Volume 643 Week 62 - Wednesday 21 November 2007 
Volume 643 Week 62 - Wednesday 21 November 2007 
[Volume:643;Page:13275] 
Wednesday 21 November 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Electoral Finance Bill—Election Advertisements Newspaper Editorials 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it Government policy that a newspaper editorial which in an election year encourages voters to vote or not to vote for a political party should be considered an election advertisement; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 No it is not Government policy; Labour strongly supports the freedom of the media. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why then did the Minister say yesterday that a newspaper should register as a third party if it wants to say “Vote National.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If a newspaper wanted to register as a third party I suppose it could but I was making the point that it does not need to. It is exempt. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister please inform us what instigated the rewrite of part of the Electoral Act currently called the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The rewrite was instigated by the activities of some unknown unnamed people who would not have been exposed if it had not been for the Green Party and others who identified the Exclusive Brethren as working to elect a National Government by using one million dollars that was to be unaccounted for. New Zealanders were outraged at that behaviour of the National Party and the Exclusive Brethren and this Parliament has decided that that should not continue. 
Heather Roy 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement in the commentary on the bill: “The news media play an important role in any democracy and we consider unnecessary restriction on news publications to be undesirable.”; if so does this give the Greens carte blanche to comment on anything in their newspaper the  
Green Times 
 and how will she stop the Exclusive Brethren from buying an existing newspaper and filling it with the same editorial content as their pamphlets contained? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Exclusive Brethren could certainly buy a newspaper. They may well even already own a newspaper in New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh so the National Party knows that they do? So the Exclusive Brethren and the National Party do own a newspaper? Well I suppose in that case— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We are not having today what we had yesterday when it was impossible to hear. I will be asking members to leave the Chamber. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Any newspaper published in New Zealand that has a circulation to the public is exempt under this bill. Newspapers are able to write publish and have editorials and political content as long as they are publications for the public. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that under clause 5(2)(c) of the Electoral Finance Bill newspaper content is exempted from the definition of an election advertisement only if it is “solely for the purpose of informing enlightening or entertaining readers”; so what does she think of the editorial in the  
Dominion Post  
this morning that states: “If voters remember that when they go to the polls next year Labour and its friends will get no more than they deserve.” and is that not going much further than just informing or entertaining readers but actually encouraging them not to vote for Labour so it would count as an election advertisement? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Absolutely not. Editors have every right under this bill to write editorials like that. They are exempt. I have to say if members pick up any newspaper in New Zealand they will find it will inform them entertain them or enlighten them. One might not always agree with what is written but I actually found that editorial this morning amusing. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister now saying that a newspaper editor can say “Don’t vote Labour.” and give all the reasons why one should not and that would be fine but that an individual citizen cannot take out a half-page ad in the same newspaper using exactly the same words without being regulated and restricted by the Electoral Finance Bill; why has she written law that gives the media total freedom in what they can say but means that a whole lot of other people are now heavily restricted in their free speech? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: There is no restriction on free speech in New Zealand. In this bill there is the requirement for those who campaign for a political party or candidate as an individual or organisation to be open and transparent about doing that. That is what New Zealanders want. In this bill the Justice and Electoral Committee made it clear that it wanted to ensure that our news media have freedom of speech. This clause was written by the select committee to ensure that they have freedom of speech and that they can enlighten entertain and inform people. They are not muzzled by this bill. 
Heather Roy 
: In light of that answer does the Minister stand by her statement yesterday that there ought to be a fair open and transparent approach to this bill; if so what is fair open or transparent about it being legal for a citizen to write a letter to the editor under a pen-name urging the public to vote against this Labour Government but illegal to write exactly the same thing as a comment on an Internet forum? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: A person writing a letter to the editor is able to do so without it counting because it must have the authorisation of the editor. It makes it clear then that it is exempt from election advertising. Under this clause people have that exemption because publication of the letter is authorised by the editor. 
Hon Bill English 
: If it is Government policy that there should be no restriction on what newspapers can publish as an editorial then why does the Government not follow common sense and simply amend the Electoral Finance Bill to state that the media are completely exempt rather than include the vague and uncertain provision that states that they are exempted only if the material the media publish is solely—that means only if the Minister is not sure—about entertaining informing and enlightening people; why does she not have just a total broad exemption rather than that set of weasel words? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to the member that the only weasel words that we have heard on this bill have come from him. He dances on the head of a pin every day. Why does he do that? Because the National Party is desperate to stop this bill. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Answer the question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well I say to the member that he should talk to his fellow member. All he does is to throw insults. When he is losing he becomes personal—personal about the member; personal about the member’s family. That is his track record. But I will say to the member in answer to the question that the select committee wrote this clause in this way because the news media of New Zealand does those things—they enlighten they entertain and they inform people. I ask members to show me—apart from advertisements in newspapers—where newspapers or the media do not do those things. Members will not be able to. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Government believes that the media should be able to write exactly what they like then why does it not give the media a blanket exemption from the electoral advertising law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The committee has decided that the definition in the bill is the appropriate one. [ 
Interruption 
] I believe those members over there are all on something. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We care for democracy. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Hemlock for that member. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: We actually care for democracy. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That member does not care about democracy. He would not have put out a pamphlet using parliamentary money which tells people to change the Government and to have “nick4nelson” if he did care about it. He has used parliamentary money to do that. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I haven’t broken the rules like that lot did. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh yes you have. We will wait and see. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister realise that the new clause that she talked about yesterday which stops Government agencies from publishing election advertisements means that next year Television New Zealand will not be allowed to broadcast campaign openings or closings or political advertisements; if so was that the Government’s intention? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The member is absolutely wrong. Clause 5(2) specifically states that any television broadcast news comment or current affairs programme is not an election advertisement. That is the definition in the Broadcasting Act now. It has been in the Broadcasting Act for years and it has carried over into this bill. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister consulted Television New Zealand’s lawyers who have come to exactly the same conclusion as we have and can she explain to them and to the House what clause 55B means when it states: “The following persons and bodies may not publish or cause or permit to be published any election advertisement: (a) the chief executive … of a department of State or a Crown entity: (b) a department of State: (c) a Crown entity: (d) a State enterprise … or a Crown owned company:”—which Television New Zealand is—or “(e) any other instrument of the Crown.”? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Whoopsie! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No there is no whoopsie. There is a whoopsie from that party’s member because of course broadcasting under the Broadcasting Act enables television to carry out comment news broadcasts advertisements or whatever else it wishes to. Television is exempt under the Broadcasting Act. However I would imagine that if the board of Television New Zealand was to decide to vote for National then there might be a different connotation on it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that now mean that clause 55B does not mean what it says and that in fact clause 55B although it does not say this anywhere in this Act can be overruled by other exemptions in other Acts; if that is the case why does the Minister not make it plain in the Electoral Finance Bill that there are Crown entities and Crown-owned companies that are exempt from this law? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No; and I refer the member to the Broadcasting Act. 
KiwiSaver—Reports 
2.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports highlighting the need for the KiwiSaver scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. Statistics New Zealand last week reported that in the year to March savings from all sectors fell to a total of $1.3 billion well under 1 percent of GDP. This is the lowest level in 14 years. This followed a report from the World Economic Forum earlier this month that showed that New Zealand ranked 108th out of 131 countries for our national savings rate. This underscores why the Government has made KiwiSaver such a significant priority. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister seen on the uptake of KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: At the last numbers well over a quarter of a million New Zealanders—closing in on 300000 New Zealanders—are already enrolled in the scheme. But still the members opposite will not come clean on whether they support KiwiSaver or whether indeed they support cutting New Zealand superannuation as they did last week. The next test will come very soon when the House will be voting on the legislation for the enhancements to KiwiSaver announced in Budget 2007. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that had the retirement savings scheme been introduced in the late 1990s as was proposed by New Zealand First the New Zealand economy would now be reaping the benefits from the accumulation of 10 years’ worth of savings; and on that basis would he agree that KiwiSaver is better late than never? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I agree that if we had moved earlier on these matters then it would be doing so. Indeed I would go back to 1974 or 1975 when the third Labour Government introduced a savings scheme that was abolished initially illegally by the incoming National Government. Had that scheme proceeded at that point New Zealand would have been in a far stronger economic position now than it is and with a much stronger financial services sector in particular. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any international reports on the links between savings and wealth creation? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. I have seen a report from Boston Consulting Group that found that personal wealth grew faster in Australia than in any other developed country in the 5 years to the end of 2006 due largely to the very large savings base accumulated through Australia’s superannuation scheme. That emphasises the importance of KiwiSaver’s proceeding in its current form and for Kiwis to get behind KiwiSaver and to ensure that it is highly successful. 
Taxation—Australia - New Zealand 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he still stand by his statement “If as some have suggested New Zealanders are fleeing as tax exiles to Australia one can only conclude that those individuals are functionally innumerate and we are probably better off without them.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The statement I made in I think it was July 2005 remains correct in that respect. Now of course the main attractions of Australia are lifestyle family considerations and wages in that order—with wages being about 17 percent—not lower taxes. I note in a survey of financial professionals perhaps the group most likely to consider tax implications reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today that tax rates were not even mentioned as a factor for those considering working overseas. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that people do take into account after-tax incomes even if they do not specifically mention tax rates; and has he seen recent reports suggesting that even after adjusting for cost of living differences the average Kiwi family would be more than $5000 a year better off in Australia than in New Zealand and what is his response? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Nobody has any doubt that wage and salary rates in Australia are higher than they are in New Zealand. Part of the reason for that has been the fact that until very recently organised labour in Australia was in fact stronger than in New Zealand and the balance between the growth of wages and the growth of profits has been quite different in Australia from what it has been in New Zealand. The Employment Contracts Act of course was a considerable contributor to the reduction in working conditions in New Zealand. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can he confirm that he has continued to treat New Zealanders as if they were functionally innumerate by refusing consistently to move tax rates or tax thresholds at a time when our nearest neighbour and strongest competitor for human capital has shifted tax thresholds consistently now for 5 years and plans further large tax cuts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note first of all that the Opposition voted against any movements in working conditions such as 4 weeks’ annual leave. I note the Opposition voted against tax cuts for business. I note the Opposition voted against tax cuts for savers. I note the Opposition indeed voted against every tax cut that this Government has introduced. But of course Opposition members have these sudden conversions on the road to Damascus. The problem is they keep finding themselves marching on Tripoli instead. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that there are enterprising New Zealanders leaving for Australia not particularly for tax cuts but because of greater opportunities higher wages—as he has just acknowledged—better working conditions tougher policing and a more efficient health system and does he accept that many New Zealanders would prefer to see more investment in health education and law and order in particular than a tax cut; if he does accept those assertions can he advise what he is doing to rectify the matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the last thing I can be accused of is not investing more in health and education over the last 8 years. Budgets over those years have expanded very significantly indeed. But the member underlines a very important point: there is no single set of reasons why people move from New Zealand to Australia. One should add further to that the fact that New Zealand has continued to maintain and does so in the latest numbers a net immigration of skills. This Government has moved the immigration system from other criteria to skills as the primary matter of concern. We are a net skills importer in New Zealand not a net skills exporter. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does that answer mean that the Minister regards today’s figures about the rate of immigration to Australia as good news because the dumb ones are going and we are getting brighter people instead? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Looking opposite I could not possibly argue that the dumb ones are going. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Minister any evidence to substantiate his statement that New Zealand is better off without those who leave as tax exiles; would he say the same of those who leave for Australia because of better economic opportunities higher wages and a lower cost of living? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not sure the last part is entirely true. For example people going to Australia to buy a house are going to face very large stamp duties which they have to take account of in terms of home purchasing. But certainly wages and salaries are higher in Australia than in New Zealand and that is primarily the result of the fact that between the early 1980s and the early to mid 1990s Australia had a very much higher economic growth rate than New Zealand. Over the last 10 years we have in fact matched the Australian growth rate on average. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that according to his own figures under his Government although someone on the average wage has had his or her gross income increase by almost $10000 that person is in fact in net terms only $1700 better off in 2007 than in 2005; what happened to the rest of the money? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am grateful that the member now admits that he got his original calculations some 70 percent wrong in that regard when he put out the original press statement on the growth in net incomes. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister consider that Maori who are going to Australia because of the economic opportunities higher wages and the lower cost of living are also as functionally innumerate as those who are fleeing as tax exiles; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member seems to think the main reason for “fleeing to Australia” as he puts it is tax. That is not what the surveys tell us. The surveys tell us the No. 1 reason—unfortunately—is for reasons of lifestyle which is a thing we should all be concerned about. Secondly there are family reasons because many people have family already in Australia. Thirdly 17 percent was the figure for income not tax. I very much doubt that most Maori who migrated to Australia were actually in the highest tax rate in New Zealand. 
Children—Employment Legislation 
4.  
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What steps is the Government taking if any to review and strengthen legislation around the employment of children in New Zealand? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I have received a report on this issue from Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand. I have also received a request to meet with the organisation to discuss this report. I intend to take up that invitation. Any further steps will follow from that meeting. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister explain why the long delayed review of policy and law in relation to child labour advocated by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child 10 years ago is still not complete—in fact does not seem to have happened at all? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there is a fundamental difference between the view of New Zealanders and the position of the United Nations on this issue. Most New Zealanders believe that some work is not bad for children. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Is it the Government’s intention to ban children from working? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Notwithstanding the views of some people at the United Nations or the International Labour Organization no. The question is whether we have all the health and safety rules in place especially where contracting is concerned. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Government guarantee that any review of child labour laws will ensure that children and young people 15 years and under are fully included in the consultation process alongside other stakeholders such as employers unions community groups and so on? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That seems a sensible thing to do. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware of indications made by Government members during the debate around my youth rates legislation earlier this year that the Government is seriously looking at carrying out a full consultation process and review and will he speed that up given that the Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand report he referred to states that some children are actually earning as little as $1.67 an hour? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am a relatively new Minister in this particular area so I am not aware of the timetable and therefore I cannot say whether it will be sped up? 
Sue Bradford 
: Does the Minister believe that New Zealand Post should follow the advice given to some child delivery workers and advise their posties to talk to their parents if they have problems with dogs difficult members of the public or other dangers while on the job and why should not child workers have the same protection as for example posties working for New Zealand Post? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would have thought that one of the things a child employee should do when a problem occurs is talk to his or her parents. I would not exclude that. A number of other things could be done as well but talking to the parents and getting advice is probably a good way to start. 
Bail Laws—Remand Numbers 
5.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What reduction in remand numbers was projected from recent changes to bail laws “designed to assist the remand population by ensuring that the focus is on community safety when custodial remand decisions are made”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 A modest reduction in the prison population over time has been projected—10 beds by September 2009 and 40 beds by 2011. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is community safety being sacrificed when an Auckland man facing three rape charges with even more rape charges likely to be laid has been bailed not once but twice under Labour’s new bail laws? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Bail decisions are made by judges. It is quite obvious from the numbers of prison beds that are being freed up by this very modest move that community safety is not being sacrificed. The member thought the answer was going be to a very large number; in fact it is a very small number because the changes to the bail law still have to take account of a very important range of factors and judges will make decisions on the evidence before them. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why would the Government make it easier to get bail when this man faces multiple rape charges including driving his third victim to a cemetery where he allegedly raped her then demanded she change a flat tyre on his car before he raped her again; how can this man not be a real and significant risk to public safety? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Bail decisions are made by judges. They decide whether a person is a significant risk to the community. Members of Parliament do not direct judges as to whether they should give bail. I believe that judges make decisions based on the evidence they have before them and long may that happen—that Parliament does not direct them on individual cases. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Does the Minister have any information about forward projections for coming years of the number of remand prisoners; if so can she give the House any information about how those prisoners might be accommodated given the existing high pressure on prison resources and also the figures that she has quoted in the House this afternoon? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is predicted that the growth in the number of remand prisoners will continue at quite a rapid rate. Obviously what we want to do is to ensure that those who should be remanded in prison are in prison and that those who can be on bail are appropriately remanded within the community. What the National Party is attempting to do is to say that it would put everybody in prison in which case we would not have bail laws. We have bail laws so that judges can make those decisions and so that people who are able to be in the community are remanded in the community. There is one fundamental rule here: people are still innocent until proven guilty. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why should anyone who is released on bail under the Minister’s new laws think that there will be any consequences of breaching his or her bail when accused double murderer Chris Kahui has today been granted bail for the fourth time after breaching his bail conditions three times previously? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This is a very good example of a judge making a decision. The judge today— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: This is your new law! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well let me just quote what the judge said regarding the changes to the bail laws. The same judge who made the bail decision on Mr Kahuitoday said that it “does not seem to me to put the test any higher than was under the previous legislation but rather to emphasise the need for a proper inference to be drawn from proved facts as opposed to the Court engaging in speculation or guesswork about the possibility of a risk.” The same judge decided today that Mr Kahui would be granted bail. He said that the investigations had shown that the breaches were of a minor nature and the fact that Mr Kahui was in solitary confinement for his own safety for 23 hours a day was a relevant and powerful factor in favour of bail being granted. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: So does she agree that the judge got it right in that case? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not for me or Mr Ryall to decide whether— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. That is not an appropriate question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been following this question with some interest. I draw to your attention both Standing Order 111 and Speaker’s ruling 28/6 which relate to matters that are sub judice. I would have thought that a line was close to being crossed here. Standing Order 111 states: “matters awaiting or under adjudication in any court of record may not be referred to … in any question … if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” That might be arguable in this particular instance but I think it might be helpful Madam Speaker if you were to give the House some guidance on the application of the sub judice law when it comes to questions of this type being pursued because they do occur from time to time and there are clear implications for the rights of defendants in these cases. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I think that that is an interesting idea from Mr Dunne but the reality is that this is a question about bail. Each case has related to matters of bail and in each case the issue around bail has been determined. There is no attempt on Mr Ryall’s part to make a comment about the substance of the crimes these people are accused of committing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I understand your point. The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings I think do make it clear that members should not make reference to matters that are before the court. However members may discuss the law in general which was the point being made about bail. In this line of questioning however there was reference to one particular case that is in fact before the court so I ask members to please not cross that line. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister support the law under which the judge made this decision? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I do. I do support the law under which the judge’s decision was made for the simple reason— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s right; get it on the record. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —get it on the record yes—that obviously it is the Government’s Bail Act amendment law. But it is a law that is sensible and a range of factors must be taken into account. It means that 10 fewer people will be in prison than are there now so there will hardly be a big increase in the number on remand. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Those are Ministry of Justice figures. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to that member that I could go to any newspaper from the 1990s pull out stories of people who were given bail and say— 
Hon Members 
: And you did. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I certainly did not; I do not think I had a spokesperson role in that. But Mr Ryall would today be saying that that law was too soft I presume. 
