Volume 641 Week 54 - Wednesday 5 September 2007 
Volume 641 Week 54 - Wednesday 5 September 2007 
[Volume:641;Page:11557] 
Wednesday 5 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Official View 
1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: Has she had her officials consider my Regulatory Responsibility Bill that is now before the Commerce Committee; if so has she formed a view whether some form of legislation is desirable to combat red tape? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Yes. I have agreed to the chair of the committee’s request that Ministry of Economic Development officials act as advisers to the Commerce Committee. The Government is committed to ensuring a high-quality regulatory environment in New Zealand and as part of that tomorrow I will announce the results of the Quality Regulation Review. I am also interested in any other initiatives that might strengthen the regulatory environment and in that context I am prepared to consider a legislative framework that enhances the regulatory environment for business. 
Rodney Hide 
: In light of that answer would she envisage her officials providing advice and indeed drafting support to the committee if the committee concluded that a reworded bill is necessary to support a high-quality regulatory environment? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As the member is aware I arranged for the bill to be referred to the Law Commission before it was introduced into the House for its first reading. I did so because I take the matter very seriously and I am very grateful that the member has brought the matter to the attention of the House in this way. I wanted to ensure that I was fully briefed on any potential risks that might arise in the way the bill had been drafted and I have asked my officials to assist the committee to the fullest extent possible as it considers the bill. So in essence the answer is yes. 
Maryan Street 
: What has the Government already done to strengthen the regulatory environment for business? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: On 1 April this year a new regulatory impact analysis regime was implemented. The regulatory impact analysis regime now requires Government agencies to confirm that the principles of the code of good regulatory practice have been complied with and that analysis has been undertaken in accordance with the new requirements. The changes also include giving more teeth to the regulatory impact assessment unit that assesses the quality of the more important regulatory impact statements and requiring discussion documents to include a draft regulatory impact statement or include questions that would assist the drafting of the regulatory impact statement. These changes have already enhanced confidence in the Government’s approach to regulatory responsibility. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she believe that with cross-party support our Parliament may well be able to deliver through my bill a statute that provides a systematic process for all legislation to ensure the high-quality legislation that New Zealanders so desperately want and that such an outcome indeed is one that all of our Parliament may well be able to agree upon? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Despite nearly 17 years in Parliament I still think anything is possible when people put their minds to it. On this occasion I believe that everyone is agreed on the outcome which is a high-quality regulatory environment as evidenced by the Government’s actions to date. I look forward to working with that member and indeed all parties in the House on this. 
Air New Zealand—Confidential Information 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she or any member of her Cabinet received correspondence from the chair of Air New Zealand expressing concern that she has used information given to her in confidence; if so what was her response? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Letters have been received expressing a view from Air New Zealand. I received no information from Air New Zealand and I am advised that the information Air New Zealand gave other Ministers cannot be regarded as being subject to the confidentiality deed between it and the Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she is bound by the confidentiality agreements regardless of whether she received the information through officials or directly in person? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be bound by such an agreement if the information was confidential and subject to it. It was not. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has the Prime Minister received any advice on whether the public debate on Air New Zealand’s charter flights has affected its reputation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seen advice only today that Moody’s has affirmed—today—Air New Zealand’s current credit rating and has actually improved its outlook from “stable” to “positive”. So I can only assume the airline is thought to be in good heart. 
Keith Locke 
: Did the Prime Minister have a duty to provide New Zealanders with appropriate information about Air New Zealand charters such as that to Honiara; and how can that be at all wrong if there were no security issues for New Zealand Australia or Air New Zealand? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As is well known Air New Zealand regularly releases information about chartered flights itself. The fact is that I referred to a charter flight to Honiara 3 days after it had happened. Anyone who has been to the Solomons knows that it would not be a secret for too long that 3 days before an Air New Zealand plane had landed at Henderson Airfield. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she recall her public statement in respect of Alexander Downer: “My response is the very day after he said that Air NZ flew Australian Defence Force troops to Honiara so perhaps things don’t get actioned very quickly in Australia”; and what effect does she believe that statement had on Air New Zealand’s prospects of retaining substantial profitable business with the Australian defence forces? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I would be surprised if it had any effect because about 4 days before I made the statement Mr Downer had told the New Zealand High Commissioner in Australia that Australia would not be using Air New Zealand charter flights in future. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to use confidential and other commercial information about Air New Zealand for political purposes when the Government has signed an agreement that in letter and in spirit it has agreed not to do so? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I repeat: there can be no breach of confidentiality in talking about the fact that a plane had landed at Henderson Airfield in the Solomon Islands 3 days earlier when a lot of people had seen it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the confidentiality agreement between Air New Zealand and the Government covers financial information relevant to such matters as the Public Finance Act and that Treasury has advised that the information given to the Government in relation to the flight to Honiara could not actually come within that range? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can absolutely confirm that that is the advice that Treasury has given Dr Cullen. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the case that the Government believes that it can use—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please proceed. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the case that the Government believes that it can use any information in any way it likes for any political purpose without any regard for the effect on Air New Zealand’s business or its value to shareholders and taxpayers? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Of course not and the question is transparently silly. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is what causes—please be seated; I am on my feet. Now members it is these exchanges across the House that cause disorder. I ask the member to ask his supplementary question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can we now take it that the Government’s response to the considered letter from the chairman of Air New Zealand is that he is wrong and does not know what he is talking about that the Government can say what it likes to aggravate the Australian Government that there has been no impact on Air New Zealand’s commercial interests and that the Government will keep on with that activity—of using commercial information for its own political purposes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member for somewhere—where are you from Trevor; Lower Hutt?— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The point of order? 
Hon Bill English 
: —made a remark across the House that I found offensive. I ask him to withdraw— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member found that to be offensive. Would the member please withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Of course Madam Speaker. I apologise. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The questions were transparently silly. I repeat: there was no commercial in-confidence information released. There was information about a flight that had occurred publicly 3 days before that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it now the Prime Minister’s stance that the chairman of Air New Zealand is wrong and should never have been concerned about it that none of her actions have affected the relationship between the Australian Government and Air New Zealand and that if it suits her political purposes she will continue to aggravate the Australian Government with reckless disregard for Air New Zealand’s interests? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Quite clearly there has been no commercial in-confidence information used. I can say to the member who got the worst-ever result for the National Party that this Government is very committed to good relations with the Australian Government. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister recall— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Such a success in 2002. 
Hon Bill English 
: Sorry what was that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please continue. The pauses give opportunities for interventions so would the member please just ask the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. Please be seated—you know that when the Speaker is on her feet members do sit. Members are throwing points of disorder across the Chamber. If it happens again I will ask members to leave the Chamber. Would you please just continue with question time asking the questions and hearing the replies. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister recall a Securities Commission investigation into comments she made about Air New Zealand in 2001 that recommended guidelines be drawn up to guide Ministers on statements about public companies that the Government owned; is she aware of those guidelines and has she complied with them? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes I am aware of the guidelines and they have been complied with. 
Police Conduct Commission of Inquiry—Recommendations 
3.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received that show what progress is being made on achieving the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have seen the latest New Zealand Police quarterly update which provides a snapshot of the continual work in progress towards full implementation of all the commission of inquiry’s recommendations. Since April 2007 police have continued to make good progress. In the last 3 months three recommendations have been fully completed and another three recommendations have been partially completed. To ensure transparency any New Zealander can follow the progress towards full implementation via the quarterly reports published on the New Zealand Police website. 
Jill Pettis 
: Given the importance Dame Margaret Bazley placed on changes to the police regulations and the introduction of a police code of conduct can the Minister provide information on when these will be introduced? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes these key recommendations in the commission of inquiry report—the changes to the regulations and the draft code of conduct—have now been approved by Cabinet. I am confident that the new regulations will be gazetted later this year. The draft code of conduct will take effect from 1 January 2008 when the new regulations come into force. I think this will be important progress towards confidence in the New Zealand Police. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does she agree with the view of at least one officer who said: “Why can management teach ethics to officers but it doesn’t apply to seniors… when you see what’s going on in the top end” in reference to the fact that human resources general manager Wayne Annan has been caught out sanitising police recruit data by omitting the test results of poorly performing recruits proving that there is still a problem with conduct at the top end? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I would suggest to that member that he waits until the report into police standards is completed; that accusation has been refuted by Mr Annan. In terms of integrity at the top echelons of the police I believe that there is integrity and ethics. If we look at where some of the problems have been we see that they have not been just in the top echelon; they have been with older members of the police and they were issues that were raised going right back into the 1970s and 1980s. The commission of inquiry is addressing those issues and I have confidence that they will be addressed. The New Zealand Police will have the respect that they deserve for the work they do on behalf of New Zealanders. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House when we can expect to see the report regarding the human resources general manager Wayne Annan given that the allegations against him are extremely serious; and has Mr Annan or indeed the police commissioner been fulsome and wholesome with her in terms of revealing Mr Annan’s complete history thus far? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The report will be provided to the police by the end of September—so there are only another couple of weeks to go. In terms of Mr Annan I tell the member that I have not had contact with him about what he wrote. That is being looked at by the review panel and in the report we will receive. I will leave it up to the independent report to provide me with that so that New Zealanders have the assurance they need about recruitment standards being what they should be. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister provide any other information on initiatives under way to prevent or investigate police misconduct in the future? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes. Any instance of serious misconduct is now reported quickly and personally to the police commissioner. This ensures that any investigative decisions such as for example a conflict of interest are properly made and nationally consistent. Personnel systems have also been enhanced to enable supervisors to identify and deal with patterns of problem behaviour and to provide an early warning system. The best safeguard against misconduct however is a police culture that rejects it. I think that part of that is a code of conduct for New Zealand police which has not been in place in this country ever. It will be a first and long overdue. 
Simon Power 
: What progress has been made in dealing with Mr Rickards’ current employment status with the police? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As the member knows that is not an issue that the Minister of Police deals with but I am informed that it is progressing through the channels it must go through under the old system that exists now and hopefully a resolution of that issue will be in the near future. One of the reasons there is a change to the regulations which I have announced today is to ensure that the slow progress we see in dealing with some of these disciplinary cases does not occur in the future and that they can be dealt with in a much more speedy fashion. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Regulated Period 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: When under the Electoral Finance Bill does the regulated period commence in a year in which Parliament is due to expire? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 1 January. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Government believe that it is necessary to change the period in which election advertising and opinion will be regulated from the current 3-month period which has been in place for decades to a period that could be up to 11 months—that is most of an election year? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Because whilst the Government was looking at a range of matters including the rorting of the electoral system by the National Party and its secretive financial supporters it looked at the experience of similar jurisdictions such as the Canadian and that of the United Kingdom and settled on that period which is longer than the Canadian but briefer than the United Kingdom’s and it seemed an appropriate and reasonable period on balance. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What type of behaviour is the bill intended to address? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: That is a good question. It intends to protect our electoral system from the sort of behaviour we saw in the 2005 election campaign—from secretive wealthy interest groups seeking as they did to subvert and spend up large particularly in the final weeks of the campaign period on behalf of the National Party as this letter to Mr Key quite clearly makes clear. The Exclusive Brethren sought to “launch a $1 million very extensive election campaign with the sole goal of getting party votes for National”. But they did it whilst trying to subvert our electoral system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain more fully his reasons for picking 1 January as the beginning of the regulated period when the United Kingdom is the only developed country that picks a long regulated period; and why did he not choose Canada which he has mentioned whose regulated period is actually 6 weeks not 11 months? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The problem with the member’s approach is that he is taking isolated pieces of information. For instance the member neglects to mention in his question that Canada also enables less than 1 percent only of relative spending—relative to party for third-party expenditure—during that regulated period. The UK on the other hand allows 5 percent although it also has the burden of retrospectivity for those who might engage in election campaigning. So it is 365 days regardless of when that campaign is called not just in the election year in the fifth year as it would be in the UK. In New Zealand we have settled on the period from 1 January and on 2.5 percent of the amounts allowed per party. That is about a reasonable mid-point between those two comparable jurisdictions. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What contributory factors were evident that required the Government to bring the Electoral Finance Bill into the House? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There are almost too many to mention but not the least of them followed on from the letter I showed the House in my previous answer. It is the sort of material that was produced as part of that million-dollar campaign which clearly sought and intended to bring about a particular election result while getting around our electoral law. I do not think New Zealanders want a bar of that sort of behaviour in the future from the National Party and its mates. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister concerned that his Government’s failure to support restrictions in the Electoral Finance Bill on anonymous donations and on donations from secret trusts may well see the food industry pouring donations into the National Party now that the National Party has announced it will oppose any regulatory measures to reduce obesity in New Zealand children? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: There is no doubt that one of the good arguments for a longer regulated period is that regardless of how many of the National Party’s cronies it has pouring money into its coffers the money will be regulated and the financial limits will apply in order that the election campaign is fought on a contest of ideas not bank balances. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that groups such as anti-obesity campaigners will next year face at least a 10½-month period in which what they can say how they say it and what they spend on it is heavily regulated while he and the incumbent Government will be subject to virtually no restrictions at all in public spending on political messages? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No I cannot confirm that any more than I can the sort of misleading implications that the member tried to circulate in his taxpayer-funded letter as he put disquiet around the countryside. Those organisations that seek to be direct participants in the election process in order to bring about the result of either the election or non-election of a particular party or candidate will be constrained by the same sorts of conditions that the member and I have debated at length in this House. Those organisations going about their education and public information activities will not be so constrained. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is Labour’s policy that a person who is confirmed on nomination day 5 or 6 weeks before the election as a constituency candidate will be deemed to have been a candidate for the previous 9 months of the regulated period and that the Government will then retrospectively apply these rules to all the political activities of that person right through the election year even though for most of that year he or she may not have known he or she would be a candidate? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Much of what the member describes is in the current legislation. Secondly it would depend on which year in the 3-year cycle that the election actually took place. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well in which year in the election cycle does one hold elections if it is not an election year? Does the Minister know that we hold elections in election year? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Was that a question? 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that there are two reasons why the Labour Government has chosen 1 January as the start of the regulated period which will then be 10½ months the first reason being that the Labour Party is having trouble raising money and the second reason being that it does not want National to run another billboard campaign? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Firstly I am not responsible for the fund-raising activities of the Labour Party so I cannot speak for that. But as for the billboard campaign I see that the member’s supporters already have billboard campaigns running—I do not know whether those are taxpayer funded like the last lot were. I say to the member that I cannot understand why he is so afraid of a level playing field where the contest of policy and the contest of ideas will have to win out. Perhaps it is because the National Party has neither ideas nor policies. 
Children—Assistance to Family Members 
5.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Who has been consulted on the draft Cabinet paper  
The Role of the State in Providing Assistance for Children who are cared for by Family Members who are not their Parents 
? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Policy work is under way on the provision of support for family caregivers and will examine issues around care for extended family members. The policy is currently under development and I am in the process of discussing the details of the named Cabinet paper with my ministerial colleagues. I know that the member has a very strong interest in this particular issue and I certainly would be happy to consult her in due course. 
Judy Turner 
: When does the Minister expect to enter into consultation with the people most affected by this Cabinet paper—grandparents and kin caregivers entering old age who must become parents a second time round without the energy money and support that first-time parents and foster parents have—and how serious is he about supporting kin caregivers if this draft Cabinet paper is only at a ministerial consultation stage right now? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know there has been a good deal of consultation with stakeholders such as grandparents raising children. As a result of that consultation there have been changes in for example legal aid and respite care and there has been the additional support that goes to low-income families with dependent children through Working for Families. The member will be aware that on 1 April this year people in receipt of the unsupported child’s benefit the orphans benefit and the foster care allowance received an additional $10 a week per child. Unsupported child’s benefit and orphans benefit rates increased by a further $10 a week as a contribution towards costs associated with the care of those children. All of those cases were very much a result of consultation with those very people and we expect to carry on with that consultation. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is there a difference between kin and non-kin care in the rate of childcare payments; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member has been an Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment she will be aware that yes indeed there is a difference. It is one of the issues that all jurisdictions face. It is the difference between for example a child who has been through the Family Court and as a result of that process has been placed with a caregiver who is essentially acting in loco parentis for the State and to whom the State pays a particular rate as opposed to the large number of people with other arrangements because they are looking after some other family member. There undoubtedly are people in this House who are looking after a niece or the son of somebody else in the family. All jurisdictions struggle with getting that money exactly right. So yes there is a different rate between the two. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister accept that increasing the unsupported child’s benefit does not equate to giving the more substantial foster care allowance to kinship caregivers; and that topping up the payments to those caregivers so that they can get for instance counselling for their children would be a lot cheaper than waiting until those children grow up and become the clients of another Government department? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member has a good point. It is one of the reasons I read out the long list of things that have already changed in this particular area of policy. But I will just go back to the point I made before to Mrs Turia which is that this is a highly complex area for all jurisdictions—that is how much money should go to the large number of people who are cared for by kin. In many cases the kin ask for nothing; they just carry on because they can afford to do so looking after those children and taking them into their families. It is a complex issue and this paper is yet another step to try to come to grips with it. As I said we will certainly carry on consulting those people who are most directly concerned. 
Tariana Turia 
: What explanation does the Minister have for the fact that the majority of children placed by Child Youth and Family are placed with strangers as verified by the 2006 figures showing 3893 placements with family and whanau compared with 9803 placements with other foster care despite the fact that all evidence reports that kin care enhances permanency and stability for the young person—a key outcome area for Child Youth and Family? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member has been an Associate Minister in this area she will know that we all share and the Act in fact privileges the notion that people should stay with their kin. That is the ideal placement for a child. It is a fact of life that one of the problems that remains is to make sure we do have kin who want to take these children. The member will know that from her time in the portfolio. But that is certainly what the Act asks for and that is what Child Youth and Family seeks to do—to have a child placed as close as possible to kin or with kin. That is the preferred placement for a child and we will carry on trying to do that. 
Judy Turner 
: What advice would the Minister recommend I give to the Christchurch grandparents who contacted me this week asking where they could get a loan that they need to provide basic care for their granddaughter after Government agencies could not or would not help them because they are family not foster caregivers? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know there are two points of contact. Most Work and Income offices—certainly the bigger offices in places like Christchurch—have a staff member designated to deal with kin looking after kin and I would recommend the member’s constituents go and sit down with that person in particular. Most of the bigger Child Youth and Family offices and certainly the one in Christchurch have a designated person for kin caring for kin. Her constituents should go and talk to that person. I am not saying that will necessarily provide an easy answer but both of those offices have designated staff who are there to deal with those specific issues. Those offices know that at times people face hardship and they try to provide help where they can. 
Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project—Serious Fraud Office 
6.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Have any Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project providers been investigated by the Serious Fraud Office; if so how many? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that one provider has been investigated or is currently being investigated in fact by the Serious Fraud Office although because the member draws attention to Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project I point out that it is not clear whether this investigation has anything to do with that particular project. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can he confirm that a Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project contractor the Pan-Chinese Association which had a contract with the ministry of $75000 to increase early childhood education participation rates for Waikato’s poorest and most vulnerable preschoolers—as confirmed by documents from his ministry—is now being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office; and can he tell the House why that is the case when the Serious Fraud Office tends to look at projects valued at $500000 or more? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The last point of the member’s question I think is absolutely right and it was one of the reasons why I mentioned before that we are not sure whether the organisation is being investigated for this particular contract because normally the Serious Fraud Office goes out for over $500000. But I can confirm that the Waikato Pan-Chinese Association is the subject of an investigation by the Serious Fraud Office which does not disclose why it is investigating which is why we do not know. But I will give the House a quick history if I may. The original contract period was from 1 January 2006 to 30 January 2007. The contract was $75000 for 50 children. The contract was ceased by a letter on 8 December 2006 because of a variety of poor performance in the contract. Of the $75000 of the contract $25000 was paid to the contractor. The last payment was made on 14 July 2006. I am advised that the Serious Fraud Office became involved on 5 December 2006 after a complaint was received from the public. I am advised by the Ministry of Education that the ministry was informed by the Serious Fraud Office on 30 January 2007 that the office was investigating. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What programmes does the Government have in place to increase participation in early childhood education? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Don’t you know? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: A large number and I am sure the member is asking the question so that Mr Williamson can share in the good news because there is a great deal of good news. There is a wide range of initiatives to boost participation in the rapidly expanding early childhood area such as the Promoting Early Childhood Education Participation Project to boost participation in areas of low take-up discretionary grants schemes establishment grants and 20 hours’ free early childhood education to lower costs and boost access for parents and their 3 to 4-year-olds. All of this exciting material is part of a 10-year strategic programme to boost participation and deliver high-quality early childhood education to children throughout the nation. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is it correct that Te Roopu Awhina Ki Porirua which received over half a million dollars from the ministry to increase the participation rate of preschoolers in Porirua had its contract terminated in January because of “poor performance inaccurate reporting and organisational mismanagement” and has since “apparently sabotaged the contract and removed some of the files”; if so what steps did the Minister take? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of the background of that case but not of the particular part the member has mentioned at the end of her question and I will investigate. 
Katherine Rich 
: What steps would he take if it turned out that two other contractors Taha Fasi Ltd which received $241000 last year and Potahi Enterprises Ltd which received $115000 last year from the ministry have had ongoing concerns with contract performance the meeting of targets and requirements of contracts and that these contract-management issues along with those of a number of other providers have been known to the ministry since January 2006? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would expect that the ministry does what it normally does and did in the case I have read out in relation to the Waikato Pan-Chinese Association—it regularly monitors these organisations. When they throw up difficulties in performance it works with them to improve it. Where it is not possible to improve it the ministry takes the action it took in the case of the Waikato Pan-Chinese Association. 
Katherine Rich 
: So does he personally know about the contractors I have just mentioned—have his ministry officials told him and if they have not why have they not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There are of course literally thousands of these contracts and they are matters for the department to monitor in the normal operational way. Department officials would bring these things to my attention only if they felt there was some anomaly or that it was necessary to surface it in a way that was unusual. That is why they would bring them to my attention. They report to me weekly on all issues and if they feel there is something that they need to bring to my attention they will do exactly that. 
Katherine Rich 
: How come I have been informed about it through documents received under the Official Information Act through his office but he is not aware of it and does it concern him that the evaluation of the Promoting Participation in Early Childhood Education Project found that there were serious gaps and inconsistencies in the type of data collected that there was a 42 percent rate only of achievement of targets and only two instances where targets were actually achieved by contractors; and given this apparent lack of data collection how does he know that the millions of dollars being spent in this area are actually working? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is being a little bit disingenuous. The reason she knows this is that there was an evaluation. Evaluations take place in all policies including this so we can find out what goes right and what goes wrong. In this particular case the project is showing that it is doing in most of the cases we are interested in a better job than if we were not doing this programme. There are areas to tighten up on. That is why we evaluate and that is how we improve. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister go back to his office and seek a report from his ministry officials who have managed to tell the Opposition about a number of contracts that have gone bad yet have failed to tell their Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That really is a silly question. The reason the member knows this is that she is being informed by the department as she appropriately can be and we will be informed in the same way. 
Paid Parental Leave—Reports 
7.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What reports has she received regarding paid parental leave? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a report from the Families Commission that sets out its recommendations for extensions to the paid parental leave scheme that the Labour-led Government introduced in 2002. Our Government has progressively improved the scheme by extending its leave provisions from 12 to 14 weeks reducing the length of time that a parent has to be in paid work before he or she is eligible extending eligibility to the self-employed and raising the rate of payment every year. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on the paid parental leave scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As a matter of fact I have. The first is a quote that states: “…I would have much rather had a tax cut than paid parental leave.” and another states: “As a working woman myself I could seriously have done with paid parental leave when I had a little child.” Those conflicting statements are both from Judith Collins. I have seen another report that states in relation to the paid parental leave scheme that the State should butt out and another from the same person who welcomed the Families Commission report I mentioned in my answer to the primary question. Both those conflicting reports are from Kate Wilkinson. A third report states that the paid parental leave scheme was driven by 1970s feminist union ideology rather than by the real needs of women in the 21st century. Anne Tolley who made that comment also supported future extensions to this scheme. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Did I just hear Mr Ryall laughing at the fact that members on this side of the House took seriously something that Kate Wilkinson said? I am sure he did not mean to do that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister have any intention to amend the paid parental leave legislation to make it obligatory for an employee to return to work with the same employer after a period of paid parental leave or does she believe that such a practice is operating under good faith? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If that became a problem then of course it would be worthy of consideration. But evaluation shows that both employees and employers are very satisfied with the scheme. There are four areas worthy of future consideration: the fact that 10 percent of women in the paid workforce who are new mothers are still not eligible; the length of time that women are eligible for payment; the amount; and of course the fact that we still have a very low take-up from new fathers. Those are areas for future consideration. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Will the Government be acting on the recommendations of the Families Commission and on those of the Inquiry into Obesity and Type II Diabetes in New Zealand which were supported by all parties on the Health Committee except the National Party that paid parental leave be extended to 6 months to support exclusive breastfeeding; if so by what date will the Government be extending paid parental leave to 6 months? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: We certainly will be giving consideration in future to extensions to the scheme which is consistent with the way we have operated since its introduction. In respect of the select committee’s report my understanding is that the Government response to that is due later in the year. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s intention to maintain the paid parental leave scheme and what reports has she received on future extensions of the scheme? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I am delighted to be able to confirm that the Labour-led Government is committed to paid parental leave unlike the National Party whose spokesperson on women’s affairs Jackie Blue last month rejected the extension of the scheme and the report of the Health Committee mentioned by Sue Kedgley. National was the only party on the select committee to oppose that recommendation. I call on National’s leader John Key who said definitively: “Yeah I think we support paid parental leave.” to clarify the conflicting statements of his hollow women on the question of whether National is committed to the scheme. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a transcript of a radio interview that states that the Green Party wanted to ban tea and coffee in workplaces— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Confidence 
8.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does he have confidence in Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Yes; but there is always room for improvement. 
Phil Heatley 
: What were the conclusions of the corporation’s internal investigation report that was due in late July regarding allegations of corruption with insider help for the State house tenant who sublet his State house while owning a beach house in the Bay of Islands and will he release that report? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will release that report. But as is usual with that member of course we get only half the truth. No such date as the end of July was given. I said we would work through an investigation process and that we would release the report. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Coming from one of the exponents of half-truths it was quite inappropriate and outside the Standing Orders for the Minister to use that term in his answer. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: To say that a person is speaking half the truth does not mean to say that he or she is telling a lie at all; it means that he or she is leaving certain things out. Now I am sure that the member on occasion leaves certain things out—or perhaps he does not. But he ought on occasion to leave certain things out. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would ask Ministers when they are replying to address the question and to refrain from making comments that are not relevant to the question that was asked. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked what the conclusions were of the corporation’s internal investigation report and I did not actually get an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister wish to continue with his answer? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will repeat what I said in my first answer: I expect to release the report shortly. 
Ann Hartley 
: What progress is Housing New Zealand Corporation making in meeting the housing needs of New Zealanders? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is making very good progress indeed. For example just in the final quarter of the 2006-07 financial year 246 new State houses had been acquired 252 Welcome Home Loans were settled the waiting list for State houses declined by 400 people and tenant debt decreased by more than $750000. The list of good news goes on and on. Ensuring Kiwi families have access to quality affordable housing continues to be a key commitment of the Labour-led Government. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has the corporation’s internal investigation into allegations of corruption been concluded and is the report with the Minister and ready for release or has the investigation not been concluded? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The investigation that we have had has been about the length of time it has been taking to investigate allegations. This report will be released shortly. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The reported investigation is into internal corruption—insider help within Housing New Zealand Corporation—and the Minister demanded the report in a month’s time back in June. So the report was due in July and I am asking whether that report has been finished—whether it was finished at the end of July whether it is finished now and whether it is with the Minister. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Allegations of corruption that were made by a Mr Mani earlier in the year have been investigated. We have released that report; it was found to be not correct. The investigation that the board of Housing New Zealand Corporation is doing at the moment—which I conceded was into a real issue—is into the length of time that investigations into allegations of subletting and so on had been taking. That report has been completed. It has been reviewed by the Department of Building and Housing and we will release the report shortly. It seems the member is confusing two different investigations. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has the corporation taken the tenant who sublet his State house while owning a beach house in the Bay of Islands and who owes the taxpayer $32650 before the tribunal or court; if so what was the outcome? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That particular investigation has been completed. It is contained within a wider report on the length of time the investigations unit of Housing New Zealand Corporation has taking for investigations. The report will be released shortly. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I clearly asked whether that tenant had been taken before the court or tribunal and what the outcome was. I knew the investigation had been completed; I canvassed that issue several months ago. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Can the Minister assist the member. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That particular case has been part of a wider investigation into process. That report will be released shortly. As to the particular status of the case raised by Mr Heatley that case has been referred on for prosecution. At what point that referral is at the moment I cannot tell the House. If the member cares to put that to me in writing he will get a reply. 
