when this House passes legislation. 
What we have—we cannot run away from it and we cannot ignore it—is a persistent call for liberalisation. Like it or not—some of us do; some of us do not—we have to deal with that. I am sponsoring this bill because the Wanaka Chamber of Commerce asked me to help it. The Wanaka Chamber of Commerce represents Wanaka retailers that trade over Easter and have done so for a number of years. Wanaka retailers trade over Easter because there is a huge demand for them to do so—largely because of the Warbirds over Wanaka International Air Show which comes to Wanaka every second Easter and attracts up to 100000 extra visitors to the Wakatipu Basin. 
The hard part for the Wanaka Chamber of Commerce and its retailers is that just over the hill in Queenstown retailers have an exemption to trade both on Good Friday and on Easter Sunday. So all the benefits go to Queenstown—where retailers can trade and have a good day scot-free—whereas year after year the Department of Labour prosecutes Wanaka retailers. It was telling that in the last round of prosecutions the judge when sentencing a particular retailer convicted him but declined to fine him commenting that it was about time Parliament got its act into gear. This is why I am very pleased to be finally speaking to the House this evening. 
I am promoting this bill as I said because the Wanaka Chamber of Commerce asked me to help it. Steve Chadwick is representing the interests of Rotorua. Many chambers of commerce and retailers’ associations are keen to see this matter settled so that they can get on with doing business without the annoyance of the annual Easter trading prosecutions. 
I acknowledge the work put in by all members of the Commerce Committee when considering this bill and Steve Chadwick’s bill the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. It was acknowledged by us that notwithstanding all the objections the retail sector and many many members of our society are looking to us for leadership. They are looking to us in Parliament for a solution to the anomalous situation we have now with Easter trading. I also acknowledge the large number of submitters who took the time to write and to speak on their submissions. My thanks go to them for the high-quality and well-reasoned suggestions that many of them made for a way forward in this difficult issue. 
I acknowledge that for some people Easter trading is incompatible with the celebration of their faith. I acknowledge that some people feel that working over Easter cuts into family life. I would argue that no one is forced to go shopping and no one is forced to work over Easter. 
Hon Member 
: Yeah right! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: I thank the member for biting right on cue. Several unions are concerned at worker protection issues and amendments to the bill in the select committee from members right across the political spectrum have resulted in several slight changes to both bills. No one can be forced to work over Easter and there can be no penalty for declining or refusing to work. 
I also note that many retail workers are young and work part-time. They value the extra hours and the opportunity to earn extra money. I asked a lot of retailers in Wanaka about this issue because it is an issue that we should all be concerned about. Retailers in Wanaka advised that they have no trouble finding people to work over Easter and generally the young people who are working in the retail sector in tourism towns are those who work during the day so that they can party all night. I do not see terribly much wrong with that. 
A number of historical privileges add to the anomalies and inherent unfairness of the shop trading legislation as it stands. Picton and Queenstown have exemptions carried over from the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990. Both those towns can trade on Good Friday from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. with no other restrictions. Section 4(2)(a) of the Act provides that the general prohibition under section 3(1) of the Act does not apply to a shop being closed at any time on any day if “On the 31st day of July 1990 there was in force in respect of the area in which the shop is situated an order under section 20 of the repealed Act”. So these historical privileges exist for shops in Picton on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in Queenstown on Good Friday and Easter Sunday and in Taupo on Easter Sunday only but not for other similar tourism areas such as Rotorua or Wanaka. In other words it is a legislative dog’s breakfast and an uneven playing field. We already have Good Friday and Easter Sunday trading but not on a fair basis. 
I turn to some changes I propose for the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. The provision in this bill for a general exemption for Easter Sunday by way of a schedule remains unchanged. Schedule 2 contains a list of every territorial local authority. In effect should this bill be passed it would become the business owner’s decision whether to open on Easter Sunday. 
I want to signal a change to the bill that I will introduce as a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee stage should the bill pass its second reading. The general exemption applying to Good Friday would go. It would be replaced with the following: “The bill would enable a territorial authority to decide whether shops in its district may remain open on Good Friday if a significant event were occurring in the district on that day.” I believe that this is a much more focused approach. Only those districts like Wanaka which holds Warbirds over Wanaka every second year would be interested in applying for an exemption to trade on Good Friday. So what I am effectively doing is defining the scope of Good Friday right down to those areas that specifically want it. If Rotorua or Tauranga for example were planning a major event for the Easter weekend and if their chamber of commerce supported it they could apply to the city council for an exemption to trade on Good Friday. Wanaka would apply for an exemption only every second year for the year that Warbirds over Wanaka is held. 
It became obvious during the hearing of submissions on Easter trading that although there was broad support for liberalisation of trading on Easter Sunday there was not the same level of support for Good Friday—although a number of submitters did indicate their support. Yet some credible solution needs to be found if we as a Parliament want to be seen as credible. We have the opportunity to get this legislation right. I would like to see the House send this bill through to the Committee stage. Thank you. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I am pleased to be taking part in this debate on a day when we have heard many speeches in an earlier debate about the importance of family. Quite frankly if there is a bill that deals with that—in terms of knocking that very important aspect of our society—it is the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. 
I will read from the letter sent to all members of Parliament by the Catholic bishops who represent a view held by many New Zealanders—not only those of the Christian faith but also many people who are interested in and concerned about families and the effect of work on them. What the bishops said in the letter was this: “Much has been written and spoken lately about the disintegration of family life with financial pressure being an important contributing factor. When parents are forced to work long hours at the expense of time spent with each other and with their children we see children and young people who are left without the comfort and security of traditional family interaction. We don’t need to spell out the dire consequences that often result when young people look elsewhere for their support and for ways to spend their time. New Zealanders work some of the longest hours in the OECD countries. We believe the government should do more to promote a work/life balance. Extended shopping hours will not achieve it but the few days when shop trading is restricted provide some opportunity to strengthen and develop this balance.” 
 Well I will spell out the dire consequences that I believe come from the massive changes to the labour market and the rules we work under in this country over the last 15 to 20 years. I will do so by quoting from another report. This one is entitled  
From Wannabes to Youth Offenders: Youth Gangs in Counties Manukau 
. This is the research report that was done over about 6 or 7 months of last year as a response to several young people being killed in my community. If people do not want to take this issue seriously then they need to read this report to see why I take it extremely seriously. This is not a simple matter of some tourists on a boat being deprived of the right to shop on 2 or 3 days a year; it is about the disintegration of families as talked about by the Catholic bishops and many other social commentators. 