East Coast Forestry Project—Reports 
6.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: What reports has he received on the progress of the East Coast Forestry Project? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 I have seen a report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that provides the results of the East Coast Forestry Project 2007 grant funding round. All 33 applications considered covering 3184 hectares have been approved for grant support. This represents a 58 percent increase in the area approved for planting in this first year of the streamlined grant-based approach. This is a very positive sign that East Coast farmers are increasingly recognising the importance of sustainable land management practices. 
Moana Mackey 
: What other Government initiatives will contribute to better soil conservation in highly erosion-prone parts of New Zealand’s hill country? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Several new initiatives complement the East Coast Forestry Project in targeting highly erosion-prone hill country. The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides landowners with carbon credits for regenerating scrublands or conservation plantings. There are 30000 hectares in that regard on the East Coast. The $10 million Sustainable Land Management (Hill Country Erosion) Programme resources regional government to tackle erosion in critical catchments. The $50 million Afforestation Grants Scheme provides further resources to accelerate planting of these lands. The technology transfer and extension components of the $175 million  
Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change: Options for a Plan of Action 
 will assist landowners to get the most sustainable mix of land use. Collectively these initiatives represent the first comprehensive approach of any Government over many years in tackling the well-understood but neglected erosion problems that have significant impacts on downstream flood risk. 
Moana Mackey 
: What further reports has the Minister seen on actions to address highly erosion-prone parts of New Zealand’s hill country? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think I just gave that answer so I will not subject the House to it again. 
State Services Commissioner—Public Service Neutrality 
7.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Does he have confidence in the State Services Commissioner’s ability to maintain a politically neutral Public Service; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of State Services) 
: Yes; because Dr Prebble is very experienced and in the words of Mr Hunn gave a “comprehensive cogent and correct” set of advice during the Setchell affair amongst many other reasons for saying that he is experienced. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has the Minister seen the letter from the State Services Commissioner sent to the Leader of the Opposition just a short time ago in which he says he will be conducting further investigations into the appointment of Clare Curran at the Ministry for the Environment; and is he concerned that this may lead to an investigation of a wider-spread politicisation of the Public Service by the Labour Party? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes; and I would not make the assumption the member has as far as the second part of the question is concerned. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Do we take it from the Minister’s answer that his understanding is that the State Services Commission will not be widening the investigation into this matter and can he tell the House whether he has been involved in directing the State Services Commissioner in that regard? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No the Minister has not been involved. The Acting Minister was informed as a matter of politeness by the State Services Commissioner at the time he sent the letter to Mr Key. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Acting Minister of State Services believe that there was political pressure or inappropriate ministerial interference in the appointment of Labour Party activist Clare Curran by the Ministry for the Environment; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my view that a naive suggestion was made by a new Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When in his report into this matter the Deputy State Services Commissioner says it was agreed by officials that Ms Curran was of suitable calibre to undertake the work does this mean that Clare Curran was in fact not their first choice but simply had to be accepted because Minister Parker had personally recommended her? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No absolutely the opposite: the Ministry for the Environment had been looking for someone it was desperate to find someone and this woman measured up. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does that stand as an explanation for why Ms Curran was employed with such haste; and does it also explain the need for the ministry to have someone of Ms Curran’s calibre who would put a political flavour on the Government’s climate change policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Ms Curran was employed at haste because the ministry was dissatisfied with the quality of work coming from its communications unit and it got someone who had experience working in strategic communications in this area for the Australian Government—which happens to be the Liberals of course. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister accept that what really happened here is that the Minister for the Environment David Parker decided he wanted to appoint a Labour Party activist to undertake the work of politicising the climate change policy that the department had no choice but to appoint her that she was appointed and that it would be totally naive of the Minister to believe that the public will accept any other view? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The first allegation that David Parker was at the time the Minister for the Environment is wrong and everything the member said afterwards is as well. 
Science—New Zealand Breakthrough 
8.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: What reports has he received of scientific breakthrough led by New Zealand researchers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 I have received an abundance of reports. In the last week AgResearch scientists have announced the discovery of a new natural pesticide; a company called Orico Ltd in Dunedin has announced a pharmaceutical prospect for some types of muscular dystrophy; and news of a wound-healing gel derived from squid has just been made public by the chemistry department at Otago University. I think it is appropriate for this House to commend those remarkable advances and I am sure we all do. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How are the recent Labour-led initiatives supporting the research and development environment in New Zealand? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Members will be aware that a 15 percent tax credit for private sector research and development spending means that a company investing $100000 in research can now get $15000 back straight away. New Zealand’s total research and development spending has increased by about 10 percent in the 2 years from 2004 to 2006 and now stands at $1.8 billion. I am in no doubt that this tax credit will substantially increase that figure. 
Gangs—Organised Crime 
9.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement that one would be “dreaming” to say that outlawing gangs would minimise their impact on the community and what progress can she report on proposed amendments to section 98A of the Crimes Act 1961 and to the Sentencing Act 2002 with respect to organised crime? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes because I believe that no one tool by itself will minimise the impact of organised criminal groups in our communities. Progress is being made on legislative amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 and the Sentencing Act 2002 and I thank the member for his support for the Organised Crime Agency which is currently being set up to help fight organised crime in New Zealand which obviously includes gang-related crimes. 
Ron Mark 
: Is she aware that the South Australian Parliament is introducing legislation to outlaw gangs which will enable the police to dismantle gang headquarters confiscate gang assets prevent gangs from communicating with one another and force them to reveal the source of any unexplained wealth; if so does she think that that Parliament too is dreaming if it thinks those measures will work? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I read in the paper today about that move by an Australian state. I have to say that I do believe we need to use a range of tools. I think that the amendments nearing introduction into this Parliament—for example doubling the maximum sentence for the offence of participation in an organised criminal group from 5 years to 10 years under section 98A of the Crimes Act and the changes to section 9 of the Sentencing Act that will direct judges to regard offending as aggravated whenever it is committed for the benefit of or at the direction of or in association with an organised crime group—will help to go a long way towards addressing our organised crime problems in New Zealand and our organised criminals. But I also believe that being able to use the greater powers that come with those changes such as deploying listening devices and otherwise intercepting communications will also help. I believe that we need a range of tools to fight organised crime and gangs. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister envision a gang and drug - free New Zealand noting that one often goes hand in hand with the other; if so will she give consideration to following the South Australian lead by putting in place a work programme including all necessary law changes to strike a lethal blow aimed at ending both the trade in P and the existence of the gangs themselves? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I do believe it is important that we do all we can to outlaw organised crime gangs and illicit drugs in New Zealand but I think we have to be realistic. To outlaw something completely would be very difficult. I think we have seen in the past that we have tried to outlaw things only to find that they go undercover and underground and sometimes because they are outlawed they gain even greater status than they had. So I think we need to address the issue with a range of tools and with commitment which this Government has shown. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm that the Government receives support from New Zealand First for laws that make it easier for gang members to get bail? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I certainly cannot. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister seen the comments of the Labor Premier of South Australia the Hon Mike Rann where he describes gangs as “terrorists within our community” and “evil within our nation” and declares that his state Government will target at least eight groups with new laws allowing the Attorney-General of South Australia to declare a bikie gang to be an outlawed organisation; if she has seen those comments does she not see the striking similarity between the comments of the South Australian Premier and the comments of New Zealand First and why if that is the view of her Labor colleagues in Australia does she not accept it and move with New Zealand First to pass laws to outlaw gangs as well? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think it is appropriate at this stage to say that the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings require that members ask their questions succinctly and that the answers be given accordingly. There has been a trend for ever-lengthening speeches to be given. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I say to the member that I am very happy to work with New Zealand First on a range of proposals and in fact have already been working with the member and New Zealand First around organised criminal activity. I think that we are making progress and I would hope that the member will support the amendments that we intend to make to section 98A of the Crimes Act which will give additional support to the fight against organised crime. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware of the comments and reports from the police Ministers conference held here in Wellington in June of this year where the South Australian representatives made very clear the successes they were having with regard to gangs called for a Commonwealth or a federal approach to the problem and pointed out that their successes were causing gangs to move out of South Australia across state borders; if those observations are accurate can she not see the danger to New Zealand— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just get on with his question. It is a long question ignoring what I suggested before. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know you have made that ruling and that caution to us as members quite frequently. I have taken the time to count the number of words in some of the questions asked by John Key and Bill English and I ask for some consistency. It appears that I might have some things wrong and might have totally misinterpreted how long my question should be— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask his question please—succinctly. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister not see the danger that New Zealand First sees that as the states of Australia combine under a national policy to tighten up on break down and eliminate gangs there is a very real danger if we do not move with Australia that rather than moving into states in Australia the gangs will move their corporate offices to New Zealand? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: One of the advantages of being part of the ministerial council of police Ministers is that we share information with Australia. In fact there is a meeting of police Ministers in New Zealand tomorrow in Christchurch. I have no doubt this issue will be discussed. We can learn from each other. We want to put in place the best possible mechanisms to fight organised crime in both our countries. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the bill that the Hon Michael Atkinson the Attorney-General for South Australia is tabling today— 
Document not tabled. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table from the South Australian Parliament the statutes amendment bill— 
Document not tabled. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Election Advertisements KiwiSaver Publicity 
10.  
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does she stand by her statement in regard to whether KiwiSaver publicity would count as an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Bill that “The member clearly knows that it would not count as it is talking about the Government. It is not telling people to vote for Labour or for National.”; if so why? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: What is the crucial part of the KiwiSaver publicity that means that it clearly would not count as an election advertisement: is it the fact that it refers to the Government rather than naming any political party or parties or that it communicates only facts and policies—as she said yesterday—or is it both? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is information for the public. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Has the Minister seen comments made by the Auditor-General about the current campaign by the Independent Motor Vehicle Dealers Association and its advertisement entitled “Introducing Labour’s crazy car policy” that “It is an interesting one because it doesn’t actually say anything about voting does it although it does attack Labour.” and is it the Government’s intention that these types of advertisements should be classed as election advertisements if they are published in the regulated period especially if the law of common sense is applied? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I will not decide whether that advertisement is covered but I will give some advice to the used-car salesmen who this time are obviously supporting the National Party. The National Party had the support of the Brethren last time; it has the used-car salesmen this time. I will give some advice to the salesmen: I would have the advertisement checked out if I were going to run it in an election year. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Is the Minister aware that clause 5(1)(a)(ii) of the bill states that an election advertisement can be something that—members should listen carefully— is “encouraging or persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a type of party … that is described or indicated by reference to views positions or policies that are or are not held taken or pursued (whether or not the name of a party or the name of a candidate is stated);” and that therefore her Government’s intention is not reflected in this legislation but instead lives in an imaginary world where courts can apply her new law of common sense? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree with the member in that respect. I think the courts would not in fact necessarily apply the common-sense law as I have been saying the National Party ought to; I think they are more likely to use the Interpretation Act. They will look at the entire clause to see what the meaning is; they will not do what that member has been doing which is taking out one part of it and trying to make out that that is what the clause means. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: How can the Minister expect the public to understand what an election advertisement is when she has given all sorts of answers to the House over the past few days that contradict the words of the Electoral Finance Bill and when we were told today that the chief executive of the Electoral Commission thinks it needs more guidance on the rules of the bill because they are not clear and are likely to result in a lot of litigation? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The only people who have been contradicting themselves are Bill English and Christopher Finlayson. They have dredged up every example they can dredge up but they move on as they do not get anywhere. Yesterday on  
Morning Report 
 Bill English said while he was having a little chat around the barbecue that using the phrase “Why don’t you vote Labour” would be an election advertisement. He is absolutely wrong. He does not use that example any more so he thinks of a new example. Then it got to canvassing. That is not an election advertisement. I suggest to the member who asked the question that he reads the whole clause. We have to take the clause in context and interpret the whole clause. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s earlier answer to one of the member’s supplementary questions would it come as a huge surprise to her to know that other political parties in Parliament share the concerns of the used-car salesmen when it comes to the vehicle emissions rule? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have no doubt that that member—who has a great interest in transport—may share some of the salesmen’s views. I also know about the member that he wonders why we allow into New Zealand used cars that the Japanese say are not good enough for their roads but that used-car dealers in New Zealand say are good enough for New Zealanders. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: I seek leave to table an advertisement entitled “Introducing Labour’s crazy car policy”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Early Childhood Education Centres—Parenting Programmes 
11.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How are early childhood education centres assisting parents to raise their children? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 A total of 18 early childhood education centres have now begun offering parent support and development programmes which is part of the Labour-led Government strategy to intervene early in families so our kids grow up safe healthy and confident. New centres offering the programmes include Newfield-Heidelberg Free Kindergarten in Invercargill which offers support for parents of children up to the age of 3. The kindy held an opening of its new parents’ room recently attended by the member Lesley Soper and I want to thank it for its participation in the 4-year $6.6 million pilot programme which has already helped 700 families in the past year to improve their parenting skills. 
Lesley Soper 
: What practical support does the parent support and development programme offer Kiwi families? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The parent support and development programme uses early childhood education centres as a community hub to provide support to stressed parents so they can do a better job raising their children. The programme offers parenting-skill workshops promotes participation in early childhood education reinforces the lessons learnt there at home provides one-to-one support to vulnerable families and where necessary referrals to community agencies and helps parents to build support networks in their home communities. 
Paula Bennett 
: In light of the Minister’s new-found concern with assisting parents to raise their children will he contact those 12 creches in gyms that he has closed to which parents went just so they could have some respite and that helped them to actually raise their children; and can he assure Sunday schools that he will not put them under the same regulations as early childhood education centres—which might be the best assistance he can give to parents? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member raises two points both of which she has been busy promoting misinformation about around New Zealand. Recently she said on the radio that my ministry had closed 10 creches in gyms. We have closed none. Ten creches chose to close themselves. We did not close any. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will have the rest of the Minister’s answer in silence. I hope it is succinct. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I repeat that the Ministry of Education has not closed any creches in gyms. As far as Sunday schools are concerned I say that there is absolutely no intention to make Sunday schools fit under the regulations around childcare centres. That is a bit of spurious nonsense that the member has been spreading around New Zealand. 