Phil Heatley 
: Why does the Minister know nothing about the court case and nothing about the corruption investigation when he himself called the corporation “sluggish” wanted an “urgent review of the corporation’s processes” and demanded the board report back on the corruption allegations by July—or is he all hot air in this House but does not take that rort seriously? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What an astonishing question! We have investigated the issues the member has raised. He is sort of muddling several cases. The bottom line is that we have had a thorough investigation of the investigations unit the report has been sent to the Department of Building and Housing as the monitoring agency to check and the report itself will be released shortly. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table documents that show that the investigation report sat on Housing New Zealand Corporation’s desk for 10 months. 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table documents that show that the report was not forwarded to the Solicitor-General but has been now. 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to show that the report has been sitting with the Solicitor-General for 3 months now. 
Document not tabled. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows the Minister’s call for a corruption investigation— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Taxation—Income Tax Abatement Threshold 
9.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: When was the income abatement threshold outlined in Income Test 3 of section 3 of the Social Security Act 1964 set at its current level of $80 a week? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 1 July 1996. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is he aware that inflation has increased by 24.9 percent since 1996 meaning that non-qualified spouses receiving superannuation will have seen their base superannuation rate rise through an annual adjustment and would need to have the rebate kick in at around $100 if they were to achieve parity with their superannuation payment from that period? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am aware of that and I advise the member that one of the things that is taking place at the present time is a look at the abatement thresholds right across a whole range of payments as part of the Working New Zealand package that we are looking at. As a result of that we will take a look at this issue. I will not prejudice what we will do at the end of it but the member can be guaranteed that it will be looked at during that review. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware that the non-qualified spouse rate of 77c in the dollar after $80 earned is at odds with the rebate rate of the widows benefit and other benefits set at 30c in the dollar and is he aware of the fact that the $80 amount has not changed for more than a decade; if so what incentive is there for those on a non-qualified spouse rate of superannuation to earn extra income? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Agree with it or disagree with it the policy-based reason for this is simply that if one is on a widows benefit the assumption is that one has children at home and therefore will be going out to part-time work. If a person is under 65 and is a non-qualifying spouse that person is probably able to go out for full-time work. That is why there is a difference between the abatement regimes. The member may agree or disagree with that but that has been the basis of that decision for a very long time and I assume that it will carry on because of the presence or absence of children. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Would the Minister concede that there is a correlation between the dramatic fall in private income for seniors and the fact that they are penalised by the rebate rate of 70c per dollar imposed after $80 a week of extra earnings; and if he does will he accept New Zealand First’s recommendation to change the rebate to 30c in the dollar and lift the income threshold to $100; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the member will know because New Zealand First and the Government have an agreement around these issues we have been seeking to increase and protect the income of superannuitants. The issue she raises is one I have probably addressed in my answer to that earlier question—that if through Working New Zealand we do have a look at abatement regimes this will be captured by that review. I will not guarantee that the outcome will be exactly as the member would like because all of these things of course have to be judged in terms of how much money there is and whether it is a productive way of going about spending that money. But I can guarantee that it will be reviewed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that unlike other couple beneficiaries superannuitants do not have their entire income entitlement abated away because the qualifying partner can opt for half the married rate and that does not then affect any earnings the other partner can have? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: That is exactly right. It does give a choice to people who are in the situation of one person being over 65 and the non-qualifying spouse being under 65. There obviously are people who want to make that choice as Dr Cullen has outlined because they do not want to or cannot see themselves as being able to secure work. They can take that choice without any impact on their income. 
Employment Relations Act—Section 87 
10.  
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Is she satisfied with the operation of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act 2000; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I am; and I assume that Parliament for the last 30 years has also been satisfied because that section is relatively unchanged. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Employment Relations Authority that postal workers can go out on their runs to deliver their mail and secretly strike by deliberately dumping their mail—so that it has to be re-sorted and redelivered on another day—yet still be entitled to a full day’s wages; if so why? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I would have assumed given the member’s previous occupation that she would understand that it is totally inconsistent with constitutional conventions for a Minister to make comment on a matter that may well come before the Employment Court. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister think that it is fair that workers secretly striking by sabotaging a business cannot be suspended but that striking workers who give notice can? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The point of section 87 is to ensure that when workers are on strike the employer suspends them and does not have any liability to pay them. If the member is proposing that employers will be required to pay striking workers in future then that would be a very interesting development that I think Business New Zealand would be delighted to respond to. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: When according to the authority the current legislation means that employers are “vulnerable to a sudden strike amounting to surprise or guerrilla tactics” does she think that only vulnerable workers not vulnerable employers deserve the protection of fair and equitable employment law? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I made very clear in the answer to the primary question I support the intention of section 87 of the Employment Relations Act. It has remained essentially unchanged over three decades before a variety of Governments in this Parliament and that is because our Parliament has consistently said that when workers are on strike the employer must be able to suspend them and not have the liability to pay them. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that in a tight labour market such as we have now it is reasonably straightforward for a striking employee or a suspended striking employee to take on temporary work with another employer; if she does recognise that can she advise whether she regards such a practice as operating in good faith; and if it is not what can be done about it? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It has always been the case that people who are on strike are in that way available for work. I would not consider that this section of the legislation appropriately covers that situation. 
Emissions—Australian Comparisons 
11.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: What reports if any has he received on emissions increases in New Zealand and how they compare with Australia’s? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yesterday it was suggested by a senior member in the House that Australia’s greenhouse gas emission growth is less than Australia’s. He is of course wrong. 
Hon Members 
: Australia’s less than Australia’s? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No I said that he had said that Australia’s greenhouse gas emission growth was less than New Zealand’s. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No you said that Australia’s was less than Australia’s. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No that is what the member suggested. New Zealand’s total emissions growth is lower than Australia’s. New Zealand’s emissions are lower than Australia’s by a factor of seven. On a per capita basis New Zealand’s are substantially lower. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in Australia are more than double those in New Zealand and Australia’s emissions are growing at twice the rate. Dr Smith’s representation is what we would expect from a member who has described himself as being at the coalface of environmentalism. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on approaches to managing New Zealand’s agricultural greenhouse gas emissions that have parallels with the way that Australia is managing its emissions? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Indeed I have. Yesterday it was suggested by a senior member that Australia’s greenhouse gas emission growth was less than that of New Zealand. He was wrong. He suggested that the Australians’ approach was more credible than ours. In fact their carbon dioxide emissions are growing at twice the rate of ours. Their livestock farming emissions have dropped through the floor but only because of a drought linked to climate change. Livestock deaths to reduce emissions! That is the first indication of a climate change policy that we have had from the National Party for some time. I think Dr Smith should stop taking advice from Kazakhstan. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why do the official United Nations figures show that from 1999 when Labour came to office to 2005—the latest figures—New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions grew by 8 million tonnes a year which was an increase of 12 percent when the comparative figure for Australia was an increase of 5.5 percent and when Labour had promised that by 2005 it would reduce emissions by 20 percent; does this not show that when performance is matched with promise Labour has failed miserably on climate change? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Dr Smith has a record of trying to make the statistics say what he wants to hear. On 18 July he told the House there had been a 9.7 percent increase in coal-fired generation; in fact there had been a 4.8 percent drop. He has not apologised. He is wrong yet again. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change statistics on greenhouse gas emissions excluding land-use change show that New Zealand’s grew 21.3 percent in 1990 to 2004 and Australia’s went up 25.1 percent. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official United Nations figures on greenhouse gas emissions— 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that although both New Zealand’s and Australia’s emissions have risen to around 125 percent of what they were back in 1990 a better comparison is with the UK which has reduced its emissions to just 85 percent of 1990 levels and now produces just 11 tonnes per person while we produce 18 tonnes per person which is the fourth-worst level in the OECD? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm both of those facts. Of course the two big differences are firstly the United Kingdom retired a lot of dirty old coal-fired power generation and of course we never had much of that— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We have grown ours! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We have not grown our coal-fired power— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What about over Labour’s term? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Look here he goes again. I just showed the House that last year our coal emissions went down and Dr Smith is saying they are going up. Not only that; there has not been a coal-fired power station built in New Zealand in decades. In respect of the other difference between us and the United Kingdom of course unlike New Zealand the United Kingdom has lower livestock emissions and that makes a substantial difference in terms of emission reduction opportunities. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official New Zealand energy statistics which show that the increase in coal-generated power has gone from 4 percent— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister further confirm that our emissions per person are roughly four times those of China and that developing countries are unlikely to make any commitments unless per capita emissions are taken into account; and will New Zealand actively promote targets that recognise population size at the APEC meeting this week or at the Bali negotiations in December? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can indeed confirm the statistics that the member read out. I absolutely agree that it is clear that developed countries will have to do more than developing countries in terms of reducing their emissions from current levels and that per capita emissions are relevant. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that earlier question from Jeanette Fitzsimons about the UK’s emissions can he confirm that the UK is looking strongly at having more nuclear power stations in order to bring down its carbon emissions and does he believe that the Greens are by implication suggesting that we should head that way? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware that the United Kingdom is looking further at nuclear power. I am also aware that the cost estimates of its investigations show that nuclear power is a very expensive alternative. If it were to be applied in a country like New Zealand or indeed Australia it would result in a very very significant increase in power prices. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table documents that show that in the last 3 years New Zealand lost 30000 hectares of forests whereas over the same period Labour planted— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table statistics showing that Dr Smith’s assertion yesterday in respect of Australian emissions— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table my very beautiful graph showing how much better the UK has done than New Zealand and Australia. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Crown Minerals—Confidence 
12.  
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Energy 
: Does he have confidence in Crown Minerals; if not why not? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes but we can always hope for even better. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Are there any prerequisites that must be met before an application for a petroleum mining permit is granted and how long does that process normally take from application to the granting of the permit? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Crown Minerals has of course very clear protocols for petroleum exploration and mining. We have obviously depending on the complexity of the particular proposal no fixed time but certainly each proposal is thoroughly considered and worked through with the applicant and then a decision is made yes or no. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Who normally signs the mining permits the Minister or Crown Minerals staff; and if it is the Minister himself does he have to satisfy himself that all prerequisites have been met by the applicant? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: In most cases Crown Minerals has delegated responsibility for the signing. However in all cases I receive a briefing on the proposal and what has been agreed to in terms of the mining permit. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What persuaded him to become personally involved in signing a 40-year permit for Macdonald Investments to mine 170 square kilometres of the Grey Valley for coal gas just 1 month after the application was made with none of the normal prerequisites being met and with no evidence of a discovery? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Macdonald Investments Ltd was actively involved in working its exploration permit throughout the permit period; it had an exploration permit. In particular the company significantly increased its levels of exploration activity from February 2006 and on receipt of an application for a mining permit Crown Minerals evaluated the proposal and was satisfied that the company had a commercial prospect and that its application satisfied the requirements for the due granting of a mining permit. 
Darien Fenton 
: How is Crown Minerals contributing to the economic development of New Zealand? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Crown Minerals continues to increase its contribution to the economic development of New Zealand and the recent technology developments have put it at the forefront of international regulators in streamlining permitting processes and enabling greater access to geotechnical data. The recent Great South Basin blocks offer resulted in five petroleum exploration permits with something like $1.2 billion of exploration work over the next 5 years awarded to domestic and international consortiums. The figures from 2006 for the minerals industry show a value to the national economy of approximately $1.5 billion. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Why did he approve Macdonald Investments’ permits against the advice of Crown Mineral officials and in spite of Macdonald’s failure to comply with earlier permits when the Act states that he may grant a permit only if he is satisfied that the applicant will comply with the conditions? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member is making quite a serious allegation; he is alleging some sort of impropriety on my part. I invite him to say that outside Parliament. Secondly the company itself made approaches to Crown Minerals asking that its previous problems in developing the permit be taken into account in not extinguishing the exploration permit. As a local member that member should have been aware—that is the first thing. The second is that the company employed a new and very able geologist to look again at its exploration data and decided to take the very unusual step of going directly from exploration to mining—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question. It is a serious matter. All members in the House would like to hear the answer. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The company took the very unusual step of going from an exploration permit directly into mining. It put forward a proposal to Crown Minerals saying it believed it had a good discovery at that point but not where it had previously believed it to be. The arguments put forward by the company are that it should not be made to drill where it had originally proposed but should be allowed to try to mine directly from the new site that its new geologist had proposed. If the member considers it to be some sort of impropriety to allow a company that had put a lot of investment into an area to continue with that investment then I invite him to consider what his role in this House is. If the member proposed the question not just in the general manner that he did but directly about the company I would be more than happy to come with more information and I would be more than happy to table it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You just reminded the House that this is a very serious matter. You further said that the House wanted to hear the answer. Both of those things are very true. The House did not hear an answer to the very direct question that was asked of Mr Duynhoven. The question was why he personally approved this extraordinarily large permit against the advice of his department. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the Minister more than addressed the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I listened very carefully to the answer that was given at length even though it was constantly interrupted. I consider that the Minister did address the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to indicate to the House that should the Minister seek leave to give further information in this matter National would certainly not oppose that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows that is not a point of order. We have come to the end of the time for questions but we will come to members’ questions. 
Questions to Members 
Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Committee Consideration 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: What is the committee’s timetable for consideration of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee) 
: 
 This is a bill that has received a very large number of submissions— 
Hon Members 
: Answer the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I seek leave to answer this question in total silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. Would the member please continue. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It does not surprise me that the Government members over there want to make light of this question. It is an extremely important question and I know that the House wants to hear the answer. I know that an extraordinarily large number of New Zealanders have put in submissions on this bill and want to be heard by the select committee. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Despite the banter from the other side of the House it was quite clear to members over here who are eagerly awaiting the member’s response that despite the very specific nature of the question he did not even address it let alone answer it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members should do Mr Brownlee the courtesy of allowing him to complete his answer. I will now rule. We will have the answer in silence. Would the member please address the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am a learner at this and have been taking advice from Mark Burton as to how to answer a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member knows that that is out of order. Just answer the question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The committee will allocate plenty of time to consider this particular bill. The member asked what the timeline is. There are 190 submissions. A large number of those submitters have asked to be heard. Therefore we will begin hearing those submissions tomorrow immediately after we hear from the Ministry of Economic Development about its views on this particular bill. I say to the member that we had hoped that Treasury might also be able to give us its opinions on this bill but unfortunately Treasury is too busy to deal with members’ bills; it is caught up entirely with Government bills at this stage. 
Rodney Hide 
: I wonder whether the member could share with the House who will be giving submissions to the committee tomorrow morning at 10 o’clock? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Tomorrow morning the committee will hear firstly from officials from the ministry. Clearly the Government is very interested in doing more with this bill as indicated by the Minister in the House today. Tomorrow morning we will hear from the Law Commission. The Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer will be giving a submission on this bill although I understand that he will not be giving a submission on another bill on which he has been asked to submit. Further we have a submission from the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce from Mr Charles Finney. The member will be familiar with that gentleman I am sure. The New Zealand Council of Trade Unions has not said who is coming but one of its representatives is coming. Business New Zealand will also be heard. Further the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand will be heard. All of these submissions are very substantial and they give a lead as to where the bill should go. The member should be extremely proud that he is now doing the Government’s business—the business that the Prime Minister said she wanted to get done as far back as 2001. 
General Debate 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I must say that a moment ago I thought Gerry was beating the gun and had already engaged in the general debate. 
New Zealand disgraced itself last week in the international media in Vienna. According to reports published worldwide we lined up with the countries that opposed a non-binding target for OECD countries to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 25 to 40 percent by 2020. Yesterday the Prime Minister refused to answer my question about whether she or her Cabinet had approved this negotiating position. Instead she passed on that question to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues David Parker who did not answer it either. The Minister fell back on the good old United States formula that he would neither confirm nor deny the reports. He told us that New Zealand was willing to commit to binding targets but he did not tell us the nature of those targets. Are we looking at targets that go down for emissions or targets that go up? 
I want to tell the House why this proposal of 25 to 40 percent by 2020 matters. These are not just numbers. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which consists of the world’s best scientists on climate change these numbers give the world the best chance—not certainty but the best chance—of keeping global warming below 2 degrees. Above 2 degrees we may be into catastrophic climate change that is unstoppable no matter what we do. This is a tipping point and it is very close. Above 2 degrees we could be into unstoppable droughts floods hurricanes crop failures acid oceans and a billion or more climate refugees milling about the world looking for a place to live. New Zealand is not immune to any of those disasters so I was hugely disappointed to read that we had lined up with those who oppose taking this kind of action. 
This week the Prime Minister leaves for APEC and she is very proud to have got on to the APEC agenda the issue of climate change. It is helpful only if the APEC discussion takes us forward. APEC is not the place where one normally discusses climate change. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the normal place to do so. The convention met in Vienna and it meets in Bali in December. 
Last week a leaked draft of the communiqué that is to be discussed at APEC made its way into the Australian media. The draft shows that the APEC discussion will indeed take us backwards. The leaked draft undermines the principles established at Kyoto and it provides aspirational non-binding targets that would see emissions continue to climb from all countries because the reductions would be linked to the rate of economic growth. Developing countries are currently refusing to take targets at all. That is entirely understandable when we take into consideration that the starting point for negotiations is that a country with 4 percent of the world’s people and 25 percent of the world’s emissions gets to negotiate from that point whereas a country like China with 25 percent of the world’s people and roughly similar emissions is meant to take that as a starting point. The only framework that will get developing countries on board and lead to a robust convention that can save the climate is one of equity where entitlements are based initially on population. 
New Zealand could break the deadlock at APEC if it wanted to. The Prime Minister could turn up there in the next few days and advocate for a population-based commitment after 2012. It was encouraging that the Minister acknowledged in the House today that population must be a factor. The question is what actions our negotiators will take at APEC. Will the Prime Minister be allowed to make a bold move on behalf of a global agreement and say that it is simply not right that 4 percent of the world’s people can continue to be entitled to a quarter of the world’s emissions? We are waiting to see what happens. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Can I just say to Jeanette Fitzsimons before I begin some comments of a broader nature today that in the spirit of cooperation I will reflect back to the question she has raised. My understanding is that at the plenary session of the United Nations climate change talks in Vienna the negotiators made it very clear that New Zealand was willing to sign up to binding emission targets and they made that clear. They helped draft the material and even Greenpeace which does not seem to have an awful lot of love for this particular Government was very happy with the performance of Labour there. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Because you’re hopeless. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Greenpeace people if they were given a chance to talk about Nick Smith however would probably be a whole lot less kind because somebody who is at the coalface of this issue is probably not quite in the frame of reference that Greenpeace would use. 
Can I say carrying on with that mood of cooperation that yesterday we had a very good ceremony down at the Michael Fowler Centre where all the parties in Parliament—all the parties every single one of them—turned up to ensure that they showed their support for the family violence initiative called It’s Not OK. I was particularly pleased to see Mrs Judith Collins there. I even went over and said: “Good to see you Judith.” I said that in the spirit of cooperation around this kind of issue. It was great to see Mrs Collins there because Mrs Collins is the person who took the National Party out of the multiparty talks on family violence. Mrs Collins called those talks a “Kumbaya” session where people go along and they talk about these issues but they do not do anything. 
It was good to see that Mrs Collins was prepared to come to the family violence discussion down at the Michael Fowler Centre to try to bathe in the glory of people who had done the real work about it. She tried to bathe in that glory but at least she was saying that she was agreeing with it. The interesting thing of course is that it was produced by the same kind of process as the one she walked out of. It is the same kind of process; it is the Government and non-governmental organisations getting together and everybody trying to work on the ideas. The process produced that idea along with many other ideas. We never know what we will achieve if we actually do get together. 
The other thing I want to point out is that Mrs Collins had that change of heart and came down to the Michael Fowler Centre and Mr Key said the programme would not work and National did not want to fund it! So Mrs Collins was down there saying it was a good idea and Mr Key was back here saying he did not think it would work and he did not want to fund it. He said it would not work and what he revealed by doing that is that he did not actually understand the programme at all. He said that people who beat up their kids do not watch TV. I want to say to Mr Key that the whole point of having a programme like this is to try to get everybody else around people who beat up kids to say that they will not tolerate it any more and that they will do something about it because one of the things we learn all the time is that people know about this violence but do not pick up the phone to ring about it. We want them to do that. “It’s not OK” is what the message is. So Mr Key might like to pay attention to the reasons for the policy and then like Mrs Collins he might agree with it. 
In summary Mr Key opposes the programme and Mrs Collins goes to the launch. She will not allow National to go to the talks on violence but the National Party says that somebody should do something about this problem. Are members confused? Well they should not be because with National virtually every single issue is like this one. National has no policy its members agree with Labour on anything they think is popular and anything that is popular to do they will do. They have more positions than the Kama Sutra on virtually every policy because they do not have any policy. They hold many positions to try to ensure— 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am really concerned at the nature of the speech given that Judy Turner was asked to ask Judith Collins to come along and be supportive of the family violence initiative. Now we hear Judith Collins being attacked in the House today. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry that is not a point of order and the member should know that. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Frankly I do not care how she got there. The fact is that Mrs Collins has repeatedly— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the members on my left that when they move to facilitate interjection it is out of order. The member has been warned. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I cannot hear Mrs Bennett so it is all right. But I want to say to Mrs Turia that I do not care how Mrs Collins got there. Mrs Collins has repeatedly— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague for interrupting but I think there was a further breach of order on the part of—I am not sure of the member’s name but she is next to Mr Williamson there. She referred to you Mr Assistant Speaker as part of her interjection and she was very abusive of you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just remind the member that she cannot bring the Speaker into the debate. The member knows that she is not actually sitting in her normal seat. If she wants to interject I invite her to go back to her seat. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not really care how Mrs Collins got there. What I care about is that the position of National changes so fundamentally on an issue like family violence all of the time—just like on every other issue. National has no policy; it holds one position after the other. National’s leader and its spokespeople never seem to talk to each other. The leader seems to have no real authority because everybody else tells him what he should think about these kinds of issues. 
Leaving alone the issue of family violence I just ask Mrs Turia to go to all the other issues that National members disagree on and for example to take something like climate change. One minute National members say it is a hoax the next time they say they have always believed there was global warming. They say student loans are a bribe then they say they think they will keep the scheme and then they say “maybe” they will keep it. On Working for Families they talk about “large” cuts and then it is “some” cuts. On superannuation they say they will raise eligibility and now they say they will not touch eligibility. When the Skyhawks were sold—and I say this as someone who comes from the Manawatu—the National Party campaigned on this emotional heart-wringing campaign to buy back a strike wing. National members came to Palmerston North they went to the RSA they met with soldiers and they have broken a promise on that like they have on every other single issue they have talked about. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I will reply briefly to the comments made by Steve Maharey about a matter National considers to be extremely important—that is the issue of trying to curb the excesses of violence against children in this country. The point I make is that we will not follow blindly a Labour line that says we should sit in a room wring our hands get a few more committees together have a commission somewhere and go through all of those steps a commission normally would go through on all sorts of issues but never come under any scrutiny in Parliament because everybody is brought into it. Well our role is to be an Opposition. Our role is to hold the Government to account and on behalf of the many children whose lives are made miserable by Government failure in this matter we will hold the Government to account and we will not sit in a room somewhere being told what to do by the Minister. 
One of the most interesting things about question time today was the response that the Hon Mark Burton gave to the Hon Bill English when Mr English asked him some questions about the need for there to be an election period in New Zealand. In the case of next year that period is likely to run for some 11 months—not just the standard 3 months we have always had not the 6 weeks they have in Canada not even the proportionate 12 months they have in the 5-year cycle in Britain but a whole 11 months inside the 3-year parliamentary term in New Zealand. For those 11 months the Government is attempting to shutdown criticism and to shut down any opposition to its policy programme. The Government has virtually said to New Zealanders that if it does something it is OK but if National does something it is wrong. So the Government is saying that it will bring in a law to say that what it does is OK that what National does is not OK and that New Zealanders can lump it. The problem with that is that it is a direct attack on the freedom of speech that makes New Zealand the wonderful country it is. 
We saw today the Minister stand in the House and suggest that billboards were already out there attacking the Government and therefore that those attacking the Government must be the friends of the National Party. Well let me tell Mr Burton that thousands of New Zealanders who have invested in forestry in this country are not happy with the Government’s policy regarding the reuse of land and the cost of carbon credits. They have every right to say what they like about Labour’s policy in that regard without receiving the accusation that the member might like to make about them. That there is now to be a law constructed around the idea that any criticism of the Labour Party or the Government is somehow at the hands of Opposition parties or is hand in hand with Opposition parties and must therefore be shut down because it may influence an election is a dreadful step for this country to be taking. 
So we would ask the Minister and the Labour Government why the election period is such a long period of time. What are they afraid of? Why can they not allow any New Zealander who wants to question them to do so freely during a period of 12 months prior to an election? What is so frightening about the scrutiny that ordinary New Zealanders will put on a Government? I think the Government will need to answer those questions over the next couple of weeks because if we go much further than that then New Zealanders will have no say on this matter whatsoever because Helen Clark has decreed that this will be law by November. The Minister has stood up day after day and said there are matters the select committee should be dealing with. But at the same time he has said that the Government will bring in a Supplementary Order Paper—which is effectively a new law—at the time the bill comes back into the House and that he will jackboot the Government’s proposals through this House and shut down anyone who wants to criticise the Government in any way whatsoever. 
The worst of it of course is that this bill is before Parliament at the same time that the chief of staff from the Prime Minister’s office is trying to collude with other parties to enable members of Parliament to spend any amount they like on election activities from their member’s support budgets. We know people are aware that after the last election when there was the dreadful rort over the pledge card Michael Cullen came into this House and pushed through a bill that made legal everything that had been illegal for a period until 31 December 2007. So those members are now saying that when that period expires at the end of 2007 there has to be a new law in place that continues to make that legal. It is a disgrace it is an attack on freedom of speech and it will cost Labour big! 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 “You have no policy.” That has been the mantra parroted by the National Party in recent weeks and today I just want to point out the irony of that hollow claim. The Labour Party came into Government and it had policy before it became the Government. We have worked with the Progressive party New Zealand First United Future and the Greens. We all came to the table after the election with the policy agenda we wanted to progress because MMP requires us to do that—to have trade-offs and collaboration to ensure that the parties that want to form a Government reach an agenda that enables them to do so. In 1999 2002 and 2005 under the leadership of Helen Clark we achieved that and policies have been implemented over the past 8 years. 
The irony and the hypocrisy of the shallow rhetoric of the National Party is that it has no policy of its own. National members are the proverbial political cuckoos; they hop into everybody else’s policy nest. They go around stealing other people’s policies because they have none of their own. 
Let us just go through the list of policies the National Party has been stealing. For over 30 years the Labour Party has supported having a nuclear-free New Zealand—through conferences through remits through rallies and finally through policy implementation. Through good times and bad we have believed in a nuclear-free New Zealand. We have made New Zealand known in the world as a nuclear-free country and from that flowed the clean green pure New Zealand image that we are all so proud of. For 30 years National members opposed that policy. They goaded they denigrated they criticised and they fought election after election against having a nuclear-free New Zealand. And now it is their policy. After 30 years of opposing it it is now their policy. It is part of the “me too” approach that those members are now taking to policy development. 