The report notes: “Parental disengagement: It was common for youth gang members to come from families with working parents many of whom have multiple jobs. The majority of participants drew attention to extreme work-life imbalances experienced by parents who in an effort to financially provide for their families are under stress through long work hours and as a result are not able to engage with their children.” The report talks about the financial pressures that many of these families are under and the indebtedness of them to the loan sharks who operate in our community. 
Simple questions are raised by this legislation such as where these shops that will be open will be. Under Jacqui Dean’s bill they will be everywhere. They will not be just in the tourism areas; they will be everywhere. I noticed in the  
East Coast and Bays Courier 
 recently an article about the Remuera shops. Some of the owners had just decided to open on Sundays. But I tell members that in the part of Auckland I live in the shops have been opening 7 days a week for 24 hours a day except for these 3½ days for as long as the law has allowed them. 
Who works in these shops? It is these low-paid workers—low-paid parents—whom I am talking about and whom the Catholic bishops and the researchers into gang violence are talking about. They are the ones forced to work and be out there instead of at home with their family. They are the ones who get the finger pointed at them by the judges who say the law is wrong when it is enforced and say: “I’m not going to fine this fellow because I think shops should be open.” That same judge probably gets some young guy in front of him the next day whacks him round the ears and gives him a severe penalty for breaking the law which he did because he has not had the parental guidance that people say he should have. 
That is the sort of nonsense that in my view backs up this shallow bill. It says we can just keep on liberalising and there will be no consequences. We have the consequences right now in my community and it is spreading throughout this country. We get crocodile tears from people on that side of the House who talk about an underclass and families that are dysfunctional. Why do we have dysfunctional families in this country? Does it not coincide with the fact that we have liberalised our labour market so much that there are only 3½ days of the year that low-paid workers in the retail sector can have off to spend with their family? 
Members should look at who most retail workers are. They are women. Yet under this bill will childcare facilities be required to open up to look after their kids? They are closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. In fact they are closed most weekends. I am ashamed to think we are now having to look at the idea of children’s hotels where people can drop off their kids 24/7 so that they can work. 
I do not want to live in a society that thinks that is a positive because I do not think it is a positive. I grew up in this country in the fortunate days when one parent went out to work and the other stayed at home and brought up the seven kids in our family. We were not wealthy; our father worked in low-paid jobs because he came from the Pacific Islands without an education. As a result of that upbringing my generation came through with a support that today’s generation—my grandchild and many like him—do not get because those kids are shoved into early childhood education at a very early stage. 
This bill is just one more nail in the coffin for families for the rights of workers and for the ability of families to engage with each other. Members should read the research into the youth gang problem in South Auckland. They should not put their head in the sand and say it is the parents’ fault and the parents’ problem when bosses are lining up at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to tell us they do not need flexible working hours legislation in this country because they already have flexible working hours and that if the workers do not like the flexible working hours in this job then they can go down the road and get another job. That is what people in the hospitality industry told us. They will not be paid any more as a result of this bill. There will be a restaurant next door to a supermarket and there will be two different sets of conditions for two different sets of low-paid workers under this bill and under Stevie Chadwick’s bill. I oppose both of them. 
I think it is a good time for this country to be entering into this debate about what is really pulling families apart in low-income areas to start thinking about the consequences and to do some serious thinking about what we do to resolve it. Keeping shops closed on these 3½ days is not a hardship for people; they can go out and buy things the very next day and still survive—still be alive. In many countries in this world that we go and visit happily as tourists the shops are not open at all on Sundays. Do all of those people who go to the Pacific and enjoy their lovely holidays there question the culture and say they will not go there again because the shops were not open on Sundays? We actually enjoy it because of the relaxed nature of those societies. 
I am deadly serious about this. I challenge members who say this bill is about the right to shop to think about the right for families to spend time together. If they say there should be no such right then they had better start facing up to the problems that are confronting us in South Auckland Hamilton Hastings Porirua and just about every province of this country where people are forced into 24/7 jobs—sometimes multiple low-paid jobs—and more and more of their conditions are being stripped away. 
I have been given an employee contract of a large employer coming into being in Auckland soon—the labs that lab testing is going to be contracted out to—and the contract makes it compulsory to work on a public holiday. That is the sort of thing that employers up and down this country now expect as a norm. 
I say it is time to turn back the clock and get some understanding of the impact of such things on the labour market. That member over there David Bennett shakes his head because he would not have a clue. He should start facing up to the consequences of the massive changes to this society and what is causing it and not just blame the parents. He should start to look for the real causes—as the researchers Catholic bishops and so many thinking people in this country have done—then we will have a proper debate about this sort of bill. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am always a little bit apprehensive following the Hon Mark Gosche. I would like to say he is a friend of mine but he really does put some passion into issues that he is concerned about. I know that this is an issue he is concerned about but in a nutshell he is wrong. Let be more correct: he has overstated the case. If families became dysfunctional because shops were open on a Sunday—particularly on Easter Sunday—we would have more dysfunctional families in Taupo than anywhere else because shops in Taupo are allowed to open on Easter Sunday. That is the fact of the matter. Another fact of the matter is that the Easter trading rules are in a mess. 
New Zealand First is pleased with Jacqui Dean for bringing the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill to the House but we thought she took it a step too far. Having said that we are pleased with it—we supported it at the first reading—we say that we are not going to support it any further because in the pipeline following this bill is a better bill: Steve Chadwick’s Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. It is superior. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Oh come on! 
PETER BROWN 
: The National Party wants a little bit of success. I am sure Jacqui Dean understands our position. We think that Jacqui Dean took the bill a step too far by providing for the opening of shops on Good Friday. New Zealand First said so when the bill was introduced. If this were the only bill that addressed the issue to choose from we would have supported it going to the Committee stage and sought to make amendments. But we are not prepared to do that now because the Steve Chadwick bill is almost a carbon copy of a bill that the Rt Hon Winston Peters tried to get through the House on two earlier attempts. So we are very very pleased to support the Steve Chadwick bill. 