Paula Bennett 
: I seek leave of the House to table the list that the ministry provided of the 10 creches that the ministry wrote to— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Sexual Abuse Allegations—Ministry of Education Procedures 
12.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: On what date did the Ministry of Education first become aware of serious allegations of sexual abuse against the principal of HatoPaora College? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The acting principal on behalf of the board of trustees formally notified the Ministry of Education on 3 August 2007. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm that the ministry in fact knew 2 days earlier that the serious allegations had surfaced because of media calls received by a senior media adviser in the ministry that gave a full detailed account of these allegations; and if his ministry’s first priority is as he has told the House to seek immediate assurance that the students of the school are safe why did the ministry passively wait 2 days for the school to call—why did no one pick up the phone? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am advised that the ministry was asked two questions by the media on 1 August. Firstly it was asked whether it was aware of allegations of misconduct against the principal which it was not. Secondly it was asked whether there is a requirement on schools to report such allegations to the ministry—which again there is not as these are employment matters that are properly the preserve of boards of trustees. The ministry is able to offer advice in such cases but it was not asked for assistance in this case. Schools are obliged as I have repeated many times in this House in the last 2 weeks to report such allegations to Child Youth and Family and the police which HatoPaora College did. 
Dianne Yates 
: Did the school the Ministry of Education Child Youth and Family and the police follow the 1996 inter-agency protocols for child abuse management in this case? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes. I am advised that allegations were made to the school on 23 July and it conducted its employment investigation and reported it in writing to Child Youth and Family on 30 July. Child Youth and Family received and logged this advice on 1 August and reported it to the police as it is required to do on 3 August. The school also reported the allegations and the outcome of its inquiry to the Ministry of Education on 3 August even though this was not required under the 1996 protocols. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister confirm then that the date the Ministry of Education first knew of these allegations was not 3 August but 1 August? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm that a call was lodged with the Ministry of Education by a journalist. I would also like the House to be aware that calls to the ministry concerning complaints about teachers are very common. On 3 August the ministry was officially informed by the board of trustees—which it was not required to be. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the House conclude that there has to be a formal complaint not just a heads-up from the media or a call from the public—that the ministry will sit there twiddle its thumbs and do nothing until the school makes a call—and can the Minister tell the House what would have happened if the school had never made that call? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is astonishing how this story keeps changing all the time. The bottom line is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: This is a serious matter. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It is a very serious matter involving very serious issues with children and a school. The protocol signed in 1996 during a period of National Government and adhered to ever since provides that a board of trustees is required to inform Child Youth and Family. So it is not the ministry that is required to do so but Child Youth and Family. In this case it did. Child Youth and Family was then required to inform the police and it did so. The police then reviewed the evidence that the board of trustees had looked at and it said that the board had come to the right conclusion. New evidence came later. The member keeps trying to hook the Ministry of Education into this. The Ministry of Education is not part of this. It offers support to schools and it has been doing that with this school. The school was not even required to inform the ministry but it did so on 3 August. The school has been providing support but this is business between the board of trustees Child Youth and Family and the police. It is also a case that is before the courts and it should be allowed to go its course without interference from headline-seeking politicians in this House. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can we conclude from those answers that if the ministry becomes aware of serious sex offence allegations made against the principal of a school by whatever means the ministry is not obliged to do anything—it is not obliged to pick up the phone or ensure that the school puts the complaint in the hands of the police—and that the ministry basically can just sit there gather the information and do nothing even though it is the leader of education in this country? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Once again the member is trying to twist this into something negative against the ministry. Protocols in place since 1996 give boards of trustees a clear responsibility to carry out a series of actions. The ministry checks that boards have those protocols in place. At HatoPaora College they were checked and they were in place. The board did all the right things that it was supposed to do. Rules that have been around since 1996—since that member’s party was in Government; they are good rules—had been well followed. The matter was acted on promptly. It is not— 
Katherine Rich 
: It was not—it was 10 days later. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The member is still yelling out. She is not listening. I would like to assure the member that the rules were followed and that the case was done correctly. Let us let this case stay before the courts to get this sorry business resolved. 
Voting 
Correction 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to alter the vote of Taito Phillip Field that was cast yesterday on the question that the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill be now read a third time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. The correct result of the vote therefore would be Ayes 65 Noes 52. This does not affect the outcome of the vote. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not really sure from that what the correction was. I would ask whether the vote of Mr Field cast was in favour of the bill and is now being cast in opposition of the bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was my understanding of the numbers yes. In fact would the member please confirm that for the benefit of Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member actually sought leave but the leave was never put. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought that it was; there was no objection. I did not hear any objection. However for the point of clarification would the member please address Mr Brownlee’s question as to whether it was an “Aye” or a “No” that changed the vote. 
SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The vote of Taito Phillip Field was cast for the Ayes when it should have been cast for the Noes. The correct result of the vote is therefore Ayes 65 Noes 52. This does not affect the outcome of the vote. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
General Debate 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. One year ago this week Mr John Key ascended to the ranks of the leadership of the National Party and 1 year on that man’s star has started to wane. One year on the guy has peaked and we need to understand why that is. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I know that there was a lot of applause but I cannot hear the member speak. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Let me start again. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I assume that the speech will start again from the beginning and that the time will start from the time the noise from the Opposition ceases. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a decision I will have to make. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One year ago John Key became the leader of the National Party and 1 year on his star has already peaked. Let me explain why. You see when he became— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raised the point before and I repeat it again. I assume now that the speech begins again and that the speech will start from the time that the Opposition ceases to make noise. This is of course a members’ day so the Government is quite relaxed about how long this takes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. Point of order Gerry Brownlee. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I was not seeking a point of order; I sought the call. The member had sat down I sought the call and I have been given it. So I am delighted. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I was under the impression that the member was raising a point of order with reference to Dr Cullen’s point of order. I just say to members that the practice of engaging in a constant barrage of interjections amounts to heckling and that it is entirely intolerable in the debating chamber. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Mr Speaker— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to reflect on the way you have just ruled. What happened here was that Pete Hodgson the Labour Party strategist stood to congratulate John Key on the fact that he became the leader of the National Party 1 year ago. The member’s claim that this was a great occasion was robustly responded to by members on this side of the House who were very very delighted to hear it. If Mr Assistant Speaker you are to rule against spontaneous applause for smart statements or clever statements made by the Government then I think that would be a very very backwards step for the House to take. Mind you I would have to say that it would be a very unusual occasion for the Labour Government. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think that emphasises the importance of people not making lots of noise so that they can listen because of course Mr Hodgson said no such thing. He merely pointed out that 1 year ago Mr Key became the leader. [ 
Interruption 
] I think I will perhaps begin my point of order again. Mr Hodgson was not making a point in praise. He comes to bury Mr Key not to praise him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to members that the Chamber is a place of listening and debate. I think we will all prosper if we show some courtesy. I have been quite tolerant. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to think about what actually happened there. Mr Hodgson sat down and his situation has been retrieved only by the fact that you recognised Dr Cullen. Other than that I should rightfully have the floor to speak in that spot. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It has not become the habit in this House although it should that when a member raises a point of order and the Speaker calls that member the member who was previously speaking sits down. It is common for members opposite to remain standing while other people are seeking a point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you and I was on my feet as well. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think you did not hear Mr Assistant Speaker but there is a member at the back sitting next to the member for Tauranga who was seeking your attention by way of a point of order earlier on. I am not sure of his name; it is that member there. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: A point of order Mr Burrows? 
Chester Borrows 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to explain what appears to be a misrepresentation to the House. He initially raised a point of order saying that he could not hear what the Hon Pete Hodgson was saying. On a subsequent point of order he stood up and proposed that he had heard what the honourable member had said which was different from what Mr Brownlee had related to the House. So some clarification is due and I offer him the opportunity to do that. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Of course what I said emphasises the importance of people listening because Mr Brownlee clearly had not heard what Mr Hodgson had said. I am afraid the member got that wrong. Again presumably with the amount of noise going on in the rear of the House he could not hear either. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I could not hear either. I am now going to try to start the general debate again. I call the Hon Pete Hodgson. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: A year ago this week John Key became the leader of the National Party and this week—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We have had our fun. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: —1 year on it is already clear that his star has peaked and has begun to wane. Here is why. The public have been waiting for the next step. They have had the grin they have had the nice little remarks and they have been waiting for some substance to emerge beneath the style. They have been looking forward to some gravitas. They have been looking forward to some new thinking. They have been looking forward to a little bit of philosophy—they have been looking forward really to anything at all. What they have had is plenty of front but no body. They have had a guy who has been good for a laugh but is no good when the pressure goes on. They have had a guy who is good at one-liners but cannot stand analysis. They have had a man who is hollow who is shallow and who as my colleague from Rimutaka would say is all hat and no horse. John Key is all hat and no horse. 
Three months ago Mr Key’s deputy leader Bill English summed him up—he did not even mean to. In an interview Bill English said that he Bill English was the stayer and John Key was the sprinter. Bill English said he did the hard yards and John Key moved flitted and bounced from cloud to cloud. That of course sums up John Key in a nutshell. That guy cannot be held down to any position to any philosophy or to anything he said in history. He just bounces from cloud to cloud and a year on the public of New Zealand are starting to realise that that will not do. If Mr Key wants to put in his nomination for the prime ministership of this land he must be subject to some testing as to what he believes—if indeed he believes anything at all. 
Let us look at what John Key said on his very first outing 1 year ago in November 2006. Here is a quote from John Key the leader of the New Zealand National Party. Listen to this it is stirring. He said: “My mission is to raise people’s sights to be fearless and to be imaginative in policies.” Since then he has had two formal policy launches. One of them was on international affairs. John Key advised a surprised nation—and indeed globe—that the Iraq war was over. The other one was the 60-page think-piece on health that forgot to tell us that doctors’ fees would go back up again under National. So you see 1 year on there have been two fearless policies. One was on foreign relations and said there was no war in Iraq and one was on health and said that doctors’ fees would go up not down. 
There was another instance in that same speech 1 year ago. It was Mr Key’s very first outing. He was in friendly territory; he was talking to the National Party on the North Shore. Again this man is worth listening to. He said: “Let me be also clear that I make no excuses for saying those policies of National’s will be harvested from wherever.” Now let us have a look at where he got them from. He said in respect of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC): “We will introduce competition.” So his first policy subsequent to that speech was to privatise ACC. Next he said that flexible labour markets are the way to go. That says he is back to the Employment Contracts Act way of thinking. 
Then there was what he said on education. Do members remember that? He said there were plenty of opportunities to have the private sector playing a bigger role. Now not even Don Brash went that far. Don Brash said he did not care who owned the schools. John Key says he wants the private sector to own the schools. This guy will get his policies from wherever except that so far he has reached into one well only and that is where the National Party used to get its policies from. So you see so far we do not have too much from John Key. But then we have a recent quote from John Key that is really interesting and pertinent to today’s undertakings in the House. John Key said: “Let’s confront the reality that Nicky Hager was right.” 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Pete Hodgson appeared at the New Zealand Export Awards the other day. Did members read the report about what happened? I think he thinks he is still there. He was described as being discombobulated. That was what was said about Pete Hodgson. Everything that he was meant to say he got wrong. The next morning he arrived half an hour late at the breakfast and had no idea what he was doing. I think we have seen why in the House this afternoon. 
The Labour Government has had a big win recently. It does not get many wins these days but it had a big win. Do members know what it won? It achieved a record in the number of people it has driven out of New Zealand. It is not quite an all-time record but I checked and for the last decade the highest number of New Zealanders were driven out—75143 long-term migrants left New Zealand. I checked back another decade and found that this Labour Government has driven the most people out of New Zealand for 25 or more years. 
The problem is that we are losing our citizens; 30000 New Zealand citizens net left New Zealand in the last 12 months. That was almost one-third more than the year before and in the last 4 years the rate is up 200 percent. In the last 4 years of a Labour Government 200 percent more New Zealand citizens have got up and gone. 
It is not hard to see why they are leaving. Most of them—87 percent—are going to Aussie. Across the Tasman the Australian Government has been cutting taxes and putting in place policies to increase economic growth. But in New Zealand the “Clark-Cullen Government” has been building the kitty. Do members remember that? Helen has told us that the Government has been building the kitty. What has happened to after-tax income as a consequence? When Labour came into office after-tax average income in Australia was 20 percent higher than in New Zealand. After 7 years of a Labour Government it has gone up to 31 percent higher in Australia—after-tax income is 31 percent higher in Australia. New Zealanders are now seeing more opportunity for them and their families across the Tasman because in New Zealand they are in an income trap. If they earn more money this Government taxes them. If they have dependent children over most of the income range this Government now takes with Working for Families more than half of any extra dollars these people earn off them in tax. 
But it is not just big Government taxing New Zealanders more and more that is driving them away. New Zealanders are starting to feel now that this Government seeks to control every aspect of their lives: controlling how they raise their children—Helen knows best—and controlling what children can eat through their school tuck shops. This big Labour Government knows best. 
But the latest one is that the Government wants to control who can say what in election year. That is the latest one—who can say what in election year. If a developing country sought to control who could say what in an election year we would say that was absolute corruption. If that were happening in this country we would say that was just corruption. We would say that is something that President Mugabe would be proud of. If a dictator was trying to do what Labour is doing in New Zealand we would call it corruption. But somehow here in New Zealand it is OK for a Labour Government to do it. It is OK somehow for this Labour Government to tell New Zealanders: “You cannot express your views in election year; you cannot express deeply held opposition to what your democratically elected Government is doing in an election year.” In any developing country we would say that was corruption yet somehow Labour thinks it is OK. 
The public does not think it is OK. The public in New Zealand have fought for the right to express their views freely. Our forefathers fought and died for the right to express their views freely and people of New Zealand reject totally this Labour Government having the audacity to think it can tell New Zealanders what they can and cannot say in an election year. It is corrupt. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 At the beginning of the debate my colleague Pete Hodgson got up and mentioned that it had been a year since John Key had become Prime Minister and there was hysteria among the National members of the House. They must be very easily satisfied. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this because this is the first opportunity for us to do so. But I did note that the Minister just announced that John Key is now the Prime Minister of New Zealand. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows that that is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No but it would be a damn good idea! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. Frivolous interjections or points of order designed to break up a 5-minute speech lead to disorder. The member will start again. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: He is never going to become Prime Minister. When Mr Hodgson mentioned that it was 1 year since Mr Key had become leader of the National Party hysteria broke out among National MPs. They must be very easily satisfied because I guess when one considers that Mr English “Mr 20 percent” who got the lowest result ever for National and then Don Brash the man who could never remember his conversations with the Brethren when one compares them with Mr Key I suppose they would be a bit pleased. But he would never do for a Labour leader. This is the man who said: “No we wouldn’t go to Iraq now.” but just 2 years ago he said: “Yes yes we’d send our troops to Iraq.” This is the man who was a climate change denier; now he is a convert to climate change. He said he lived in Parnell but he registered a vote in Helensville. This is the man who cultivates the Maori Party but as soon as he gets in front of a National Party audience he says: “We’d get rid of the Maori seats.” This is the man who has told the  
New Zealand Herald  
reporters that he would sign the therapeutics legislation but of course later on said: “No I never said that.” when Mr Ryall threw a little tantrum. Of course the transcript was released and it was revealed that Mr Key had not been quite as truthful as he could. 
But I guess in the end one can judge someone only when he or she is seen in action. I would like to tell the House about a very interesting meeting I went to in the Helensville electorate. At Marina View School in the heart of the Helensville electorate a public meeting was called by the ratepayers association. It was to protest against that fantastic development that the Housing New Zealand Corporation is doing at the old defence site at Hobsonville. 
Mr Key is the local member and he came along. Mr Key we might remember in this House was raised in a State house. He was sitting with me as Minister of Housing as I was then on the stage in this hall crammed with some 500 people. The audience started to react to the redneck populist stuff that had been going on. People stood up and said: “State house tenants are thieves.” They said: “They will steal our washing from the washing line. They will be urinating in the streets. They will be leaving old bombs of cars in front of their houses.” Mr Key sat through all this. As this conversation became more and more racist more and more prejudiced did he intervene at any point? I of course drew the audience’s attention frequently to the fact that I am sure Mrs Key was not like that when she was a State house tenant. I would have to say that if we were doing a score card we would give him an A for pandering to prejudice and a D for leadership. He showed no leadership at all at that very bigoted prejudiced meeting. 
I would like to talk about the Big Gay Out. It is something that I think only Mrs Shipley and Mr Key have ever attended as National Party leaders. Mr Key arrived at the Big Gay Out in a pink shirt. He stood up and said: “Some of my best friends are gay.” But as he started to walk around the crowd somebody came up to him and said: “Did you vote for the Civil Union Bill?”. He said: “No no. I didn’t vote for the Civil Union Bill.” When he was asked why he said: “Oh because my electorate is very conservative.” Well I represent the neighbouring electorate of Te Atatu. I have a 12000-vote majority. At every election since 1999 my majority has gone up. How come middle-class Helensville is more conservative than working-class Te Atatu? It does not register does it? I have to say that I would give Mr Key an A for having double standards and a D for lack of integrity. He did not have the guts. If he did believe in— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is a personal reflection. The member will withdraw. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I withdraw and apologise. If Mr Key did stand by his comments to me personally and to many other people in this House that he supported the Civil Union Bill why did he not have the courage to vote for it? I will say why. It is because he was pandering to prejudice. He was pandering to that right-wing conservative religious bloc in the National Party. Again it is an A for double standards and a D for integrity. 