We could take Labour’s defence policy as a further example. It has been clear for years where Labour has stood on defence in New Zealand. We believe in being a good international citizen and in building up the sort of armed forces that are fit for our purpose and we have set out to implement that policy. We have taken the flack. We have taken the organised campaigns against our defence policy. We have taken the jibes the letters to the editors the speeches from the military experts and the accusations that we were freeloading on our friends. But last week our policy became the National Party’s policy. It is now a sensible policy according to Mr McCully. It is now part of the National Party’s “me too” approach to policy. 
We could take the example of paid parental leave. It is a case of Labour policy implemented. It is part of a suite of policies intended to support families. According to the National Party it would destroy small business. National opposed it; its members even voted against it. But hello it is now part of the National Party’s “me too” policy approach. We could take the example of 4 weeks’ holiday for New Zealanders which is a policy we have implemented to give families time together. It was vigorously opposed and voted against by the National Party; it is now National Party “me too” policy. We could take the example of Working for Families tax credits. The Labour Government’s policy is to put more money into the pockets of families and that has had huge advantages for many families around New Zealand. It was opposed by the National Party. Those members voted against it. They are now in favour of it—except for middle-income New Zealanders. 
We could take the example of the Superannuation Fund. It is a forward-looking policy long overdue that secures a pension for our children and our grandchildren. The money is not all to be spent on this current generation. The National Party voted against the Superannuation Fund and it is now National Party policy. It is part of the “me too” approach to policy development. We could take the example of climate change. It was picked up by Labour and it is now National Party policy. National members said climate change was a hoax—today it is not. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call after that speech. First of all I just say to the Hon Annette King that National was in Government for 9 years and left the anti-nuclear legislation exactly where it was. So that is not some new-found school of thought for us. We left it there because we agreed with it. 
But the real point of my speech today is to make the point that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I think I am the only member in the House today who was here in the late 1980s—except for yourself Mr Assistant Speaker—and I can tell members that the stench of death that is starting to surround this Government is the same stench that surrounded the Labour Government in the late 1980s and in 1990. I will give some quotes a little later on from the Rt Hon Mike Moore who has had some lovely things to say and who was actually the leader of the Labour Party during that massive “calypso collapso”. 
New Zealanders are now saying a couple of things on a regular basis. I know that Labour members will be hearing this comment: “I cannot believe how Helen Clark was such a good manager and had such a great Government when Labour came into power and how Labour members have just lost it now. They have now just lost the plot.” There have been many scandals running around and many Ministers having to be fired. More Ministers have been fired than I think in the history of this Parliament ever. 
I want to remind the House about two of the incoming Prime Minister’s quotes. Helen Clark said: “We will bring new standards to politics.” That is what she said. Well people should ask the I think 11 Ministers who have had to be sacked because of their behaviour about that comment. Members should ask the public about those 11 Ministers. Helen Clark talked about new standards aspirational politics and an inclusive society. Is that what this country has now? No it is not—not according to the public and I can tell members not according to Mike Moore. The other thing Helen Clark said was that her Government would take us into the top half of the OCED for GDP per capita—for income; for wealth. Actually when Labour came to power we were 22nd in the OECD and now we are 23rd. We have actually slipped one place under the great economic transformation miracle of the Labour Government. 
But the worst thing of all can I think be summarised by what Mike Moore had to say the other day. I think he hit a very very good nail right on the head. He said that we now have a Prime Minister who is involved in the nasty dirty personality politics— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is not the National Party saying that I say to Mr Horomia. That was said by a former Labour Prime Minister. Mike Moore is still a member of the Labour Party and he is still proud to say he keeps on raising money for Labour but he says there is now a nasty technique of personally destroying opponents intimidating the media and using of levers of Government to create stunts and diversions in order to buy votes. That is what Mike Moore said about this current rotten Government. 
I think New Zealanders are starting very strongly to believe Mike Moore. They have had enough of stuff like the Taito Phillip Field issue where Helen Clark set up an inquiry by Noel Ingram QC gave him no power made a whitewash of the findings and then defended Taito Phillip Field for month after month in this House until it was too late. Then it was all over and Taito Phillip Field was out and gone. We saw the same with regard to the David Benson-Pope stuff the Madeleine Setchell issue and so on. Helen Clark said that they had done nothing wrong and that National Party members were a bunch of evils. So Labour then went for John Key’s personal wealth—that is what they attacked. 
New Zealanders are sick of those sorts of politics. They would really really like to hear us debate some issues and not start to get into that sort of stuff. What was John Key’s greatest crime? He came from a State house from a solo family and actually made his way in life. As Mike Moore says why are Labour members attacking that? What is wrong with that? He said—and I think this is a great quote—that is bit rich “coming from people many of whom went to exclusive schools enjoyed a comfortable upbringing and didn’t even have to work during university holidays”. That is exactly right—it is a bit rich for people on the Government side of the House to attack John Key. I think we should all be very proud to see a New Zealander do what he did and make of himself what he did. We should all hope that lots more people are as successful in life as him. But oh no the nasty bitter vitriol comes out. 
Mike Moore also had a few other things to say which another of my colleagues will be able to cover. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I heard that member’s persuasive argument about members disappearing. I want to remind him that there were five leaders in the National Party in that period of time and that its present leader is struggling to get its members back in. 
Let us talk about the nuclear issue. I recall that when National was last in Government it was saying it would do away with the anti-nuclear policy. Every year those members said that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. Never said it. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes they did. Every year they said they would do away with it but the only thing that happened was that the country got rid of them and that is really really important to understand. 
In relation to the violence matter I say that that member’s party did not show up until recently—and I do have to give due respect to Tariana Turia and company who encouraged them to come back. The member should not use the flip-flop excuse that National members stayed away because they care about babies getting bashed and all that stuff. Those members did not show. They came to the first hui they kicked up a ruckus and they told a whole lot of nonsense. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What a lightweight! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I think it is very unfair for that member to call me a lightweight when he can see what my shape is. How dare he! I demand an apology from him. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I withdraw and apologise. He is no lightweight. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I thank the member. He knows full well that this Government is committed to obesity and that we do care about health problems unlike that party over there. 
What did National members do in health when there were in Government? They got rid of the dental technician training colleges. They got rid of them and poor Maoris poor Pacific Island people and other poor New Zealanders— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They’re still poor. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: —that is right—they have no decent dental surgery. Those members got rid of the colleges. 
What else did National members do? They put up the rates for doctors’ visits. They scrubbed a whole lot of issues. They threatened to close hospitals. They threatened places like the Wairarapa and Kaitaia and they withdrew a whole lot of health services. This is the same great party that says it cares about our people. 
I want to talk about more positive things today like Maori Television. National hummed and ha’ed and said that it would not get there. I will read a quote from the head of the Maori Television Service: “Maori Television has recorded its highest ratings ever thanks to the thousands of viewers”—Mr Williamson should listen to this—“who tuned into New Zealand’s national indigenous broadcaster during August.” 
Maori Television has a whole lot of people who are now experts. By the way 80 percent of people who watch it are non-Maori. It is fabulous the stuff it has got into. In the past 6 months it has averaged 695000 viewers every month. It heading towards being what real Kiwiana is about. It is a great effort. It is a skill that was not of this country and people will keep Hollywood and Bollywood alive because Maoris are great actors. At the end of the day issues like Maori Television have managed themselves very very well. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Tell us about your commitment to obesity. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: About what? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You said this Government was committed to obesity. I want to know why. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: At the end of the day we do address the issues. That is a surly type of innuendo I say to Maurice. I could talk about broadcasting in his period in office too—I could talk about a whole lot of other issues. We are serious about the health issues in this country and some people struggle to correct things more than others. 
Let us talk about the employment rate for Maori. I ask members to look at this chart here. When Labour came to office Maori were at this level here in terms of benefits. People continue to preach and leach that we are a benefit-dependent people but that is totally wrong. This Government has helped us as much as it has helped the dairy farmers and the foresters. I make a prediction that the extra payment per kilogram will be $7 and that will be done through this Government’s effort. 
Police numbers have been increased through this Government’s effort and with a bit of help from Mr Mark. We have dealt with issues like assisting the Maori wardens. When did that member care about the Maori wardens? 
The participation rate in employment is at a historic high. At the moment nearly 80 percent of all Maori who can work are working. Is that not great? 
The rate of early childcare participation is at nearly 92 percent. That is how we get out of violence. That is how we get people out of all those negative things. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s not working. Violence is worse. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Violence is everywhere I say to Dr Smith and the interesting thing is that the narrow-minded members opposite blame it on Maori which is humbug. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Several months ago a social policy group calling itself Breakthrough Britain made a series of recommendations to the British Conservative Party about how to end the costs of social breakdown. Chaired by the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP the group advocates for a new approach to welfare in the 21st century. Its report called on the Government to start reinforcing and strengthening not the welfare State but the welfare society which it defined as “that which delivers welfare beyond the State”. The paper states that the heart of welfare society is the army of people who for the love of neighbour and community shoulder the massive burden of care. Underpinning the recommendations of the report is the understanding that pivotal to the principles of tackling disadvantage at the earliest stages of a child’s life is the need to support and develop the potential of the third sector—those community and voluntary organisations that work where the rubber meets the road with families in need of support of some kind. In the New Zealand context we have literally thousands of community organisations that have sprung up in response to local needs and that give shape and meaning to what it means to be a community. 
 The Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust is one such organisation. It was started by a grandmother who took two highly traumatised grandchildren at the request of Child Youth and Family into her care. This grandmother being at her wit’s end due to the complex needs these children were presenting her with and the absence of support put an advertisement in a local paper asking whether anybody else was struggling to cope with similar circumstances. Her phone has not stopped ringing since then. 
Now a few short years since that advertisement went into the paper she leads an organisation that has 3000 members and branches all over the country. What tends to happen when these groups form is that they quickly discover that there are needs within their group that cannot be addressed just by a friendly listening ear at the end of the phone. They quickly develop a range of additional services like second-hand clothing exchanges and legal advice—services that Government agencies cannot or will not make available to them. Lobbying central and local government is the natural progression for organisations that figure out over time that they are trying to make up for the shortfall in people’s lives created by systemic and policy failures. 
Members of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust quickly discovered that if they were raising non - family members they would be getting a more generous benefit with additional allowances to boot. They discovered that even when Child Youth and Family asks people to step up to the plate there is no legal aid funding for those who have nice homes and investment money for their retirement. Instead those people watch their money disappear on court costs as they must repeatedly fight their own children who do get legal aid in order to keep their grandchildren safe; or they watch their money disappear on new mortgages in order to upgrade their two-bedroom low-maintenance retirement homes to something more suitable for bringing up these new second families. 
I have spoken to members of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust who have whittled away their entire retirement savings and are now borrowing from lending institutions to make ends meet. I have sat in branch meetings of the trust and seen a woman in her late 60s sobbing with exhaustion. There is no respite for caregivers who are looking after family members but if people are fostering somebody else’s kids we will organise and fund regular breaks so they can keep going. This woman had figured out that her only option would be to drop off her grandchildren at the local Child Youth and Family office and drive away. 
It is past time that the Labour Government honoured its 2005 election manifesto and made available the same clothing allowances school trip money birthday present money and counselling and support that it provides to other children in need of foster care. Community groups like the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust support those who support some of our most truly vulnerable citizens. They are not intending to resign from their responsibilities but would like to develop a better partnership with Government agencies that have the same mandate. 
It is time we stopped both ignoring and patronising the community and voluntary sector. That sector saves us billions of dollars and partnering with it is the smartest thing that any Government can do. However we need to do it in such a way that we do not compromise who the members of the sector are and the flexible support they are able to offer people in the community. 
United Future is prepared to offer an open door to these organisations to help broker a more productive line of communication for them with the Government and a more robust working partnership so that the safety net that we want to see in the community is sound. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 In listening to Labour Minister Parekura Horomia and other Ministers in this Government I am reminded of the question that Mike Moore asked last week: “What does … the legion of Ministers … actually do?”. Mike Moore went on to say: “Perhaps it’s good they don’t do much. They manage the remarkable feat of being self-important expensive trivial and irrelevant at the same time.” I say to members opposite that when a former Labour Prime Minister says that about their record they know they are in desperate trouble. 
But there is another sign. We know that Labour is really in trouble when it has to roll out the thorny knot of the nuclear issue. When things get really desperate Labour members roll back history 20 years and try to re-win the 1987 election by rolling out the nuclear issue. As John Key said Labour is out of step with the times. 
The really important issue on the minds of APEC leaders as they gather in Sydney today is that of climate change. Let us just test this Government’s record on that important issue. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is climate change a hoax or not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let us ask the member opposite why it is that although Labour promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005 emissions went up 12 percent. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Is it a hoax or not? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member opposite might like to answer my question because Labour has broken its promise. Labour’s promise of reducing emissions by 20 percent by 2005 was a hoax. 
Then we have the issue of electricity. Electricity is a State-owned sector. One would think that in a carbon-neutral age a Government would want to lead the world in sustainability but what does Labour do? It increases fourfold the amount of electricity that is being produced by coal. 
Members can take another comparison and perhaps the member opposite would like to look at this. I have the numbers on a practical area. Let us get some solar water heaters—that would make good sense would it not? Do members know that Australia is installing 30 times as many solar water heaters than New Zealand is on a per population basis? And Helen Clark wants to go to Sydney and tell the Australians how to manage the issue of climate change! 
Then there is the issue of forestry. Forestry is one of the most sensitive areas for a country like New Zealand in respect of climate change. Over the last 3 years we have for the first time in 50 years seen huge deforestation—the loss of 40000 hectares. Over 6 million trees have been cut down and not replanted. Let us compare that figure with the situation across the Tasman. In the same period Australia has increased its forestry by 400000 hectares. This is where it gets cynical: the Minister of Justice takes offence at a hoarding at the airport from the Kyoto Forestry Association criticising the Government on forestry policy. He now wants to pass a law to shut down such criticism as it will expose the fraud of this Government’s climate change policies. That is what he wants to do. 
That law is the most outrageous attack on free speech that this Parliament has ever seen. Mike Moore says it is dangerous. He says that Mark Burton is making a dangerous attack on the freedoms of New Zealanders. I ask members opposite why forestry owners should not be able to spend money on an ad campaign exposing the fraud of this Government’s climate change policies. Why should organisers from the Post Primary Teachers Association who are not exactly mates of ours not be able to run ads and say how Labour has broken its promises to teachers? Why is this Government going to stop the Littlies Lobby from being able to have ads to debate the important issue of child abuse? Why is it that Greenpeace will not be able to run ads next year expressing its view on climate change? 
You see this cynical sick tired Government has become so paranoid that it will even take away New Zealanders’ basic liberties in order to hang on to power. That is why it has to go. It does not understand that the interests of New Zealand are more important than the interests of the Labour Government—it should go. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It has been an extraordinary year for watching the National Party move its policy. To get a National Party position on any policy is like picking up mercury with chopsticks—one thinks one has it and it slithers around the plate; one thinks one has it and off it slithers again. During question time today my colleague Sue Moroney asked about paid parental leave extensions. I was able to show that three woman members of the National Party have all put on the public record completely conflicting views on paid parental leave—Anne Tolley Judith Collins and Kate Wilkinson Then we had Jackie Blue National’s spokesperson on women’s affairs who at the Health Committee in respect of the Inquiry into Obesity and Type II Diabetes in New Zealand opposed paid parental leave as a way of supporting new mothers’ breastfeeding as a contribution towards reducing obesity. So on the record of Parliament we have National now opposing that for the most vulnerable mothers and the most vulnerable— 
Sue Moroney 
: What’s their policy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My colleague asks what National’s policy is. I just want to recall what John Key said in one of his most definitive statements. When he was asked whether National supported or opposed paid parental leave and whether it would scrap paid parental leave if it became the Government he said: “Yeah I think we support paid parental leave.” What an extraordinary comment from the leader of a party who from 2002 is consistently on the public record of this House as being opposed to paid parental leave. It is not surprising. There are so many other examples. 
I heard the latest version of National’s position on the Iraq war from the strategist Murray McCully who is out strategising on the rugby field in Paris at the moment. He said that actually National had never supported American United Kingdom and Australian troops going into Iraq that that was never National’s position and that National certainly would not support troops going to Iraq. Well that is the opposite of what National members said in the House. Certainly it was the opposite of what Simon Power said on the public record—“Where they go we will go.” That is out of the Book of Ruth in the Bible; it is a very good quote. But what Murray McCully said is that National supported their right to make a decision. It is just extraordinary. 
When we are talking about committing the lives of young New Zealand men to fight in a war that had not been signed off sanctioned or supported by any United Nation recommendation that party has a moral responsibility to the public of New Zealand to have one clear unequivocal position. There are very few issues more serious that a Government can consider than the issue of risking the life of another. That is literally what that decision is about and that party is cheating the public of New Zealand by not coming clean on its views. 
On housing John Key had the audacity to go to a State house in Christchurch and say that that was where he grew up and what a fabulous upbringing he had all credit to his mum and then go back to his electorate—which is not where his home really is; he does not live there—where he enrols to vote and where he opposed the building of State houses. So it is all right for State houses to be in his past life but not in his backyard. 
On the therapeutics negotiations with Australia where we had worked for months to get a sensible deal to protect New Zealanders against the importation of dangerous products in natural medicines what we got from John Key and Bill English was deceit and changed policies every second day regardless of what commitments they had made to the Minister for Food Safety or indeed to other Cabinet colleagues. 
Climate change—which the member who has just resumed his seat had the audacity to raise in this House—was a hoax to those members not very long ago. Now we have the little monkey singing: “I’m a believer.” It is just extraordinary. On student loans on Working for Families on superannuation on every policy they are gone by lunchtime. 
The issue that I would like to challenge the National Party on relates to a discussion document it has released today—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but there is a two-way debate going on between members who do not have the floor and it is totally out of order. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The challenge I would like to put to the National Party is to come clean with senior citizens in relation to its aged-care discussion document which says not one word about National’s commitment on asset testing. Asset testing which National in its 9 years in Government did absolutely nothing about is now under threat in its own discussion document. There is not one word not one commitment on asset testing in its document. It is under threat and those members need to come clean on it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Mike Moore’s mumblings on Muldoonism have been heralded as a blast from the past in some parts of the media and in some political commentary. The effect on Labour’s ranks has been I think that of an earthquake with seismic rumblings ricocheting in ever-expanding concentric rings round the person and personality of the present Prime Minister. The much-quoted “whiff of Muldoonism” comment hangs like a pall over the prime ministerial head and it has the persistence of a cloud that no amount of huffing and puffing by an angry Mr Anderton can dissipate. 
I have noticed during a long period of parliamentary watching and listening over the years that every now and again a remark is made that has such a ring of truth to it that no argument can effectively refute it. I think this is one of those occasions. It could be interpreted as a light remark. I think Mike Moore suggested that it should be seen and perhaps taken as a bit of a chuckle a bit of a laugh. But not everybody can respond in that way and the veracity of a remark often lies in the way it is received. I recall listening to a debate in which the Rt Hon Jenny Shipley was being harangued when she spoke. She was oblivious to the constant jibes and interjections being hurled at her by an ineffective Labour Opposition. An interjector called out to Jenny Shipley: “You’re weak-kneed.” Mrs Shipley responded: “Weak-kneed? Me? I don’t think so.” From the silence that followed while she concluded her speech it was clear that everyone else agreed with her. It was a moment of truth. 
It is a similar case with Mike Moore. He has given voice to a moment of truth and it was no good for Labour members to try to attack his perceptiveness—albeit it was piercingly painful for them—when he came out with his “whiff of Muldoonism” comment. If the electorate considers that his remarks fit like a jelly in a tin no amount of organising letter writing and tailored talkback calls will alter the expression of truth. But what is it that made the current Labour-lifers—and it is those from Mike’s era whom I refer to—in Parliament so enraged? Why did they respond with such anger? I think the Rt Hon Mike Moore’s comments have cut deep into the Labour psyche. What is that old quote—“that which we least like about ourselves”? Why have Mr Moore’s remarks caused such digestive heaving in Labour’s body politic? It is probably because its members think he is right. 
But there is more. He has taken not just the mind of the Labour body politic but also the mind of Labour’s caucus into a pattern of thoughts to which it is not usually allowed to stray. He has force-focused the mind of Labour’s caucus and the public mind on the leadership issue which is increasingly a question of vexation for them. Did he mean to do it? Did he mean to establish an expectation of an era ending? We may never know. Mr Moore may merely have followed an instinct in a responsive way in a lugubrious way mournful about Labour’s petty off-target perambulations against John Key which were destined to fail before they even started. We expected better but no it was almost a repeat of the Grey Valley schools situation. 
One thing is for sure: Mike Moore was smack on target and I can imagine him being highly hosed off with such transparent hopelessness in a party of which he was once proud to be a member along with a number of colleagues who are still serving in that party and who probably still feel the same. Fortunately he has a protégée in the House in the person of Clayton Cosgrove plus a number of others who probably share the same memories and opinions of Mike Moore’s tenure. 
I remember Mike Moore well. I remember him when he came to stand in Papanui against Bert Walker. He was supported by David Lange prior to the 1975 election. He was from Kawakawa. My wife and I knew David Lange quite well from his days in Kaikohe. So there was an element of us all coming from the same territory when we went to his meeting in Papanui. I asked both gentlemen why they adhered to the Labour philosophy and I remember Mike’s enthusiasm—an enthusiasm that has since been crushed. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 “… those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” So said Maurice Williamson only 15 minutes ago. I remind National members about some of National’s most recent history—history not so far back that even they could pretend to forget it. I quote from  
The Hollow Men 
 which is a very instructive document. This is very relevant and members will notice some of the key players; they are still all on National’s front bench. I have a quote from page 124: “The National Party team’s next priority was to neutralise issues that would lose them votes.” Does that not sound familiar? I think that is what they are doing at the moment as well. It continues: “Murray McCully expressed this in his 8 November paper when he advised that they needed to ‘fairly urgently make the decisions about those issues on which we intend to pick our fights and those we intend to inoculate’.” 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I say to members on my left that the practice of members engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling and it is entirely intolerable in a debating chamber. 
SUE MORONEY 
: The key words in that quote—I use “key” advisedly—are “inoculate” and “neutralise”. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member does not have a small voice. I am trying very hard to listen to the speech. You made a ruling and immediately two members—one who has been here for sometime from up the Coromandel somewhere and the other “Mr Auchin-something”—started heckling again but before the member had even started speaking. Are they allowed to defy your ruling like that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No they are not allowed to defy my ruling but— 
Ron Mark 
: Can I please add to that? I know that Mr Mallard is a member of the same party as the member on her feet but from New Zealand First’s position—and it may well be that my soldier’s ears do not help me and I accept that—I am sitting with my head leaning towards my speaker trying desperately to hear the member who is only about six or seven seats from me. I know you have given a ruling but seriously I cannot hear when Mr Auchinvole who knows better than he is currently showing and Ms Goudie who often does not continue their barrage. I ask you to consider allowing the speech to be heard in silence because I simply cannot hear it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Mr Mark. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a question of the member and from my understanding of the Standing Orders one can ask a question from one’s seat when one is involved in a debate. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is not possible to ask a question relating to the member’s speech when the member had not said anything following a point of order. It is absolutely impossible to ask a question in response when the speaker had not said a word before that member interjected. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say that politics as we all know it is the art of the possible and the possible we will explore today is good order. Members are asked to desist. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In view of the fact that I have not heard half of what the member has said I ask that her speech be started from the beginning and the time reset. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is something the Speaker decides. 
SUE MORONEY 
: National members do not like to hear from their most recent history because this sort of thing is still going on. That is why I am quoting from  
The Hollow Men 
. It talks about Dr Nick Smith and Murray McCully and their view that the National Party should work to neutralise and inoculate its policies. 
We saw a very good example of that today in the House during question time. National members flip-flopped over what National might or might not have to say on the issue of paid parental leave which shows that exactly the same strategy is still in place. National thinks the New Zealand public is dumb enough to believe that if National just makes gentle quiet noises about perhaps enjoying paid parental leave then that is National’s policy. 
What is National’s policy on paid parental leave? It is impossible to work out. Last week when the Families Commission released a report into paid parental leave and recommended an extension the National Party spokesperson welcomed that report and made it sound as though the National Party might perhaps consider extending paid parental leave. That was despite National having voted consistently in this House against any extension to paid parental leave and despite the fact that just 2 weeks ago in the Health Committee National had declared its hand by saying that it would oppose any move to extend paid parental leave. 
That sends a message to New Zealanders that they cannot ask the National Party about its policy because it will not tell them. National knows that it would be absolutely unelectable if New Zealanders understood what policy platform it wanted to bring in in this country. National’s plan is: “Whatever you do don’t mention policy don’t tell anyone what we stand for.” But I say to people to check National’s voting record because that is all that is left for people to look at. If National will not front up and say what its policy is on an important issue to New Zealand women like paid parental leave then the only thing we can go on is firstly National’s voting record and secondly what it does and says in select committee reports. Those are the things that are on the record; those are the only things that we are able to trust. 
When National members are talking about the issue of paid parental leave they are all over the place. These are recent quotes. Judith Collins said: “I would much rather have had a tax cut than paid parental leave.” but then just last week she said: “As a working woman myself I could seriously have done with paid parental leave when I had a little child.” I ask the member why she has changed her stance; I would like to know. Is that an inoculation or a neutralising of National’s policy platform? I believe it is. All I can say to the New Zealand public is that they should check the voting record because that is the only thing that will be able to tell them. 
National members know that the policy platform they fundamentally believe in would render them absolutely unelectable so they are busy stealing others’ policies. They want to take over Labour policy—policy they have vehemently argued against year after year. The real problem is that even if the New Zealand public did believe did take National at its word and thought perhaps that a National Government would keep Labour’s policies in place—even if they did believe that—the problem is that National does not believe in those policies. It fundamentally does not believe in those policies. It would not know how to extend them and it would not know how to improve on them so it would be in charge of a policy programme that it fundamentally did not believe in. What sort of country would we become if such a party were allowed to become the Government and tried to put forward policies and programmes that it fundamentally did not believe in? 
Jill Pettis 
: Like defence. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Yes the defence policy is another one. How could National vehemently oppose it and then say: “Gosh we like it.”? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: At the beginning of my colleague’s contribution she quoted from a book which was described by Mr Williamson as a work of fiction so I seek leave to table a copy of a page from that book  
The Hollow Men 
 which reproduces a letter to Messrs Don Brash and John Key from the Exclusive Brethren. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought to table that document Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: I seek leave to table Nicky Hager’s  
Seeds of Distrust 
 a piece of work whose author was described by the Prime Minister and the member who has been quoting as a writer of fiction. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 What a tired desperate bereft-of- ideas-and-vision Government this current one is. It is so desperate that it is demanding National’s policy. Labour will use that to its own advantage. It will take advantage of our policy because it has none of its own. It has no ideas no vision and nowhere to go. It has nothing to offer the New Zealand public. The Electoral Finance Bill says much about the desperate state of mind of this tired incompetent Government. It is more interested in personal attacks on its opponents and bringing forward Draconian legislation to stop freedom of expression than focusing on the business of good government—a job that it has never been particularly good at. 
 Labour members are desperate so they are reduced to destructive attacks on those who would say anything to oppose their agenda. Not only do they not like to hear from those who oppose their point of view but also the proposed legislation seeks effectively to criminalise the ability of those in New Zealand who might have views contrary to the narrow agenda of Labour and its cronies. 