I would like to address one or two issues that have been raised. I was very interested when Dr Cullen in acknowledging that Easter Sunday was not a public holiday said that if one of these bills were passed then in the fullness of time he would not be averse to looking at Easter Sunday becoming a public holiday. Let me say here and now that I am almost certain New Zealand First would look very positively at something along those lines. I cannot speak categorically because we have not discussed it formally but I know there would be some sympathy if Easter Sunday became a trading day towards looking at it becoming another public holiday for the people who are employed. 
Let us also acknowledge that many occupations and professions work regularly on Easter Sunday. The people I think of first and foremost are the police ambulance officers and those who service the downside of our communities. But there is also the industry that I come from—the shipping and stevedoring industry. People from those industries work in all weathers any day of the week. There are very few days on which they do not work and they are on shift work 24 hours a day. 
Nowadays shopping is becoming therapy as I am told quite frequently not only by my good wife but by very many other women. It has turned into an enjoyable pastime. I must admit that I enjoy walking in the supermarket and pushing the trolley for my wife while she just fills it up. I get a little bit worried when it starts to overflow because sooner or later someone has to pay for the items. But by and large shopping can be an enjoyable experience. 
In the place that Bob Clarkson and I come from where we have the most efficient port in this country—they are all efficient and I am not going to damn any port but the Port of Tauranga is by far the most efficient port in the country—they bring in cruise ships regularly. It does not make sense that when tourists come off the cruise ship they cannot go shopping on an Easter Sunday so they get in a bus or a taxi and go through to Taupo. That does not make sense to the people of Tauranga so we need some legislation to address the issue. Unfortunately I do not think that Jacqui Dean’s bill will make it but we are encouraged by the Steve Chadwick bill. As I said earlier it is a carbon copy of what Winston Peters came up with years ago— 
Tariana Turia 
: Winston Peters? 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes really the Rt Hon Winston Peters—about 10 years ago. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is he still in Parliament? 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Hide has done too much dancing if he does not know that Winston Peters is still the most effective politician in this place by a country mile—and the member knows it. But I digress. 
When it comes to Easter trading our shop trading legislation is in a mess. We need to address that. We need to take note of what the public of New Zealand want. We need to take note of the advantages to New Zealand. We need to address the social downsides as was very well illustrated—though it was a little bit over the top—by my colleague Mark Gosche. But we need legislation based around one of these bills and the best bill to address the issue is the Steve Chadwick bill which is entitled the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will be voting against Jacqui Dean’s Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill and voting for Steve Chadwick’s bill. Thank you very much. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 What a shambles! In my 7 years in Parliament I have never seen such a confusing and shambolic report from a select committee reach the floor of this House. Tonight we have two bills before us—this one and one set down to be debated shortly after it—attempting to amend the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act. These attempts follow a string of other unsuccessful attempts over the last few years. 
Our shop trading hours today are set by the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 and the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Amendment Act 2001 but our Parliament is littered with other failed attempts to impose more shopping days on the New Zealand public and shopworkers alike. The Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter) Amendment Bill 1996 was defeated. The Shop Trading Hours Repeal of Restrictions Bill 1997 was defeated. The Shop Trading Hours Abolition of Restrictions Bill 1999 was defeated. The Rotorua District Easter Sunday Shop Trading Bill 2002 was defeated. The Shop Trading Hours Easter Trading (Local Exemption) Bill 2004 was defeated. These all sit in the dustbin of legislative history and this is where this bill and the other amendment bill tonight also belong. 
The Commerce Committee had the opportunity to study both bills listen to submissions and bring back to the House recommendations based on the submissions heard that at least we could debate. But no! The select committee commentary on both bills states: “We have no clear preference for either bill and are recommending that both proceed with amendment.” What a cop-out! The Commerce Committee wants this House in the Committee stage process somehow to do its work for it. 
So we now have two bills before us each seeking to do different things and with amendments that go well beyond what was sought in the original bills. They were going to be debated together and now we find they are going to be debated separately which makes this even more difficult. The shambles continues. Plainly both cannot be passed as one is in conflict with the other. I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to now throw both of them out and to chastise—non-violently of course—the Commerce Committee for its failure to do its job and for bringing this shambles to us. 
It gets worse. Earlier today I attended a press conference organised by Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand the Catholic agency promoting justice peace and development regarding the two bills that we are debating. I attended this media conference together with fellow MPs Hone Harawira Darien Fenton and Gordon Copeland. We were presented with large baskets of Easter eggs which we shared with all of you. 
Hon Member 
: From where? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: They came from the National Distribution Union. At that press conference Gordon Copeland stated that he was deputy chairperson of the Commerce Committee and complained that there had been in his words an “abuse of process”. The committee has reported these two bills to this House with amendments recorded as unanimous when the significant amendments to Jacqui Dean’s bill that extend liberalisation of shopping hours to all territorial authorities in New Zealand were put together by a couple of members of the committee after the submission process had finished and without any submitter being able to speak to these amendments. This does not make for good lawmaking. 
I would therefore urge those who may have some sympathy for further liberalisation of Easter trading to vote against both bills as a sign of displeasure at the process even if not at the content of these particular bills. The report of the Commerce Committee on Jacqui Dean’s bill is a shocker. The original purpose of the bill was to grant a partial exemption to shops in visitor districts from the requirement in the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal Act 1990 that they be closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. First up Jacqui Dean was disingenuous with the name of her bill which hid her attack on Good Friday by calling it the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. But now the select committee by unanimous decision—or was it—has given the bill a completely new purpose of exempting all shops located in a territorial authority listed in schedule 2 from remaining closed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday then including in schedule 2 every territorial authority in the country. 
We are told that territorial authorities can opt out through their local consultation provisions under the Local Government Act but the mechanism to give effect to this opting out is either by the Committee of the whole House or later by amending legislation. So what does that mean? Either territorial local authorities will have to undergo their local consultation over the next few weeks while the bill is before the Committee of the whole House—a legal impossibility if they are to abide by the consultation provisions of the Local Government Act—or they will have to wait for a member’s bill to opt out. If this is not a shambles I do not know what is. 