Let me tell members about a visit to the Mahatma Ghandi Centre. For the last 5 years I have spent my weekends visiting ethnic events. Occasionally we see National members there but not very often. Pansy Wong usually attends but nobody else. Mr Key came to the Mahatma Ghandi Centre earlier in the year. He stood up in front of the very large crowd of mostly New Zealanders of Indian descent. He mispronounced the name of Anand Satyanand our Governor-General three times in a row. He said that he really loved the Indian community in New Zealand because of their great restaurants. Then he sat down. I have to tell members that people were very offended by that. They regarded it as patronisation. So it is an A for patronisation and a D for cultural insensitivity. 
TIM GROSER (National) 
: 
 New Zealanders who are actually interested in the future of this country might be excused for thinking that the record exodus of New Zealanders from this country would constitute some type of wake-up call to this Government but I fear they will be proven wrong. I do not believe that this Government—wrapped in its own bubble and in its hermetically sealed zone of ignorance arrogance and fantasy—is listening to New Zealanders any more. Whether it involves fundamental departures from our democratic polity such as the introduction of a bill governing future elections without full non-partisan consideration; whether it concerns the politicisation of the Public Service; or in this case whether it concerns the undermining of the economic sovereignty of this country this Government lives in its hermetically sealed bubble and essentially is no longer listening to the signals that are coming to it. This exodus is a signal of paramount importance. 
The Government believes that the good years from 2000 to 2005 were somehow miraculously associated with the election of Labour. That is totally ignoring the facts such as that in the preceding year the growth rate was 4.3 percent. We had fantastic labour productivity growth rates of 3.5 percent from 1997 to 2000 which powered this economy along in the first 5 years after that. Not even the Labour Government was capable of eating into that growth dividend. But eventually with the cumulative impact of soft-core populist policies and of failing to put in place wealth creation policies yes the chickens are coming home to roost. 
Our growth rate has tanked to 2 percent while Australia’s growth rate is running at over 4 percent. It is 5 percent if we take out the negative effects of the Australian drought. Australia’s growth rate has accelerated above 3 percent. What is the consequence? The consequence is that New Zealanders are voting with their feet in record numbers. 
Rather than focus on the overall figure I want to focus on the exodus of Maori from New Zealand. I want to focus on the disturbing but quite interesting exodus of Maori from New Zealand. If we go back and look at reports from the Australian Bureau of Statistics we will find that a mere 20 years ago in 1986 the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that there were 27000 Australian residents of Maori ethnic origin. If we fast-forward 20 years—a mere blip in the history of any people—we find that there are nearly 100000 Australian residents of Maori ethnic origin or around 15 percent of the Maori population. Worse than that the trend is accelerating. So even if we took the absurdly optimistic assumption that the number if present trends continue might only double such that one-third of the Maori population of this country in 20 years hence will be living in Australia that is the figure we start from. 
There is another way of looking at it. Of the absolute increase in the Kiwi-born population in Australia counting all those who are Kiwi-born an astonishing 60 percent of the increase since 2000 are Maori. Why are they leaving New Zealand? They are leaving—and their exodus is accelerating—because this economy has slowed down. This Government has given up on the policies of wealth creation and gone down the tired route of the politics of redistribution. 
This then leads to an interesting but disturbing thought. If we go back to consider the origins of the great migration of the indigenous people of this country the tangata whenua we know originally from Austronesian language links but now from DNA that it started in what we call modern-day Taiwan. Although we obviously cannot go back and interview those people we can make the assumption that they began their great migration in the search for a better life. They did not set off 2000 years ago saying “Let’s go to Aotearoa.” They set off on a great island-hopping expedition that went through the Indonesian Malay archipelago over 2000 years and the largest single number of them arrived in what we today call Aotearoa. 
But has it ever occurred to people that perhaps this migration has not stopped and that Aotearoa might not be the final landing place for Maori? The search for a better life is clearly continuing. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I think that speech is indicative of where the National Party is at today when an ex-trade official gets up and raves on about the fact that people are leaving New Zealand but does not talk about industry or about wealth creation or even mention Fonterra. One would have thought that the National Party would be most concerned about the potential loss to the country of this New Zealand - owned company. I know that many of the decent people in the National Party— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am aware that the general debate is a robust debate. Mr Woolerton had started his speech he was proceeding down the track and the bellows over there started blowing constantly especially Mr Brownlee. We know there will be interjections we know this is a robust debate but a constant flow of interjections and bellowing from that member is just not on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Both sides of the House are guilty. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: The fact is that when I was in the National Party many years ago this concern would have been the No. 1 concern for the National Party. Those were the days when the honourable people in the National Party used to care about the farmers in New Zealand. They used to care about productive enterprises and they used to speak proudly of them. They used to speak proudly of wealth creation; they used to speak proudly of the farmers who made companies such as Fonterra. We in New Zealand First carry on that proud tradition of course and now it is left to us to speak up on situations like this. 
We are really concerned that if this company Fonterra as is proposed is chopped off as a cooperative shifted over in its entirety to another enterprise called Fonterra Ltd then sold down— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes flying cows. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: It does not surprise me if Mr Gerry Brownlee makes jokes about this. He would not understand it; he understands only the things he says that he despises which are populist politics and a consumer society—and man does he know how to consume. But he does not know about wealth creation he does not know about farmers and worst of all he does not know about the roots of the National Party. He does not know about the people who made the National Party because they were the same people who made Fonterra what it is today. They were prudent New Zealanders—New Zealanders who by the sweat of their brow and by retained earnings believed that rather than enrich themselves they would enrich a company for the benefit of New Zealand. And Mr Gerry Brownlee mocks those people by making a joke of the situation and he mocks the National Party the roots of which he knows little. It saddens me that what used to be a party that had men of honour within it now no longer is in that situation. 
This company that is going to be formed from Fonterra will be sold down. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will it be Fonterra? New Zealand First supports that. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: And that is how little those members know! They say it will still be Fonterra. They do not care. This company will take a vote and the farmers will decide but we have a legitimate role in that debate because this decision will require Government legislation. So New Zealand First and other parties in this House have a legitimate role in this debate; we will stand up to the plate and we will exercise that role. 
If this company is listed its control will go overseas first followed by its ownership. That is what has happened in every other situation of this sort. All of the work from previous generations will be lost to this country. This company produces in excess of 20 percent of New Zealand’s exports yet people in this House treat it in such a cavalier manner that they make jokes when we talk about the serious situation. This company needs to be kept in New Zealand ownership. It should not be listed and we should cherish it and look after it. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not interrupt the member’s speech because it was not appropriate to do so. But he made a number of very offensive remarks in that speech and I have taken offence at the suggestion that I was laughing at farmers. I was laughing at the fact that he was railing on behalf of farmers when New Zealand First of course is supporting the legislation that will break them up. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Yes that is a debatable issue. But while I am on my feet I urge all honourable members to play the ball and not the member. If they remember that we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 This is a day of anniversaries of course and my colleague mentioned that it was on this day a year ago—and we will wait for the applause every time it comes—when John Key became leader of the National Party. It is also a very prophetic anniversary because on this day a year ago Gerry Brownlee got dumped. We know that. And it is the anniversary almost to the day 8 years ago of when the Labour Government inherited an economic graveyard from the National Government—small businesses on their knees and 8 percent unemployment compared with 3.5 percent today. It was 8 years ago when the Labour Government inherited industrial archaeology from the National Government and it was a year ago when John Key started to be slashed open by his own words. What do we now know about John Key? Let us see whether the National backbench applaud on this one. We now know that John Key supports the sale of State-owned enterprises. Where is the applause? Are they supporting this? Oh no—there is silence from the backbench. Why do we know John Key supports the sale of State-owned enterprises? Well I was given the privilege of being Acting Minister of Finance for a couple of days and we slashed open Bill English when he admitted that he was in favour of selling State-owned enterprises—now National Party policy of course—and of giving away a controlling interest. Do National backbench members now applaud that? Oh no of course they do not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Stop telling lies. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: And the bellows blow in the front row over there from Gerry Brownlee. We know a year on that John Key supports cutting the pension. We know why. Again it is because Bill English when I had a crack at him opened up and said that the pension was too generous for our elderly folks. Do the National backbench members—the sort of battery hens at the back—applaud that one? No they do not of course because they know a year on from their great leader’s pontifications that they cannot go back to the sticks to their constituencies and tell the punters that Bill English and John Key support the selling of State-owned enterprises the cutting of the pension and—the other playing out of the course—the funding of independent private schools. They know that back in the real world in communities no one supports that. So they stood up and the bellows blew and they applauded a year on yet they remain amazingly silent do they not when it comes to actually analysing the lack of policies articulated by John Key and Bill English. 
Bill English you know was so grateful when he was rolled by John Key because then somebody else had to be responsible and inherit the mess that was—and still is—the National Party. The contradictions remain of course. Mr Brownlee notes that no one applauds those policies articulated by John Key and Bill English—no one applauds. National members think of course that they can sleepwalk through “me too” the Government on anything that is popular and slide through under the cover of darkness on the eve of an election and no one will stop and analyse their policies. 
Lockwood Smith ironically got up today and said that he supported families. Those members over there say that they support families and a year on John Key says that he supports families. But they are so supportive of families that they are against supporting families through the Working for Families tax credits. We have 350000 Kiwi families mums and dads some of whom are constituents of National members who get $110 a week on average of their money back. National members are so supportive of families but they do not support them in practice. That is the legacy a year on from the foreign-exchange trader who made a lot of money and a lot of friends trading down the New Zealand dollar on the junk-bond market. That is a fact. It is a legitimate occupation I am told in the financial transaction world and no one over there including the great blunderbuss in the front row disputes that. I was talking about Mr Henare not Mr Brownlee. That is the situation a year on. That is the legacy of John Key 
Colin James has summed it up. We are now moving into an election year and the rubber is hitting the road. Now we will see whether the great man has any substance. “The war is over in Iraq.” “We are for super.” and “We are against super.”—the contradictions are everywhere. But no one on the National backbench is applauding the policies that John Key articulates. They know that in the real world in communities it ain’t a starter. Those policies have been rejected. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a long-held Standing Order that the word “lies” is unparliamentary. Mr Brownlee used that word several times during Mr Cosgrove’s speech. I did not interrupt his speech but I take offence and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Under Speaker’s ruling 41/3 calling a member a liar is “an offence against the dignity of the House and the assumption that its members behave truthfully and honourably.” If the member was engaged in that then I ask him to stand and withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Assistant Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I asked the member to withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well I won’t because you’ve got it wrong. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member taking a point of order to clarify the situation? 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was saying “More lies.” What is wrong with that? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Mr Brownlee had about three different phrases he was using but all of them contained the word that Mrs Pettis reported to you Mr Assistant Speaker. He was using it deliberately in the hope of breaking up Mr Cosgrove’s very fine speech. We did not do that; we waited until the end of the speech before we drew it to your attention. It is just unnecessary stuff and it is against the rules. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It depends on whether the member was actually accusing the member of lying. If that is the case then that is out of order. The member knows that as he is a longstanding member. If it were a throwaway line then in that particular respect it is another matter. So I am relying on the member’s integrity. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I will take your advice. I said: “Stop telling lies.” “More Labour lies.” and “Don’t tell lies.” Have I breached the rules? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If the member was implying that the member was lying— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes I was. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well the member as a longstanding member knows that that is not permissible. I ask him to withdraw. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. I call the member Lindsay Tisch. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’s the long the short and the tall! 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Well that comment is better than being called “Stubby” which is what the member called me last night in this House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just ask members to rein in themselves. They should relax and breathe through their noses. Too many personal reflections are occurring in this general debate. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I want to place on record that it has been a great year for John Key. It has been a superb year for the National Party and for this team and I place on notice that that member over there will be gone on whatever day the election occurs. He will be gone and that member over there Jill Pettis will have disappeared anyway. Those members will be gone. 
I want to bring to the House’s attention the very serious nature of what is happening in the business environment. This Government prides itself on having done so much for business but all the surveys that have come out show that the compliance cost regimes for business are actually getting extremely difficult and challenging for businesses to abide by. In the last 12 months the average New Zealand company spent 13½ weeks—13½ weeks out of 52 weeks—having to deal with compliance. If we look at the average working week of 40 hours and multiply it by 52 the number of weeks in a year then we see that 2080 hours in the year are available in the workplace. If we take 13½ weeks of that that is 540 hours. A quarter of a year’s productivity is actually wasted on compliance. 
You see we do not have any productivity in New Zealand because we are having to deal with all the compliance issues that have been mounting under this Labour Government over the last 7 years. The cost for small business—that is a business employing fewer than 10 people—is $2400 per employee. For a business that employs 50-plus people it is $780 per year. So I ask Labour members to tell us what happened to their policy to regulate only when necessary and ensure that regulations were fair and effective. If we look at the Quality Regulation Review which was 15 months in the making—15 months—we see that it achieved absolutely nothing. Yet the Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel said: “Nothing of this magnitude has been attempted before but this is a government that has an appetite for working with business to address its concerns.” What a laugh that is. Those are bold statements but it did not happen. 
What happened to KiwiSaver for example? It was only in the Budget that we heard that employers would have to make a compulsory contribution. Where is the consultation in that process? 
John Carter 
: There was none. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: There was absolutely none. So here we have a statement in which the Minister said that the Government has an appetite for working with business to address its concerns and out of left field comes the KiwiSaver scheme. What about the Electoral Finance Bill? That was meant to have cross-party consultation. There has been absolutely none. There has been no consultation at all. Then those members opposite say they are listening to the concerns that are so important to this Government. 
What did the South Island business leaders have to say? They said that the New Zealand regulatory environment is a chief source of frustration and is the biggest impediment to future profitability. The Business New Zealand - KPMG compliance cost survey echoed those same sentiments. It talked about tax about KiwiSaver about the heavy toll on employment in the Holidays Act and about the negative trends that are happening within business. 
Why are so many of our talented and enterprising New Zealanders deciding that the pastures are greener in Australia? They are better off in Australia. Their prospects are better. They are better off whether they are employed or in business. As we have heard this afternoon many of our talented folk are deciding to go to Australia. If in Australia they are better off by at least $5000 a family we cannot blame them doing that. No doubt there are members in this House who have family members overseas. I have two children who are overseas at the moment. They are living in the UK. 
Because of compliance costs we are not getting the productivity we were expecting to see from a growing economy. I have run out some figures here about the indirect taxes that have been imposed on business. There are four pages of these indirect taxes. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Shameful! 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: It is absolutely shameful. They are taxes that business has no control over. I will list a couple of them. One is road-user charges. Road-user charges came out of left field. The New Zealand Road Transport Association did not even know what was going on. There was no consultation. Here it is—road-user charges: increase in petrol excise duties. I will not go through them all but in the last 3 years they have gone up every year. Accident Compensation Corporation levies are listed here. They are continuing to rise. We have the export education levy—$185 charged to institutions per foreign fee-paying student. This is the sort of nonsense with indirect taxes that is going on with this Government. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to say that I do think it was a shame that about a year ago that member Lindsay Tisch was demoted. I think it was an unfair demotion because I have always thought him to be a good debater. Maybe Mr Tisch will tell us whether the National Party will get rid of all those things he has just complained about—KiwiSaver road-user charges excise tax. There is silence from Mr Tisch. You see it is easy to stand up in the House and pick out problems; it is a lot harder—as the National Party has found out from election to election—to actually say what one might do in any given situation. I think that his silence speaks volumes. I say to Mr Tisch that if he wants any credibility he needs to stand up in this House and tell the people of New Zealand what National tells its private financial backers behind closed doors what it will do after the next election if National becomes the Government—what policies it has agreed to in return for the anonymous donations that the National Party has always enjoyed and that it is fighting to hold on to. 
A year on nothing much has really changed in the National Party. We had the brave new hope of the brave new leader John Key and it has become clear that 1 year on the National Party is no better equipped to deal with 21st century problems. This Labour Government has faced up to all the major issues many of them created by that lot over there who although they cut taxes also slashed benefits slashed infrastructure spending closed hospitals and charged people to stay in hospitals. They cut the pension not just once or even twice. They cut the pension cut benefits closed hospitals and charged people to stay in hospitals—those that stayed open. They did not spend any money on infrastructure but this Labour-led Government with our support parties has been working since it came into office in 1999—with a mandate by the way—for an increased top tax rate in order to be able to address a lot of the deficits that were introduced by the National Party. 