The strength of New Zealand’s democratic culture is found in the participation of our civil society. The political element of civil society organisations facilitates better awareness and a more informed citizenry who make better voting choices participate in politics and hold Government more accountable as a result—and we need those dissenting voices. They are organisations as diverse as the Sensible Sentencing Trust— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They are out there. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: —oh yes they are waiting and they are out there; they are keeping an eye on this and waiting to see which way the Government jumps—Greenpeace the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and Plunket every one of those groups and all of the people who took an interest in the trans-Tasman Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill. It is the interplay between those opposing views that is a vital part of a functioning democracy but this Government wants to shut that down. It wants to silence New Zealanders so it can try to keep those seats where it is not even doing anything. So the freedoms that New Zealanders take strongly for granted are under attack with that entirely flawed piece of legislation and it is one bill that cannot be salvaged. It represents an absolute lack of respect on the part of this increasingly authoritarian Government for the essential freedoms of democracy and the freedom of being able to criticise the Government without fear. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Who wrote this nonsense? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Ruth Dyson knows it and everybody else in the Government knows it. They cannot get away from it. New Zealanders of all political persuasions are right to oppose this bill. In the words of Harry Truman—and maybe Sue Moroney might like to listen up seeing she is so fond of history—“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition it has only one way to go and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” 
The reality is that the Electoral Finance Bill is a flawed bill and one that Zimbabwe’s Mugabe might be proud of. It represents an attack on the freedom of speech that is unprecedented in this country. Journalist Graeme Hunt has suggested that this crooked Labour-led Government is responsible amongst other things for “the two most self-serving bills in history to enter the house—one to validate the government’s deliberate overspending at the last election and the other to give it an unfair spending advantage in future polls.” That is exactly what the Government is doing and that is exactly what the Electoral Finance Bill is all about and Government members are trying to get away with it. They think they can pull a fast one on the public of New Zealand. Well we have news for them. 
The Coalition for Open Government which was set up to advocate for a form of our electoral finance law and which has as its patron the former chief executive of the Electoral Commission has said that it is “very disappointed with the new Electoral Finance Bill” and has “noted that the government is happy to impose a very tight regime on third parties involved in election activities but doesn’t want to apply that regime to political parties.” In other words Labour wants to be able to say whatever it wants but effectively wants everybody else to shut up. The hypocrisy of the bill is that this Government while restricting the rights of others to criticise Government policy will spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to promote Labour policies. Funnily enough the bill actually exempts trade unions from communicating with their members and gives them a free run. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. For too long young workers in this country have been underpaid and devalued. When I started work on this bill just after the 2005 election I was motivated by anger at the unfairness of the way in which 16 and 17-year-old workers were paid less for doing the same job simply because of their age and also by a broader concern at the way in which so many older people in this country disrespect the young. It is a disrespect that the pay differential simply serves to magnify. 
The bill we are passing today goes some way towards remedying both these problems and I am grateful for the support the Green Party found from enough parties in this House to see the bill through. I know that it has been a tough call for MPs in some parties to see their way clear to supporting the elimination of age-based employment discrimination but at least we have got there almost. I am hopeful that in a few years’ time equal pay for equal work on the basis of age will not be seen as the radical notion some people seem to see it as today. 
I am of course sorry that the clarity of my original purpose—to completely remove youth rates for 16 and 17-year-olds—has been watered down but the compromise we have ended up with still marks a huge improvement on the status quo. From 1 April 2008 16 and 17-year-old workers will have to be paid the minimum adult wage once they have completed 3 months or 200 hours of work with any employer whichever period is the shorter. If they are supervising or training other workers then they will have to be paid the adult wage full stop. 
The new entrants wage for the first 3 months or 200 hours will still be paid at 80 percent of the adult rate. Personally I think this is superfluous. By the age of 16 many young people in our country have already been in the paid workforce for some time—for months if not for years. Even if they have not every person who is new on the job needs time to learn the ropes and to be oriented to the new workplace whether they are 16 25 or 60. 
However although the Greens do not support the new entrants wage concept we do accept the realities of political compromise and I am grateful to the Labour Party New Zealand First United Future Jim Anderton and Taito Phillip Field for helping to get the bill this far. I would also particularly acknowledge Maori Party members who are opposing the bill in its amended form but who are in fact its fiercest supporters. I am grateful for the Maori Party’s unflinching and uncompromising support for the bill as originally conceived rather than in its watered-down version and I hope that one day their party and ours and others will join in going the whole way in abolishing youth rates altogether. 
This bill even as it was originally drafted was a compromise all along. Right from the start I was criticised in some quarters—and rightfully so—for putting up a bill that did not do away with age discrimination altogether but maintained it for workers under 16. There were two main reasons why I did not take the bill down that path. The first was pragmatic. I did not think a bill that did that would have had any chance of succeeding in this Parliament and I think that events have proved that to be so. 
The second reason was that although I do not support wage discrimination on the basis of age for under-16-year-olds I do think we need some serious thinking and discussion in this country around the issues of children and young people in paid work. At what age should our children enter the paid workforce? Do we think that some jobs are OK at certain ages and some are not? On what basis do we make that decision? Why are some jobs seen to be worth less than others? Where do we draw which line? How do we stop some children being exploited in basically slave labour conditions? That is something that still happens here to which we as a society remain almost completely blind. 
I hope that the debate around this bill will help trigger serious consideration of these issues by the Government other political parties trade unions employers churches and non-governmental organisations. In the end I hope we will have a society that recognises that if someone is doing an adult job on an adult job description then that person should get adult wages. We must also protect our children from having to go out to work too young or from working in conditions or for wages that are untenable by anyone’s standards. 
I sometimes cringe when I hear human rights groups and people of goodwill rightfully rail against slave child labour in other countries while not acknowledging the increasing use of child labour as defined by the International Labour Organization that is occurring here. Addressing this issue will take more than a member’s bill and I hope that the Minister of Labour takes up this issue and includes it as part of the Government’s employment relations work programme. I can assure her that she will have the support of the Green Party if she does. 
Now I will make a particular acknowledgment of some of the organisations that did so much to help ensure that this bill got through. Above all I would like to pay my respects to two particular trade unions the National Distribution Union and my own union Unite! which both put a huge effort in people power and resources into mobilising against discriminatory youth rates. Right from the start both the National Distribution Union and Unite! organised on the job on the streets in the union movement and with MPs to demand an end to unequal pay for young workers. Along with other groups like students associations the Council of Trade Unions youth union movement and Radical Youth they organised some of the loudest and most colourful rallies and demonstrations we have seen on the streets of Auckland and Wellington for some years. 
Young workers told their own stories of exploitation naming and shaming youth rates employers as well as placing this struggle well and truly within the broader struggle for youth and worker rights. They not only took to the streets they also came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and made far more perceptive and intelligent submissions than did some of those people who opposed the bill. 
Young workers and their unions also included the issue in their bargaining claims. With some employers such as Postie Plus and BP they have succeeded in abolishing youth rates altogether. With others such as Progressive Enterprises and Restaurant Brands they have started the process to eliminate youth rates which I am sure will soon be a total elimination further assisted by this bill. Beyond this core of support the Council of Trade Unions and the rest of the union movement pitched in alongside groups like youth organisations community law centres church agencies the Office of the Children’s Commissioner the Human Rights Commission and many others. 
I will also make a brief comment on submissions that opposed the bill. I was surprised at the low level of opposition from the business sector. It was as if in most cases these submitters went through the motions of opposing the bill without their heart really being in it. In fact I had to rely on some of the business submissions to negotiate the final compromises to allow the bill to go through. Perhaps I should not have been so surprised by the lack of opposition from that quarter. I have been interested to read a couple of employer polls over the last 2 years that showed the majority of employers in some places do not in fact support the continuation of youth rates. Also some major newspaper editorials have come out in full support of the bill. 
These business and editorial comments have left the National Party completely exposed on this issue. Its opposition at the Committee stage was I believe purely token. The refrain seemed to be: “We do not believe in age-based wage discrimination but we do not want Parliament to do anything to reduce or eliminate it.” What a cop-out! It is time the National Party turned its back on the knee-jerk anti-worker attitudes that have infused that party for so long. Those members should instead support this and other progressive pro-worker legislation rather than pandering to the predilections of some of its more reactionary backers. 
Finally I want to comment on the hand grenade that the Ministry of Justice tossed into the select committee proceedings in the form of its New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance report. This report stated that the way current regulations that provided for youth rates in the minimum wage could be considered ultra vires—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is just going over the top. I am sorry to interrupt the member. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What’s wrong with that? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I made a ruling Mr Henare. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: And that was? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I am on my feet I am making a ruling— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: About? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Oh look the member will not argue with me while I am on my feet. The member will leave the Chamber now. 
Hon Tau Henare withdrew from the Chamber. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Like a hand grenade that New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance report seemed to stun the rest of the select committee which preferred not to deal with the issues raised in it regardless of my attempts to put those issues back on the table. I still have a niggle that the compromise reached in this bill may not meet the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance test. However the amended bill does take us a long way down the path to completely removing discrimination based on age in our Minimum Wage Act. 
I am pleased with what we have achieved today. I look forward to the time when youth wages discrimination will disappear completely not only from the Minimum Wage Act but also from the Human Rights Act and from every collective and individual employment agreement in this country. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking to this third reading of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill we appreciate that the purpose is to provide for an adult minimum rate for new entrants who are defined as being workers who are 16 or 17 and who have completed 3 months or 200 hours of employment whichever is the shorter. We know that the bill originally started out to abolish youth rates for 16 and 17-year-olds and then it became amended to provide for this new entrant criteria to “recognise the experience that they have gained” in that “very short time.” That experience is translated simplistically into 3 months or 200 hours of employment but there is nothing stated about the position or about the training given and received. In fact there is no mention at all of the quality of the hours worked. 
There is a limitation that the employment be with more than one employer. I still think that it should read “one or more employers” because it simply does not make sense otherwise. If a young person happens to work for four different employers doing 100 hours with one 50 for one 25 with two the total is still 200 hours. That assumes that the skills and experience in all four of those jobs are transferable. Furthermore the 90-days condition is silent absolutely silent on how much that work may actually be. Is it 1 day a month for 3 months? Is it full time for 90 days or part time for 90 days? This is uncertain law and uncertain law is not good law. 
The bill may indeed be well-intentioned law though. In fact during the second reading debate Government speakers acknowledged that this legislation is for workers who are vulnerable. Nobody condones the exploitation of vulnerable workers whatever their age. I do not think there will be much disagreement that all workers whatever their age should be valued for the work they perform. But what will this bill actually achieve? Will it prevent and outlaw exploitation of vulnerable workers or will it be a barrier to young persons getting a job? Will it be a perverse incentive for them to leave school and not complete their education? The Minister herself even acknowledged—and on this I have to agree—that “we do not want to send the message to young people that leaving school early with no qualifications is a good idea.” That is where our agreement ends. The Minister does not think this bill will drive that message. We have concerns that that is exactly what will happen. 
I have to say that our view is backed by the research paper recently of Dr Gail Pacheco and based on her thesis  
Minimum wages in New Zealand: An empirical inquiry 
 she says: “Policy-makers must consider the possible long-term harm of a rise in youth minimum wage. Given the option employers may switch to hiring people with more skills and education or older people with more experience. Older workers 20 or 25-plus will be hired because if you’re going to pay workers the same you might as well pay for skill and experience.” What good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he or she must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job? This bill we fear will be that barrier. 
The  
Gisborne Herald 
—and I know the honourable member Sue Bradford mentioned some editorials—actually reinforces that view. I quote: “There are some aspects of the proposed move to increase youth wages to the same as adult rates that could be counterproductive. Instead of helping youngsters it could limit their job opportunities. What it boils down to is that the Government would be placing youngsters with little or no work experience in direct competition with people who have many years of work experience well developed work ethics and motivation. What employers don’t want is to be forced to pay a young person the same as an older person when they are not providing the same value. A business is only as good as its product. And productivity relies on the input of staff managers and owners. They are always on the lookout for people who want to work and bring their own special contribution to the workforce. They don’t need a bill.” 
Dr Pacheco also found that where youth rates increase enrolments at secondary and tertiary education institutions decrease. This bill has the potential to be a perverse incentive encouraging young people out of the education system and to leave school early. We have already announced our significant trades training policy so that more of our young people can stay engaged in schools. We should be encouraging them to stay in education for as long as possible. 
In a further research paper—this one was in the UK and I know there is a tendency by this Government to try to model if not replicate some of the UK laws—in the September issue of the  
Industrial Relations Journal 
 in the UK Jason Heyes stated: “The Low Pay Commission … the body charged with making recommendations to the government on the level and extent of minimum wage protection took the view that ‘16-17-year-olds form a distinct segment of the labour market preparing for working life rather than being full participants in the workforce … and ideally all 16-17-year-olds should be receiving education or good quality training.’ The exemption of young workers from the NMW”—national minimum wage—“was presented as a way of ‘supporting the training base’ by safeguarding opportunities for young people to gain qualifications skills and experience and ensuring that young workers would not ‘find themselves locked into low-skilled low-paid jobs—or even worse the cycle of low-paid work and unemployment.’ ” 
This bill instead of providing safeguards for our young people is removing those opportunities. Training is more than just 3 months with no criteria as to how much work in that 3 months is required. It is more than 200 hours. It relates to experience training skills obtained and qualification. This bill does not address that. The Minister herself admitted that we need to balance the positive impact that abolishing the lower rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds will have against the possible negative impact of an incentive for 16 and 17-year-olds to leave school earlier with fewer qualifications. We do not believe this bill achieves that balance. 
I can see no reason why a 16-year-old would not be paid the same or a similar rate to a 20-year-old a 30-year-old or even a 40-year-old provided they do the same work and make the same contribution. I mentioned earlier that one submitter said: “Younger people tend to be paid at a lower rate than older workers because age is a proxy for experience and performance on the job just as the age of 15 is a proxy for the minimum capacity and maturity required to drive a car on our roads.” Legislation like this—whatever its purpose; whatever its intention—cannot change overnight the amount of experience and performance capabilities of any worker whatever his or her age. 
We welcome a fair wage for fair work. We welcome the fact that many employers voluntarily pay above the adult minimum wage in any event because they value their staff. Staff are valuable. Businesses rely on them and productivity relies on them; they should be paid what they are worth. But this bill is not the right instrument. We do not want young people to be priced off the labour market. We do not want young people to leave education prematurely. I have asked before what good does it do a young person to know that an employer must pay him or her the adult minimum wage if the fact that he or she must be paid that amount is what keeps him or her from getting a job? This bill we fear will be that barrier. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It gives me great satisfaction to support the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I want to begin by acknowledging and thanking Sue Bradford from the Green Party for her introduction of this bill. I recognise that the bill we are considering today differs markedly from the approach that Sue initially took to this issue. But I believe that the bill achieves a balanced way forward for the 16 and 17-year-old New Zealand workers. 
Balance is in fact the best way to describe the bill and the process that the bill has gone through. A balance was needed between those who wanted the abolition of youth rates and those who supported the status quo or—in the case of the National Party—something even worse. A balance was needed between the rights of young workers the perspective of the unions and the perspective of the employers. But perhaps most important a balance was needed in this Parliament to gain support for the bill. That is the reality of an MMP environment. 
Our Government is very proud of this achievement which is another step forward in the steady progress towards ensuring all workers—including young workers—have fair minimum wage protection. The bill provides a 3-month maximum time limit for new entrants in addition to the 200-hour maximum that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended. Those 16 and 17-year-olds who work full-time will now be able to reach the adult minimum wage in as little as 5 weeks while those who work part-time while pursuing their education will receive the adult minimum wage after 3 months or 200 hours. Labour recognises that often employees who are aged 16 or 17 do the same work as adults. But we also recognise that time is needed for those workers to gain the socialisation skills necessary for working. We believe that the time frames that the new entrants rate will apply allows that learning of soft skills while respecting the value of the work that young people do. 
Clarification has been included in the bill that the new entrants minimum wage will not apply to young people who work as supervisors. I think that is a great step forward for our youth and I am particularly pleased that the bill specifically provides for this as it fairly reflects the value of supervisory skills. I am also pleased that the bill allows all employment undertaken once the young person turns 16 to be taken into account even if it was undertaken before the commencement of this bill. That means that many thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds will have already completed their qualifying time when this bill comes into effect and will move immediately to the adult minimum wage which our Government increased to $11.25 per hour on 1 April this year. That was an increase of a whole dollar an hour—the largest ever increase and something it took the previous National Government almost a decade to achieve. For 9 years the adult minimum wage stayed at nearly exactly the same rate under National except for a pathetic increase of $1 an hour over the entire years. At that same time young people were included at the youth minimum rate right up to the age of 20. 
The bill comes into effect on 1 April next year and replaces the youth minimum wage rate which is currently $9 an hour with a new entrants minimum wage. The actual rate will depend on the outcome of the minimum wage review which is already under way. Our Government has a commitment confirmed in our confidence and supply agreement with both New Zealand First and the Green Party to move the adult minimum wage to $12 an hour before the end of this term of Parliament if economic conditions allow. So if the minimum wage does rise to $12 an hour on 1 April next year the new entrants minimum wage would also rise to $9.60 an hour in line with our intention that the new entrants minimum wage would remain at 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. 
We will need to balance the positive impact that abolishing the lower rate of pay for 16 and 17-year-olds will have for thousands of young workers against the possible negative impact of an incentive for them to leave school earlier with fewer qualifications. I do not want to send the message to our young people that leaving school with minimal qualifications is an idea supported by our Parliament. In my view this bill will not give that message. Our increase in the youth minimum wage over the past years has shown negligible impact on the number of young people who are leaving school early. In fact if anything it has allowed people to stay at school longer as part-time jobs are better paid and they are more easily able to balance work and school without working long hours. 
Under the National-led Government the youth minimum wage which is at the point of this debate applied to 16 17 18 and 19-year-olds. Under National a person did not become an adult in terms of the wage he or she earned until the age of 20. What is more the youth rate was set at 60 percent of the adult rate not the current 80 percent. It is new to increase the youth minimum wage; that has been happening only in the last 8 years under a Labour-led Government. 
 When National was last in Government there were 17500 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit despite the fact that the youth rate then was so low that an employer could have employed 20 people in any business and it would have made hardly a little bump in his or her wage bill. The youth rates then under National were a pittance. What is that unemployment figure now? Under the National Government which was last in office in 1999 17500 18 and 19-year-olds were on the unemployment benefit. The rate now is fewer than 1000 people. There are fewer than 1000 18 and 19-year-olds on the unemployment benefit now. Those are the statistics that National should think about before it comes into this Chamber and raises spurious arguments in opposition to improving the way that 16 and 17-year-olds are recognised through their wage packet. I am pleased we have been able to reach a position that is supported by the sponsor of the bill because this bill has been promoted for the betterment of young people so that the contribution they make in the paid workforce is properly valued. The amendment applies to all employment regardless of whether it is a first second third or fourth job. 
I am pleased about this great step forward that the bill represents for New Zealand young people. There is more debate to be had on these and related issues but this bill is certainly a magnificent step forward. I conclude by acknowledging again the voices of young people unions and employers who submitted on the bill. I thank my colleagues in the House for the contribution they have made in strengthening and clarifying the intent behind the bill when it was debated during the Committee stage. I particularly acknowledge the hard work the select committee members have done towards the detail. This bill is another example of the Labour-led Government working with other parties in an MMP environment to achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of all those affected by the changes. I commend the speedy passage of this bill. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The sponsor of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill Sue Bradford must feel very flattered. This afternoon’s proceedings started with a message from the Governor-General. We could not work out why the Governor-General had sent a message about the bill. New Zealand First members were mystified. We concluded that the Crown must have been underpaying Prince William and Prince Harry for some time and did not want to get caught by the net. But the mundane reason was given to us in due course. We would still like to compliment Sue Bradford. She stuck to this issue and was determined to deliver. She wanted to go a bit further than this bill goes but she has accepted it—finally because I know that at one time she was going to reject it. She has accepted the bill as a reasonable compromise. I think it reflects her efforts very well and is a very reasonable compromise. 
I have to say that I am disappointed with the National Party. Those guys could and should be doing better. [ 
Interruption 
] They should be doing better. There is a new member over there David Bennett; if he sat and listened for a little while then he would understand that the National Party is putting itself in a terrible predicament when it comes to dealing with young people or indeed people generally in the workforce. Wayne Mapp understands that. The National Party has never been supportive of a minimum wage in concept. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: We have never opposed it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well the National Party has never opposed a minimum wage but when National was in power between 1990 and 1996 the minimum wage went up—members should listen to this—by 25c. The minimum wage went up by 25c in 6 years! But to ensure that it was distributed fairly they introduced the youth minimum wage at 60 percent in 1994. Then New Zealand First came on the scene in 1997 and we increased the minimum wage by a relatively massive 62.5c. We are talking about a minimum wage of $7 after we had increased it. It went up under Labour to $9.50 in 2005 and by 2008 it will be $12. By and large young people will be on this minimum wage. It will be a significant help to young people and particularly to the young people whom I know that Sue Bradford is concerned about who actually work to help their family. 
The concern we have—and I want to be absolutely honest about it; that is why this intermediary step of a new entrants rate is acceptable to New Zealand First—is that we do not want a wage that will discourage people from staying at school and advancing their education. If we could give three assets to a young person on the verge of leaving school they would be education education education. [ 
Interruption 
] The member over there David Bennett thinks that that is a joke. I bet he stayed at school and got his education. He probably got it free on the taxpayer. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: He’s a lawyer. 
PETER BROWN 
: He’s a lawyer is he? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: It was a waste of time educating him. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes. The National Party should also understand this issue because just about every other party understands it. Most employers are quite happy to see the minimum wage go up—maybe not for the early stages of a career but certainly very quickly. They do not see it as a restriction they want on age. In fact I think Kate Wilkinson told us last time she spoke on this bill in the Chamber that 85 percent of employers are quite happy to pay the minimum wage to young people across the board. The National Party does not even give credence to the employers. 
It is fair to say that some small employers will be upset by the passage of this bill because they like to think they give youngsters a chance and after 200 hours or 3 months—whichever comes first—they will be compelled to pay the full adult minimum wage. They tell us—and there is a degree of truth in this and it is a worrying degree of truth—that young people when they first go into the workforce do not place a priority on the business or on the work in hand; they place it more on their lifestyle and on their after-work activities. As a result some of the young people are unreliable and some of them are not as well dressed as perhaps they are required to be when they come to work. A lady made a submission to the select committee along those lines. I thought it was very well put. Hers was a concern that certainly registered with me. 
At the end of the day we have to make sure that youngsters get a fair go. We recognise that there should be adult wages for adult work. I think that is the term Sue Bradford used in her address. We accept that. If a young person goes and performs the work to the same degree as an adult to the same time frame and with the same degree of effort and skill or whatever then he or she should get the same wage. We are quite receptive to that idea. 
We have the worry—as I indicated earlier—that youngsters will leave school and think they will be on the adult minimum wage and will sacrifice their career. Equally we have the worry that some parents will say: “Well now you can go out and in a relatively short period of time you can earn the adult minimum wage.” and encourage their offspring to go into the workforce ahead of when they really should. Kids—youngsters—need an opportunity and many of them will get a greater opportunity from staying at school. We do not want to see this bill as an incentive for walking away from education. 
At least a couple of people whom I can recall coming to the select committee made a real impression on me. One was a young woman who worked in a hotel; the other was a young woman who worked in a cinema. They told us at length how long they had been in their jobs and what they did. Not only did they do the job that was in hand—and I am sure Mark Gosche will agree with this—they told us how they also took on new staff who were older than they were and who got paid more. These young people—and I have no doubt at all that they are very capable young people because of the way they presented themselves and how they put their case across—indicated that not only did they do their job but they also supervised people coming into those workplaces. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where’s this all going Peter? 
PETER BROWN 
: The member thinks that young people should be discounted and disregarded. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: No; where is this story going? 
PETER BROWN 
: I am simply telling—if the member will listen— 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I’ve been listening for about 14 minutes but it seems like an hour. 
PETER BROWN 
: Why does the member not take the advice of a very well-known former National Prime Minister and close his mouth and breathe through his nose for just a few moments and I will tell the member that these young people— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think it is getting a bit raucous. Nobody can hear the member. Will members just desist thank you. 
PETER BROWN 
: I could not even hear myself Madam Speaker. I just want to advocate for these young people who came before the select committee. They were in supervisory roles and training roles and they were getting paid 80 percent of the minimum wage. Frankly if those employers are concerned about this then they are their own worst enemy. 
There is an article here from the  
Dominion Post 
—[ 
Interruption 
]—and maybe the National member the man with the hollow mouth or the hollow head should take note of it. The article states that the rise in the minimum wage is long overdue. I suggest to National members as they are sitting there all looking dejected upset and totally appalled that we will give a wage rise to young people that they read this article. They should take it home at night and read it. It is good bedtime reading for National members. It will tell them exactly why young people deserve a fairer go in this society. 
New Zealand First is very pleased to support this bill. We think the Minister’s compromise solution is the way to go and we congratulate Sue Bradford on being the proposer of the bill. I just say to National members before I finally sit down that if young people behaved the way that those members do then they would not be paid anything. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. Kia ora tatou i tenei po. Four years ago Radio Waatea carried an interview with a passionate union activist a veteran broadcaster an employer a board director a Maori rights campaigner a chief executive a man of Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Porou—the freedom fighter Syd Jackson. Syd issued a challenge that I believe has some relevance to the challenge of this Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. He said: “You have to be prepared to put yourself on the line to take to the streets to act to highlight and articulate your grievances. Simply get on and do the mahi …”. There is no better way to honour this leader than to honour today his lifelong campaign for justice through his standing up for our young people—standing up for our young people to get on to do the mahi without being discriminated against on the basis of their age. This bill purely and simply is about eradicating discrimination. It was a cause that Syd Jackson lived for: leaving nobody behind caring for te pani me te rawa kore and standing up for the poor and the impoverished.  
The Maori Party was proud to stand with Sue Bradford at the first reading on the bill to stand for the chance for young people to benefit from adequate employment protection. We argued that rangatahi should not be vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal or unilateral changes to their terms and conditions of employment. They had the right to freedom from discrimination—as in the Human Rights Act 1993. They had the right to benefit from the anti-age discrimination provisions set out in theNew Zealand Bill of Rights Act. They had the right to enjoy freedom of discrimination as the most fundamental freedom. They had the right to enjoy freedom from elitism sexism religious intolerance racism and ageism. They had the right to enjoy freedom from discrimination against beliefs and against cultural values. And they had the right to enjoy freedom from discrimination as manifest in slavery in racial profiling in hate crimes and in ethnic cleansing.  
Discrimination is not of course a novelty in Aotearoa. We recall as most members might remember a shameful history in the 1950s when it was not unheard of for landlords to erect signs saying “No Dogs or Maoris” outside accommodation. We had thought that there was sufficient progression in legislation to seriously challenge the systematic oppression and mistreatment of particular sectors of our community: Maori Pasifika the young the old and the vulnerable. The original bill convinced us that the discrimination that was being experienced by young New Zealanders would stop—the discrimination revealed the fact that currently 16 and 17-year-olds can be paid a minimum wage of a mere $8.20 per hour compared with the adult minimum of $10.25 per hour. So we voted to end age discrimination to end adultism: the bias towards adults that is seen in the ugly combination of prejudice married with power.  
The Youth Advisory Council of the Child Welfare League of America concluded that the end result of adults practising adultism is that young people become disempowered and disenfranchised. Surely a Parliament that values an investment in our future our growing young population would not want that. Except this is where it all became unstuck for at the select committee suddenly the Greens’ bill became renamed. The term “discrimination” was deleted the term “abolition” was abolished and a new vocabulary was created introducing the “new entrant” to the workforce. Or as my colleague Hone Harawira said the name is just another name for the Young Slave Bill.  
The select committee recommended that for the first 200 hours worked by a young worker after he or she turns 16 he or she will be paid at the “new entrant” rate. This is a new term as Darien Fenton explained during the Committee stage: “It is quite a strange term particularly as it is used to describe schoolchildren who are entering school for the first time.” It is a strange term and a misleading term to make discrimination acceptable—the ongoing discrimination that these new entrants will be paid a lesser rate than even the minimum wage of adults. It is a term of pretence because it does not actually describe “new” entrants to the workforce—not 50-year-old new entrants not 30-year-old new entrants—only 16 and 17-year-olds will be entitled to this measure of divide and rule. We were repeatedly told during the Committee stage of this bill as I understand from my colleague that this strange new version of the original bill was—if I may quote the proverbial—better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. We were scolded and were asked how we could object to progress. But the Maori Party is not prepared to settle for the watered-down version of justice. We are not about to meekly comply with a second-rate version of the truth.  