 I will spend my remaining time going to the heart of the shop trading hours debate. For me and for the Green Party overall stopping the further commercialisation of family days and family life is a priority. I want to explode the myth which we New Zealanders hold close to our hearts that this country is a great place to grow up in. A recent Unicef report that came out last week on child well-being describes children’s health and welfare in New Zealand as being amongst some of the worst in developed countries. Our parents rate in the bottom quarter for time spent with their children. Is this the New Zealand we grew up in or has this pervasive cultural myth outlived its usefulness? Why are New Zealand parents not spending quality time with their children? One of the reasons could be seen in the results of another OECD study that shows that New Zealanders work some of the longest hours in the OECD—1826 hours per year compared with an OECD average of 1778. 
We have before the House two bills that are quite simply manifestations of the relentless pressure of market forces upon the social culture and spiritual fabric of our society. These two bills whatever their humble intent seem to overlook the wider implications of their provisions for the 200000 retail workers and their families and the more than 2 million people who continue to affiliate with the Christian religion in New Zealand. 
Despite the very large numbers of people whom these bills could adversely impact directly I argue that this is not a numbers debate; this is a conscience issue that will affect us all. As MPs we have been delegated the authority to vote according to our consciences and do what we believe to be morally right. But how can one be truly moral when one lacks a vision for what it means to be fully human or reduces that vision to one of pure economic opportunity? Although this bill seeks to address some stated anomalies with the current shop trading legislation it overlooks the bigger picture that Good Friday Easter Sunday Christmas Day and Anzac Day are actually the anomalies themselves good anomalies—3½ days of the year when the logic of the market and economic opportunity do not prevail. 
Let me remind members that retail businesses may open to trade on almost any day of the year and at any time they choose. The remaining 3½ days are the anomalies in that they stand against the prevailing winds of the relentless pursuit of profit and the “affluenza” that Oliver James describes as consuming societies like ours. Within these 3½ days we have the breathing space to reconsider what it is to be human what it is that we live for and what we value most highly and cherish above all else. At some deep level this debate is about defining what we value and what we do not—what it is about us as New Zealanders that makes us unique. 
If we really want to be a country that is a great place to grow up in and bring our children up in then we might need to start actively working towards implementing ways that make this more than a comfortable cultural myth and more than the social equivalent of the clean and green myth. It is time for us to get real about how we might help to stem the disintegration of child welfare and family life in general in New Zealand. When parents are forced to work long hours at the expense of time spent with each other and with their children children and young people are left without the comfort and security of traditional family interaction. I do not need to spell out consequences that often result when young people look elsewhere for their primary support. The Unicef report has captured those consequences well already. We all want to see better outcomes for our children. That obviously means better outcomes for our families and that in turn means better outcomes for the workers who support the economic livelihood of those families. 
The Green Party does not support this bill because it works to undermine positive outcomes for children their families and the workers who support them. In effect the liberalisation of Easter trading corrodes the once sacred value we placed around these days and around the family. But in the market-driven world it appears that nothing is sacred any longer. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa iteneipo. Members may not know this but the Easter before last was the year a cyclone hit Tuhoe country at Ruatoki in my electorate. It had nothing to do with the fact that the Taupo retail community was able to open its doors and that of Ruatoki was not. It was in fact the cyclone that threatened to devastate a biennial Te Hui Ahurei o Tuhoe. Despite the big winds gusting forward and the tents collapsing all around us—I was present as was Tariana Turia—Te Hui Ahurei stood strong. Despite the rain the wind and the mud Te Hui Ahurei continued for the 4 days of Easter. In many ways it was that Tuhoe spirit that I thought of when our attention turned to this Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill. 
You see Tuhoe as a tribal nation are a very young people. In fact in 1996 42 percent were under the age of 15 and it is precisely because of the youthfulness of Tuhoe that in the early 1970s Te Hui Ahurei o Tuhoe was established as a strategy to connect young Tuhoe to their culture. It was a product of renaissance and a way of maintaining Tuhoe identity amongst the younger members most of whom lived away from the lands of the Urewera ranges. Nowadays Te Hui Ahurei o Tuhoe attracts more than 25000 people who come each Easter to the Eastern Bay of Plenty to celebrate Tuhoetanga. This year as with other years there will be netball; kapahaka; rugby; wearable arts; food; exhibitions; taupatupatu or debates with stimulating korero to and fro; and lots of competition and friendly challenges to bind the people together. 
I look at that festival not as the member of Parliament for Waiariki and not even because I have had the privilege of attending and sharing the celebrations with the people; I look at it today by thinking about how the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill will affect it. The first rendition of the bill from Jacqui Dean might not have affected too many Tuhoe other than possibly those living in Wanaka and Tauranga. But if the recommendations of the Commerce Committee are enacted—which would mean that all shops in all areas could open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday—there would be a significant and longstanding effect certainly on whanau Tuhoe and everyone else. Te Ahurei o Tuhoe at its very heart is an expression of whanaungatanga a celebration of kinship. But if the shop trading amendments are to come into force it would mean that the very basis of the festival is at risk. 
I want to make it clear that the opportunity for whanau members to work or not to work on a public holiday is something that every individual worker is entitled to consider. There may well be solid economic reasons lifestyle reasons or career promotion factors that justify taking up every opportunity to work additional hours. For promoters of these bills the central factor is the due expression of individual choice not the impact of this choice on others. There are only 3½ days every year that are genuine public holidays as others have talked about. Although many previous restrictions on shop trading no longer exist general restrictions still remain for trading on Good Friday Easter Sunday Christmas Day and until 1 o’clock on Anzac Day. Three and a half days out of 365 is not a lot to ask for really. Easter Sunday is the only Sunday left in the annual calendar when shops are not able to open. Easter Sunday added to Good Friday is also the only long commercial-free weekend in which families can be together basically uninterrupted by work commitments. But with this bill and the accompanying Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill this all stands to change. 
So we in the Maori Party come to this bill thinking particularly about the impacts it will have and how it will impinge on whanau time. We wonder whether people will be working when ordinarily they would not be. How will this bill enhance and strengthen whanau participation in community activities? We think about voluntary and community work. If whanau members have to work who will care for pakeke younger children and younger tamariki on days when presumably other forms of care might be harder to come by? 
I return to this notion of choice. Providing an individual with the opportunity to work is not just a matter of that individual’s choice. Members can take for example in the case of my own whanau my eldest daughter. If she takes up the opportunity to work on Easter Sunday or Good Friday that choice will have implications for her younger siblings her parents—her whanau—for we will all miss out on her delightful company and whanaungatanga is therefore compromised. 