The National Party has not changed. We often get criticised in this House by the National Party for talking about the 1990s. Of course the reason we do that is that its policies are exactly the same as they were in the 1990s. The failed policies of the 1990s gave us two recessions in the provinces which just about killed provincial New Zealand put cash registers on hospital doors and slashed benefits. Now National members have the gall to stand up and talk about the children of the 1990 “mother of all Budgets” benefit cuts. Those kids were suddenly forced into poverty by a National Government and the National members now have the gall to stand up and say that those kids are getting into trouble. Well surprise surprise! The Labour Opposition at the time told them that that would happen and they went ahead and did it anyway—and they will do it again. 
New Zealanders should take heed because as we know it is pretty hard to get assets back once they have been sold. No one believes that National would only partially sell assets. The National members do not partially sell assets. They will sell 40 percent then 45 percent then they will claim that the pressure of the market has made them sell all of it and they will say it will be good for New Zealand and bring efficiencies. Well privatisation certainly did not bring any efficiencies into our electricity sector. The promised cuts in costs the promised efficiencies and the promised better services—promised by Mr Bradford and the National Party—never came. They have all gone quiet now because they know that is true. 
Jacqui Dean 
: You’ve been in Government 8 years. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Jacqui Dean should just be quiet and drink her dihydrogen monoxide. She should know more than anyone else that we used to have an electricity sector that was responsive to the needs of New Zealanders. We used to have an electricity sector that New Zealanders could afford until National smashed it into little bits because of its ideological obsession with privatisation. We know National would do that again. 
We also know that Mr Bill English has said that current superannuation is too generous. We know that Don Brash before him said that anyone under 50 should not rely on being able to get New Zealand superannuation. Well I say to the people of New Zealand that there is a way that they can rely on getting New Zealand superannuation and that is to vote for the Labour Party. Labour is committed to the provision of New Zealand superannuation—absolutely committed. That is why when we came into Government in 1999 the first thing we did was to reverse the cuts that the National Government made. 
New Zealanders should not be fooled by the smiling face of John Key into believing they would not do it again. Earlier this year there was a moment of truth in this country. There was a moment of truth when John Key’s smiling mask slipped and the cold face of the market behind it was shown to all New Zealanders. He said we do not need to have caps on general practitioners’ fees because if people do not want to pay that much they could just go down the road to another doctor. Well they might be able to do that if they have millions of dollars and live in an area that has a lot of general practitioners. But many people know that that is not the reality for ordinary New Zealanders. New Zealanders should be very worried about having a Prime Minister who thinks that that is a reality for everyday New Zealanders. It is not. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is normal for a person who takes the call to acknowledge the previous speaker but I have to say that the only compliment I can make on that speech is to ignore it. Quite honestly it was just a load of drivel. 
This debate was started by Pete Hodgson. He complimented John Key on becoming the leader of the National Party 12 months ago. He was followed by Chris Carter who said Mr Key was the Prime Minister! Well if Chris Carter hangs around for another 12 months he will be absolutely right—not that he is likely to stay in this House but he certainly will be able to go around and say that John Key is the Prime Minister of this country. 
I want us to reflect on what has happened in the last 9 years and before. This country was a proud country. We were proud in many ways of our successes in many areas. One of the areas we were extremely proud of and successful in was sport. We were proud of our sports achievements. But I want to draw the attention of the House to what has happened this year. What happened to the America’s Cup? Fail. What happened to the rugby? Fail. What happened to the netball? Fail. What happened to the cricket? Fail. We did get one achievement. I understand that we got a record or something for texting. The point is that the only person in this country who will be happy— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Whose fault was it? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well the only people who will be happy about the fact we have dumbed down this country so much that instead of achieving we all have to be equal will be Helen Clark and the Labour members. We have finally reached the point where she wanted us to be—dumbed down so that the Government is in control. That is reflected no more so than in the sporting arena. 
Earlier we heard Lockwood Smith Tim Groser and Lindsay Tisch talk about some of the things that have happened in this country such as dumbing down and people leaving for Australia. I want to give this House one statistic today. I know that Doug Woolerton will be interested in this. In Northland this year—and this is not from me; the leaders of the Government departments will tell us this statistic—57 percent of young Maori males will leave school without being able to read and write properly. This Government says that that is OK. Actually it is not OK. The impact on a place like Northland and on New Zealand is absolutely horrendous. Those kids have no option but to turn to crime and drugs. They will be part of the drug scene up there and this Government thinks that is OK. That is not acceptable and it is one of the reasons why so many people are leaving this country. 
On top of the Government dumbing down this country it is now so unsure as to what will happen it has brought in a thing called the Electoral Finance Bill which directs people on how to vote. Let me just read out an email I got today because I think it reflects the issue around what will happen with the Electoral Finance Bill. The email is from someone running a campaign called NoMoreRates.com. Most members will have heard about it. The leader of the NoMoreRates.com campaign is concerned about the fact that this country has been over-rated and there is a rates revolt. The Government’s response was that it will have a rates inquiry and it did. It came out with a whole lot of recommendations some good some not so good some useful and some that will not be implemented. The issue is that the Government has now said it will respond sometime next year probably during the Budget. 
The impact then of the Electoral Finance Bill will be that the NoMoreRates.com group will not be able to comment if they do not like what the Government implements. They will not be able to go out and say: “We don’t think that what the Government is doing with regard to rates on this particular issue is satisfactory.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: They’d be electioneering. 
JOHN CARTER 
: They would be electioneering. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: They’ll be electioneering. They’ll be shut down. 
JOHN CARTER 
: They will be shut down; they will not be able to comment. The only thing they could do of course is register but why should they have to register when they are talking about something to do with local government? This fellow over here Doug Woolerton wants to gag those people and he has joined with the Labour socialists so that they cannot say anything. 
I wonder about the Sensible Sentencing Trust. What does Doug Woolerton think about their not being able to make any comment next year? They are a group of genuine people who are worried about the crime level in this country and the issues around crime. What does Doug Woolerton do? What do the Labour socialists and New Zealand First do? They want to shut them down. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 I follow my fellow Northlander and I say that that young Maori boy up in Kaikohe Kawakawa Whangaruru or somewhere up there boy he could teach that member a thing about how to deliver a decent speech. First he would tell him “I am the progeny of the ‘mother of all Budgets’.” Ruth Richardson slashed the guts out of our safety net drove all sorts of costs down to the most vulnerable families in New Zealand and selectively chose our young Maori families and it is no wonder we have children today who are cut adrift. The member should not bring to the House stories that it is the fault of the mothers and the fathers. Those mothers and fathers were treated like offal. They were thrown aside in the early 1990s but the Prime Minister had a vast strategy of investment to integrate those families back into society. So it is rich it is shocking that we should hear speakers from the other side of the House quoting stories about our young Maori men. They also want to celebrate and skite that our young Maori people are going to Australia. 
They forget that Maoris have gone backwards and forwards to Australia since time began. Rather than being an indictment on policy and quality of life here Maori go over there and enjoy the sunshine play a bit of rugby and do a bit of procreation—and so many of them drift back to Aotearoa. So National members should not put a negative dismal destructive spin on it trying to draw in more voters for the votes next year—we look forward to that. 
I want to tell members something. Even in Kaitaia Awanui Kawakawa and Moerewa the sleepy voters have woken up. They could occasionally have been woken up to meet Hone Harawira but unfortunately he is either in Asia or Australia. He does not know his own voters. He is “Ngati Walkabout”. He has excelled. He has gone beyond the foreign affairs brief and is now talking to—I am not entirely sure—people under the pay of the Middle East about race relations in New Zealand. I tell Mr Harawira that he should go back to Moerewa to meet his voters as they do not know who he is. 
However I come back to the point that many New Zealanders have woken up to. It relates to the fact that National Party members have bitched and moaned and sought to create enough latitude within our electoral finance regulations so they can go ahead and suck in money from the Macquarie Bank and the other people— 
Craig Foss 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask whether that was an unparliamentary term that was just used by the member. I took offence at the word he used in the House and I would like your ruling on that please. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I did not take offence at it. 
Craig Foss 
: Do you know which word I am talking about? It was prior to the word “moaned”. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that I can imagine that the reference to a female type of dog may have caused the member from the Hawke’s Bay to suffer a rush of angst. I apologise and I withdraw that remark. 
Let me continue as to why members from the other side of the House want donations; they want donations. My friend Hone Harawira got into trouble with koha. These National members are getting into trouble with donations. They want to keep the donations very secretive. They want a surreptitious cloak put over them so they can suck the money in and then not be held accountable for the forces and influences that are driving them towards their failed policies. 
Of course we know what the first policy of a National Government would be. The first policy would be to prepare key assets for sale. The people who are unfortunately befuddling the farmers associated with the Fonterra issue are the same people who would drive the lesser souls occupying that side of the House to sell energy companies and bring in more privatisation to health. Fortunately as a consequence of the transparency threshold which will come into being when we pass the Electoral Finance Bill they will not be able to get away with it. 
Kiwis do not like that type of secretive funding for secret deals to sell our family silver. Kiwis do not like the fact that Auckland airport has been on the block off the block on the block then off the block. Kiwis also do not like the shadowy influence of people from half-baked religions wandering around in the dead of night furtively putting up posters and ripping down the very fine Labour Party photos of the candidate from the far north. It is unfortunate that the whanau did not find them at the right time. 
The reality of why these people want to be anonymous is that their financiers are actually embarrassed by them. They will see in a very short period of time after the next failure at the election all these pakeke—all these tired worn-out mean quibbling faces who occupy the front bench—disappear. The financiers are embarrassed about these people. Our friends from that party on that side of the House are uncomfortable to own up as to who they are in bed with. Actually they are beyond tired. They are beyond jaded. They are approaching a rather decrepit state in life and only the fall of life’s evensong will bring them to a suitable end. 
However the final thing I will remind us about is hidden identities. National members are trying to drive elections. They are trying to drive policies that will result in not only a worse tax burden for poor New Zealanders a worse cost burden for the most vulnerable New Zealanders but also assets flicked off to people who will look for a pay back; they will look for a pay back. We will have not only the hollow men again but the whole debacle as to why assets were stripped out of Television New Zealand and sold to mates. We can see it written on the faces of the National members. Some of them are uncomfortable about that. Some of them do not want to go into the draughty halls and face up to the fact they are trying to run a crooked election. Kia ora tatou. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Some of our children will at this moment be walking or cycling out on to our streets to face the daily hazards of dangerous dogs creepy strangers and out-of-control bikes not to mention rain and wind in some cases for just $2.50 an hour or less. At the beginning of 2004 Caritas the Catholic agency for justice peace and development published a hard-hitting survey of nearly 5000 children. The survey revealed that some as young as 11 were being forced to work to support their families sometimes for incredibly low wages and at times in dangerous or downright illegal working conditions. 
Earlier this week Caritas issued a second report called  
Delivering the Goods 
. I hope other members of this House will have had a chance to read the report and if not I encourage them to do so. It contains detailed findings from an in-depth survey of child delivery workers in 2006 a group of workers who in some ways symbolise the ambivalent attitudes we adults have to the situation of child workers in Aotearoa today. This latest study shows that although many children delivering circulars and newspapers have good experiences on the job many others are not faring quite so well. Many of these surveyed children with an average age of 12½ were independent contractors meaning that for them there are no holidays there is no holiday pay and there is no sick pay or other employment rights. Instead their welcome to the world of employment includes the task of filling out an IR3 each year. Most of their pay rates fell somewhere between $1.67 and $6.25 an hour. Then because these children are contractors they can pay their expenses out of that $1.67—or whatever they are getting—for their bike maintenance their carrying gear their wet-weather gear and their high-visibility vests if they have them. 
The survey shows that children who are in direct employment relationships rather than working as contractors do a lot better in terms of pay support clothing bike allowances and health and safety overall. But for those children who are self-employed contractors most if not all of these protections are missing. 
It is time we as a country stopped seeing some forms of work as child’s work and thus below the radar in terms of employment rights. This not only devalues the work that children do but also may be helping to keep adult wages down possibly at the expense of other children whom those adults are supporting. The increasing reality is that in some families children’s wages are actually propping up and supporting families’ incomes because our minimum wages are still far too low. Then again the child who told Caritas he was earning $15 a week for delivering 88 papers a day probably is not able to contribute much to his family’s grocery or clothing bill. Another child had it written in his or her contract: “You will be paid approximately monthly.” Approximately? Is this child required to deliver to “approximately” the right addresses? 
One-third of the children in the survey felt that their delivery work interfered to some degree with their school work. More than one-third expressed definite interest in joining a union for delivery workers but of course this is hard when many of these children are contractors so have no access to a collective employment agreement. It is estimated that 31 percent of children aged 10 to 14—or 95000—are employed or on contracts. 
In 2003 the United Nations specifically recommended to New Zealand that it expedite the ongoing process of reviewing and strengthening legislation protecting all under-18-year-olds who are employed. Both the Ministry of Youth Development and the Department of Labour have acknowledged the ongoing issues about child labour and in particular the repeated calls from the United Nations for our country to sign up to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Labour Organization core labour standards. Despite all this it has now been 10 years since the UN first recommended that New Zealand pass legislation to protect children in employment. Since then the Government has not introduced or passed any amendments to address this problem. 
Child workers need and deserve fair employment rights. Working children deserve at a bare minimum at least the same employment rights as adults. Otherwise we are effectively saying that children deserve less protection than adults. We need to work with our children collaboratively involving them in our consultation processes to develop a framework that guarantees them these protections. Children who work should be entitled to a guaranteed minimum wage guaranteed minimum conditions requirements for direct employment relationships job security better health and safety coverage and an opportunity to belong to a union. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to conclude the general debate today. Each Wednesday the House dedicates an hour for 12 members to raise matters that are of concern to them. They can choose any topic they like. Today National members have talked about a range of issues—Mr Tim Groser spoke on immigration and Lindsay Tisch spoke on the cost of compliance. Those are the issues concerning them. The matter that is of concern to me and that I wish to focus the bulk of my remarks today on is democracy. Democracy is New Zealand’s heritage. We were the first country in the world to give universal franchise to it. We are the sixth oldest democracy in the world. We were the first country in the world to give women the vote. It is not enshrined in law in terms of a constitution so the custodians of democracy are the elected members of Parliament. That is our responsibility: to be the custodians of democracy. 
Today around New Zealand grave concerns are being uttered by a range of groups—including the Human Rights Commission and the Law Society—and in editorials on marches and on talkback programmes. This matter has absolutely consumed talkback programmes. The issue before those groups that threatens the fabric of democracy which we are custodians of is the Electoral Finance Bill. The bill is of grave concern. We have heard over the course of the debate on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill which passed its third reading this week that when the Government does something it is driven only by the motive of doing good and that there is no connection to Labour. 
I wish to relate to members an incident that I witnessed that gave me matter for grave concern and certainly dispels the purity of the utterances that Labour members have made. I came to Parliament in 1993 when Jim Bolger was the Prime Minister. As leader of our caucus he had one solid rule: if any member of Parliament or Cabinet Minister in the ruling Government of the time had a responsibility to hand out some money they were not to do it; it had to be done by an official. There had to be absolute separation so that the issue of pork-barrel politics was simply not an issue. Last year Invercargill celebrated the opening of a covered velodrome. It is one of only three in the South Island. It is a modest achievement for Invercargill which is a leader in a number of things. The Prime Minister was present with the Minister of Internal Affairs at the opening of that event. The first thing I want to note is that the organisers of the opening event were given very clear and explicit instructions that no National members of Parliament were to be acknowledged from the podium that they were not to be present in the official party and that the only people to be on stage were the Prime Minister— 
Jill Pettis 
: Rubbish! 
ERIC ROY 
: It is not rubbish. I was there; Jill Pettis was not. It is not rubbish. The only people of a political nature who were allowed to be in the official party were the Prime Minister the Minister of Internal Affairs and the named candidate for Invercargill who lost the safe seat of Invercargill for Labour. He was extolled on the stage as the candidate. That all goes along very nicely. During the occasion the Minister of Internal Affairs got to hand out a cheque for $1 million. This is pork-barrel politics of the very worst kind. It was quite clearly sold to those 2000 people present that it was the Labour Party doing this and that it was the Labour Party’s money. That was the implication. How was this received by the good people of Invercargill? Let me give members just a little illustration. You see it was the Prime Minister’s job to open the velodrome by cutting a ribbon. As she walked with pomp and ceremony towards the ribbon and on to the cycle track some wit in the crowd called out “On your bike Helen!”. I have to say that there was some applause for that statement. 