Another bizarre piece of persuasive political posturing that came out during the Committee stage was the concept that what was really wonderful about this bill was that thousands and thousands of 16 and 17-year-olds will get a pay increase after they have done 200 hours of work. Union workforce statistics however show that 50 percent of the 16 and 17-year-olds who are working currently work 10 hours or fewer each week. So we are looking at the minimum of 5 or 6 months as a base before young people are considered worthy enough to earn the basic minimum wage—before they are entitled to that wonderful pay rise! What does it do to a community to legalise adult privilege in legislation in such a way as to mean that young people will not be paid equally for work of equal value? What does it do to young people to be paid less simply because they are not deemed adults by the country’s lawmakers? What message does it send about the worth of our young people? What further abuse is made more likely as a result?  
The Human Rights Commission told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the youth minimum wage has a significant impact on the earnings of young workers; that it perpetuates stereotypes about their capabilities and that they are worth less because they are young; and that paying 16 and 17-year-olds less than other workers breaches fundamental principles of fairness and equity. So you see it is about fairness justice and decent wages for decent work and it could have been so different. We have a saying that demonstrates how it could have been: “E ngaki ana a mua e toto mai ana a muri”—while people go ahead and weed others follow behind and plant.” The meaning is that if the first group do their work properly then those following can accomplish their task and everybody gets together to get the job done. What we are doing tonight is not about doing our work properly. What message is this bill giving to our children and our grandchildren—to put up with injustice that second-best is good enough and that they should be grateful for their lot? 
What do the Minister of Maori Affairs the Minister of Youth Affairs and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs have to say? How can they defend this tangled plot of weeds that is left behind to constrain our young? I would remind the House that a massive 35 percent of the Maori population is aged under 15 years and that the median age of both the Maori and Pasifika populations is a mere 21 years compared with a median age of 36 years for the total New Zealand population. We are a very young population and we in the Maori Party must stand here tonight with the interests of that population at heart. Those young people deserve to be treated by the system in a way that is tied unreservedly to their skills. We should be united in calling to abolish any differential wage based on age. It is unfair it is discriminatory and it is exploitation. 
Voting to support a new entrant sub-minimum wage will worsen youth poverty and it will make it harder for young people just to meet basic living expenses. It perpetuates a low-wage climate by allowing wage standards to be lower than the minimum rates of acceptability. New Zealanders need far greater employment protections. Ending youth rates is just one part of the picture. The Syd Jackson we knew as a union champion activist and freedom fighter would never have compromised his principles. He would never live on his knees he would die fighting for the things that he believed in and he would say to us right now that we have to be prepared to put ourselves on the line to take to the streets and to act to highlight and articulate our grievances. Our young people deserve nothing less. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to support the third reading of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. If the bill was a blanket provision covering all young people then I think the fears that have been expressed in the House this afternoon—that it would disenfranchise those in their early teens and younger who seek after-school work—may have been a point worthy of consideration. However the bill recognises those young people who are able to be in full employment yet subject to age discrimination. I think some aspects of this bill could well do with being reviewed in a couple of years’ time particularly the provisional 200 hours which may well be excessive. The House may be negligent if it leaves it too long before it examines how that aspect is working. 
I want to commend several people. First of all I commend the sponsor of the bill Sue Bradford. I commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the work it has done and the Minister and the Department of Labour officials who have worked well together to find an achievable outcome. Politics in an MMP environment is very much the art of the achievable. For the sponsor of this bill incremental change may not satisfy the ideal she holds to but progress is often a journey not an event. As members of a party that approached this bill fairly cautiously we are pleased to be able to support this final reading. 
Recent concerns expressed in the media that secondary school students are increasingly trying to balance long hours in paid employment alongside full-time study need to be further considered. At 16 and 17 education is still the preferred path and it is United Future’s hope that with improved wage rates students will be able to reduce the hours they work after school so that they can focus on their study. For those 16 and 17-year-olds who have opted out of school employment remuneration needs to be such that unemployment is unattractive. 
 I also bring to this debate what is probably a very provincial view of these matters for 16 and 17-year-olds. For those who are 16 or 17 and who live in provincial areas often work and leaving home are bedfellows. To be able to live independently on the youth rate is nigh impossible for them because youth rates assume that young employees are still living at home and that this is pocket money to be spent in their spare time supporting their extracurricular activities. The truth is that for a large number of New Zealand 16 and 17-year-olds the youth rate is now what they are reliant on to live and to make a future for themselves. 
We are very pleased at the way this bill has progressed. It has certainly addressed our early concerns. I think that it is a first cautious step and that if these measures prove to bed down well and there are no unforeseen or unintended consequences then maybe some of the aspirations of the sponsor of this bill may be recognised at a later date. We would certainly be open having seen how this legislation beds down to considering where we go from here with youth rates. However we are very happy that we still have some youth rates and that they apply where they do. I think it has been a very sensible first step and I commend the sponsor and everybody who has worked on this bill for the work they have done. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 A bill like this Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill is I acknowledge always put forward with the best of intentions. I appreciate that the Green Party has put forward a range of legislation as indeed has the Government and those members always preface it with good intentions. They say that it will rectify some aspect of injustice or it will elevate the advantages of someone. 
I notice that we always see United Future and New Zealand First sort of moving along in the slipstream as we heard in the previous speech made by Judy Turner saying how wonderful it is. I would ask those parties to pause and think because this country faces a deep-seated crisis. I do not mean it is a crisis that is an instant crisis. It will not break over us tomorrow but we are seeing a deep-seated decline—a malaise if you will—as this country just progressively slips back relative to other countries. Yes we have some growth. That has been well acknowledged but this Government has squandered that growth. It has squandered some of the best economic opportunities we have seen for years. 
I want to go through the legislative programme and this is the point I am trying to make because each of these measures acts as an impediment to productivity growth. None of them are huge impediments in their own right but their cumulative effect is very serious. In the year 2000 when the Government won the Treasury benches New Zealand had high productivity growth as well as high economic growth and there is a difference. 
Today productivity growth is low—there is no growth in fact. It is actually flat. The Government is now relying on three things for growth. One is commodity increases which have gone up. Growth in the total size of the employment has increased; there is no question about that. But there has been no productivity growth. Do members know what that means? It means that the living standards of New Zealanders relative to that of people in other countries is declining. The Government says that it is only a small decline and that it does not matter year to year but New Zealanders look forward. They understand these things and they make their own choices. [ 
Interruption 
] That number is accelerating—600 per week are now travelling to Australia. Why do they do that? They do it fundamentally because there are better economic opportunities there. Why are there better economic opportunities there? It is not because Australia to quote a former Prime Minister digs itself up. It is actually because Australia has a more competitive economic system. It has higher productivity growth. It has a lower level of taxation. In fact the current Government in Australia each and every year has had a planned programme of tax reductions—not gigantic one-off reductions but planned and progressive reductions. All that builds confidence and security in people about their opportunities. So New Zealanders young New Zealanders especially see that fact and make their own choice. They see greater opportunities and greater prospects and they vote with their feet. 
I will go through the range of legislation of which this bill is a part that has hindered productivity growth. I emphasise that point for Government speakers: productivity growth. Today the particular measure that is being debated is the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. I emphasise the term “new entrants”. Yes that was a change. I know that the Maori Party thinks it is a terrible thing and that even the 200 hours of employment set out in the bill is discrimination but the truth is that we are talking about 16 and 17-year-olds; we are not talking about 16 to 25-year-olds and we are not talking about 60 percent. The gap is only 20 percent and for only 2 years. Actually it is a time when young people should be at school in any event. Countries that are much higher up the income scale than New Zealand—the United States Australia and so forth—actually do have youth rates. Are those countries in crisis? The answer is no. 
So this legislation will be just one more impediment to productivity growth. What is another one? Well the Green Party—also with good intentions no doubt—has put forward the concept of flexible working hours. That is another thing that just adds cost and complexity to the way that business is undertaken. The Labour Government even wants independent contractors to be subject to employment legislation. What an oxymoron that would have to be! I guess it was some sort of crazy token to one of their more—let us be charitable—inexperienced members of Parliament Darien Fenton. But one can only imagine that someone like the Minister of Finance was wiping his brow and thinking: “Christ Almighty why on earth is this happening in a party I’m a senior member of?” 
Now of course we can refer to the Employment Relations Act and particularly to the amendments of 2004. I acknowledge that many of the changes from the Employment Relations Act of 2000 were relatively smoothly adapted into employment law but the changes from 2004 have caused significant problems. There has been a lot more litigation in front of the Employment Court and a higher level of strikes than this country has hitherto had all of which adds to the costs across the workforce. 
Then there is the Resource Management Act. At every public meeting I go to someone is bound to raise their direct experience with the complexities of the Resource Management Act. Did this Government do anything at all meaningful to relieve that burden? The answer is no. 
Labour’s very first move in Government was to remove competition in accident compensation. I want to dwell on that point for a moment. When National introduced competition we had an iron-cast rule that there would be 24-hour 7-day no-fault coverage. That was never denied by Labour. The full rate of coverage was always there and the treatment was always there. People who suffered injuries were not adversely affected but employers had dramatic reductions in the size of their premiums—that is their costs went down and their productivity went up. Then we had the complexity of the Land Transport Management Act. Now it is sought to have the minimum wage set at $12 an hour. There is the local government legislation and so on and so forth. Each one of these measures has hurt productivity. It is now zero. 
The legislation that is being promoted today well-intentioned though it might be will be just another little thing that will harm productivity. But if we add it to all those other things we have quite a serious impact. So whereas 9 years ago this country had productivity growth of about 1.5 percent—still less than Australia or the United States but it was 1.5 percent of GDP—there was actually a chance that we could go up the OECD ladder in terms of growth. Today it has inexorably declined to zero. I am not talking about economic growth—let us not confuse these points—but about productivity growth. Real wealth ultimately comes from productivity growth. 
National is saying as a party that we have to take stock. We have to be careful in the nature of the compliance costs we load on to business. That does not mean to say we cannot deal with real injustices and it does not mean to say we cannot improve the situation but there is no point in just adding on each of these little measures and imposts that ultimately harm the growth of this country. I have to say to the Government and the parties that support the Government that the effect of this legislation will be to drive more New Zealanders out of this country and it will be the very people the Government wants to help because the people who go will be the young people. They will go to Australia for a better future and that is an indictment on this Government. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a widely held view that dinosaurs are extinct but we sit every day and look at them across the House. The last speaker was the “Mapposaurus”. I want to comment on a couple of his points. Do members remember the National Party leader— 
Darren Hughes 
: Which one? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Probably all of them. They have had so many I cannot remember. They wail and gnash their teeth about the low wages in New Zealand compared to Australia and they worry about the low-paid and the underclass. We just heard about that from the “Mapposaurus”. Let us have a look at the truth. Who was the Government in 1994? I think it was National. I say to Dr Mapp that the youth minimum wage—and one had to be 20 to earn the adult wage in 1994—was $3.68 an hour under that National Government. Adults were really well off; they got $6.12.5! 
Let us go forward a bit to 1997. There was as we heard influence from New Zealand First and they put it up to $7 in 1997. So it languished at $6.25 or $6.37.5. Then it leapt up to $7 because as Peter Brown told us New Zealand First put the National Party’s arm up its back. In 1998 it was $7. In 1999 it was $7. What were those under-20-year-olds—they could have been 19 years and 9 months—earning under the National Government? They were earning $4.20 an hour. In 1999 if one was a 19-year-old working in a factory a shop or a fast-food chain one was earning $4.20 an hour. That is what the National Government did to this country. Alongside that was the Employment Contracts Act. Now National members are wailing and gnashing their teeth and saying the wages in New Zealand are too low compared with Australia. Well we have done a lot about that during our time in Government. 
We have seen the age for the adult minimum wage come down to 18. Did the National Party members support that? No they voted against it. They wailed and gnashed their teeth every time we put the minimum wage up. They are still doing so today. They do not support the minimum wage going up to $12 as we have heard from speakers in the National Party and they certainly do not support young workers getting a decent wage either. But they will continue to tell people they are concerned about low wages and the underclass and they will try to pretend they would do something about it. We know what they would do. They would reverse this measure would they not I ask Dr Mapp. Or would it be a case of “me too” like John Key does with everything else. National members wail and say there will be displacement if young workers get the same pay as adults and they will not get jobs. Well those members should look back at what happened when we changed that law to make the age for the adult minimum wage 18 years of age. Did it happen? No it did not. The statistics heard by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which National members might choose to ignore showed that there was actually no displacement for 18 and 19-year-olds. In fact the number of hours they worked went up. 
The National Party hates facts getting in the way of its dinosaur views but the select committee that dealt with this legislation was interested in listening to the views of employers and unions and as a result the bill was amended. I listened particularly to small employers because small employers came along in their droves and said they actually ended up paying their workers above the minimum wage fairly quickly after they started work because they wanted to reward them for the extra effort and the knowledge they picked up in the first few months of employment. A lot of small employers said that. Small employer after small employer from around New Zealand said: “We do not always keep our people on the minimum wage as the law allows us to because we think they should get paid for the work they do and the skills they acquire.” That is exactly what this bill actually picks up on. 
It is interesting that many of the large employers—the fast-food chains etc—simply pay it because the law allows them to. They can afford to pay more because a number of them we were told by submitters do not pay youth rates at all regardless of age. They are the large employers. They said they rejected that and would pay those people as the law allows them to. The vast majority of those large employers in the fast-food and hospitality sector pay it because they can; not because they need to but because the law allows it. 
So I think this is a very important bill and a very important step forward for workers in this country as are the increases to the minimum wage that this Government has put through every year since we became Government. I just remind members again that $4.20 was the youth rate for a 19-year-old under National back in 1999 and the adult rate which had sat still for 3 years was $7 an hour. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: So why is everyone going to Australia? Answer that! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Dr Mapp and his mates if they had the chance would do it all over again. They would revert to that sort of dinosaur thinking of not liking workers and of not liking unions and they have always passed laws that prove that. That is why National is voting against the bill today. 
I want to talk to another party that is also saying it will vote against the bill the Maori Party. We have heard today the name of Syd Jackson and I send my condolences to his whanau. I worked with Syd for many years in the trade union movement. In fact the union that I represented before coming here amalgamated the Clerical Workers Union into our organisation as a result of the ravages that the Employment Contracts Act wreaked upon the membership of that union. I say to members of the Maori Party that if they had been able to talk to Syd now—and obviously they cannot do so—he would have told them one thing that he learnt as a trade union official and practised every day of the week in representing clerical workers who were not industrially strong and were the types of workers who worked in very small workplaces. The job he did every day required compromise and Syd would have been able to tell members of the Maori Party that if he were here today and I will say it to them on his behalf. There are times when one demands 100 percent and when one cannot get it as he would have known and as I knew 95 percent becomes the reality and one grabs it with both hands. 
Young Maori and Pacific people who go to the local schools in my community of South Auckland are walking around wearing badges celebrating the passing of this bill and the Maori Party will be on record as having voted against it. I ask members of the Maori party to rethink that position tonight because there will be a vote fairly shortly and I would rather see that party which is voting against the bill coming over to the side voting for it because the Maori Party stands for the principles of the bill and it would be a shame not to have that on record. I understand all about trying to be 100 percent on this issue and I sometimes wish that that could happen too but we have a very workable compromise and it is one that should be celebrated—and it is being celebrated on the streets of South Auckland by young Maori and Pacific workers and by other young workers as well. I really would like to see the Maori Party change its position tonight and vote with the rest of us on this. I understand the desire to have 100 percent on this issue but Syd would tell the members of the Maori Party that that was not something he achieved very often as a representative of clerical workers. It was the same for me when I represented service workers who had very little industrial power. It is something we learn a lot about in the industrial relations world particularly if we are representing the weak the vulnerable and the hard to organise which I have done for just about all of my working life. 
I congratulate Sue Bradford and I congratulate all of the parties who are supporting the bill. The bill has in my belief listened to the views of New Zealand and that includes the small employers who said they would pay more but who wanted a little bit of time upfront to train those workers in the soft skills of customer relations etc. The bill recognises that but fundamentally it very much shows the divide in this House between those who are here to seek justice on behalf of working people and make sure they get a fair deal and a fair wage for the work they do and that lot over there—the dinosaurs who still remain running around this earth—called the National Party. 
National members will always oppose this sort of legislation because at the end of the day they could not care less about the exploitation of young workers old workers Maori workers Pacific workers—any workers. They actually stand for that exploitation. Every bit of legislation National has ever passed in this House in terms of industrial relations tells us that and those members oppose every bit of legislation we put up to turn the clock back on their stuff as well. They will always be the same. That is why they are the dinosaurs of this nation and that is why they will not support this bill. But Labour will proudly support it alongside the Greens New Zealand First United Future and others and I would really be keen to see the Maori Party vote with us on this one as well. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 If we wanted to hear from a dinosaur we have just heard from one. If we wanted to hear a blast from the past that is what we have heard from Labour and the Greens in respect of the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill because this is communism. This is saying that everybody is equal and everybody is the same. Those parties if they had half a chance would have everybody in this room sitting at the same level. They say there is no difference between someone who has just started working and someone who has been working for 30 years. They say there is no difference between the person in the front row and the person in the back row and there is no difference between someone who is leading a party and someone who is sitting at the back. Well there is a difference. There are differences when it comes to everything we do in our society. We have a hierarchical society. It is based on success and it is based on positioning and one has to get a start. This bill is hurting those people who need to get a start. If we want to go back to the past and talk about communism dinosaurs and blasts from the past then we should look at Labour and the Green Party because that is what is happening in this legislation. 
It is not helping the people who need assistance. The young people who will make this country strong are not being helped by this legislation. All we are doing through this legislation is making sure those people will not get that first chance. They will never get a start. They will not get the chance to go out there and prove themselves to develop those skills and to make a go of themselves. 
We have one of the highest rates of youth unemployment especially Maori youth unemployment. Will this bill help that? Forget it! If an employer has a choice between somebody who has 20 years of life experience and somebody who is just coming into the workplace whom the employer has to pay 12 bucks an hour I ask who that employer would choose. I would like to see Labour pay all its staff and all the people who have ever worked for it in any capacity on the full rate. I bet members that Labour does not do so. I bet Labour has been rich enough to take advantage of this legislation in the past. I bet Labour’s funders have been rich enough to take advantage of this legislation in the past. It is good enough for Labour to vote for it but its members will not come in here and do the opposite; they will use that legislation to pay people at a minimum rate then come in here say they are holier than thou and will pay everyone $12 an hour and then see how the employers get on. 
That is a recognition of a Government that is out of touch with the people and that is why it is polling at the current rate. The Government has no idea of what the employers want it has no idea of what the community wants and more important it has no idea of what young people want. Young people want a start; they want a future. That is why they are going to Australia. It is not the old people leaving and going to Australia; it is the young people who want a future who are doing so. 
 They are going because they can see they will be able to earn more and be taxed less and they can see there is economic growth. Economic growth is the thing these guys have stymied. Economic growth in Australia today is at 4 percent. What are we at? We are struggling to be at 1 percent. That is the difference between our countries. If the Government wants to do something for our young people then it should have policies that will get us up to an economic growth of 4 percent. If it keeps us down at 1 percent then it will not be able to pay the $12 per hour minimum wage rate. There will never be an ability to pay that $12 to young people going into the workforce if our economic growth is kept at those low levels. 
This is not an argument about justice for young people as the Green Party has tried to put out. Even if it were that party’s members got shafted in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by the Labour Party. They went in there with the philosophy that this is better than anything else that this is what they wanted to do to have equality across the board in New Zealand. That is true Green policy which is fine; that is what the Greens believe in. But they got slammed by the Labour Party. The Labour Party went in there and said “No”. In fact the Labour Party did not actually say no; the Labour Party did what it normally does: it took the Greens right to the altar. It took them right up there and said it would back them that it would be there and that it would be the one to go to bed with them. And what did Labour do? At the last minute it said “No”. It said it wanted 200 hours as a new entrants scheme. What did that do? It meant that those beautiful people from New Zealand First who have no ability to change their minds had to come in behind because once the Labour Party does something New Zealand First also has to do it. 
That is what has happened in this case. The Green Party went into the select committee with the emotional intent and the pure ideology of what they wanted to portray but it got shafted by the big bad red party and New Zealand First had to come in behind it and back it up. That is the reality of what has happened with this legislation. It is nothing about helping young people. It is not about the new generation of New Zealanders getting a chance. This legislation shows politics at its worst. It shows an idea that has been transformed and mutated by a Government that wishes to stay in power and wants to put its spin on something but not actually change the rules. That is what has happened in this case. 
When the members of the Green Party walk out of this Chamber they will try to have some face hold their heads high and say that they achieved this. But the reality is that the legislation we are passing is not what they really wanted. It is not what they went after in the first place. This is a Labour Party jaunt on top of what they tried to do. At some stage the Greens will have to stand up and say what they actually believe in not what those guys tell them they have to believe in to get something through this Parliament. It will be an interesting day when that actually happens. 
When we look forward we have to look at a tight labour market in the New Zealand economy. In any Western country it is tough for employers to get good staff and they will pay people what they deserve. There is nothing discriminatory in what the National Party is saying. We are not saying that this is a maximum rate; we are saying that this is a minimum rate. There is a big difference. Employers can actually pay more than the minimum rate if they want to. They can go out there and say they want a person who they think is a good employee. They will not care what age that person is and they will pay that person at the right rate. There is nothing discriminatory about that. If we said there was a maximum rate then fair enough: that is discriminatory. But we are not doing that. We are talking about a minimum rate. That is not discriminatory. That is the big difference that I think these political parties need to look at. 
It is not about saying that one party is against youth against minimum rates or against employees. It is not about that. This is a purely philosophical argument about a party that said what it believed in and a party that overrode it. The National Party has been constant in saying throughout the whole time of this debate that it believes that employers have the ability to pay more than that rate. We say that employers can pick the right people and pay them the right rate. We do not see this debate as being about young people not getting paid for what their value is; this is a debate about how we send the signals out there. Our signals through our community are ones of hierarchy. [ 
Interruption 
] No our signals are of hierarchy. We sit in a building that is based on hierarchy our questions are based on hierarchy and our votes are based on the hierarchy that comes from an election every 3 years. Then we expect everyone to live by different rules. We cannot do that. There is only one way to go—that is to achieve success through building up from having a start. That is what we are denying our young people. We are denying them that step through the door. 
How many people in this room have had to give in order to get where they are now? I bet everyone would say that they have. David Cunliffe a Minister actually said in the second reading of the bill that he had to give to the Labour Party in order to get into this building. When one is a young person starting out in a job one has to give something to get the experience in order to get that step through the door to make a start. I bet that all those people opposite gave something. They would have given to a union which is not a very good choice. But they gave something. Now they have moved up and are sitting on those benches without having any idea of what it is like to be an employer. They would have no idea what it is like for young people out there now who want to take a step who want a chance and who want a dream. This legislation denies them that chance and that dream and the shame is on Labour on the Green Party and on the New Zealand First Party for doing it in this way. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I thank the different parties particularly the parties that support the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill. But I also respect Kate Wilkinson who seemed to accept the moral basis of the bill. She said that people should be valued for the work they perform and that there should be a fair wage for fair work. Her objections to the bill seemed to be practical but had she listened to the young people who mobilised around the country—Sue Bradford and I were part of various demonstrations and even student strikes—she would have heard them saying that they needed this money not to stop them from going on to higher education but to help them to achieve it. Those people were driven to advance their careers. So I think we can knock out that practical argument that National came up with. 
National’s other argument—its only other leg to stand on—was that in some ways people have to be rewarded for skills and that employers will hire older people because they have more skills and experience. In actual fact the most skilled jobs in the economy do not have youth rates; it is the least skilled jobs in the areas of fast food and retail that have youth rates. Contrary to what Wayne Mapp said the economy will not collapse if these young people are paid a couple of extra dollars to take them to the adult minimum wage. That view is just stupid in my opinion. 
I think that the effort from all parties including the Maori Party has been tremendous. Even though the Maori Party is not supporting this bill it has been part of the campaign to get this legislation through for young people and for justice. The Green Party is totally in support of what we have achieved tonight. I particularly thank my colleague Sue Bradford for bringing this legislation forward. We can live with a position of compromise even though we have some reservations about it. But we have to recognise the great achievement that this bill is and celebrate it together. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Minimum Wage (New Entrants) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 66 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 15 August. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 If I recall before the adjournment we were talking about information and openness in our hospital system. I was reflecting on what I felt was the distinct lack of historical knowledge shown by some new National members of the House. Although I was complimentary to the author of the bill on the work done I could not believe that the author had worked in the health system yet seemed so incredibly ignorant of what had actually happened in the 1990s. I could not believe that the author of the bill appeared totally ignorant that in the 1990s the National Government had got rid of democratically elected health boards had got rid of openness in decisionmaking in the health system and had sent the media and public away. I recall that we had a creation called Crown health enterprises— 
Anne Tolley 
: Just address the bill. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: —and I know that there is interjection from the other side because I am hitting a very raw nerve. I am hitting a very raw nerve. I find it difficult to listen to the simpering feelings expressed by members opposite who say they want to be for the consumer they want to be for the patient and they want to be advocates. Yet there is this Stalinist ignorance of their party’s history—this failure to recognise what their Government did in the 1990s. 
Well excuse me! Anyone who worked in the health system in the 1990s knows exactly what happened. That Government got rid of democratically elected health boards. That Government brought us a thing called a “CHE”—or was it a cheese or a double cheese? It was called a Crown health enterprise. 
That Government also changed the word “patient”. What did a patient become known as? 
Sue Moroney 
: Probably a client. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Was it a client; was it a consumer? There was nothing at all about patients having a right to know or about the public having a right to information. I find that really difficult. 
I compliment the author of this bill because I think her intentions are sincere but I find it very very difficult that there is no honesty on the other side in terms of members opposite acknowledging what their Government did in the 1990s. There is no acknowledgement of their hstory. At least one of them could be honest enough to say: “We made a mistake. We are sorry.” How can they come back into this House so many years later and suddenly say they believe in the flow of information and they believe in accountability without acknowledging the actions of their Government in the 1990s around that flow of information. 
Can I repeat slowly so that those people opposite who have collective amnesia can be reminded what their Government did in the 1990s? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What was that? 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: The National Government closed down democratically— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We on this side of the House have been relatively patient waiting for the member on his feet to address the bill before the House. We have had a very interesting and selective history lesson but surely after several minutes it is time to ask the member to address the bill before the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been addressing the matter of district health boards which is what the bill is about. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. I am addressing the bill because as I understand it the bill is about empowering patients and it is about information. If we talk about “selective history” I ask what is selective about the previous National Government getting rid of democratically elected health boards. What is selective about closed-door meetings? What is selective about replacing a health board with a thing called a CHE—a Crown health enterprise—which was run on a company model by Government appointees? Those appointees ran our health services around the country and community-elected representatives were sent packing. What is selective about that practice? That is history and all I am asking is that new National members of the House including National’s senior whip recognise that. Indeed the senior whip was on the Napier City Council. She knows all about confidential meetings and the whole principle of democratically elected meetings. She understands totally that process. I cannot use the “h” word but all I am asking is that newer members of the National Party at least have the honesty to stand up in this Chamber and say: “Yes in the 1990s our Government of the day got it wrong. We were in error and that now informs us— 
Anne Tolley 
: We did not. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Oh they did not! So it is OK now? How can members opposite support this bill yet support the closure of democratically elected health boards and support closing the doors to the media and the public? I do not understand that; it is a disconnection of logic. I think that it is worse than a flip-flop. It is far worse than a flip-flop. I actually think it is speaking with a forked tongue. They say one thing over on that side and believe something totally different. 
I think that what happened in the 1990s was a disgrace. I just ask for one member opposite to say that they got it wrong and that that is the reason now why this legislation has informed them in terms of wanting to improve systems whereby patients and the community can have access to information. But to support a bill without making reference to the lesson this country should have learnt in the 1990s astounds me quite frankly. 