We do acknowledge however that the protections around the work choices for employees at Easter have been strengthened by the recommendations from the select committee and we will support those proposals. In the previous version of the bill employees had to opt in to protections by agreement. That provision of course contrasted fairly significantly with existing legislation that applies protections to all employees. 
 However we do not support the amendment made at the Commerce Committee to add all councils to the list of exempted areas potentially allowing the total liberalisation of Easter trading across the entire nation. This is a far cry from the original intent of the bill—as Dr Cullen alluded to—to allow trading exemptions in the visitor districts of Tauranga and Wanaka. Although the select committee has made it possible for councils to opt out from exempting shop owners to trade during Easter there are some very practical restrictions and questions around this capacity to opt out. The select committee report fails to detail how this would be done what consultation would be required and whether legislation would be amended. We believe it is vital that the bill describes the nature of the process that would be required in order for district councils to decide appropriately whether to opt out of the exemption. 
My understanding is that since 1997 there have been five bills before Parliament proposing amendments to the Easter shop trading hours legislation and Sue Bradford alluded to some of those. Only one is passed and that was the legislation giving garden centres an exemption on Easter Sunday. Following conscience votes the others have all failed to get sufficient support in Parliament. Surely that has to tell us something about central values that members of this Parliament will be revisiting in their decisions on the two bills in front of us. A vote for either of the bills will have many impacts on the constituents we represent. Neither bill will treat Easter as a public holiday. Therefore workers will not be benefiting from compensation for family time by earning time and a half pay or a day in lieu. 
The Maori Party is well aware that 30 years has passed since the Shop Trading Hours Act 1977 which placed significant restrictions on the hours and days that shops could operate. That law was amended in 1990 to provide much greater freedom for retailers. It permitted retailers to open up to 24 hours a day 7 days a week. In a sense we went from the floodgates being fastened tight and secure to 13 years later the opposite occurring. 
At the same time as work hours increased and employee protections had been reduced the need for quality care of employees and whanau has never been more important. If the bills do miraculously make it through the Committee stage a key priority would be to enable those working either Good Friday or Easter Sunday or both to be granted the pay rates and conditions commensurate with those of a public holiday. We appreciate too that no matter how we flesh the pay packet one can never underestimate the importance of preserving precious family time as the reserve of the family and the family alone. 
The Maori Party believes that working at Easter impinges on the ability to participate in whanau activities. We are of course mindful and fully supportive of the freedom to practise and express one’s spiritual beliefs and values. We are sufficiently aware of the compromises and sacrifices that far too many New Zealanders are experiencing bringing in its wake the all too familiar trend of work-life imbalance. Kia ora tatou. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 As the deputy chairperson of the Commerce Committee I would like to begin by clarifying how it has come to be that this Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill which when it received its first reading in the House permitted shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in just the Wanaka and Tauranga districts is now extended to cover the entire nation and every single territorial authority within the nation. Let us be very clear that the bill we will be voting on tonight now permits unrestricted shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday from North Cape to Bluff with no single area exempted or excepted. I want to explain to the House because Sue Bradford touched on this matter how that situation arose. 
This bill was before the Commerce Committee for some time—for several months—and we received many submissions on it. At the conclusion of that phase when we came to the consideration of the bill there was no majority on the Commerce Committee for either this bill or the accompanying bill in the name of Steve Chadwick on which we heard submissions at the same time. So it looked as though we would be referring both bills back to the House completely unaltered. At that point the Leader of the House Dr Cullen intervened at the Business Committee to say that he thought that was not a satisfactory process when the bills under consideration were to be debated in this House as conscience bills. Members may recall that subsequently the Speaker wrote to every select committee stating that if the committee is considering a conscience bill then it at least has an obligation to bring it back to this House fit for its purpose. 
Having received that advice from the Speaker’s office we then proceeded to examine the bills in detail. Some members of the committee made it clear from the outset that they were going to oppose the bill. So when Sue Bradford stated that this bill was reported back unanimously from the select committee that is incorrect. That was never the case and Sue Bradford misunderstood the situation in that regard. The select committee basically said that if it was OK with the member in charge of the bill and as suggested by a member of the committee we would put a nationwide provision in the bill in the knowledge that at the Committee stage it could if necessary be taken out. That is how schedule 2 was amended from including just the Wanaka district and Tauranga district to including the entire nation. 
But I make the point that that change did not arise from one single submission made to the committee or heard by the committee. I repeat that there was no submission to the committee that this bill should be widened out to embrace the entire nation. Therefore in my opinion the nation’s inclusion in schedule 2 is contrary to democracy is contrary to parliamentary process and should not be permitted. It was done in the circumstances I have set out but I can signal now that should this bill be passed tonight there will be a move in the Committee stage to take its provisions back to ones that apply to the original two districts only: Wanaka and Tauranga. There will be such a move and people will have an opportunity to vote the rest of the country out. I make the point again that its inclusion was done without any submissions from the public on that issue being heard at all. 
I turn now to the fact that I oppose this bill. I would like to see as many New Zealanders as possible continue to have a holiday on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. There are 350000 people directly or indirectly associated with the retail sector and other organisations similar to it such as used-car and new-car dealerships. Those 350000 people at the moment as of right have a holiday on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. This Parliament is debating tonight whether we should remove that right from those people and force them to work on Good Friday and Easter Sunday willingly or otherwise—because that is the commercial reality. Let us not be naive about it. The commercial reality is that those 350000 people will if this bill is passed be working on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. That is the reality and we are removing that right not to work. Therefore I believe that the House should proceed with great caution. We are removing a right that New Zealanders have had as far as I know for a very very long time: the right that if they work in manage or own a retail shop or similar business they do not have to work on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. Henceforth we are going to change that. 
I believe that is absolutely tragic for those 350000 people and all of the people which probably includes most New Zealanders who will be affected as Te Ururoa Flavell said so clearly by their absence. Those people will no longer be with us on Easter Sunday for family celebrations. They will no longer be with us for sporting and other occasions on Good Friday. We should bear in mind by the way that people can now go to garden centres on Good Friday as that provision is already there. This change is proposed in spite of the fact that there is no really good reason for doing that. 