The claims that Labour members have made through the debate on the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill that there is no connection to Labour and nothing the Government does is actually attached to Labour is absolute nonsense. Labour has had a categorical and systematic function of doing it. I say “On your bike Labour!”. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Labour—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I move  
That the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my pleasure as MP for Auckland Central to move this bill at the request of the Auckland City Council. The Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill is a local bill that seeks to amend the Auckland Domain Act 1987. The Auckland Domain Act relates to the control management and use of the Auckland Domain. Under the Act Auckland City is able to lease certain parts of the Auckland Domain. The purpose of the bill before us is to amend that Act as it relates to the power of Auckland City to lease an area of the Auckland Domain to the Auckland Lawn Tennis Association Inc. 
In particular the bill seeks to update the reference to that body from Auckland Lawn Tennis Association Inc. to Auckland Tennis Inc.—as it is now known. It will also extend the term of lease that the Auckland City Council can grant Auckland Tennis from 21 years to 50 years. The bill will allow Auckland Tennis with the consent of the Auckland City Council to sublease that land and it will amend the legal description of the land that may be leased to Auckland Tennis to reflect the land it currently occupies. 
I would like to bring to the House’s attention the fact that as we go through each amendment to the Auckland Domain Act that we have seen in the last 10 or 15 years we have had to amend the boundaries each time because they are inaccurately described. So I recommend that the Local Government and Environment Committee look very carefully at that matter. As required by the Standing Orders at the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Auckland Tennis is proposing to redevelop the facility it currently leases from the Auckland City Council. In order to proceed with that development Auckland Tennis requires the certainty provided by a lease term of 50 years rather than the current 21 years. Auckland Tennis also needs the ability to sublease the land to the proposed redeveloper as any sublease must be with the consent of and on terms acceptable to the Auckland City Council. 
After soccer and Formula One motor racing tennis has the third-highest annual spectator count of any sport worldwide. Of those three major global sports tennis is the only one that New Zealand hosts every year at the elite level. It is also one of the most popular sports amongst New Zealanders with over half a million New Zealanders actively playing tennis in the last year. Tennis NZ has coaching facilities as the headquarters of tennis across the Auckland region but the standout event is that every year in the first 2 weeks of January it hosts the ASB Classic WTA Tour women’s tournament and the ATP Heineken Open men’s tournament. These two major events are hosted at the ASB Tennis Centre in the Auckland Domain run by Auckland Tennis. To remain in this lucrative and important worldwide tennis circuit and retain these two events both these tournaments must meet circuit standards which are assessed and reported on each year. These standards include player facilities media facilities and spectator facilities. The facilities of a stadium that hosts tournaments are therefore extremely important. 
The only stadium that can host these tournaments in New Zealand is the present ASB Tennis Centre and the last major upgrade of the stadium took place 20 years ago when Auckland Tennis through its voluntary organisations and committee raised over $2.5 million. Although incremental improvements are made each year it is now important to significantly upgrade the stadium to maintain the international competitiveness of the tournaments. Auckland Tennis is not in a position to be able to fund the multimillion-dollar upgrade that will be required and therefore looked to find an investor that would make the project possible. It has found such an investor who will fund the upgrade in return for being able to operate part of the facility outside the international event dates. 
The reason for the proposed amendments to the current site lease terms for Auckland Tennis is to enable the stadium upgrade to proceed and thus to protect the hosting by New Zealand of two of the few remaining world sporting events that take place annually in New Zealand. No taxpayer or ratepayer money has gone into the capital development of the stadium which has been entirely developed through the efforts of Auckland Tennis and its many volunteers and users. Auckland Tennis will use the income it receives from the investor to upgrade the facilities currently enjoyed most of the year by the Auckland region and the Auckland public as well as by people from the rest of New Zealand. 
Auckland City Council has consulted all interested people on this bill which include other lessees of the Auckland Domain and the area tangata whenua Transit New Zealand in relation to roading the relevant Government departments and many other groups with an interest in matters relating to the Auckland Domain. I also note that Auckland City is facing an enormous increase in its resident population in the central business district and the proposal by Auckland Tennis will provide much better active and passive sporting facilities and open space for those people. The Auckland Domain is of course an absolute jewel in Auckland’s recreational crown. 
Under the bill there will be no automatic right for Auckland Tennis to be granted a lease and the granting of such a lease will be subject to the Auckland City Council’s leasing policy and any conditions that it will put on any lease. In addition the terms and conditions of any sublease by Auckland Tennis to the proposed developer will also be subject to the approval of the Auckland City Council and in both cases the council will undertake full consultation—as it has told me—before making any decision on any proposed lease or indeed sublease. 
This bill will establish a framework for significant investment in Auckland and in New Zealand’s sporting infrastructure because it is necessary to ensure that we can continue to host major tennis matches in Auckland and in New Zealand. It is I believe a major addition to the sporting infrastructure of New Zealand and of Auckland. It gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House. I thank all of those who have been consulted and I give the assurance that this bill will be sent to the Local Government and Environment Committee for positive consideration. Thank you. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. National will support this bill going to a select committee. I think it is one of the bills that make those of us who are in the House think about the challenges that face our country. This is very much a microcosm of the fact that we have 4.5 million people with one major city of 1.4 million people and we have to work extremely hard to maintain ourselves on the international circuit. 
As the Minister properly indicated tennis is a global sport. There is huge competition to host the premier tournaments that Auckland has been proud and pleased to host for the last 50 years the women’s and the men’s tennis tournaments both held in January. I know full well that in relation to those tours cities in Asia Eastern Europe and elsewhere are competing vigorously to hold the tournaments. There are all sorts of promises of and blandishments regarding magnificent facilities that could be built for those tournaments. Naturally enough the global advertisers—and tennis is very much a prestige sport; one only has to look at the brands associated with the advertising to see that it is very much at the forefront of global advertising—are looking for the best possible venues. 
So Auckland Tennis and indeed the Auckland City Council have been faced with a real challenge. The facilities were improved some 20 years ago but to be honest—and this is well recognised by Auckland Tennis—we have to work exceptionally hard as a nation to offer first-class facilities in order to attract these global competitions. That is why the bill that creates the leases has to be introduced: to enable a more flexible approach to the leases so that a more appropriate level of investment can made. 
You know it is interesting that we see across the House today the Hon Trevor Mallard. What does one say about him? Is he the failed Minister for Sport and Recreation? Was that why that portfolio was yanked off him? Why are we not getting the promise and commitment of a cheque from the Government to rebuild Eden Park? Time is pressing. That is the reality. That competition is only 2½ years away. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member opposed the stadium being built there! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I have to say that the interjections from the Minister are completely erroneous. National totally supports the redevelopment of Eden Park and we are particularly concerned that the Government has dropped the ball on that huge important issue. Let us just imagine the consequences for this country—for our international reputation—if we do not step up to the mark in 2011 for the Rugby World Cup. We do not have a lot of time. This is a call that will occur on the Government’s watch—on Labour’s watch in 2008. It has to step up and Aucklanders and New Zealanders are waiting waiting waiting for the decisions to be made. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Eden Park building will be starting somewhere in 2009. Get your head around it! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: You know I am really concerned and I guess the interjections from the former Minister of Sport and Recreation—the failed Minister—actually tell us what could happen. If the Government does not act sufficiently quickly there is a genuine and real risk that the final of the Rugby World Cup in 2011 will be played in Sydney and that would be a terrible travesty for this Government and the nation. 
So I say to Government members that they have to act quickly on the issue of the Rugby World Cup. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The relevance of that issue to this bill is that there are relatively few international competitions that New Zealand has a realistic chance of being able to host. Tennis is one of those sports. We are doing it in large part I guess based on our history. We are fortunate that the Auckland tournaments precede the major tournaments in Australia a few weeks later so a lot of players come to New Zealand to prepare for those tournaments. Indeed a whole host of international names have played at Auckland and many many New Zealanders both at courtside and by watching television have certainly enjoyed seeing those players—who let us be honest we struggle to get. They include Björn Borg EvonneGoolagong and Lindsay Davenport amongst many many others. 
So this is a very important bill which we support because the core of the issue is about Auckland retaining its place as a Pacific Rim city—one of the cities that counts when people think of the Asia-Pacific region. If we do not support this bill—if we do not assist Auckland City Council and Auckland Tennis to make the steps they need to make—we are at risk. My concern when I raised the issue of the Rugby World Cup is really the point that I make to the Government. I say the Government should not put New Zealand’s reputation at risk by delaying its decisions. Not a lot of time remains on that issue. I genuinely say to the Government that it should not wait too long. 
This bill is very important. This Government has an obligation—and I would say this Parliament and all those people who have an interest in the future of Auckland have an obligation—to give this bill a full complete and fair hearing. In truth this bill is necessary not just for Auckland tennis—and it is important for Auckland tennis—and for Auckland City but also to maintain New Zealand’s place in the Asia-Pacific region. Auckland is our place. It is measured alongside the Brisbanes the Vancouvers and the San Diegos of the region and we must show that ours is a city that counts. I know that when I talk to many business social and cultural leaders in Auckland they are deeply concerned about our city staying at the forefront of those cities. This Government has an obligation in the 12 months it has left to make the decisions that count not just on this issue but also on other things because ultimately our future as a country depends on us staying in our place. We as parliamentarians have an obligation across the House to do everything we can to support that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I would say to members that there are just six calls on this debate one for each party and one in reply and if the parties are to take their calls then they need to take them at the time. 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been around and talked to some of the minor parties and my understanding from the discussions I have had with them is that they are to be speaking to this reading. I suggest that they should seek the call if that is to happen. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Well I have indicated to members that there are just six speeches and that if the parties are to take their speeches then they need to take them. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry but the reason I did not take the call then was that I thought New Zealand First was going first which is the normal order. I do wish to seek the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I think the member should take her speech because as I said there is one for each party. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You did of course call Mark Gosche and you cannot withdraw the call once you have given it to him. He was the only member calling at the time. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. New Zealand First is quite happy for Mark Gosche to take our spot. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 This Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill deals with the Auckland City Council. As the member of Parliament for Maungakiekie I represent an electorate that is in Auckland City unlike the members opposite who put forward somebody from the North Shore to give a speech. As the Hon Trevor Mallard asked I ask whether the North Shore is contributing at all to this or to any other sporting facility south of the harbour bridge. National does have a member of Parliament in Auckland City and that is the member for Tamaki. I cannot remember his name but he lives on the North Shore as well. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There used to be a really good member for Tamaki called Clem Simich. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yes Clem was a much better member because he lived in the electorate and he knew its people. 
I thought it was important to take the call because I was a little aggrieved at the way in which the Auckland City Council lawyers went about this process. I first heard about the bill on 21 September after it had been drafted and when it had been put out for public consultation. I received a letter because the lawyers had to send me one under the rules of the  
Standing Orders of the House of Representatives 
. Although I support the bill and I think it is a very sensible and necessary bill it demonstrates a bit of a problem that Auckland City has had for many many years which is that it does not realise that it needs to actually consult its communities throughout its city boundaries—and in particular communities in the southern part of the Auckland City boundaries which is the part that I represent. We are still waiting after 35 years for a swimming pool in Otahuhu. We sit and watch sand being brought down from Northland on a barge costing many millions of dollars and being spread across the beautiful beaches along the Tamaki waterfront. 
That is good for Auckland but my plea to the Auckland City Council and to its lawyers in particular is for them to do their job a little better in the future when they are bringing these sorts of bills to Parliament. The council should have the decency to consult widely with its communities. As the member for Maungakiekie which covers a significant part of the Auckland City Council area I would have thought that the council would consult with our community earlier on because this bill is good for the Auckland region not just for the Auckland City Council area. 
This bill upgrades a facility that has served our region and our country for many many years as the prime site for international tennis tournaments namely the men’s and women’s tournaments that are held in the early part of the year. We have good international players coming down to New Zealand. They have an experience here that they do not have anywhere else in the world in that they are billeted. They come back to New Zealand and to Auckland and they play in those tournaments year after year even though we might not expect them to come down because their world rankings go up and they might decide to forgo tournaments like the ones held in Auckland. But they do come because of the hospitality the warmth and the experience of playing in those two tournaments. 
As Dr Wayne Mapp the member for North Shore said our tournaments precede very important tournaments held in Australia so we need the facilities that will continue to meet the demands of the international circuit. That is why this bill is necessary. It means that a developer will be able to come in and spend many millions of dollars upgrading the tennis centre so that it can continue to host those sorts of tournaments. Those tournaments act as a real incentive to New Zealand’s young players coming through because not only can they see some of the best up-and-coming players in the world at those tournaments but also if they are lucky and do well they may qualify to play there. Some may get that chance but they would not if we did not put this bill through upgrade the centre and make it a viable place to host those international tournaments. 
I was utterly surprised at the speeches from National members about the Rugby World Cup Eden Park and all those sorts of things. Those members continue to want to put their foot in their mouth and to make cheap political points about what is an important sporting event for all New Zealanders and particularly for Aucklanders. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s not a cheap political point. We want it to be for Aucklanders. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I think it was the member who is mouthing off over there who had the job of being the Opposition spokesperson on Auckland issues. 
Dave Hereora 
: Eradicator. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Yes he had the job of being the PC eradicator before that and then he got promoted to being the spokesperson for Auckland issues by the current leader of the National Party. All he has done is to show that his view of Auckland is one that is bound by the harbour and the harbour bridge. He sees Auckland as being only the North Shore. It is interesting that National members had to get all that member’s mates around Auckland to twist his arm on the other bill that will deal with regional funding issues before he saw the light. He realised that the reason why National does so badly in Auckland is that it is narrowly focused on its electorates on the North Shore or in the southern parts of Auckland—that is all that those members see. 
I am pleased that those members are supporting this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. They have finally realised that they cannot get away with having that narrow focus any more. They cannot play those stupid parochial little games when they are trying to pretend that they would be a future Government. You see one has to have a bit of vision. That is what the tennis people have. They see a need to upgrade the facilities and they have found a developer who is prepared to put in the money so that the poor old Auckland City ratepayers do not have to. Auckland ratepayers pay for most of the regional activities in the Auckland region out of their rates whilst others take advantage of them and then have the cheek to complain—like those members opposite from the North Shore do—about what is going on in Auckland City. At least now we can see that the National Party through its support for this bill has realised that there is no electoral future in behaving like that. Those members only behave like that when they think there is an electoral future in it. 
It is a pity that a few years ago there was a very good rugby league ground just down the road a little from this particular tennis centre. It was also up against the Auckland Domain. There was talk about that being turned into a future stadium for New Zealand and Brian Donnelly and I—old rugby league players—were in favour of that. But unfortunately the time passed. The Auckland regional politicians of the time did not wake up and see that opportunity. We could have passed a bill like this to aid that sort of stadium and maybe there would not have been an argument at all about where we should have the Rugby World Cup. 
However rugby league people will go on and we will support ventures like this upgrade of the tennis facilities. This bill is necessary so that there can be a sensible lease time of 50 years. Obviously if someone wants to put big money into upgrading the facilities that person wants to know that the facilities will have a sensible lease. 
The necessity for this bill is pretty simple. After I received the original notification I wrote to the lawyers for Auckland City Council and said: “Well you sent me this bill. I have read it. It doesn’t really tell me why you want to have this lease.” It was not until I had a further letter back on 7 November that the need for this bill became apparent. I hope the council did not charge me too much as a ratepayer for this legal advice and work. I think we deserve a discount for the lack of consultation and the lack of explanation. I know the council probably charges by the letter so it had a bit more money out of the Auckland City ratepayer by having to respond to my request for more information. 
However we got there in the end and like my colleague the Hon Judith Tizard whose electorate also sits within the boundaries of Auckland City Council we are genuinely supportive of this bill. We look forward to its passing so that Auckland Tennis Inc. and New Zealand can look forward again to those very good tournaments into the future. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a very brief call to confirm that the Green Party will also be supporting this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill. As Mr Gosche has been saying the Stanley Street tennis courts have been an institution in Auckland throughout my lifetime and I am sure long before that. I too regret the loss of the rugby league grounds there. Even I have attended matches there—and concerts—and it is a great pity that the grounds have gone. But I have just a few queries about this bill which I hope have been answered. The first is around what the attitude of NgatiWhatua might be to what is being proposed here. I have not been able to get any definitive answer on that at this stage so the Green Party will be watching closely what happens during the select committee process to see whether there are any concerns from NgatiWhatua whose rohe of course this is. 