I have commended the author of this bill but what if you like deeply saddened and amazed me in witnessing the debate earlier in the Chamber was the apparent total ignorance of what did happen in the 1990s. I believe that one has to be honest and that it is very important to address history. Heaven forbid that that other lot ever becomes the Government again but are they saying that a National Government would not go back to those dark old days? Their silence in that area speaks volumes. There is a stunning silence around the concept of retaining democratically elected health boards. I think they have an open mind about health reforms. I think their open mind will include potentially—if we are not careful—getting rid of community participation. We need to watch those words and listen very carefully. If we think about it we realise that that stunning silence speaks volumes. 
In closing I again commend the author of this bill because I think her intentions are genuine but I do not commend the lack of ability of National members to learn from history or their stunning silence as to what they would do should they ever regain the Treasury benches. Do they guarantee that we would retain this Government’s present structure of democratically elected health boards? Believe you me National’s record in the 1990s speaks volumes and some of us on this side of the House do not forget. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 I rise tonight to speak to the second reading of the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill—for those who are listening out there and who are not quite aware of what we are talking about. I also give a special “Good evening!” to Sam Annabelle and Lachlan who are listening tonight—and watching I do believe. 
First of all I would like to congratulate Dr Jackie Blue on this bill which triggered action by the Government to bring District Health Boards New Zealand under the Official Information Act and to ensure that all of its work is subject to the complaints jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. Why is this bill so important? It is important because it brings openness transparency and accountability to district health boards. Why have they not had that before? Why has it taken until 2007 to get that? I could go back in history. I could go back to the 1900s I could go back to 1910 I could go back to 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 and to 1990. The previous speaker just spoke to 1990. What year are we in now? 2007! No no but let us spend 10 minutes addressing 1990 because that is historical. 
National is looking forward and Dr Jackie Blue in 2006 brought a member’s bill to this Parliament. Yet Labour has been on those Government benches for the last 8 years and has not even managed to address the simple issue of the Official Information Act. So why is this so important? Why is transparency important? It is because a lot of money—millions and millions billions and billions of dollars—is going into district health boards but up until now we have not had the transparency we need in talking about these big bucks that go into those health boards without accountability without openness and without the transparency that the Crown health enterprises had had. Why is that? It is because they are incorporated societies and they have not been caught in the net of the legislation. This is simple legislation to change that thanks to Dr Jackie Blue who has had the insight to bring that change herself with a member’s bill. 
But not only that. There are millions and millions and billions and billions of dollars going into the health sector. In fact I believe that this Government has brought in another—I think—$6 billion to the health sector since 1999. That is a huge amount of money for district health boards to account for. But what has it bought us? What has this accountability shown us? What has transparency shown us? It has shown that no more services have been offered. 
Let us talk for a moment about neonatal care in Wellington in 2007—today not 1990. What has the Government done about the neonatal unit in Wellington or the units in New Zealand? Why are pregnant women being threatened with having to be flown all around New Zealand to get this care? Why are they being threatened with having to fly to Australia to have their babies delivered when they cannot be delivered in New Zealand? Why cannot New Zealand deliver babies in New Zealand any more? Why have we got these shortages? Why are the services not there when another $6 billion has gone into district health boards? Where is the accountability? Where is the transparency? Where is the openness? Where is it? 
Let us go back to 1990 because that is much more relevant according to members on the other side of the House. They should go and tell those pregnant women in Wellington why 1990 is so much more important than now. They should go and live back there because we are living now and we are looking to the future. We are not living in the past like members opposite. We are the party of vision. But let us talk about section 88 of the Primary Maternity Services Notice 2007 shall we because all that funding is going into the district health boards. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the policy now? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: That funding is going into district health boards in 2007—the policy of that member’s party—so in 2007 the funding will go to district health boards. That is why it is important that as more money is put in there we need this transparency and openness in moving forward. It is thanks to Dr Jackie Blue who has brought this to our attention once again and got it through which the Government has not been able to do in the last 8 years. So let us talk about section 88 and maternity and the services that are being offered out there. 
Sue Moroney 
: This bill is being voted down. Did no one tell you? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: And why is it being voted down? It is because Dr Jackie Blue has brought this to the attention of this Government and then others have got it passed. That is why we are here today. 
So let us talk about services to these women in New Zealand shall we in 1990—no in 2007 because National is looking forward; we have a vision for New Zealand unlike the tired Labour members opposite. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is your policy? 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What’s your policy? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Well let me talk to those members about the additional funding that is going into district health boards because that is what we want to talk about. This funding is going into the workforce of midwives general practitioner obstetricians and the obstetricians around New Zealand to deliver babies in New Zealand. But no—let me get it right. With this money that is going into this midwife sector this maternity sector why is there no retention? Why is there a workforce shortage?  
Let me give members a little story that will tell them why transparency needs to be in there and how the Government is underperforming in the health sector. Just let me tell them. If a woman is pregnant in Wellington she goes along to her general practitioner. When she goes along to her general practitioner and says she is pregnant he says: “Very good. Here is the 0800 MUM 2 BE number.” So she picks up the phone rings that number and gets someone on the end of the phone who says: “Here is a list of six people. You can ring these midwives. Ring any one of them.” But the only problem is that if that woman is more than 8 weeks pregnant if she has had a complicated pregnancy in the past or if this is her first baby her chances of getting a midwife are slim to none. That is after 8 weeks. This is New Zealand; this is Wellington we are talking about. So what do these women do? Well they cannot go to a general practitioner obstetrician because there are no general practitioner obstetricians. They have been driven— 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh there are so! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: There is not one general practitioner obstetrician in Wellington. 
Darien Fenton 
: Oh rubbish! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Are you denying there is no— 
Sue Moroney 
: The Speaker hasn’t said anything actually. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Sorry—is the member on the Government benches denying there is no general practitioner obstetrician in Wellington because there is not one. If a woman cannot get a midwife what does she do? She pays $2500 to go to an obstetrician but that is a lot of money for many many people. Believe it or not and those members may not believe it but National appreciates the value of money and how expensive that $2500 is to a family. Even to my own family that is a lot of money. So if the woman cannot afford that $2500 and does not go to an obstetrician what happens to her? She is a pregnant woman who cannot get a midwife and as there is no general practitioner obstetrician and she cannot afford an obstetrician she defaults to the tertiary health system—to a district health board. They are not designed to take healthy women and healthy babies— 
Tariana Turia 
: They are so. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: A hospital is not. 
Tariana Turia 
: They are so! 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It is not the purpose of the tertiary health sector to take healthy women and healthy babies. It would much prefer women to have a midwife a general practitioner obstetrician or an obstetrician than to deliver their babies in a hospital. That is what it is about in Wellington and that is what it is about all through New Zealand. That is why it is important we get accountability and transparency in district health boards and thanks to Dr Jackie Blue that is what we will have today. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill addresses a huge but largely invisible and unspoken problem in our society—namely the constant stress that many people experience as they try to cope with the competing claims of paid employment raising a family and other demands in their lives. Nobody is out in the streets marching about it yet—they are probably too exhausted—but the fact is that the chronic pressure many people experience as they seek to combine paid work and parenting has become one of the greatest sources of stress on families today. 
Only a few decades ago just one parent in a family was typically in the workforce working a regular 40-hour week but these days it has become the norm for both parents to be in paid work in order to provide an income for their family and many couples are each working 45 or more hours a week. New Zealand has one of the longest and most inflexible working hours cultures in the world. We work longer than the Japanese for heaven’s sake and we are on a par with Australia and America. Forty percent of us work more than 45 hours a week 21 percent work more than 50 hours a week and all of us on average work far longer than European workers. It is no wonder that many New Zealanders are suffering from chronic stress chronic fatigue and overload and that this is having a debilitating effect on family life. 
 A recent Australian study found that Australia’s long and inflexible working hours culture is causing relationship breakdown family dysfunction hostile and ineffective parenting and reduced child well-being. I am sure we would find exactly the same situation here. So that is why so many employees are calling for more flexible working arrangements that give them more say over where and when they work and allow them to adjust their paid work to better suit their family and their other responsibilities while still getting the job done. 
The aim of the bill is to help to make this happen and to encourage flexible working practices that help people strike a balance between work and family life. It will enshrine in law the right of employees with caring responsibilities to request flexible working hours to place an obligation on employers to consider any such request seriously and to provide a framework for negotiating that request in a way that does not undermine a business. Under the bill fathers mothers guardians grandparents and people looking after a dependent adult will be able to apply for flexible working hours. They can apply to change the hours the times or the days they are required to work—to work part-time or compressed hours or to just have some say over start and finishing times. 
The bill is unashamedly based on UK legislation that has been so successful that it is supported by parties across the political spectrum. Eighty percent of requests made under the UK law have been granted and a compromise has been reached in a further 10 percent of cases. The UK Children’s Minister is calling for the right to be extended to all employees and the Conservative leader David Cameron is calling for it to be extended to all parents and eventually even wider. 
It speaks volumes that the Conservative Party in the UK in stark contrast to the National Party here strongly supports this legislation. Indeed David Cameron is one of the leading champions of the legislation in the United Kingdom and he argues that flexible working is good not only for employees and families but for business and that this is the key to increasing productivity and modernising workplaces. He says: “The vital thing to understand is that flexible working should not be seen as a burden on business but as a powerful tool which used intelligently offers a route to competitive advantage and commercial success. Far from being a threat or some new corporate fad it’s a hard headed response to new realities.” 
Before the legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom it was vehemently opposed by the business community for the same reason that some employers are opposing it here. They were worried it would be difficult to implement and would cause additional compliance costs. But in a recent survey 90 percent of employers reported no significant problems in complying with the new right. 
I will quote from a recent report from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development an organisation with 127000 members representing employers involved in management and personnel. The report states: “The existing right to request flexible working has been well received by employers and has successfully encouraged rather than compelled employers to experiment with flexible working practices. Employers who are willing to accommodate … the lives their employees lead outside work … are finding they can fish in a wider pool for labour”. Indeed the institute is finding that the people they recruit are more motivated and stay longer. The report goes on to state: “Our research shows that most employers are happy to agree to the majority of such requests and that two in five employers have already extended the right to request further than the legislation requires.” As a result of that even the employers are supporting an extension to what they call the “light touch” approach to employment law. 
It is not just the United Kingdom that has embraced flexible working. Germany Italy Belgium and the Netherlands all provide employees with a legal right to request flexible working or to reduce their working hours and 90 percent of the 8000 companies surveyed in Europe recently said that flexitime was available to their employees. The reason so many overseas companies are embracing this is that the benefits to business are tangible and real. Employees who are treated with respect and given more control over their hours of work are more motivated and productive. All the research bears this out. It shows that workplaces that offer flexibility are more attractive to employees so it is easier to recruit and retain staff. There is less absenteeism sick leave and staff turnover and of course there are reduced recruitment and training costs. Also the recruitment pool is widened particularly the return rate of employees with young children which helps to ease skill shortages. 
There are conflicting reports on how widely available flexible working arrangements are in New Zealand. Some say these arrangements are widely available but most employees will say that despite all the rhetoric and lip-service little has changed. Some organisations such as EziBuy and Harrison Grierson genuinely offer flexible working arrangements to their staff and I say good on them. But in many cases claimed flexible working arrangements turn out to be little more than the ability to sometimes adjust a lunch break or go to the dentist. 
Paul Callister an employment expert sums up the situation when he says: “Employers say they’re family friendly and they probably believe it but employees are grinding their teeth.” Many workers are reluctant even to broach the subject with employers for fear of being penalised in some way. As the Families Commission has pointed out flexible working arrangements where they do exist are more common among white-collar workers and managers than they are for ordinary low-paid workers. That is why we need legislation to ensure that the right to request flexible working practices is extended to all workers with caring responsibilities not just to a privileged few. 
In supporting this bill we are making it clear that we believe that a request to adjust a work schedule to accommodate family or other requests is a legitimate request that a business should seek to accommodate providing it will not be to the detriment of the business. We are also sending a signal that we want to reduce the stress and pressure on families and encourage innovative workplaces that are more responsive to their employees’ needs. 
Consensus is building around the need for more flexible working hours. Ninety percent of submissions to the Department of Labour called for more flexible working arrangements. A coalition comprising more than 50 legal community professional and union organisations support the bill. Grey Power the International Federation of Business and Professional Women women lawyers associations and the Council of Trade Unions all want the right to request that flexible working be extended to all parents with children under 18—rather than to parents with children under 5 as it states in the bill at present—and to all employees and I do too. That is where things are heading in the UK and we should be heading there too. 
I want to thank Mark Gosche the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee Peter Brown Darien Fenton and Sue Moroney for their work and for the positive changes they have made to the bill. In particular I thank the Minister of Labour Ruth Dyson for her support and indeed for her leadership on the bill. She proposed laying the bill on the Table while we conducted further research which was an extremely positive initiative. That has been invaluable. I want to thank Labour New Zealand First United Future the Maori Party the Progressive party Taito Phillip Field and Gordon Copeland for supporting the bill. 
I am confident that the bill will help employees find working arrangements that make striking a balance between work and life less stressful and in so doing will address a major social problem in New Zealand. I am confident too that employers in New Zealand as in the United Kingdom will find that flexible working patterns are not something to fear or avoid but rather something to embrace because flexible working will make them more attractive to employees and enhance their workplaces. This of course will help to relieve congestion on our roads because every person who has a flexible start time helps to reduce congestion. Thank you very much and thank you to all the parties that are supporting the bill. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill I would like to preface my comments by saying that National believes that flexible working hours are a good idea in principle. We acknowledge the benefits of flexible working arrangements where possible and we acknowledge that good employers who wish to keep their good employees may do so by offering such flexible working arrangements. We believe in flexible working arrangements. We are not debating here the desirability of flexibility; we are debating the necessity of prescriptive legislation. Good flexible working practices however should not be enshrined in inflexible rigid unworkable legislated processes and procedures. Good flexible working practices should be encouraged to position employers as more competitive employers attractive to prospective employees. 
I was interested to read recently the words of the Law Commission in its statement of intent. It stated: “the Commission continues to be concerned that there is insufficient questioning of whether legislation is the most appropriate vehicle for giving effect to policy. Proliferation of forms of law making may result in unnecessary legislation and over-regulation resulting in a body of legislation that lacks coherence and may work against the need for law which is both understandable and accessible.” This is a classic example of the warning of the Law Commission. Can I also however congratulate the Law Commission which has as one of its policies for 2007 and 2008 a policy to develop and implement a flexible working practices policy—not to legislate but to develop and implement a flexible working practices policy. We applaud that. It is to “position the Commission as a more competitive employer”. It is not to legislate but to position the commission as a more competitive employer. That is what flexibility in the workplace should be about not about putting in place a mass of rigid processes and procedures that both the employer and the employee have to wade through. 
We think that common sense should be able to prevail. We have heard that this bill seeks to provide a statutory right to certain employees—not to all but to those working over 10 hours a week or 40 hours a month—and they can request a variation to certain terms and conditions of their working arrangements and place duties on their employers who receive such requests. Those employees who will be entitled to make such a request are those who have the care of children under 5 or disabled or dependent relatives. This is not a bill for everyone and in fact it could lead to employers employing those not caught by this legislation—not because they do not believe in flexibility but because that flexibility should not be at the expense of rigid processes and procedures. 
An employer under this bill must deal with such a request as soon as possible but within 3 months by advising whether the request is approved or refused and if refused by explaining the reasons for that refusal. The grounds for refusal—and I admit they are reasonably sensible—are an inability to reorganise work among existing staff an inability to recruit additional staff a detrimental impact on quality a detrimental impact on performance an insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work some planned structural changes a burden of additional costs a detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer demand and an undermining—interestingly—of the terms of a collective agreement where the work done by the employee making the request comes within the coverage clause. 
Employees at the moment can ask for flexibility and for a change in their working arrangements at any time. Employees have a duty under the good faith provisions of our existing legislation to reasonably consider that. Under this bill the employee who has made such a request may not do so again for 12 months. Now employees can do it whenever they like and it has to be listened to. Under this bill the time is limited to being within 12 months of the request. That is rigid inflexible and does not make sense. 
If the request under this bill is refused then we have processes and procedures. If the employee is dissatisfied he or she may refer the refusal to a labour inspector then it can go to mediation. If mediation does not resolve it it can go to the Employment Relations Authority which may order the employer to reconsider and may also order compensation of up to 8 weeks’ pay. There is also recourse of course from the Employment Court right up to the Supreme Court. This is all because an employee and an employer are not being accorded the common sense to organise their own working arrangements for the mutual benefit of both. 
We are not convinced that this legislation is necessary or that this addition of yet another piece of prescriptive legislation will increase the number of persons getting flexible working arrangements because it does nothing. It does nothing to increase the ability of businesses actually to provide these arrangements. 
It is also important when considering legislation to be passed that some consideration is given to the effect it will have to the problem it is supposed to be addressing to the solution it proposes and to the question of whether that solution will actually work may work or may in fact do the exact opposite of what it is trying to achieve. Do we actually have a problem of lack of flexibility in our workplace? It was noted during the select committee process—in fact I think by the Families Commission itself—that this bill was to educate but that legislation was not necessarily the best way to educate and that no other alternative was being considered. No other alternative other than legislation in relation to flexibility has even been considered. This bill is not necessary. National does believe however in education on mutual benefits and we do believe that education on the benefits of flexibility is necessary. 
I want to refer to what the author of the bill stated before—that much of the support for this bill seems to rely on UK legislation. In fact the commentary on the bill states: “Our consideration was influenced by legislation introduced in the United Kingdom in 2003 upon which this bill is based”. But there is a word of caution because the advice also included: “There are questions as to the extent of the impact of the UK flexibility legislation because there are methodological inconsistencies in DTI-sponsored research on the impact. The DTI results are not necessarily supported by research from other organisations. There is no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from and often the surveys do not distinguish between those eligible to request and those not eligible.” We were further advised that the current set of labour market economic and social conditions in New Zealand does not present a close enough match to any of the countries considered in this analysis for that country’s solution to be the obvious choice. I think it is dangerous therefore to rely solely on UK legislation as a precedent for our country. We should be making laws that are suitable for our employees and our employers. 
I have to ask what the problem is. What is the mischief that this bill sets out to fix? We have heard—and some of the figures differ a wee bit but I am not going to dispute those—that a survey of around 500 employers showed that flexibility in the workplace was implemented by 83 percent of companies—83 percent of companies already implemented flexibility in the workplace. 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
KATE WILKINSON 
: It was 83 percent. Some of that was through reduced work hours some was through working from home and some was study time. There was a  
New Zealand Herald  
survey which members will know. The questionnaire asked: “Do you agree to flexible working hours?”. Eighty-six percent said yes they did agree to flexible working hours—so do we. To the question: “Should flexible working hours be voluntary or mandatory?” 98 percent said that flexible working hours should be voluntary and that is what National agrees with. 
I will quote from an example because I have had a lot of traffic in mail opposing this bill. One employer said: “Put simply I do not believe this amendment is necessary for our company or the great majority of companies in New Zealand. In our workplace any requests for changed workplace arrangements are considered carefully and we always go out of our way to assist whenever we can and we do this voluntarily. We do not need a law to tell us to do this. We recognise our business could not operate without happy and valued employees. Many of our staff have young families and over the past few years I have strived for work/life balance for our staff.” Flexibility may be the way forward; legislating for it is not. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary contribution. I am absolutely convinced that Kate Wilkinson has not yet read the bill as introduced or amended. There is no proposal to make flexible working hours compulsory—people actually have to want them before they request them. The proposal that the Green Party member Sue Kedgley has put before Parliament is the right to request and the employer’s fair consideration of that request. 
 I commend Sue Kedgley not only for introducing the bill but also for stimulating debate within this Parliament and throughout the country. I also acknowledge the considerable amount of effort that both the member herself and other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have put into rigorous consideration of this issue. Clearly the National members on the committee are the exception. 
It has been more than a year—14 months in fact—since the committee first reported back to Parliament. The committee recommended that the Department of Labour take a year to do some research and to look at the issues facing New Zealand employers and employees that this bill was proposing to address. The result of that work has been very interesting. It showed clearly the significance of the issue of quality flexible work for business and unions. It also showed us how flexible work arrangements can benefit our communities our economy and our environment. 
The Government has taken the opportunity during those 14 months to work with Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions in order to explore the issue of workplace flexibility in greater depth. I thank both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions for their commitment to educating their respective constituencies and promoting the benefits of workplace flexibility. I also acknowledge the other groups that have been party to that debate and education. 
It is clear that New Zealanders want need and deserve a better work-life balance than they currently have. Flexible work arrangements are a key part of that. Work-life balance is not just about delivering for employees though; it is about our overall quality of life and our living standards. It is about quality flexible work being good for employers because if they have an attractive workplace then they will be able to better attract and retain staff. As we know in New Zealand’s labour market that is one of the biggest challenges for our employers. Flexible responsive workplaces deliver productivity benefits and ease our skills shortages. They help New Zealand to compete globally for skilled workers and enable more New Zealanders who want to be in a paid job to be so. 
The results of the surveys of employees and employers that the Department of Labour instigated showed that flexible work arrangements including flexible start and finish times were consistently ranked among the most helpful initiatives for people to balance paid work with the rest of their life. The majority of employers do not see major barriers to improving flexibility. That is a good thing. In support of that employees understand the business imperatives facing their organisations. In fact we know that many New Zealand employers already offer their staff flexible working arrangements. But we know—and it was backed up by the research—that many do not. 
Almost all of the respondents agreed that this issue was an important one. Eight-four percent of respondents to the survey supported legislating for the right to request flexible working arrangements. Many supported legislation on the basis that it would legitimise the issue and provide a clear fair and transparent process for requesting flexible working arrangements and for the consideration of that request. One-third of respondents felt that a combination of approaches would work best—that is education promotion and legislation. That is why it is important that the Department of Labour Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions continue to provide information and resources to our respective constituencies. 
The bill provides certain groups of employees with the right to request flexible working arrangements—that is a change to their hours of work days of work or place of work. The bill requires employers to consider the request and provides specific grounds on which they can refuse. The bill also has a process for making and considering requests including a requirement that an employee must explain what changes may be required to the employer’s arrangements. That aspect of the bill supports what we have heard during the consultation process which is that to be successful flexible work arrangements need to suit the needs of all parties: the individual concerned his or her colleagues and the employer. 
As Sue Kedgley mentioned in her earlier contribution the bill is based on similar UK legislation. That legislation has been very successful. Eighty percent of requests in the UK for flexible working arrangements have been accepted—the majority accepted in whole and a smaller number accepted with compromise. Studies into the effect of the legislation in the UK show that employers are now very positive about it. Seventy-six percent said the impact on their business was negligible. Ninety percent said they had no problems at all complying with the new requirements. Almost as important is that the majority of employers showed that the legislation has had a positive impact on employee attitudes and overall morale. 
The legislation in the UK has helped to change workplace cultures. The vast majority of UK employers now consider requests from employees that are not covered by the legislation. They have moved to a broader consideration. That finding shows how legislation can be a catalyst for positive change beyond the groups immediately affected. I am confident that New Zealand workplaces will be just as responsive to the need for flexibility and work-life balance. 
There are many issues to be considered in legislation like this including whether workers would have the right to revert to the original hours once their need if it were a specific need for flexible hours was considered. The committee has addressed that concern by amending the bill to require that a request must state whether the arrangements are to be permanent or temporary and if temporary how long they would last. There is also the possibility that consideration will need to be given to possible impacts on collective agreements where unions have specifically sought to regulate hours in order to prevent casualisation. Many collective agreements have specific full-time hours spelt out and unions have fought hard to hold on to those provisions against the increasing tide of part-time and casual work. 
The exclusion of some groups—for example those who have the responsibility of caring for dependent family members such as elderly parents—was also a concern during earlier debate on this bill. I am pleased to note that this concern has also been addressed by the amendment of the committee to extend the provisions of the bill to include workers with dependent relatives. 
A further issue is that of making the bill work in practice so that all workers are treated fairly. The system would not operate on a “first in first served” basis. The select committee has stimulated a healthy and incisive debate but there is still more work to be done. I welcome that. We want to be very confident that we can successfully implement the type of flexible work that the bill’s author envisaged. 
I again thank the members of the committee for their considered deliberations on this bill. I particularly acknowledge the positive outcome of the committee’s earlier recommendation that research and consultation should be carried out before decisions were made on progressing the bill. That work and the very useful submissions received from business unions and other interested parties has helped make for a more robust bill that reflects the importance of flexibility in New Zealand workplaces. This member’s bill is another good example of our Labour-led Government working with other parties in an MMP environment to achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of all those affected by the proposed changes. Again I thank Sue Kedgley for bringing this bill forward. I wish the next stages of the bill speedy progress. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 It is a worrying time tonight. In the relatively short period of a couple of hours we have had two bills from the Greens—and they both make common sense. Surprisingly still New Zealand First is supporting them both. I do not know what is going wrong but we might be in for some big problems. 
I want to say to Sue Kedgley that I admire her attitude and her approach to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill because when she presented it to this House it did not have anything going for it. In my view she had got it wrong. The purpose clause in the original bill—I will read it out—stated: “The purpose of this Act is to grant qualifying employees the right to change their working hours where they have full-time care of—…”.She admitted that there was a drafting error there. She also admitted at select committee—and this takes some guts I have to say—that there were limited reasons for the employers to decline such a request. It seemed to us that the original bill had it passed had justifications for arguments between employees and employers. I compliment Mark Gosche on coming up with the idea to have a year’s grace period when employers unions and what have you spoke about the bill and the bill has been significantly amended. 
I compliment not only Sue Kedgley on that change but all the members of the select committee including the National members. Kate Wilkinson comes across to me as a straight talker but tonight what she said was a little bit round the bend. What did she say today? She said that a person must not make a request for flexible hours more than once a year or something along those lines. But she sat in the select committee when New Zealand First said that provision was not adequate and not fair and that we had to change it—and we did change it. Clause 69AAD(2) states: “The employee is not entitled to make another request under this Part to his or her employer earlier than 12 months after the date on which the previous request was made.” That is quite different from saying “must not” make another request. 
When I was an employer I took the attitude that if my guys wanted a bit of flexibility I would listen to them and go along with it. Indeed one of my guys was heavily involved in a particular sport. He was such a pain in the backside that when he requested to go off I said that he could go and play the sport to his heart’s content but that he had to make up the difference when he came back—and he did in more ways than one. He proved to be a great asset and I let him go to play his sport. Some employers have got the impression—and it is quite a wrong impression—that this bill stops people going along to their employer to ask whether they can have flexible working hours for any reason under the sun. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits that—and I see that Sue Kedgley is nodding. They can go along any time any day and say that they have a commitment and ask whether they can have a bit of flexibility in their hours of work for whatever reason—and that might be a social reason or whatever. 
Let us be absolutely clear all this bill does is give the statutory right for people to go along to their employer to request or request in writing flexible hours for a particular reason—and they are all reasons around care. Let me give those reasons. Those reasons as stated in clause 69AA(a) are if the person has the care of “(i) a child or children under 5 years: (ii) a disabled child or children: (iii) a dependent relative or relatives:”. It is reasonable to have the statutory right to request flexible working hours for goodness’ sake! That is pretty basic stuff is it not? The members are nodding in agreement. 
There are a number of reasons why those particular requests can be denied. Clause 69AAE(3) states that the employer can refuse on the grounds of (a) inability to reorganise work among existing staff: (b) inability to recruit additional staff: (c) detrimental impact on quality: (d) detrimental impact on performance: (e) insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work: (f) planned structural changes: (g) burden of additional costs: (h) detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand:”. Those are some of the reasons why the employer can refuse to grant the request. Is this not perfect common sense? It saddens me that apparently there are some employers in this country to whom the employee with a disabled child a child under 5 or a dependent relative can say that he or she needs a bit of flexible working time for a period of months or whatever and the employer says “No go take a running jump.” If that is what National wants this society to turn into then I say that I am sorry to hear it. 
It is quite reasonable to give people in those circumstances a statutory right to ask formally for this sort of flexible working arrangement. That is quite a reasonable request. When I hear Kate Wilkinson tell me that 86 percent of employers agree to flexible working hours I ask what the problem is. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says there is a problem. I wait to hear the next speaker tell me what the problem is because if 14 percent do not accept flexible working hours— 
Paula Bennett 
: Why use a sledgehammer approach when it’s already enacted? 