I was also very taken by the explanation given by Hone Harawira today at the press conference that in Maoridom Easter is now the time when hui are held. It is the time when whanau and even iwi and hapu come together. That is because it is the only time in the entire year when they can get together when they are all on holiday. We are going to destroy that. If they continue to have those activities and I am sure they will a significant segment of those hapu iwi or families will no longer be there. 
I think all of us even on Christmas Day as we get together find ourselves asking where a granddaughter is only to be told that she has had to work because she is a nurse or whatever she is. Already a lot of people have to work even on Christmas Day of necessity. But it is completely unnecessary for anyone else who is not involved in the provision of essential services such as nursing and so forth to work just in order to chase a very elusive extra dollar. 
I make the point that New Zealanders are already some of the people who work the longest hours of people in any OECD country. I would also like to make the point that according to statistics produced by the New Zealand Institute the fact that we work longer hours does not mean that our labour force is more productive than that of other countries. On the contrary there is a certain point at which just working longer hours actually reduces productivity. An example of that would be France which has a 35-hour working week and a productivity rate that is way better than New Zealand’s. So this measure is counter-productive. Why? Because people are stressed they are tired and their health is suffering and it really is not even good commercial sense to have exhausted people working on those two very valuable days. 
Only 3½ special holidays are set aside each year—only one single Sunday out of every 52—and I believe that those special days should remain special for all New Zealanders or as I said for as many as possible having regard to the fact that essential services must continue. Service stations need to be open to sell gasoline restaurants need to be open so that people can eat and so on. Those facilities are already open on Good Friday and Easter Sunday anyway. But the rest of it is simply optional in reality. We should not remove the right of people to have a holiday on those two days without any compelling reason commercial or otherwise. Those days should remain special for all New Zealanders. United Future members will therefore—although this is a conscience vote I stress—be voting against this bill tonight because we believe that we should not arbitrarily without any submissions at all along those lines coming to the select committee open the entire country to shop trading on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. It simply does not make sense. It is poor law and we should not proceed with it. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is worth reflecting on what we are doing in this House when we debate shop trading hours. There are 121 MPs in this Parliament who are deciding on when workers can work when businesses can open and when communities can hold an event or engage in mutually advantageous capitalistic acts by trading. That is what we are deciding. 
What I do not understand is how people can stand up in this House and think that somehow they have the right to decide whether a dairy shop store or cafe should open on a particular day and that if they have some religious view it should be foisted on to a Hindu a Muslim an atheist an agnostic or a Christian who actually wants to work on that particular day. I was astonished to hear Mark Gosche quote the Catholic bishops. It is a bit rich for the Labour Party to quote Catholic bishops in favour of its argument. Then I heard people say that somehow— 
Sue Moroney 
: Some of us are Catholics. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Some woman over there who never speaks is yelling out that some of us are Catholics. I am just making the point that when the Catholic bishops— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My friend Sue Moroney is entitled to be referred to by her proper name rather than as “some woman”. That comment may say more about the speaker than it does about Sue Moroney but this “other woman” has a name which should be used. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: If the member speaks about another member he should use the member’s correct name. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: She should identify herself before interjecting. The lady never stands up and speaks. I do not know what she is called. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Hide I asked you to use the member’s name if you are going to speak of her in the way you did. I just ask you to use the member’s name. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Then I heard from people standing up that somehow if people are working it means that they are neglecting their children. What a lot of nonsense that has to be! It is the parents of the neglected children in New Zealand who do not work. That tends to be the pattern in New Zealand—there are plenty of children in homes who are totally neglected and it cannot be said that it is because their parents have to work on Easter Sunday. They do not work on any day. That is part of the problem. Darren Hughes over there is shaking his head. He should be looking to some of the statistics that are occurring in the electorate that will lose at the next election. That is what he should be doing. He should be following the arguments that are going on here about the underclass. 
The idea that parents who are doing an honest day’s work are somehow neglecting their children has to be rubbish and it shows how out of touch with the people of New Zealand this Government has become. This may come as a shock for Darren Hughes because he does not work on any day but there are a lot of people in New Zealand who have to work on Easter Sunday. That is the reality of the situation right now. They have to work. Are their children being neglected because they are working on Easter Sunday? Of course not. Who is this Darren Hughes to be telling people that they as parents should not work on an Easter Sunday if they choose to? Who is Darren Hughes to say to business owners in Wanaka—or wherever—that they should not work? I would be very interested to see if Darren Hughes votes for Steve Chadwick’s bill because what would he be saying then about the parents and that particular thing? Anyway what would Darren Hughes know about anything one asks oneself when one actually listens to him speak. 
People are scraping the bottom of the barrel to be saying that cafes cannot be opened on Easter Sunday because children’s— 
Darren Hughes 
: One percent. I didn’t take a party from 7 percent to 1 percent. The whole party took a holiday when he took over. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I like Darren Hughes! He wants to talk about the last election. How did he get on in his electorate? I ask Nathan Guy what happened. I will tell members what happened to Darren Hughes in his electorate. What was his majority? Thirty-four. How much was it? How many? It was 34. He is going to lose that seat the next election. I would be concentrating on that not on the ACT party. [ 
Interruption 
] Here is a man Darren Hughes who is sitting there getting all red in the face—I swear to heaven he has gone all red in the face—when I get up to speak. He is worried about the fact that ACT has only two MPs. If I were Darren Hughes I would be worried about his electorate because the people in it are sick of this MP not doing his job and they will vote for Nathan Guy at the next election. That is what that member should be doing and not worrying about the ACT party. I tell him that ACT will do very well at the next election—I thank Darren—with or without his help. But I ask him to keep it up because I am sure if he keeps getting red in the face someone in the Labour Party will recognise his efforts and he might get a promotion. 
Darren Hughes 
: I bet he was red in the face when he was drowning in the harbour the other day. His party drowned he drowned when he went swimming and he cannot even talk about the bill. What about people who are forced to work on that day? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I say this to Mr Hughes. If he comes along to the Tauranga ocean swimming race I will give him a race. [ 
Interruption 
] Bob Clarkson will be there. It is another feature of the Labour Party that no one is allowed to have any business open on Easter Sunday because that would be fun. People are never allowed to go dancing because that might be fun. Now Darren Hughes has got upset because on Saturday I went for a swim in the harbour. What sort of life are we going to lead under the Labour Party when they want to tell us all what to do that we cannot take any risks and that we have to check with Helen Clark before we get up in the morning? I tell Darren Hughes—that man over there—that he should get out more often and have a bit of fun. 