The second concern I still have is around this private investor. I can understand the tennis association wanting the support of a private investor to help develop the facility given the millions of dollars involved. I just hope that in doing that the investor does not create activity or buildings that in some way infringe on the public space of the domain or any other public space around there. As a lot of people will be aware there are cases of developers going through boundaries or creating activities that do intrude excessively into public space and I would hate to see that happen in any way in this case given that it is of course part of and adjacent to the domain. 
It sounds as though the third concern is shared by Mr Gosche and that is the total lack of information or consultation that came to the Green Party on this. If there was any information that came to the Green Party I am unaware of it. Auckland City Council seems to be unaware that all parties in this Parliament not just the major parties need to be informed about bills like this. We would certainly have liked to have more information about the background to the bill and that is why at this stage I am quite happy to say that the Green Party will support it going through to the select committee but we will be watching what happens there just in case there are issues coming through of which we are not aware. I would suggest to Auckland City Council that perhaps it keeps remembering that there are a number of parties in this Parliament not just two. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa iteneipo. At first glance the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill appears to be a mere technical adjustment—a proposal to amend the Auckland Domain Act 1987 and update the reference to the Auckland Lawn Tennis Association Inc. by changing it to Auckland Tennis Inc. We in the Maori Party have seen many a bill like this. Such bills have appeared on the Order Paper and we have been given every assurance there was nothing to fear—“all is well everything is sweet; game over”. The problem is that as the serve for match point arises following a deuce call there is suddenly the dawning of the question that was raised by Sue Bradford: where do tangata whenua fit? We are pleased that as we are about to serve for the first time with this first reading of this bill we are taking the opportunity to call “Time out!” and to raise the issue of the relationship between tangata whenua and tennis for the consideration of this House as it informs this bill. 
The extensive oral history that we cherish amongst our koeke our elders reminds us that marae tennis dates back over a century. I know of many kuia and koroua from where I am from who talk of marae having tennis courts and of highly competitive games with other iwi and hapu that were frequently contested on the courts. From 1911 the Marumaru Cup was the object of really hot rivalry between Hawke’s Bay Taranaki and Wanganui. We know also of the MorehuTuroa Cup again a competition between neighbouring whanau iwi and hapu. The distinguishing feature of that competition was the teams of eight players: four men and four women. 
It was in fact that context of maintaining whanau hapu and iwi unity and connections that the legendary Sir Apriana Ngata drew upon in drawing together the various Maori competitions into one collective national force known as the New Zealand Maori Lawn Tennis Association. That association included a very prestigious annual tournament that hit off in 1926 with some 94 players in the men’s singles event. At the risk of sounding like a tennis infomercial for Maori tennis what was so fascinating about the national association’s tournament was that a player was able to attend the tournament only after the provinces had completed their various elimination rounds in order to see who the best players were and they were the only ones who were seen there. 
One of our own personalities from my home town of Rotorua Miss Ruia Morrison was a ladies champion and our first Maori representative at Wimbledon where from all reports she acquitted herself really honourably. 
I have taken the time to draw out some of the history of the tangata whenua’s association with the little yellow ball to remind us all that even on an issue like extending the terms of the lease that Auckland City Council will grant to Auckland Tennis Inc. from 21 years to 50 years it should automatically be presumed that Maori will have an interest. Although one may think that in its most basic form this bill simply rubber-stamps the fact that Auckland Tennis Inc. requires a longer-term lease from Auckland City Council in order to redevelop its facilities it would be useful to know what involvement if any Maori will have in the future direction of Auckland Tennis Inc. 
Under the Local Government Act 2002 councils are of course required to consult with mana whenua. Therefore we have been extremely interested in learning what consultation has been undertaken with NgatiWhatua in relation to this bill. I am never surprised in this House that the concept of consultation with tangata whenua is tagged on as a sort of afterthought the presumption having been made that this bill like many others before it is merely about administrative changes with the two key players in this case being restricted to Auckland Tennis Inc. and the Auckland City Council. I guess if someone’s world view is void of Treaty justice that analysis will always appear valid. In such a world view the only requirement for consultation may be restricted to that set out in the particular statute. 
So what relevance does the Auckland Domain Act 1987 have for this bill? What are the implications of section 6 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1974 in terms of the passage of this bill through the House? What would Dick Garratt chairman of the 80th Aotearoa Maori Tennis Championship have to say about this bill? Then there are the marae of NgatiWhatua and beyond and whether they have any particular interest in the future outlook and direction of Auckland Tennis Inc. 
There is of course a very significant issue at the root of this bill that will have particular meaning for mana whenua. This bill provides Auckland City Council with the ability to permit Auckland Tennis Inc. to grant a sublease over the land it leases from the council. That is where section 6 of the Reserves and Other Lands Disposal Act 1974 enters the picture. That is the provision that is drawn on to amend the legal description of the land that may be leased to Auckland Tennis Inc. That is at the very crux of the issue for the Maori Party—the relationship and association that tangata whenua will have with the land under debate. It is important to get that right now in order to establish a precedent. We are aware that the Auckland City Council also intends to promote another local bill that will deal with other legal issues arising from the Auckland Domain Act. Part of the likely wash-up for the next bill to deal with will be a review of the current legal description and of the position of other lessees of the domain. So we ask again: how have Maori been involved in the discussions around the legislative changes up for review? 
The land referred to in this bill is located in Stanley Street Grafton. Probably every member of this House will know it is the same land on which is located the major tennis event centre in Auckland—a site of significant international tournaments. Auckland Tennis Inc. plays host to two major international tennis tournaments each year at the ASB Tennis Centre in Parnell: the ASB Classic Women’s International and the Heineken Open Men’s International. The Maori Party stands to merely raise the question: what interest if any does NgatiWhatua have in relation to this land and have its concerns been appropriately taken into account? We have looked carefully at the bill the explanatory note the digital title plan and the advice from Buddle Findlay for some acknowledgement of how mana whenua interests have been taken into account. What did the NgatiWhatua trust board have to say about the legislative right to the land in question as currently held by the Auckland City Council as the lessor? If Auckland Tennis Inc. seeks the ability to sublease the land to the property developer what are the processes that Auckland City Council must automatically follow before consent is approved? 
It is vital that councils come to this House having asked the questions and having satisfied the requirements under the Local Government Act to consult with mana whenua as a matter of course. Mr Gosche also outlined the need to discuss this proposal with the other councils involved. We cannot help but think of the dreams and challenges of Sir Apirana Ngata so many years ago that saw him being fully involved not only in the events of the day as they were debated in this Chamber but also in ensuring that the social economic and cultural advancement of tangata whenua succeeded in so many areas of life including on the tennis courts of Aotearoa. We owe it to him and to the 94 champions in the 1926 Easter tournament to the many who lost out in the provincial draws and to the victorious champions of the Marumaru Cup and the MorehuTuroa Cup almost 100 years ago to raise this issue. 
I have seen a slogan regarding this sport that reads “Hit Me with Your Best Shot”. We urge the member in charge of this bill the Hon Judith Tizard and the sponsoring body for this bill the Auckland City Council to follow a process that will really hit the House with their best shot in making the investment to consult whanau hapu and iwi in the best interests of Aotearoa or once again we will see another institution serve the ball out of court or into the net or end up as institutions always do double-faulting when it comes to forming respectful meaningful relationships with tangata whenua. It is not just a matter of having a leisurely hit up; it is about having a fair game. Mr Eric Roy learnt his lesson in progressing the Southland Agricultural and Pastoral Association Empowering Bill Mr Simon Power learnt his lesson with the Manfeild Park legislation and Moana Mackey learnt her lesson with the legislation regarding Alfred Cox Park in Gisborne. Hopefully the member in charge of this bill will learn from those members. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 I doubt whether the member in charge of this bill is going to learn any lessons quite frankly. When one looks at what Mark Gosche said about National’s approach to Auckland issues I just remind him that we still have an Auckland issues spokesman. Labour thinks so little of what is going on— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who is it? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Mr Mallard should settle down. That is not good for him. He should stay calm. Labour thinks so little of what is happening in Auckland that it has actually done away with the portfolio. Judith Tizard thinks so little of her obligations to Auckland Central and the people of Auckland that she has not even remained to listen to the rest of the speeches in this debate. The fact is that Labour cannot— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member knows he cannot do that. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Labour cannot deliver on the infrastructure needs of Auckland. We heard before about Labour’s failure to deliver Trevor Mallard’s waterfront stadium. Well members might remember that he was the Minister for Sport and Recreation when we lost the rights to co-host the 2003 Rugby World Cup. I can tell members now that we heard about the North Shore of Auckland—and I am very proud to represent the people of Northcote; we are all blue north of the bridge now—and the one thing we do need is a second major harbour crossing. I can tell members now that that mob over there cannot deliver it. Those members are all looking away and they know they cannot deliver it. Why can they not deliver it? Because they will not use public-private partnerships. They are so critical. They are back in the 20th or the 19th century because they see the Government as being the answer to everything. But now we have this Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill and it is a good example of private money being used to deliver a great facility for Auckland and for New Zealanders. 
We have heard a lot about Stanley Street and it has been a great facility over the years—there is no question about that. We have had many great players there. Björn Borg won the Benson and Hedges Open there in 1973 Nadal was there 4 years ago and a lot of people have started their careers off there. As Wayne Mapp said it is a real chance for New Zealand every year to get some truly international events and it is great for tennis people—there is no question about that. 
But there is a much wider spin-off. It brings a lot of people into Auckland from overseas and those people spend money visit the rest of our country and see everything we have to offer here. The tennis tournaments are also shown live around the world; one would not believe it but that little stadium holds about 3000 people. Those matches are shown on international television and seen by millions worldwide on satellite TV. So it is a great opportunity for New Zealand. But we cannot rest on our laurels. There is no question about that because the Chinese will eat our lunch on this stuff. They will take this tournament. The Middle Eastern people— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the member smoke cigars there too? 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Trevor is at it again. His therapist will be saying that this is not good and that he has to calm down. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Oh settle settle! 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That member can deal it out but he cannot take it. Two weeks ago this happened and he is back at it again. But I tell members that if we do not secure these international rights they will be taken off us—there is no question about that. The Yock Stand and the Redwood Stand have all done great service to New Zealand Tennis but it was time they were knocked down and we had a true international class facility delivered there because the benefits are going to be fantastic. 
I can tell members this: if the Minister who is no longer the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues were in charge of delivering the stadium it would not happen. Trevor Mallard was going to deliver the Auckland waterfront stadium and it will not happen. Do members know what he said? When he could not deliver that he said: “Aucklanders are ignorant and lack vision.” I tell Mr Mallard that in that one statement he lost a heck of a lot of votes for his party in Auckland. North of the bridge we are all blue now and we will see great big swathes of blue across central Auckland— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And Auckland Central. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: —including the Auckland Central electorate which the sponsor of this bill actually represents. Those four Labour members sitting there know it. They have got their heads down. Mark Burton over there is on the way out as well. He is going to lose his seat of Taupo because people have had enough of this Government. It cannot deliver. You can see the way he is reacting; it has hit a raw nerve. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: You come and take it off me. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I tell the member that if I had not won my seat I would go down and take that seat off him any day of the week. At the next election we could put a lamb with a blue ribbon there and we would take the seat off that member because he is finished. He is out of here. He made a mess of the justice portfolio and he will be going out with the rest of his cronies. There are a number of them here too whom the public would like to see the end of as well. 
But getting back to the Auckland Domain (Auckland Tennis) Amendment Bill as we have said this bill will deliver a world-class facility. It will be a great benefit to Auckland tennis— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: You come and take me on. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Oh the member is still going on about losing his Taupo seat. This will be a great facility for New Zealand it will have a wider economic benefit and it will make a great difference—there is no question about that. So we have to make sure that we support this bill. It is not often that we get cross-party support but everyone supports this. The Green Party supports it. Some valid concerns were raised by Te Ururoa Flavell and I think some of the points he raised about the lack of consultation were very valid and I think Mr Gosche actually raised those points as well and so did the Green Party. There were some legal aspects to do with the change in the lease that really should have been more clearly explained and I think maybe if Auckland City had done that it would have allayed a few concerns and issues. 
But we have a great season of tennis coming up. We have to watch that these tournaments are not taken by the Australians or anyone else around the world but to make sure that we do that it is important that this bill goes through and we get the facility for Auckland and New Zealand that New Zealand tennis deserves. So National will be supporting this bill. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Employment Relations (Flexible Working  Arrangements) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This is a simple light-handed bill that establishes a new employment right for any employees with caring responsibilities allowing them to seek to vary their hours or their place of work. 
Although the bill is simple I hope that in years to come we will look back on it as a landmark piece of legislation that helped to break down our rigid and inflexible working hours culture and usher in a new era where flexible working is accepted as the norm rather than the exception and where employers accept that it is in their interests to give employees more say over their working hours so they can strike a better balance between paid work and family life. I hope too that once the new right is established next year in July and hopefully extended to all employees when the legislation is reviewed in 2 years’ time it will reduce the chronic stress that many employees experience as they try to juggle the competing demands of paid work and family life. I also hope that in time businesses will actively embrace flexible working arrangements as a way of making workplaces more productive and competitive. 
This all might sound a trifle “Pollyanna-ish” but in the United Kingdom where similar legislation has been in place for years the availability of flexible working hours has accelerated to the point where officials there now claim that flexible working is becoming the norm rather than the exception. In New Zealand by contrast the inflexible 9 to 5 mentality is still very much the norm and flexible working arrangements are still looked upon almost as a favour as something an employer may grant in exceptional circumstances rather than as a legitimate and productive working arrangement. 
Although many employers claim that they already have flexible workplaces often in practice when we drill down it turns out to be little more than the ability for workers to adjust a lunch break sometimes or to go to the dentist which of course falls a long way short of the ongoing changes to working hours that this bill would allow. Even where flexible working arrangements do exist they are far more common amongst white-collar workers and managers than amongst ordinary low-paid workers. I hope that this bill will change this and ensure that all workers no matter how low-paid they are have the right to seek to change their start and finish times their shifts their work-compressed working weeks or whatever it is they believe will help them to better balance their paid work and family lives. Of course this will impose an obligation on employers to seek to accommodate their requests wherever they can providing that it will not be to the detriment of their businesses. 
In New Zealand we have not only an hours-driven working culture but a culture of long and excessive working hours. We work amongst the longest working hours in the world. Forty percent of us work more than 45 hours a week and a fifth of us work more than 50 hours a week so it is no wonder that many suffer from chronic stress and what some call the “work/eat/sleep syndrome”. We are only just beginning to realise the high price we pay for our long and inflexible working hours culture and the debilitating effect that long working hours can have on people’s lives in terms of dysfunctional relationships children who do not get to spend enough time with their parents workplace stress and so on. The truth is that the time that parents spend with their children has declined steeply over the last two decades while workplace stress and absenteeism have increased. 
We are in danger of becoming a nation of wage slaves with no time for our children or for our communities. The reality is that our rigid long working hours culture is no longer necessary in the 21st century. It is a straitjacket that we need to shed now that we have all these wonderful new technologies like the laptop and the cellphone that can keep us in touch with the office without actually having to be there in person. We have to get our head around the fact that we do not all need to work exactly the same hours. We certainly do not need to start and finish work at the same time. Many of us can easily do some of our work from home or from another location. 
If significant numbers of employees were able to vary their working hours and work from home more often it would have very very real social benefits as well as environmental and economic benefits. We could dramatically reduce the congestion caused by all of us rushing like lemmings to get to work at the same time each day. There would be no need to waste taxpayers’ money building expensive new urban motorways. Carbon dioxide emissions would reduce as would the amount of oil that we consume. In fact if the price of oil continues to rise we might find that encouraging people to work from home becomes one of the tools that future Governments use to try to reduce our dependence on oil. 
When workplaces become more flexible more women and in particular more older New Zealanders will be able to stay in the workplace. Employers will therefore have access to wider recruitment pools which will ease the skills shortage that so many people are commenting on. Productivity will increase as well. All of the research shows that employees who have more control over their working arrangements are more motivated and therefore more productive so there is less absenteeism less staff turnover less workplace illness and stress and so on. Therefore employers benefit as well as employees. It is a win-win situation. 
With all of these benefits it makes sense that Parliament would encourage more flexible working arrangements and encourage and protect employees who want to have more choice about how they balance paid work and family life by basically setting up a new employment right and a framework for employees to negotiate variations in their working hours. In the United Kingdom where employees already have this right 90 percent of the requests made under the flexible working hours legislation have been successful. The United Kingdom’s flexible working legislation is hailed as a success right across the political spectrum. All parties are seeking to extend its provisions and the Conservative leader David Cameron is a passionate advocate for extending the legislation—the right. He argues that flexible working arrangements are the key to modernising workplaces and making them more productive and competitive. 