PETER BROWN 
: I did not quite catch that. If the member puts the question to me I will answer it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Why use a sledgehammer approach when it’s already enacted? 
PETER BROWN 
: This is a sledgehammer? Oh my goodness! Let me acquaint the member with another clause in this bill again as a result of New Zealand First intervention and again with the agreement of Sue Kedgley. This whole thing will be reviewed in 2 years. If the member calls that a sledgehammer—well then! 
Let me just talk about what the review is likely to turn up. It could highlight some problems. It could highlight working arrangements that are not working. It could highlight the need for the legislation to be amended and restrict it. Equally so it could highlight the need for the legislation to be expanded. A review after 2 years is quite a reasonable approach to this type of legislation. How dare National members say this is a sledgehammer approach. They would not know a sledgehammer if they saw one. 
I have heard people refer to the UK legislation. I know that the select committee was informed of various things about the UK legislation. Sue Kedgley has told us how well the UK legislation is working. I have to say that if it is working that well over there we do not need to copy it but we could follow it by example. I am nervous of saying too much because whenever I talk highly of the UK or what happens there people tend to sing in unison “Well go back there then”. 
Hon Member 
: No no we want you here. 
PETER BROWN 
: Thank you. I have to say that I will disappoint a few members. I have no intention of going back there—only for a holiday or to watch Arsenal play a game from time to time. I am here in this country and I am asking employers in this country to be fair to their employees. 
This is reasonable legislation it will not put employers out of business it will not add to the bureaucracy. The labour inspector—[ 
Interruption 
] The member over there laughs. I bet she has never employed anybody in her life. The labour inspector will solve the problem 99 percent of the time on the shop floor. Everything has been made convenient. This gives people with children and dependent relatives the advantage of formally requesting flexible working hours. 
In conclusion this legislation does not go far enough. New Zealand First will also be supporting an amendment for parents of sick children under the age of 18 who request flexible working hours. Thank you very much Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Debate interrupted. 
Amended answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 12 to Minister 15 August 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct an answer I gave when responding to a supplementary question on 15 August. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: In reply to a supplementary question on 15 August I referred to Scott Hurd an expert from Iowa State University. Mr Hurd was mistakenly referred to because the wrong name was copied from briefing papers into speaking notes prepared for question time. I should have instead referred to Associate Professor Jeff Zimmerman who is also an expert from Iowa State University. 
Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. I think after that exchange in the House I might go into business myself and provide a bit of training for transformation in terms of less violent ways of speaking. 
First of all I want to commend and congratulate Sue Kedgley and the Green Party on this bill. Albert Einstein once said that not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted and such might be a great subtitle for the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. I want to make it clear that our support is not based on the UK legislation. Our support is based on quality of life for whanau. How do we count the value of nurturing children the vital role of parenting and the significance of family life? How do we account for the status we give to the health and safety of our children and to their sense of being loved valued and actively participating in the families and societies into which they are born? 
Well the Unicef Innocenti Research Centre’s international league tables published earlier this year give us a pretty good clue of how much family life means to New Zealanders. Asked how often their parents eat a main meal with them around the table only 64.4 percent of 15-year-olds in this fine land answered “several times a week” compared with an OECD average of 79.4 percent. Asked how often their parents spend time just talking to them only 51.9 percent of our 15-year-olds said “several times a week” compared with an average of 62.8 percent. How sad is that? For eating a meal and talking with one’s parents we are scoring in the lower half of the league tables. It is like that Tegel chicken ad where the only way that the dad can be identified is by the name tag that he wears on his shirt. 
This House must face up to the reality of people’s lives where poverty has confronted our families in levels of severity that make every day difficult. We must face up to a reality where domestic violence has become normalised where our health is compromised and where the addictions of gambling alcohol abuse and drug abuse are crippling. But we have been there before and we can—and we will—overcome. Our transformation depends on all of us stepping up to the mark and restoring to our whanau the capacity for making a difference in our own homes. It will not come from the hand of Government and it will not come from the directive of the Minister but it will come from us. 
That is the first clear reason why we in the Maori Party support the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. The central importance of whanau and our responsibilities and rights to care for our own must be preserved. Another reality of today’s profile is that working families are now the norm; the single-largest family type is couples where both parents work. But it is also clear that many many parents find it difficult to juggle paid work and parenting. I can certainly relate to that as a young mother who had to go to work—not because I wanted to but because I had to. The Ministry of Social Development’s  
Work Family and Parenting 
 study in 2006 looked at work-to-home spillover effects. The vast majority of people surveyed—61 percent—felt that they had missed out on some of the rewarding aspects of being a parent because of work and I can relate to that too. You know I would love to have seen the first time my children walked and the first time they did a whole lot of things that unfortunately they did while I was at work and one of the rare downsides in my life as an MP today is missing out on the wonderful richness of being a day-to-day nanny to my mokopuna. 
This sadness is something I share with all my colleagues in the Maori Party MPs and staff alike; our choice to be doing the work that we are doing now comes with an enormous cost day in and day out. The centre for midwifery and women’s health research stated the other view in one submission from a part-time working mum with young children. She said: “I feel very privileged … and it would be great for other parents to have the same open-minded guilt-free opportunity. As they say … they’re not young for ever and the greatest gift we can ever give to our kids is time.” That is the greatest gift indeed. 
For whanau Maori the option of work flexibility would be a huge advance. For so many of our families the pressure of inadequate income and the challenge to meet basic requirements such as decent housing sufficient clothing adequate furniture medical expenses dental care electricity and an ample food supply gives very little choice about the concept of work and life balance. Three particular points must be emphasised here. Firstly the  
New Zealand Living Standards  
report alerts us to a reality in which 27 percent of all Pasifika families and 17 percent of all Maori families are reported as suffering severe hardship and we know that many of those families work two or three jobs just to survive. Choice and relative bargaining power are luxuries in such a life. The second reality is that of all two-parent families in which one parent is working 28 percent are in poverty. The third reality is to emphasise the advice from the Children’s Commissioner Cindy Kiro that although employers and employees benefit from the flexibility of working hours so too do the children. This bill is about support for their rights their needs and their well-being. Flexible working times can assist in the relentless juggling of work family and financial pressures. An environment in which home life is valued and flexibility is freely negotiated will result in more productive and healthy outcomes for all. 
I want also to focus on the benefits that businesses can achieve from this change. From the flood of letters that has swamped our offices one would think that every New Zealander lived to work loved to work and longed to work without having another thought for children or family life. It seems a long way off from the everyday lot of my constituency who tell me about being constantly overloaded and tired with drooping morale sick kids and chronic stress. I do not hear a lot of joy expressed about the freedom to work from home the opportunity to vary start and finish times or even the unspoken luxury of study leave. What I hear about is the sheer hard work of doing everything on a shoestring and taking on the double shift of parenting and full-time work and how when something has to give well it will not be the children or the whanau who are given up. 
So it seems to us in the Maori Party that the offer of flexible hours is a win-win situation for everybody. I want to just mention the support of the National Party which is conditional on flexibility happening without the mechanism of legislation to make it so. For the constituents in my electorate—for our people—the reality is that the power and control of working hours is simply not an equal negotiable agreement. It does not cut both ways. Assisting parents to balance work and family life has not been achievable and it will not be achievable by the wistful hope of good-faith bargaining. We support this bill therefore because it is most clearly a worker-friendly initiative that can give more weight to the intentions of the Employment Relations Act. One cannot simply assume that employers will be automatically fair-minded and family friendly. Although we would hope that employers could recognise benefits such as increased productivity improved morale decreased absenteeism enhanced staff retention and improved profitability the bulk of the lobbying that came into our offices does not give us much hope. 
Finally I will share the results of a recent Australian study called  
An Unexpected Tragedy 
. That report concluded that long working hours led to strained family relationships—a high social cost that impacts heavily on parents and that results in reduced child well-being. Will this Parliament be the one to stand in the way of a brighter future for our children? Kia ora. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill. United Future did not support the first reading of this bill. We had some serious concerns about the impact that this legislation would have on employers and we were particularly mindful of the large number of small businesses that characterise the New Zealand employment environment. However the substantial work done by both the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the willingness of the sponsor to delay the passage of this bill to allow Department of Labour officials to do some additional work has in our opinion paid off. 
This bill establishes a fair process that allows employees with family responsibilities to discuss flexible arrangements with their employers without fear of consequence. The number of reasons that an employer can use to decline a request are comprehensive. As an employer who has always negotiated flexible arrangements with employees I have found that the benefits far outweigh any compromise I have to make. However we do acknowledge that not every business has a work schedule that makes possible this flexibility and the new and additional provisions give plenty of room for employers who cannot make this marker. 
The British experience is very compelling and the fact that the criteria that determines who can apply for flexible employment has been expanded seems to suggest the success that we can expect here in New Zealand. In the United Kingdom 90 percent of employers reported no significant problems complying and 66 percent of managers considered the new provisions to be cost-effective. 
 If anyone has kept up with New Zealand research on the issues of workplace stress they will know that the greatest stress factor that reduces worker productivity is family-based stress. The mum who has to prise a distraught toddler from her at a day-care centre is generally less focused than the worker who can take an extra 10 minutes to settle her child and make up the time in her lunchtime. 
This bill is not about short-changing employers but about identifying where flexibility can be easily accommodated. United Future congratulates those employers who have already pioneered flexible family-friendly work environments. These employers understand that staff turnover is a costly exercise and that employment innovation is proving to be a winning approach to a sustainable workforce. Establishing a process that protects both employers and employees is more than useful; it is absolutely essential. 
The Minister for Employment Relations and Consumer Affairs Gerry Sutcliffe in Britain says the UK legislation has been a tremendous success. He says that employers know that in a tight labour market it makes business sense to provide flexible working opportunities for their staff. Flexible working arrangements enable employers to raise their staff morale and decrease unplanned absenteeism retain skilled staff and reduce recruitment costs. 
United Future is very pleased to support the second reading of this bill. We congratulate its sponsor Sue Kedgley on the fine work that has gone on since the first reading debate and we remind the House that no one on their deathbed has ever regretted not spending more time at work. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 It is something to be speaking tonight about flexible working conditions! I suppose the first thing I would acknowledge about the Green Party and about Sue Kedgley who has put this bill forward is that it has raised the debate to a different level in our society. In the last 14 months we have certainly heard employers in particular talking a bit more about flexible working hours what it means for them and how they can deliver it to their employees. There are obviously things that we think are fundamentally wrong with the bill but I would like to start by discussing flexible working hours and what the National Party believes they mean for employees out there and for employers as well. 
We believe that a change toward flexible working hours is already happening. We have seen that in the research data coming out—that up to 83 percent of employers are actually giving flexible working hours to their employees at the current time. I have personal experience having worked in the recruitment field before coming into Parliament. I was in a situation of negotiating contracts and conditions for people going into employment and I would certainly agree that the issue that constantly came up was not the issue of getting more money. More often than not particularly for women the issue was of the hours they were going to work. If people had young children they were looking for something that gave them the opportunity to spend time with them. That was vitally important to those people. Equally people without children were looking for a block of time off—half a day every fortnight—which would mean more to them for whatever reason they wanted to spend that time on. I never saw the reason as being what was important but I saw the work-life balance as being what was vital.  
So in all fairness there was constant negotiation. Employers who were smart enough to know they were living in a tight labour market knew that if they wanted to have good people on board or if they had good people already working for them and wanted to keep them the best thing to do was to recognise what their employees’ concerns and issues were and to adjust the workplace to the best of their ability to accommodate them. We see that on a day-to-day basis and we heard stories about it at the select committee from the submitters who came forward. What I found amusing in the submission process was that we often heard people say: “Well I’m OK but I’m worried about other people.” and that is where it came from. We heard a lot of people talk about how they had been able to negotiate flexible working hours for themselves. 
I want to keep on this issue a little bit because I do not think we are all really grasping how absolutely important it is and just what the effects are. A lot of lip-service is going on certainly from Labour but it is about time we saw some serious action. What we hear time and time again is that the Government wants to see more women get into productive work. We certainly heard it from the Prime Minister; it is what she wants. We remember that from the Speech from the Throne. So that means by definition that women who choose to raise their families are not seen as being in productive work. We would like to see more research about the long-term effects on women who are going into paid work and the time that that takes them away from their families. We need to start asking some of the questions we have about what the long-term effects will be on those families and what that means for them. So when we have such a push towards that—when we see children going into childcare and early childhood education at a younger age and when we see women in situations where they feel they have no choice but to go into paid work and so make that choice—we wonder about the point of this legislation which we feel is legislation for the sake of it and not legislation that will solve some of those problems. We can deal with the rhetoric but until we deal with the facts I think there should be some huge concern going on there. 
Awareness is good and it has stimulated debate. I suppose if this were a different debate I would be asking the Minister of Labour to give us an account of the work-life balance project that she has initiated and has been running. It would certainly be of interest to us in the National Party because we obviously have equal concerns about the flexibility of hours and people’s ability to get that work-life balance. The Minster has certainly recognised that and put a project in place. She has been going around to try to educate employers but we are not seeing what sort of results have come from that. So one presumes that that project must have failed if we now need to legislate; it is as simple as that. Perhaps we should have stuck with a programme of educating employers and talking to employees more often about their rights. Time and time again we have heard from employers that they would allow more flexibility if they knew what each individual really wanted but that they are not hearing that. I certainly agree with a previous speaker from the Maori Party who spoke about that inequality and about people feeling they cannot stand up and actually ask for it. Legislating will not fix that quite frankly but educating would have. 
I find it quite amusing to hear members on the other side of the House bleating on. Those members should talk a bit more about the role of the unions in relation to the most vulnerable workers because we wonder how well they are educating those vulnerable workers they say they speak for time and time again. The unions need to let workers know that any one of them at any time can step up and ask for flexible working hours. Anyone can ask for flexible working hours at any time and that is a really important fact for this House to take note of. It is quite easy for a member to stand up on that side of the House and paint us as the ogres who do not care about workers and who do not understand the pressures people live with on a day-to-day basis. The reality is that we are dealing with legislation that will be more arbitrary create more bureaucracy and make it more difficult for those people to stand up and ask. 
So do we need an education programme for employees in order for them to understand what their rights are and to give them an understanding of how they can step up and approach people and know what they can do? Without a doubt they should stand up. The work-life balance project was not an absolutely bad idea. It was a reasonably good one but we are not seeing it through to its full conclusion. Instead it is being interrupted halfway through with legislation that will make this process a lot more arduous and there will be many times when it will not get the results for those people that the Government really wants. 
One of the concerns we have—and it is quite a tough one—is that someone can apply for flexible hours only once every 12 months. So there is a 12-month clause in the bill and although members may say that people can do it in other ways if we go by this legislation—and one presumes that people will abide by the rules and regulations—we see that they can apply only once every 12 months. Get in the real world! Things change—that is the reality of it. So people who have arrangements with their partners to work certain hours one week and to share childcare issues together will all of a sudden find themselves in a situation where they cannot ask again in that 12-month period because every one else has. 
 What happens at present? Actually we find that employees negotiate amongst themselves and that is happening more and more. We heard that from people who came forward to the select committee with submissions. Those people said that time and time again employees were working out their own negotiations then taking them forward to the employer in terms of how they would job-swap who would fill which shifts and what hours they would work. It has been proven time and time again that this is the kind of thing that really works. So if we accept that flexible working hours are already happening and if we accept that people have the right to ask for them and can ask for them on any given day at any given time then this bill is really just another form of a grievance process that will be used by some employees who are aggrieved by their employers and want to take them through the process. 
I will talk through this process quickly in the last minute that I have. Aggrieved employees can firstly go to a labour inspector so that is another level of bureaucracy that has been put in since the bill was first introduced 14 months ago. If the labour inspector does not go for that the employee then can go to mediation at the Employment Relations Authority. Appeals by the losing party will then be heard successively by the Employment Court and the Court of Appeal and ultimately there is the possibility of going to the Supreme Court. Obviously there was a concern that this process might happen because a clause was put in to say that the most anyone can go for in compensation is an amount equal to the employee’s pay for 8 weeks if it is found that through this process the employee should have been given those flexible hours. However according to this bill the judicial system is not permitted to overturn an employer’s decision which seems absolutely ludicrous in itself. Thank you. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I really relish the opportunity to speak in this debate on a very important bill which is actually very light in its requirements of employers. I will talk about the process first; I think it was a very good one. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee took a 1 year gap with the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill so that employers could live up to the claims they made to the select committee that they would prove that the issue could be dealt with by education rather than by legislation. That year was wasted in my view by employers who did not pick up the challenge. So the select committee then worked on improving the bill and we have done a very good job. I think it is very fair legislation and as I said very light legislation in terms of its requirements of employers. 
I would like those who oppose the bill to consider these few facts. In the 2006 census 420000 New Zealanders reported providing support for an individual with ill health or a disability within the previous 4 weeks. This information comes from the very good document that Ruth Dyson has put out  
Caring for New Zealand Carers 
. This document also reports the fact that women are more likely to be carers than men. Around 63 percent of carers in New Zealand are women. Thirty-eight percent of carers in New Zealand are between the ages of 45 and 64 with a further 31 percent between the ages of 30 and 44. Maori and Pacific peoples are more likely to provide unpaid support. Why is that important? Well it tells us that a huge number of people just in terms of the community care for relatives friends or whomever in their homes or in other people’s homes. Many of those people also have to try to balance that caregiving with work. 
I will talk a little bit about my own personal experience which I am not wont to do in this House on members’ day but this is an appropriate debate in which to do it. Maybe my doing so will get home to the people who oppose this bill the sort of life that many New Zealanders lead and I am one of them. Tomorrow evening if I do not get home by 9.30—if the aeroplane from Wellington to Auckland is late—my 75-year-old mother-in-law will be required to wait at my home because the paid caregiver will have gone. When I come to Wellington I have to worry about that problem every Thursday night. Every Friday night from 9 o’clock until 8.30 the next morning I am the caregiver for my wife. My wife cannot do anything for herself. She is completely dependent on everybody else for everything: being dressed being fed being moved. She cannot get out of bed; she is hoisted out of bed. We cannot leave her at home. I cannot go out on Friday Saturday or Sunday night without finding somebody in the wider family to sit with her. That is a familiar story to many many people in New Zealand. 
I am lucky. I am in a job where I can juggle my hours—just—to fit in with those demands. We get paid caregiver time but we have to cover over 50 hours ourselves—that is me and my 75-year-old mother-in-law. My children are all working. They are in their 20s and one of them has a child. Both parents of that child have to be off to work at 7 o’clock in the morning; school does not start until 9 o’clock. One of my other daughters has to take that little boy to school and at the end of the day one of my nieces looks after him after school. That again is a common story in New Zealand families. It is not unique to me. It is the reality for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. 
People who say it should be left to the voluntarist system need to think again. I do as close as I can to a full-time MP’s hours—and we all know that down here we work more than 40 hours on just the 3 days of Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday—and I do at least 40 hours of unpaid caregiver time at home because the State is unable to provide full-time caregiver hours. That is a reality we have to face up to. I do not hear anybody saying we should increase taxes in order to relieve those people. No I hear people who are opposed to this bill saying we should cut taxes because we are spending too much on health. 
In the last census 420000 people reported that they were responsible for providing caregiver time in their families or in their communities. What is the multiplier effect of that? There is the person whom they are caring for; that doubles the figure. Then there are all the other family members. So the vast majority of New Zealanders at some time in their lives have those types of pressures placed upon them as well as trying to get on with their careers or their jobs and trying to put food on the table and pay the mortgage or pay the rent. So I find it absolutely incredible that anybody could oppose this very light legislation. 
We should think about the demand in New Zealand for a workforce. We have record levels of employment and record low levels of unemployment but we still have a labour market crying out for more people. Why would people oppose this measure? It is one of the ways of solving that problem of saying to people like me: “We can work around the constraints that you have in your life. We recognise that you have caregiver responsibilities for your child your disabled relative or your elderly mum and dad.” In fact the bill should go further and I hope we are able to amend it further so that even more people are captured by it. I lay down that challenge to members of the employer community. They should think about it. They always turn up at select committee hearings and say people are our most valuable resource so why would they oppose this legislation? 
Why would the National Party say it could all be done by voluntarism? I heard about the voluntary approach that the hospitality sector said it took. It said there were lots of restaurants in each street and if one did not offer employees the hours they wanted they should leave that restaurant and go to the next one. I am afraid that that is just not good enough. That is not the sort of flexibility that goes both ways; that is the sort of flexibility that goes only one way—the employer decides what the flexibility is and employees either meet it or they do not. 
The select committee heard from many many people. I remember the women from the women’s division of the Law Society—we did not hear from the men. They talked about the difficulties of trying to make their way in a career where the glass ceiling has been there for a very long time. Women from the Federation of Business and Professional Women talked about the difficulties of women with children being told by employers that a breakfast meeting was being held in the morning and although it was not compulsory they would really like all the team to turn up. Well how can women do that when the childcare centre does not open in time for them to be able to attend? All of us know the pressure to attend after-work drinks. It is all about bonding and team work and being part of the team and that is how one gets ahead in life. Of course the childcare centre is not going to look after the kid after 5.30 p.m. How can anybody in the National Party ignore that and sit there with a straight face? How can the employer community ignore that and say it is taking care of it voluntarily when we heard evidence from people from all walks of life who said that was not the case? 
This bill is very personal to me. It is not legislation that anybody should be frightened of. It will start to take care of the problems experienced by many of the people I come across because my wife has a disability and many of them are not as lucky as I am. They have had to give up their jobs and their careers to sell their houses and to become full-time carers. They have had to live with all the stresses and strains the sickness and all the things that as Tariana Turia said come with being a carer and they have had to put aside their aspirations in life. This bill could make a small step towards making New Zealand a better place and that is why I support it so strongly. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is ironic is it not that in one evening we are debating two bills promoted by the Green Party? I know perfectly well that both bills are well intentioned. The Green Party wants to do these things for the good of people. It wants to extend the power of the law to make things easier for people. The bills are—typically but not exclusively—for young people and for women in the workforce who would prefer to have more flexible working hours. I do not question the Green Party’s good intentions. That is not the point of the National Party criticism. Our concern fundamentally is that this situation is like the drip drip drip of compliance costs on the stone. No one drip makes us particularly wet and no one drip makes things awkward or wears away the stone but if we just add these legislative components bit by bit piece by piece— 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Drip by drip. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
:—drip by drip then pretty soon there will be a whole flood of legislation to deal with a whole impenetrable wall of legislation that just cripples and hurts this country. 
The truth is that this country is over-governed. I know that that remark may seem a little trite and I know that the left will say that such a remark is the usual answer from the right and that it is always going to come up with that kind of hoary old chestnut but the facts actually confirm the view that we put forward. 
I can point—as I did earlier in the day—not just to growth but to productivity. The Government crows about growth in this economy. We hear its members day by day saying that the farmers are doing exceptionally well and so forth and that we are not doing so bad with growth at 2 percent. Who can actually be proud of 2 percent growth in an economy? Why would Government members get up day by day and trumpet 2 percent growth as if it were some marvellous achievement? It is extraordinary that the best we can do in terms of growth is 2 percent even though we have virtually full employment—and I acknowledge that we have virtually full employment. When we have full employment we must be able to do better than 2 percent growth. 
Surely that situation causes the Government and its allies the Green Party to ask some questions. Why is it when we have virtually full employment when we have virtually the most buoyant commodity prices for a generation—arguably actually for two generations—that the best we can do is 2 percent? Why can Government members not answer such a simple question? I will make a suggestion to the left—and I use that term broadly; it includes Labour and the Greens because I have heard the two parties talk about the prospect of a Labour-Green coalition in the future. Actually that is a pretty horrific thought is it not? If that is the sort of spectre we face I would have to say that instead of something like 600 people leaving New Zealand per week we will probably see 1000 or 1500 people leaving per week. 
To come back to my point I have to ask whether those Government members have ever considered the totality of the compliance costs they impose on the economy because wealthier economies more successful economies—places that are actually proving more attractive to New Zealanders—do not have this kind of legislation. Australia our closest competitor does not have this legislation. Australia does not have the legislation that was passed earlier today. That is our competition. You know that is so blindingly obvious I would have thought. It is all very well for Ms Kedgley to refer to Scandinavia and Europe but we are not actually in competition with Scandinavia. Those countries are not our major international threat economically; Australia is. Australia may be our pals in so many other ways but in this area we have to—we absolutely have to—ensure that our economy is competitive compared with that of Australia. Unless we do so it is absolutely inevitable that more people will leave our country and go to Australia because they can. It is not a difficult choice. So many New Zealanders are making that precise choice and for the Green Party to protest about it indicates that its members are putting their heads in the sand in that respect. 
What is worse in respect of this legislation is that the Green Party came along with legislation that picked up the worst features of the European legislation. I would have to say that Europe is not a model that this country should want to follow because Europe is actually in decline. When we look at the global competitive stakes we see that the countries that are doing well economically—be they democratic administrations or republican administrations—are the United States Canada and Australia. Those are the countries we relate to. Australia in particular is the country that we have to benchmark ourselves against. So far this Government and the Green Party have totally failed in that benchmarking test. 
The income gap between our country New Zealand and Australia has grown substantially—in fact by about 30 percent—in the last 6 years in after - income tax terms. Surely that should give pause for thought for members on the other side of the House. Surely it should make Government and Green members think that maybe they need to give this legislation a miss that maybe we do not really need it and that maybe the voluntary system works sufficiently well. OK it will not work perfectly. Nothing will ever work perfectly but maybe it works well enough because there are bigger issues at stake. One of those bigger issues at stake is our overall competitiveness with Australia. 
I say to the Government that it has had 8 years in office and in that 8 years it has failed that competitive test. That is the simple truth of it is it not? The Government has fundamentally failed that test. I remember back in 1999 and 2000 when the Prime Minister would proudly strut into the House and proclaim to the nation that she expected our country to get into the top half of the OECD. She genuinely believed it. I repeat: she genuinely believed it. She does not say that anymore because she knows it is not deliverable. The one thing I would generally say about her is that on one level at least she tries to be true to herself. When she sees she is failing at something she stops talking about it. She knows we will not be able to get into the top half of the OECD. She knows we will not be competitive with Australia. So she has stopped talking about it. 
Well New Zealanders have not forgotten. They know they have a choice: they can simply cross the Tasman and get another job. I predict that some members opposite who will be retiring will do precisely that. Some of them I know for a fact—but I will not name them in here because that would be inappropriate—will be going to Australia to live. They have made their choice that the grass is greener on the other side of the hill. What does that say about Helen when some in her own team say: “Actually Helen you’ve failed.”? They say she has failed in the most basic test in terms of which country people would prefer to live in—Australia or New Zealand. Those people are making the choice to go to Australia. 
I have to say to this Government that it should put some real thought into this sort of legislation. It should not go in for this policy of drip drip drip against the stone building up that dam because ultimately I have to say that policy will wash Labour away in 2008. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 That was an extraordinary contribution from Dr Wayne Mapp especially given that the National Party is supposed to be all in favour of families and that I understand it is out to cultivate the women’s vote next year. I do not know how many women actually appreciate the National Party’s position on flexible working hours. 
This is the second Green Party member’s bill on employment relations issues before the House today highlighting the importance that we place on issues of fairness and sustainability when it comes to conditions of employment for workers—unlike certain other parties in this House. The significant improvements in the industrial relations arena that have occurred over the last 7 or 8 years would not have happened without the Green Party’s support and today we have two significant gains for employees being progressed at our initiative. I would like to congratulate my colleague Sue Kedgley on the enormous amount of work she has done in successfully getting the bill thus far. Also I thank and acknowledge colleagues from other political parties including particularly Labour but also New Zealand First and United Future for their support— 
Barbara Stewart 
: And the Maori Party. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: —the Maori Party and also trade unions and community organisations— 
Barbara Stewart 
: And Gordon Copeland. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: And Gordon Copeland. 