We should get back to the point of this speech and this bill. The point is this: a business employs people and pays their wages and it raises the money that pays the taxes to pay Darren Hughes’ wages each week—heaven knows why; to get abused—so why cannot that business and the people it employs and the community in which those people work decide whether to open or close on any day they choose on any part of the year? Why cannot people decide for themselves whether they want to go shopping on Easter Sunday? Why cannot we leave it up to them? Why do we think it is only people like Darren Hughes who have the moral and intellectual development to decide for people whether they can work open their shop or do their business? 
I say we vote for this bill and the other bill like it because I believe in the freedom of New Zealanders and I trust them to make decisions for themselves their businesses and their families that are a whole lot better than those Darren Hughes ever could make. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 After that hilarious speech by Rodney Hide I come back to the issue which is about workers’ rights and whether workers can be forced to work on Good Friday and Easter Sunday. 
I thank the member Sue Bradford for bringing to the House’s attention the nice little gift this afternoon; most members obviously did not know where it came from. She reminded people that they—it is the Easter eggs I am talking about—were gifts from members of the National Distribution Union on behalf of the 200000 retail workers in New Zealand to remind us that if this bill and the other one that I will be voting against become law they will not be able to spend their time with their families on Easter Sunday and under Jacqui Dean’s bill on Good Friday. 
I went with some other MPs to a press conference today and along with those other MPs I placed the letter and a chocolate egg on members’ desks. Just in case members were too busy munching on the chocolates I thought I would read a little bit from it because I am sure most have not bothered to read it—that is the blue paper that was distributed to members today. “Dear Member of Parliament Easter Sunday is the last shop-free Sunday we have. It is not a public holiday meaning that shop workers will not be paid any more for working on that day nor will they earn a day off in lieu. At a time when New Zealand has been exposed by the Unicef report as a country where parents do not spend enough time with their children we urge MPs not to make matters worse.” 
Actually it is not just about the unions. This is from the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference the Social Justice Commission of the Anglican Church the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and others. [ 
Interruption 
] Some of these are people who work in Mr Bennett’s community. I want to make it very very clear to this House that I am on the side of these workers. Retail workers already work evenings weeks and on many public holidays. Easter Sunday and Good Friday are currently the 2 days in a year on which they can guarantee they will not be asked to work. 
Let us remind ourselves of history. People have talked about the bills that have come through this House but in 1990 most shops could not trade on any Sunday and they were unable to open on nine of the 11 recognised holidays. Now they can trade on 51 out of 52 Sundays and every public holiday except Good Friday Christmas Day and the morning of Anzac Day. [ 
Interruption 
] So Mr Bennett thinks those shops should open on the morning of Anzac Day as well. He should let us know so we can tell his constituents. This means that there are only 3½ days left in a year when shops cannot trade. I cannot accept that the public—or indeed tourists or those off big boats—cannot cope without shopping for those 3½ days a year. Really can they not just wait one day? 
Colin King 
: What about the 6 weeks’ holiday you get? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: What about the member’s holidays? National tried to take holidays off a whole lot of workers in 1990. Let us not go there again please. Shop workers have combined with other community groups and churches to call on this Parliament to save working people from the inexorable march of commercial demands made over and above the needs of ordinary New Zealanders. I support the call for Parliament not to continue to liberalise the working lives of these workers. I join with other parliamentarians who do not accept that it is inevitable that every day in the year should be a working day or a shopping day for that matter. 
As my colleague Gordon Copeland has pointed out New Zealanders already work some of the longest hours in the OECD. Many of us have been to European countries—France has been mentioned and I spent some time in Spain earlier this year—and we all know that shops there are not open on a Sunday. Does the world end? Do things change? Do people not go to those countries? Well they do. Also as other people have mentioned the level of productivity in those countries is much much higher and working hours are lower than they are here. Instead of learning from those examples and considering their possible application for New Zealand we continue through bills like this one the relentless quest for the expansion of working hours. 
I am a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which has been considering quality flexible work. We hear all the time about balancing work and home life how it is a growing concern for both employers and workers how improving that balance could help with employee recruitment and retention how it can match jobs with people who would not otherwise work and how it can benefit families and communities. We all know that there are more women more dual-income families and more sole parents in the workforce. That amplifies the potential for conflict between work and family life yet here we are today debating yet another extension and actually another intrusion into family lives. 
Also today we have been debating the important Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill relating to section 59 of the Crimes Act. The concern of those who are supporting the removal of the reasonable force argument is our children and what kind of environment and safety they are growing up in. Add to that the Unicef report that I have already referred to—and that some of the Opposition members made much of last week—and we get to the heart of the problem with this bill. It is anti-family anti-community and anti-worker. It focuses on the commercial imperative of shops being able to open on Easter Friday and Good Sunday above all of the interests of families. We hear so often in debates in this House members going on about families. This bill puts commerce before families. Surely on one or two days of the year we can put families before commerce? 
This bill ignores the 200000 people working in this industry who if this bill proceeds will be unable to participate in the range of family community religious and recreational activities that take place around New Zealand over Easter. I would also say that the bill takes quite a monocultural approach. It ignores the fact that New Zealand now has a range of different cultures particularly those of Pacific people who regard Sunday as a special day for worship for families and for cultural activities. 
Although I appreciate the efforts of the Commerce Committee to insert some worker protections in the bill I think the committee needs to get real and understand the real world. On many occasions in my role as a worker representative I had to deal with employers who tried to force people to work on Sundays when they had family and other responsibilities. Indeed I have dealt with the same situation in respect of many public holidays. I appreciate that the rights are in the bill but those will just not work. 
I do appreciate that the member in charge of this bill is trying to represent her community but I ask this House whether New Zealand will lose any trade or tourism because the shops are shut on one or two days a year. I quote again from the letter that was distributed to members this afternoon: “Whether it is making it easier for teenagers to be with their families at Easter or for shop-working parents to spend time at home the current restrictions are very important. Opening the shops at Easter would impact on far more than those workers who work on those days. We all talk about the decline in volunteers the impact that weekend shopping has had on sports clubs community events and family life. We cannot turn the clock back but we can put community before commerce on at least one Sunday a year.” 
So I call on this Parliament and also on business and communities to put families and their interests first on this occasion. I recall the efforts made by the National Government during the late 1990s to take away the holiday rights of workers. That move was resisted by workers unions communities and families and National failed. This bill will be resisted in the same way. If members opposite had been at that press conference today they would know that pressure is mounting against this bill amongst the retail workers whom I met and talked to today. I tell those members to talk to some retail workers to see what they have to say about this issue. They are not behind this bill. They do not want to be forced to work on Easter Sunday let alone Good Friday. So those workers are getting behind it. I am on their side; let us not go there again by supporting this bill tonight. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 We are talking this evening about a conscience vote on two bills with regard to Easter Sunday trading and Easter trading—the Easter Sunday Shop Trading Amendment Bill and the Shop Trading Hours Act Repeal (Easter Trading) Amendment Bill—and I have to say that my conscience has absolutely no difficulty with this vote. My conscience tells me that I will be voting against both these bills. There are several reasons why I will be voting against both these bills but let me start by saying that it was pretty ironic that both bills were drawn out of the ballot one after the other. Some might call it an act of God but I do not think so. The Commerce Committee had to try to deal with the issue of these two very similar bills being drawn out at the same time and the bills have come back to the House in a format that will make it quite difficult for members to deal with issues that are fairly similar. Some members may be voting for one bill and against the other or vice versa but for me it is absolutely clear: I will be voting against both bills. 
This is a moment for me where by using my conscience vote as a member of Parliament I can actually satisfy both my Catholic upbringing—yes I say to Mr Hide; I am a Labour member of Parliament with a Catholic upbringing—and also my trade union activism. Voting against these bills allows me to satisfy both of those aspects. In my maiden speech I talked about work-life balance with it being an issue that I had come to this House to deal with. If I apply that issue of work-life balance to this bill— 
Bob Clarkson 
: But give us choice. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well the member can have choice but he cannot have work-life balance and that choice at the same time because for retail workers—Te Ururoa Flavell was quite right—there will be no choice. We can put as many worker protections as we like into these bills but there will be pressure put on workers for reasons of promotion for reasons of whether they will get the right shifts given to them in the future and for all of those reasons that are out in the real world. Those are the choices faced by retail workers out there. 
My colleague Darien Fenton spoke to these retail workers. She would be able to tell members opposite about that. [ 
Interruption 
] I notice that members opposite do not seem to know what retail workers think. They did not take the opportunity to go out and talk to them today but I can tell them that retail workers would easily be able to explain to members of Parliament the sort of pressure that is brought to bear on them to work particular days or shifts because of how their work life goes. 
Everyone seems pretty keen about the test of work-life balance because all the surveys will tell us that when New Zealanders are asked about the things that concern them the most guess what comes top of the list? It is work-life balance. Can people guess what does not even feature on that list? The list never features the sentiment: “Gosh there are 3½ days a week when we cannot go shopping. That is the most desperately urgent thing that we want fixed in this country.” That is not at the top of the minds of New Zealanders but they are concerned about the lack of time that they have to spend with their families they are concerned about family life and yes they are concerned about work-life balance. 
 These bills do not pass the test of work-life balance. They do nothing to enhance it. In fact they do things to make work-life balance worse in this country. It is not just for those retail workers and their families that work-life balance would be reduced through the passing of these bills but also for the rest of us. Because when the shops are open then maybe we might go to them. I think Peter Brown talked about this before. Maybe we might feel like we need some retail therapy on Easter Sunday. Well I tell Peter Brown that if he needs some therapy on Easter Sunday there are lots of other options. For me they are kicking a ball around with one’s kids or going for a walk. There are lots of things people can do if they feel they need therapy on Easter Sunday. People could even go to church on Easter Sunday if they wanted some therapy. But the sort of therapy that we do not need on Easter Sunday or Good Friday is shopping. We can do that on any other day of the year except for just those 3½ days. 
I want to ask the proponents of this bill about the other 1½ days that would be left if the bill in the name of Jacqui Dean was passed. What are the plans for the morning of Anzac Day from the members who support this bill? Is that up for grabs as well? Is that the next thing that those members want to go after? Is that the next commercial interest that will be put before the lifestyles of New Zealanders? Some of those members must be feeling quite disappointed about the revival that Anzac Day has had recently because I am sure some of the retail sector are concerned that that will put paid to their plans to open on the morning of Anzac Day as well. What about Christmas Day? Is that next on the shopping list of members who support this bill? Because gosh if these bills are passed we will still have 1½ days where there is not that freedom of choice that is so desperately sought by some members of this Parliament. 
Obviously at the top of everyone’s mind are those 1½ days that are left and how we are going to grab them—how we are going to get hold of them. But then of course members are listening to a member of Parliament who is a little unfashionable. Going to horse racing is one of my favourite pastimes and in most circumstances I would do anything to get a day at the races. Well I will not even go to Sunday race meetings because I object to the idea of Sunday racing. So yes I am a little old-fashioned in this field. Should the racing industry ever think that it wants to put forward legislation to start race meetings on Good Friday or Easter Sunday it would not get my support for that either. So I just put that on the record right here and now. 
It is a rare occasion that I can satisfy both my Catholic upbringing and my trade union activism with just one vote. It is a good day to be able to do that. I want to quote what the Catholic bishops had to say. Rodney Hide may think that Catholic bishops do not have anything relevant to say to New Zealanders today but I certainly believe they do. Those people who are voting in support of these bills may think that the Catholic bishops are out of touch with New Zealanders but— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think members just need to quieten down and show a bit of respect for speakers. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I would like members to pay some respect to what the Catholic bishops had to say because members opposite do not seem to want to know what they said. They said: “The importance of spending adequate quality time together especially for parents and children is vital for strengthening family relationships.” They talked about Cardinal Thomas Williams pointing out in an earlier statement—and this is important so I think National Party members opposite may want to listen to what the Catholic bishops had to say: “If profit is to take priority over people the outcome will be a society less human and more stressful for individuals families and the community at large.” I tell Mr Hide that that is why it is the business of this Parliament to discuss this issue. That is why we have something to say about shop opening hours. That is why we have something to say about workers’ rights. It is about a society that will become less human. They went on to say that when parents are forced to work long hours it is an expensive time. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.