Barbara Stewart 
: And Taito Phillip Field. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Oh good; even more. So I thank also Gordon Copeland Taito Phillip Field and all the trade unions and community groups that have also organised and worked so hard to get the bill through as far as this. According to the Department of Labour report  
Quality Flexible Work: The New Zealand Experience 
 published last year flexibility of working hours is currently something that is largely enjoyed by management and senior staff. Perhaps the National Party does support that part of the hierarchy. But many other New Zealanders of another sort are forced to work longer and longer hours often in more than one job at a time. Indeed 40 percent of New Zealand employees are in paid work more than 45 hours a week and for 21 percent it is more than 50 hours a week. Often—especially in the retail servicing and caring industries—it is low wages that necessitate employees working such long hours. The legacy of 9 years of falling real wages under the National Government’s Employment Contracts Act is in no small part responsible for what has happened. The majority of workers in low-paid work are women who so often carry the bulk of family responsibilities. 
I would really like to acknowledge the contributions made just before tonight by Tariana Turia and Mark Gosche in terms of their own personal experiences of what happens in any job when one has to make that sacrifice to look after one’s children or for other dependants in the family. This is a sacrifice that an extraordinary number of New Zealand workers make every day of the working year. Parents in low-paid work usually cannot afford to reduce their hours and as a result suffer stress as they attempt to fit in their family responsibilities around their paid work. Often enough it is incredibly difficult to cope with juggling work and family especially when one does not have the means to pay for outside assistance; and that is often enough to the detriment of the children. This is of particular significance given that the level of participation of women in the paid workforce is now higher than ever and that in so many families both parents are working. The Department of Labour report I have already mentioned also showed that at any time around 38 percent of workers have responsibility for at least one child 5 percent for an elderly or sick relative and 3 percent for a sick partner. All up it seems that over 40 percent of our workforce has caregiving responsibilities for someone. 
Sue Kedgley’s bill seeks to address these issues by putting in place a framework under which such workers will be able to retain certainty of hours of work while still fulfilling their family commitments. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has recommended some sensible amendments to the bill including that requests for flexibility be extended to the place of employment. This recognises that in today’s electronic age many types of employment can be carried out either wholly or in part from the employee’s home. The second significant change was to extend the categories of people who can request flexible working hours to those who are caring for a dependent relative other than a child. This is another very welcome improvement. Similar legislation in the UK which my colleague Sue Kedgley has studied in depth has been an overwhelming success. In the UK 80 percent of requests for flexible working hours are granted and a further 10 percent reach a mutually agreed compromise position. That is an outstanding success rate for any non-mandatory legislative provision. There is no reason to believe that a similar success rate will not occur here when this bill comes into law. 
This is a bill that New Zealanders clearly want. In a survey in 2005 by the Equal Employment Opportunities Trust 93 percent of respondents identified flexible working hours and in particular flexibility of start and finish times and the ability to occasionally change their working hours as the change they would most like to see in their workplace. Flexible working hours was the most important requirement identified by that survey regardless of gender age or ethnicity. In the face of the overwhelming evidence that this is a bill that is needed and wanted by New Zealand workers and their families and in many different sectors of the workforce I am astounded by the position the National Party has taken on the bill. National Party members purport to claim that flexible working arrangements are in principle a good idea but they go on to not support the bill. In the face of all the evidence they claim that the existing legislative framework is somehow sufficient to achieve the objective of greater flexibility. They are right out on a limb here given that their colleagues in the Conservative Party in the UK are right behind flexible working hours. The National Party does not seem to have any communication with them. 
Claims made by the National Party tonight have no credibility. The Employment Relations Act which incidentally the Chicken Littles of the National Party claimed back in 2000 would cause the sky to fall has been in force for 7 years now and no sky has fallen. The working conditions of many employees have actually improved significantly since the demise of the Employment Contracts Act. But one thing the Employment Relations Act has not achieved for a large number of New Zealand workers is flexible working arrangements. 
The other claim by the National Party about this bill is even more bizarre: it argues that it will somehow be counter-productive and that employers may be dissuaded because of the added procedures they could be subject to under the Act from employing people who fit the profile of someone who may request flexible working arrangements. In case National Party members have not noticed it has been unlawful for many years for employers to do what National claims employers may do in response to this legislation. That is unlawful discrimination under the Human Rights Act under the Employment Relations Act and it was even unlawful under the National Party’s own Employment Contracts Act. What employers are going to subject themselves to the potential proceedings for unlawful discrimination by refusing to employ someone who fits the profile of a person who may request flexible working arrangements? It would be a very reckless employer indeed and one who I would suggest should think seriously about whether he or she should even be an employer. 
The National Party also claims that this bill will be counter-productive because the legislative framework provided by the bill says that employees can ask for flexible working arrangements only once a year. That blatantly misrepresents the effect of new section 69AAD in clause 6A of the bill. That section will prevent an employee from making a new formal request for flexible arrangements under Part 6AA within 12 months of making a previous request. It does not prevent an employer from agreeing within that period to a less formal request however. This section is in the bill for one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect employers from having to deal with repeated trivial or vexatious formal requests by employees. I would have thought that that was a purpose that the National Party would agree with. 
 I suspect that as employers become acquainted with the actual provisions of the bill the need for formal requests under the Act will diminish and employers will become more accustomed to the concept of flexibility and more willing to agree to requests made in less formal ways. Contrary to the National Party’s claims this bill does not prevent any employee from asking for flexible arrangements or any employer from agreeing to them at any time. 
So what is National’s real reason for opposing this bill? I think it is simply that the National Party does not understand employment relations. Those members still do not understand why their Employment Contracts Act was such a dismal disaster for New Zealand workers. They opposed the Employment Relations Act yet they defended it when the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill came around. Now they appear to be defending it again in trying to claim that it provides adequately for flexibility of employment arrangements when the evidence shows clearly that it does not. 
We have also seen the National Party oppose 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave but now it supports it. We have seen it promote Wayne Mapp’s Draconian amendment bill that would have stripped workers of almost all employment rights for the first 90 days on a new job and just today we have seen it oppose my bill that will put almost to an end the ability of employers to pay exploitative wage rates to workers aged 16 and 17. However unlike the National Party the Green Party does understand employment relations and does understand the need for a legislative framework that will help introduce more flexible working arrangements to improve the quality of life of all those workers who work long hours who are often poorly paid and who need this in their lives for the good of not only themselves but also their dependants and other family members. For that reason all of us in the Green Party are delighted to see this bill successfully reach this stage in the parliamentary process and I look forward to that process’s completion very shortly. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to see the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill return to the House for its second reading. I acknowledge many of the speakers and in particular my colleague Mark Gosche who has reminded us that this is all about people and people’s lives. It is not about figures charts the OECD and growth; it is about what is happening to real people. I want to read a quote from a woman: “I care for my husband who has had multiple strokes and also support my disabled mother who lives in a nearby rest home. To keep sane I care for toddlers in the nursery of a day-care centre for 2 hours a day. That is my social and relaxation therapy.” What an amazing person she is. I think there are many people as we have heard tonight in that situation to whom this bill will bring some relief. 
This bill has had a very long gestation having been introduced in 2005 and initially reported back as some members have said in mid-2006 with the recommendation that it be delayed for a year. I thank the member Sue Kedgley not only for bringing the issue to the House for debate but also for her patience and willingness to work with other parties to achieve a bill that the majority of parties in this House now support. 
This bill is a very modest legislative step in confirming what we all like to say we support which is that New Zealanders should have more balance between their working and family lives. As other speakers have mentioned there is now a significant body of evidence to suggest that people who work long and unsocial hours are more likely to experience negative health outcomes strained family relationships and in some cases parenting and child difficulties. This Government is well aware of this and has had policies on work-life balance for a long time. With the help of other like-minded parties it has introduced positive changes to help balance work and family life such as paid parental leave 4 weeks’ annual leave Working for Families 20 hours’ free early childhood education cheaper doctors’ visits and much much more. Obviously Labour is supporting this bill because we believe there is more work to be done. 
I note with some amusement that the reinvented National Party said last week that it is supporting longer paid parental leave claiming it only ever opposed it because it did not apply to the self-employed. Well that is just rubbish—utter rubbish! The National Party vehemently opposed paid parental leave from the time it was introduced in 2001 and at every stage of the legislation in 2004 National members voted against extending the period of paid leave from 12 weeks to 14 weeks. In the recent debate about extending paid parental leave to the self-employed National member Jo Goodhew said that paid parental leave was like a benefit and that as such the National Party was philosophically opposed to it because really those people would much rather have had a tax cut. 
So what is it with the National Party? I would like to know really. Are those members now telling us they were wrong or is it just that Labour is so far ahead with its ideas and policy that National has decided it had better catch up? 
Turning to the bill I say that New Zealand’s long working hours culture is a problem we need to tackle. Other speakers again have mentioned the aggregate number of hours that are worked in New Zealand. Per head of population they are the sixth highest in the OECD. Today’s New Zealanders are expected to work long hours including week-nights and weekends and put the firm before their families. Many workers work at more than one job to make ends meet. So despite all the talk about work-life balance and making some progress at the big end of town not a lot has been happening for workers lower down the economic chain. That is having a real impact on our families. If mum and dad are both working shifts then what is happening to the kids? 
In my view one of the core problems we face is the lack of working-time regulations in New Zealand. The 8-hour day 40-hour week introduced by the first Labour Government as standard conditions for most workers has fallen foul of the relentless drive for economic competitiveness. We heard some of that silly stuff from the member Wayne Mapp earlier on. Although there are many benefits to having flexible working it is a double-edged sword and in New Zealand the flexibility has been going all one way. Employers have extended working opening and operating hours and extended shifts and today they use more and more flexible work tools such as part-time work casualisation and temporary and contracted work. 
So although I completely support this bill as part of a drive towards achieving a better work-life balance in New Zealand I remain concerned that “flexible” in many employers’ minds simply means more part-time work contracting and casualisation. Therefore today in this debate I am calling for a discussion on whether working hours or working times should be regulated in this country with minimum and maximum hours of work. 
One of the reasons that the flexible working hours legislation in the UK has worked well is that they have working-time regulations. So do many other countries. Indeed Australia has a standard 38-hour week before overtime is paid along with the ability to work flexitime—regardless of what the member Wayne Mapp said. The United States has a 40-hour work week for wage earners and almost all European countries have a standard 40-hour week. Of course there is France with its 35-hour week and we all know the corresponding increase in productivity that has come from the 35-hour week. In our country we have few of these protections except where unions have managed to negotiate for limits to working hours and the acceptance of recognised breaks. 
Interestingly those issues are often at the top of the agenda when it comes to negotiations. The international pattern is that countries with relatively limited or no regulation of working time tend to have a much higher incidence of excessive hours than other countries. Our problem—that 40 percent of New Zealand workers are working more than 45 hours a week and 21 percent are working more than 50 hours a week—is a big one and it is no wonder that parents are under stress and families are suffering. Flexible working can deliver enormous benefits if it is done with everyone’s needs in mind and that is why we need this legislation. 
Although some have undoubtedly benefited from having flexible work practices more have not. The workplace reforms that we saw in the 1990s during National’s “decade of shame” were driven by the imperative of business profitability without there being any regard for the cost to families and communities. From what we have heard tonight that is what National would like to see continue. The social effects are obvious. 
This bill is very light-handed regulation; it just gives workers the right to ask for flexible hours. What is the big deal? But it gives employers many legitimate reasons to say no. Its real value will be to further the acceptability of flexible working and to see benefits for both businesses and workers. It is very disappointing to hear of the opposition to this bill from Business New Zealand. I have to say that when it comes to work-life balance that organisation talks the talk but when it comes down to making the talk a reality for more people it moves into its default position of opposing regulation. 
Research shows that similar legislation in the UK Germany and the Netherlands has not resulted in the opening of floodgates with massive disputes around the right to request. Few requests have ended up in court. Fewer than 1 percent of all UK employers rejecting a request have had a claim made against them. Even the business organisation in England the Confederation of British Industry says it believes that the new right to request flexible working hours has made huge strides in promoting different ways of working. 
 Although I am not surprised about the National Party’s opposition to this bill I will make a little prediction. In a year or so John Key Kate Wilkinson and others in the National Party will flip-flop and jump on to the bandwagon to support the right to request flexible work. They will figure out that it is actually a very very popular thing—just like paid parental leave—and that it is a necessary thing. Just mark my words that is what will happen. 
There are many many other amendments and this is not the time to outline those but I do look forward to debating them in the Committee stage of the bill. Once again I congratulate the member and I also congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which worked so hard on this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Hours) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. 
Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 25 July. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly from New Zealand First. Labour will be supporting this bill going to the Education and Science Committee. Of course it is part of our confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First to further explore a university of technology or non-university class of institution and I know that this is an issue that the member in charge of this bill has been interested in for a very very long time through various bills in the House. I think this bill has come at a good time with the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill currently at the select committee. The Government will be looking very closely at the debate that occurs at the select committee as we decide what to do beyond that. 
The Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is an interesting bill; it concerns an issue that has been around for a while. It looks to establish universities of technology which are dual-sector institutions sitting between universities and polytechnics. They will provide teaching in applied and vocational education and training across a full range of levels from foundation courses to higher degrees. The bill sets out a series of characteristics defining how such an institution would look but it does not set out the criteria for judging when or how they should be established. Of course if this bill is passed through the House that issue would need to be urgently addressed and policy would need to be developed to cover those questions. As I said this bill has come at a very opportune time with the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill currently at the select committee. 
The tertiary education strategy for 2007-12 includes priority outcomes. Part of that is a focus on the importance of increasing achievement of higher-level vocational skills. Members may be aware of the recent Leitch report from the UK which suggests that intermediate level training—roughly our level 4 to 6 skills—has a significant impact on the productivity of the workforce and I am sure that is something the select committee will be looking at. Increasing the capacity and the capability of the tertiary sector to meet this increased need for higher-level vocational skills has been identified by the Tertiary Education Commission and the groups working on benchmarking as a key area that needs to be developed. 
But of course there are two different approaches that could be taken given where we are with the tertiary reforms and the Education (Tertiary Reforms) Amendment Bill which is at the select committee. One way to go—one end of the spectrum—is to create a distinctive university of technology class as this bill does. However many of the benefits of such a class of tertiary education organisation could be realised in any case without the establishment of such a status and without some of the disadvantages—and there are some—of the university of technology concept. Many of those disadvantages have been looked at in this House over a number of bills. They include transition costs potential lack of focus on core business by institutions striving for a new status and—of course—strong opposition from the university sector although that may not be seen by some as a reason not to do it. 
The alternative approach recognises that we can achieve major strategic change and the appropriate level of differentiation without the system being put in place through the tertiary reforms without introducing a new class of institution and focusing particularly on the polytechnic sector as a way of delivering this. Under this approach the Tertiary Education Commission would give positive encouragement to polytechnics that are developing high-level provision to meet a strategic need. This approach would fit well with the emerging distinctive contributions approach while allowing for new thinking about the issue. 
I think the select committee consideration of the bill is going to be very interesting. Establishing a university of technology category would bring us into line with overseas jurisdictions where such a category is very common. That means that institutions that are interested in becoming universities of technology would find it easier to promote themselves accurately overseas in a way that they perhaps find difficult to do now because the term “university” is protected and they are not allowed to use it. Under this bill the term “university of technology” would be protected and it too would be used as a marketing tool under strict guidance. As I said before we would need to see how that would work in terms of the policy development of those criteria. 
In the 1990s when effectively a market model was put in our tertiary institutions and we moved to the “bums on seats” model many universities did go into areas that polytechnics and institutes of technology traditionally work in. So it is not uncommon to see different sectors moving. Of course that option was not open to institutions that were not universities. I think it is probably fair to say that the market value of the word “university” is still very high. That could be seen as a reason for allowing other institutions to use the term in order to market themselves effectively overseas just as it could be seen as a reason for keeping the term in order to make sure we do not dilute that brand in any way. I am sure that will be a hotly contested issue at the select committee between the various interested groups. 
I finish by looking at the situation in Australia. The Australians too have two kinds of universities. The term “university of technology” is commonly used in Australia. Those institutions are very well known for their professional skills and that has developed quite well. I know there are many institutions that simply want to see a level playing field; they do not feel that there is a fair playing field. We will be looking at that issue at the select committee. As I said before Labour will be supporting this bill at this stage. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a short call on the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill to say the Green Party is very pleased to be supporting it going to the select committee. 
We really appreciated the Hon Brian Donnelly’s clear discussion about the history of the tertiary sector in his speech on this bill. It is very useful to understand the history of the tertiary sector and how it came about in the way it did in order to look at ways of reforming it—and reforming it in quite serious ways as this bill suggests we might. 
The Greens recognise that the sector itself has real issues with this bill and we are looking forward to hearing those issues come through at the select committee. Some institutions have worked very hard to achieve their status under the current regime and they would understandably feel somewhat aggrieved that we will provide an alternative mechanism for other institutions to achieve the same status in a slightly easier way. The fact is that if reform is needed we do need to look at it seriously. We will listen to the submissions from the tertiary sector so we can understand those concerns better and see whether we can find the best possible way of dealing with those concerns. 
We value the concept of an institution that elevates the trades and vocational education and bridges the gap between the practical needs of a trade or a vocation and the opportunity for research and advanced skills in the area. I think Mr Donnelly is quite right when he says that the needs in the trades and vocations area have become increasingly complex over time and require a higher level of educational engagement. That is perfectly reasonable. Technological changes and the developing needs of society are driving that change so we need to have a tertiary sector that can readily meet those opportunities. This is especially so when we consider the nature of the global environment and the changes in it the increasing understanding of peak oil and the need for energy alternatives the impacts of climate change on all aspects of our society and the need to be really prepared for the changes that are inevitably coming. 
One obvious area where this is so is the building trade; it is the most obvious and it is probably the most common. The very interesting Ministry for the Environment publication called  
Value Case for Sustainable Building in New Zealand 
 states: “Internationally government and other public bodies are increasingly asking for sustainable buildings which are also being widely encouraged and implemented by a responsive property construction sector. This has led to increasingly sophisticated and innovative building designs and technologies that encourage both energy conservation and CO2 reduction.” It goes on to say: “We are in an excellent position”—in this country—“to become leaders in sustainable building.” The same opportunities that are reflected in that comment can be found in the energy sector in transportation in planning and in many other areas that are traditional trades and vocations. But these opportunities can be pursued only if the trade and vocational educational institutions are able to provide a quality bridging opportunity from certificate to postgraduate courses with the full capacity to also engage in high-level research in those areas. It is a perfectly understandable and reasonable extension of this area of the tertiary education sector.  
I also believe that there is considerable advantage to Maori and Pacific Islanders in these kinds of institutions. Maori are still highly overrepresented in the lower levels of certificate and diploma courses. We know that 93 percent of Maori women in tertiary education are studying at that lower certificate level. But we also know that Maori women with postgraduate or higher degrees have the highest median income of all ethnicities. What this means in effect is that Maori women start a long way back when it comes to tertiary education they are doing catch-up from a secondary school system that has failed them but they work their way up systematically through the tertiary sector into the high level of degrees. If they can do it they are very highly sought after in the workforce and the outcomes for them and their whanau are exceptional. So institutions that can provide a seamless educational pathway from the certificate level to postgraduate degrees will provide Maori women and others having to play catch-up with very accessible pathways to a quality education a quality income and positive lifestyle outcomes at the end.  
That is effectively the Green Party position; we do not need to expand on it too much more. As I say the issues are complex; we understand that they are not simple. We will be looking forward to further investigation at the select committee and we congratulate the Hon Brian Donnelly on having this bill brought out of the ballot and debated tonight. Kia ora. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. The focus of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is very much a topic of passion for the tertiary sector. Adding a new category of institution—“university of technology”—is a proposal that I know will generate much heat. 
The central premise of the bill which is that more flexibility is needed to better recognise dual-sector institutions is an argument in which we have considerable interest in terms of the argument for kotahitanga—our unity of purpose. In an environment that aspires to promote the growth of knowledge—as one would expect to find in education environments—we believe that we should value every contribution as part of the collective pursuit. We also believe that the expression of manaakitanga towards others requires us to work collaboratively in the spirit of mutual respect and harmonious relationships.  
The central challenge confronting Parliament is that institutions with an exclusive focus such as those that the Education Act interprets for universities polytechs colleges of education specialist colleges or wananga should not be threatened by the existence of a new category of institution—namely “university of technology”. However this is not the first time that the question of definition has entered the tertiary sector. A paper given by Aroha Te Pareake Mead at the United Nations workshop on traditional knowledge held in Panama City in 2005 chronicles a very similar journey for whare wananga. Mead argues that although mainstream universities have translated their name into te reo Maori—for example Victoria University being translated to Te Whare Wananga o te Upoko o te Ika a Maui Aoteaora—they were vehemently opposed to the whare wananga taking on the name “university”. The opposition to this became so intense that the New Zealand Vice-Chancellor’s Committee lodged a complaint with the Minister of Education and the Advertising Standards Authority that Te Whare Wananga o Aotearoa was describing itself as a university of New Zealand. Yet ironically at no time did the universities ever acknowledge the inconsistency in their own use of a traditional Maori term.  
Other aspects of interpretation and definition surround this bill. We have heard concerns that the bill is advancing the commodification of education—that is in promoting a view that education should be exported as a commodity in the international market the bill overlooks the importance of education as the transfer of knowledge. Another interpretation of the bill is that it is not just about Unitec but about the transformation of the tertiary sector. Such a view put forward by Unitec is that changing the categories may have a transformative effect on the very nature of learning. People will be more able to engage in education and will benefit from more diverse opportunities to research design develop learn and teach trades and vocations. 
We know that a key concern for Maori is that the policy of strategic relevance that the Tertiary Education Commission believes to be the pathway forward may not necessarily connect with what Maori communities are looking for in education. As Te Wananga o Raukawa recently told us it is quite possible for the Government to hit the target but miss the point. What remains uppermost in our analysis of this bill is the need for the Crown to make a commitment to actively protect the taonga that is matauranga Maori as well as to ensure that there is an opportunity for all to make a distinctive contribution to the nation’s tertiary education sector. We believe in transformation and we believe in liberation. We most certainly believe in the revolutionary impact of education. 
The Maori Party will therefore support this bill going to the select committee in order to allow the tertiary sector and the public to have a say. I take this opportunity to congratulate Brian Donnelly on presenting this bill to the House. Kia ora. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the first reading of the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill. We support this first reading. We do not have representation on the select committee that will be responsible for working on this bill but we plan to keep a keen eye on what submitters have to say because this bill presents us with some very real tensions that we hope the select committee will be able to make sense of and resolve. 
On one hand we have career tracks that have progressed over the years from what may have been described in the early years as apprenticeship level training through to in this day and age with the development of technology studies and disciplines that mirror in terms of complexity and standards of competency the commitment that academic disciplines demand. On the other hand we have a growing disquiet about the possible perception that New Zealand universities are not of international standing due to a gradual process of dumbing down our definition of what constitutes a university. The tension is not about some sort of academic snobbery but rather about how we categorise institutions that provide credible training with a clear career outcome in mind alongside institutions that produce quality research as well as the teaching of academic disciplines in a way that still maintains New Zealand qualifications at an international standard that is well recognised and well understood. 
The bill suggests it seems that universities of technology can straddle the divide between a university and a polytechnic allowing students to progress through to doctoral studies and to marry in a tidy fashion both practical and theoretical practice. United Future has had some very interesting discussions within our own caucus and separately with tertiary providers about the possibility that the sponsor of this bill is suggesting. We have not currently reached a fixed position on what should happen. So on that basis we are very happy to see the bill proceed to the select committee. We believe however that there is already some confusion in New Zealand within the tertiary education sector as to how to understand and differentiate between institutions. If this bill can bring greater clarity we will be thrilled to continue to support it but we are looking for that clarity. We congratulate the sponsor of the bill on putting it forward and on being brave enough to take up the debate which is probably long overdue. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill. At present in New Zealand we have a university of technology that is not a university of technology. The reason is that within New Zealand there is no such thing as a university of technology. If we are to accept the information given by the president of the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee that institution is not a university either—or at least not yet. The Auckland University of Technology is in fact by classification a university. However it would appear that when measured by all the criteria of a university it is not considered by its peers to be a university. 
In 1990 the Education Amendment Act enabled institutions other than universities to confer degrees. This is notwithstanding the requirement within the Education Act 1989 that degrees be taught within a research-based environment. Society was experiencing an accelerating sophistication of technological skills and knowledge. I will give the House an example. In 1990 radiology was taught through Auckland Hospital. It was a 2-year course resulting in a diploma qualification. Basically it taught students how to deal with X-rays the necessary safety measures and the mechanisms for achieving images of bones. A very basic understanding of physics was required. Nowadays students are required to understand magnetic resonance imaging ultrasound and a range of other technologies and therapies. One almost needs a degree in physics in order to understand the new technologies. No longer can we recognise the skills and the knowledge required with just a diploma. Indeed not only have such skill levels been recognised with bachelor’s degrees; they are now recognised with master’s degrees. 
As polytechnics have responded to the increasing sophistication of technological knowledge some particularly those that have had a significant body of PhDs being undertaken raise questions about the concept of parity of esteem for their qualifications in relation to university qualifications. Whether or not we like it the public perception is that the qualifications offered by traditional universities are somehow superior. However if I can quote Joce Jesson: “What continually gets ignored in the public debate is that standards set by NZQA for the degrees conferred by the new institutions require higher levels of regulation compliance and oversight than many of those offered by the traditional university.” 
In 1996 both the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec decided to make applications for university status. There is a very broad definition of what a university is in the Act. The problem was that nobody knew what this definition meant in detail. As a consequence international panels were contracted to provide greater details. One of the criteria set was that the proportion of sub-degree students—that is certificate and diploma students—compared with graduate and postgraduate students had to be less than what both the Auckland Institute of Technology and Unitec were providing at the time. The imposition of this criterion meant that to become universities both of these institutions would have to reduce the number of sub-degree programmes. However the capacity of these institutions to range from sub-degree programmes to degree programmes was their very greatest strength. 
At a time when there is a desperate shortage of technical and vocational skills the last thing that we need is a situation where all of the incentives for our most successful vocational and technical institutions are to reduce their number of sub-degree programmes. Yet that is what the current environment does. 
What this bill is trying to do is create a class of tertiary institution that is neither a university nor a polytechnic but displays the characteristics of both. Such an institution would offer degree and postgraduate programmes equivalent to those of a university but with the focus on the technical and the vocational. Research would be practically based rather than being the blue-sky research of universities. Courses would be taught in a currency-based or scholarship-based environment rather than in a research-based one. What this means is that teachers would have to be up to date with current knowledge in their areas rather than being actively involved in research activities. At the same time such institutions would have a heavy emphasis on sub-degree programmes in the technology areas and would be able to ensure that students had diploma to degree programmes available. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 The Education (Establishment of Universities of Technology) Amendment Bill is intended to amend the Education Act of 1989 by establishing a new category of institution a university of technology. The National Party will support this bill going to the select committee stage because that will give an opportunity for those with a direct interest in the sector to express their views. I have to say that at this point in time the only person who has spoken to me and who is in favour of this bill is its sponsor and I do congratulate the Hon Brian Donnelly on the work he has done and on his willingness to take up the cause. 
I am also very conscious of course of the work that has been put in by Unitec and its chief executive and of the interest that organisation has in this bill. However I am also conscious that in supporting this bill going to a select committee this House will be imposing a major obligation on tertiary institutions to come before the select committee and present their view either in favour or to the contrary of this proposal. That will be an expensive and a time-consuming operation but I can assure those institutions that those of us who are on the Education and Science Committee will value their input and listen very very carefully to what they have to say. The select committee will have a very significant role to play with regard to this bill and my expectation would be that the way that the select committee goes will ultimately decide the fate of the bill. 
Some very big claims are being made on behalf of the bill and at the select committee those claims will be scrutinised very carefully. Four in particular stand out. One is the suggestion that more flexibility is needed in order to better recognise dual-sector institutions that provide pathways for both sub-degree and degree education. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.