Initially British businesses strenuously opposed the new right. Now they actively support it. In evaluations they say that it has been well received by employers and it has encouraged rather than compelled employers to experiment with flexible working practices. They say that employers who introduce flexible working hours are finding they can fish in a wider pool. They say that the people they recruit are more likely to be motivated and to remain employed in the same firm and they go on extolling the virtues of flexible working. 
Obviously the new right when it comes into effect next July will not deliver flexibility overnight but I do hope that as a result of this bill our rigid long working hours culture will slowly become a thing of the past—a skin that we shed—and that flexible results rather than hours-driven workplaces will become the norm. 
I thank all members of the Coalition for Quality Flexible Work some of whose members are here for their unwavering support for the bill. This organisation is a coalition of more than 50 professional groups community groups and unions including Grey Power women lawyers associations Parents Centres business and professional unions the Council of Trade Unions and other unions. I owe a huge debt of gratitude too to Ruth Dyson for her work and support in getting the bill through; to the new Minister of Labour Trevor Mallard for making a recent amendment to the bill; to Mark Gosche chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee; to other committee members like Peter Brown and Darien Fenton; and to others for their support. I thank all political parties except for National and ACT for supporting the legislation along with Gordon Copeland and Taito Phillip Field. 
It is a shame that the National Party has not been able to support this bill as the conservatives have so enthusiastically supported similar legislation in England. National members say that families are the centrepiece of their policy but this bill is aimed at reducing the pressures on families. In the final analysis it is Business New Zealand not the interest of families that determines how the National Party votes on legislation. 
I thank all of those who have helped with this bill because as it has proceeded it has actually been strengthened rather than weakened. We have extended the right to all persons with caring responsibilities and we have introduced mediation and other low-level cost-effective methods of dispute resolution that have allayed most of the concerns of employers. I hope that this bill will bring about a real change that when we review the bill in 2 years’ time we will all agree that we should extend it to all employees and that the fears that National Party members no doubt will start going on about in a short time will prove to be completely false. Thank you. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak in relation to the third reading of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill which as has been mentioned National is opposing. Most people including National members support the idea of flexible working arrangements. We appreciate the benefits of flexibility. It is good for business to give employees a choice if they can deliver the same outputs. There are advantages to both employees and employers of flexibility in the workplace. We support flexibility; we do not support legislating for it. 
This bill has been lauded as light-handed regulation. It has been admitted that one of its main purposes is actually to educate by legislating the benefits of flexibility. We have heard the former Minister quoting that 84 percent of respondents supported legislation for the right to request flexible working arrangements but if the form responses are excluded then the figure shows that 83 percent support one or more approaches to flexibility. That is totally different from saying that 84 percent support legislation for flexibility. We support flexibility; we do not support legislation for flexibility. That result has to be balanced too with the fact that legislating for flexibility also received the highest level of opposition. 
So what does it all mean? It means that the benefits and advantages of flexibility in the workplace are recognised applauded and certainly encouraged. Legislating for this flexibility is the issue not the flexibility itself. Effective communication and a supportive workplace culture have been identified as the most important factors in making flexible work arrangements effective. We need common sense and communication not legislation. Legislation indeed can have the perverse effect of discouraging flexibility because of its prescriptive nature. If employees have to make a formal request once a year only make it in writing and have it formally considered then the chances are that the process may become just too difficult. Whatever happened to good old-fashioned communication? Employers want happy employees. They want to recruit and retain good employees and to do so may indeed mean that more flexibility options have to be provided but we do not need to legislate for that. 
We have heard again and again comparisons with the UK legislation. If the United Kingdom has it then New Zealand should have it too—probably a bit like foot-and-mouth. In fact we know that the bill has been based on UK legislation but I would like to add the caution about comparisons between countries and different jurisdictions; are we comparing apples with apples? When we were at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the officials issued a caution about such comparisons. Their advice to us was that there are questions as to the extent of the impact of this UK flexibility legislation and there are methodological inconsistencies in the sponsored research as to the impact. The results are not necessarily supported by research from other organisations and there is no accurate pre-legislation baseline of information to measure from. Further often the surveys do not distinguish between those eligible to request and those ineligible to request. So I think it is dangerous simply to compare our situation with the United Kingdom situation and say that this is the law for us. 
We were further advised by the officials that the current set of labour market and 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 solutions to be the obvious choice. But for some reason we have considered that the UK solution is the solution for New Zealand and National is opposed to that. 
The caution given by the officials has gone unheeded and ignored. I repeat: we support flexibility; we just do not support legislating for it. Legislation in this regard is unnecessary. The right to request flexibility in terms of working hours and working arrangements already exists in the Employment Relations Act. We do not need to over-regulate it further. 
This legislation is another compliance cost and another set of processes and procedures to navigate through. It has been estimated that it could cost another 3 hours of management time and another 2 hours of employee time. The legislation has the potential for other employees who are not eligible even to ask under this legislation perhaps to resent the priority treatment available to others. We must remember that this ability to request is not available to all employees. The legislation has the potential for queuing for flexibility—will it be “first in first served”? Those who ask first for flexible working hours or flexible working arrangements may have their requests duly granted but others following may have them declined. And the legislation has the potential for grievance claims and the uncertainty that grievance claims can create both from an employee’s point of view and also from an employer’s point of view. 
We appreciate that there are some grounds in the legislation for an employer to be able to refuse a request for flexible working arrangements and there is a reasonable selection of grounds including the inability to reorganise work among existing staff the inability to recruit additional staff a detrimental impact on quality or performance an insufficiency of work during the periods the employee proposes to work planned structural changes the burden of additional costs or a detrimental effect on the ability to meet customer demand. 
In the original bill the employer could refuse a request only if it could not reasonably be accommodated. The Minister then took out that word “reasonably” which may sound insignificant but it is not. The word “reasonably” brings in the notion of objectivity; by removing the word “reasonably” it virtually means that unless it is impossible for the employer to accommodate the request the request must be granted. For example let us imagine that a request for flexibility was made by employee A who wanted to take Tuesday afternoons off work. The business must stay open on Tuesday afternoons so the only way for this to happen is if employee B offers to work those extra hours on a Tuesday afternoon. But employee B might say that he or she will work extra hours only if earning double triple or even quadruple pay. Is that reasonable? Well actually it does not matter whether it is reasonable because under the amendment of the Minister which was sneakily introduced the employer has no choice. Technically yes the employer is able to recruit additional staff because employee B has offered to stand in albeit on considerably extra pay. Whether that is affordable to the business is of no relevance or interest to the Minister because under the amendment such a request can be accommodated although it certainly cannot be reasonably accommodated. That is neither fair nor reasonable and if employment law is about being fair to both employer and employee then in that regard this bill fails that objectivity test. 
I also noted that one of the former Minister’s Supplementary Order Papers was indeed overruled by the current Minister. Minister Dyson attempted to introduce an amendment providing that an investigation or determination of the Employment Relations Authority cannot be challenged appealed against reviewed quashed or called into question in any court. At the time I raised a concern about another sneaky little amendment mentioning things like breaching the rule of law contrary to the notion of natural justice questioning the precedent that this would set for a lay authority that does not have to act judicially to unilaterally make a decision that simply cannot be challenged. Minister Mallard overruled that with a further Supplementary Order Paper leaving open the possibility of judicial review so as to comply with such fundamentals as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I thank the officials for taking note of the sneaky attempt to deprive employees and employers of their rights to natural justice. 
National believes that flexible working hours and arrangements 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. Flexible working practices however should not be enshrined in inflexible rigid unworkable legislated processes and procedures. We should be educating for flexibility and the benefits and advantages of flexibility; we should not be legislating for it. For that reason National is opposing this bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker and say that I thought hers was a very sad speech. It was a very sad speech from a member of probably one of the few parties in the world that has not carefully considered this issue and seen the benefit of this sort of approach especially to women but also to the economy. Frankly I had some hope that under John Key the National Party would at least come into the second half of the 20th century but it is clear that a lot of the lessons that people such as the member in charge of the bill and many people on this side of the House learnt in the 1970s—the 1970s in the member’s case and the 1960s and 1970s in my case—have not been learnt by members opposite. 
I am pleased to support the bill and I want to congratulate Sue Kedgley on introducing it and shepherding it through the House in the way she has. New Zealander’s want and they need work-life balance. We are a group of people as a country who compared with people in the vast majority of other countries work too long. We do not work smart enough we are not well enough trained and our jobs are not properly capitalised in a way that we can be more productive. Flexible working arrangements are a key part of getting that work-life balance. It is about the quality of life and living standards. 
Flexible responsive workplaces can both deliver productivity benefits and ease our skill shortages. Flexibility can help us compete globally for skilled workers and enable more New Zealanders who want to work to participate in the labour market. At the margins it will mean that some people will participate slightly less in the labour market but probably more productively as a result. Research carried out by the Department of Labour over the past 2 years has shown how important it is for New Zealanders to have the right workplace environments—that people participate in the labour force and balance work with other things in their lives. 
Two national surveys of employees and employers about work-life balance have identified that flexible working arrangements including flexible start and finish times consistently ranked amongst the most helpful initiatives for people to balance work with other things in their lives. The research shows that flexible working arrangements benefit people like working parents students retirees volunteers single parents and caregivers providing support to family and whanau. Flexible work arrangements can also benefit employers our community our economy and our environment. The two surveys suggest that a majority of employers do not see major barriers to improving flexibility and on top of that employees understand the business imperatives facing their organisations. In fact many employers already offer their staff flexible working arrangements but many do not. 
This bill provides certain employees who meet specific eligibility criteria with a right to request flexible working arrangements—that is a change to their hours of work times or days of work or place of work. Eligible employees must have the care of another person and must have been employed by their employer for at least 6 months prior to making a request. The bill requires employers to consider the request and provides grounds on which they can refuse a request. The bill also provides for a process for making and considering requests including a requirement that the employee making a request must explain what changes may be required to the employer’s arrangements. This aspect of the bill supports what we have heard through the recent consultation. To be successful flexible work arrangements need to suit the needs of all parties; namely the individual concerned his or her colleagues and the workplace. 
Amendments made to the bill during the Committee stage have strengthened the bill. Ensuring that the decision about whether a request for flexible working arrangements can be accommodated rests solely with the employer. Now only issues of non-compliance with the process as outlined in the bill can be challenged and reviewed. The process for resolving disputes that may arise as a result of a request has also been streamlined and aims to ensure the lowest possible level of intervention. Where a dispute arises an employer or an employee may refer that dispute to a labour inspector who must assist the parties to resolve the issue. In fact a labour inspector can be asked to assist and provide advice at any stage in the process of making or considering a request for flexible work arrangements. If after receiving assistance from a labour inspector the matter is not resolved parties can go to mediation and the Employment Relations Authority. 
It is prudent to consider the effect of any new legislation. Consequently the bill requires the Minister of Labour to report to Parliament as soon as practicable 2 years after the commencement of the operation the effects of the new provisions including recommendations about whether the right to request flexible working hours should be extended. 
As Sue Kedgley said the bill is based on similar UK legislation. A recent UK study of work-life balance found that nearly 80 percent of requests for flexible working arrangements had been accepted the majority of which were accepted in whole and a smaller number resulted in compromises. Studies into the effect of the UK legislation on employers have also been positive. One such study found that 76 percent of businesses found the impact of the legislation to be negligible and 90 percent reported no significant problems in complying with the new requirements. The majority of employers also believe that the legislation has had a positive effect on employee attitudes and morale. 
It is notable that the Prime Minister of the UK has just announced an independent review of how the right to request flexible work legislation can be extended to parents of children over the age of 6. Our Parliament had the foresight during the Committee stage to amend the eligibility criteria in this legislation to ensure that from the outset any worker who has the care of any other person will be able to request flexible work arrangements. Some workplaces in our country already have some form of flexibility in place and others are starting to move towards these more flexible arrangements. This bill supports the increasing trend in New Zealand workplaces. 
I again acknowledge the voices of business unions and employees who made submissions on this bill and have stimulated the public debate about issues of work-life balance more broadly. I thank my colleagues in the House for the contribution they have made in strengthening and clarifying the intent of this bill when they debated it during the Committee stage. I would like particularly to acknowledge the work of the select committee members. This is I think another good example of how a Labour-led Government working with other parties in an MMP environment can achieve the best solution for the diverse interests of those affected by the changes. 
When I and I am sure a number of others hit the hustings next year we will have quite a lot of fun explaining in workplaces—in fact some of us will probably do so when we are out in our electorates on Friday—the National Party’s opposition to flexibility in workplaces. The National members are all for flexibility for their own approach. National has a number of very very part-time members. There are National members in this House who have not asked a single question all year. They are absolutely lazy members of Parliament. They have not got up early enough in the morning to put a question in and to ask a question of a Minister. They take a flexible approach for themselves. 
Nathan Guy 
: Is this the new Trevor or the old one? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is a wonderful rehabilitated Minister. What I am saying is that members opposite have to decide whether they are prepared to match their practice with the ability of other people to request a similar practice and have it considered. 
Hon Member 
: They don’t ask anybody. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No members on the other side do not ask anybody whether they can roll up at 2 o’clock. They start their work after lunch but they do not want other people to have the right to request a different day of work or a half-day shifted around or something similar. I think members opposite are looking more than a little sheepish. They know that they have made a mistake. They know deep down in their hearts that they are making fools of themselves but for reasons that none of us can work out mainly a lot of the time they are the “me too” Opposition. They are trying to cuddle up to the Government. 
I am especially uncertain as to why they want to offend the Greens so much. It says something about their approach to MMP I suppose that they have their deep hatred of the Greens and their inability to support a bill that is promoted by a Green member in this way. I think that is very sad because MMP does not work that way. It does not matter how different our original views are from those of other members; we work through to a compromise and get something reasonable. When something very reasonable like this bill is developed then it should be supported. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to start by commenting on what the National Party said. National has got it wrong. I listened to Kate Wilkinson very very carefully. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: As you do. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well Kate Wilkinson is actually a cut above the rest— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: No she’s gone downhill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes clearly she has gone downhill. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: She spends too much time with them. 
PETER BROWN 
: My colleague says she spends too much time with them. I refer to clause 6A which is the clause Kate Wilkinson referred to. Section 69AAE was inserted by clause 6A but subsection (2) was struck out. It stated: “An employer may refuse a request only if it cannot reasonably be accommodated on 1 or more of the grounds specified in subsection (3).” She wanted to delete the word “reasonably”. Then the subsection would have said “if it cannot be accommodated” and she asked whether it would be reasonable of a person who had offered to replace another person who had been granted flexible working hours to then demand quadruple pay. Well that is unreasonable. The employer—if the word “reasonably” was in there—could deny the request. He could say that quadruple pay was not reasonable. But now that the word has been removed as Kate Wilkinson wanted an employer would have no grounds for refusing that specific request. The National members have got it totally wrong. Kate Wilkinson suggested that the National Party supports flexibility but it will vote against this bill. She said that the bill is the concern not the flexibility itself. 
Let me just say that this bill is vastly different from the first version. The first version really applied to parents who had a child under 5 or a disabled child under 18. I think I am correct; Sue Kedgley is acknowledging that I am correct. They could ask for flexible working hours but only on a permanent basis. They got those hours permanently and that would have created the situation that Kate Wilkinson referred to—the queuing and what have you. But in fairness to Sue Kedgley I note that she accepted the advice of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to put a gap in proceedings for a year and let the employers and unions work it out and put a programme in place for establishing a more flexible working environment throughout the country. 
The bill came back vastly altered and Sue has monitored all that and taken on board all the recommendations of the select committee. It came back to the House and it has been altered again significantly by the Committee of the whole House. I think it was almost at the last call during the Committee stage when the Minister the new Minister intervened and changed it yet again. Sue Kedgley has stuck by this bill and monitored it all the way through and she should be complimented on that. 
Employers have nothing to fear from this bill. Genuine employers who care even one little iota about their staff have nothing to fear from this bill. People will still be able to go to their managers or whoever is in charge and say: “Look I have a situation at home.” They may have to look after little Johnny or little Mary and they may want to change their hours for a particular week and it will be done informally. But if an employer is not reasonable is arrogant and assertive and will not listen to a request for flexible working hours for a caring situation then an employee has the right to put in a formal request for flexible working hours. 
This bill I suggest will affect very few employers throughout this country. New Zealand employers are basically very fair-minded. They know the importance of looking after their staff and that has become increasingly so now that they are working in a tight labour market. I suggest that this bill will improve staff relations but I have my doubts as to whether it will be used to any great extent because I think New Zealanders are very fair-minded anyway and when one gets a fair-minded employer then he or she will listen to the staff member without the need for the staff member to resort to some sort of formal application. But if the employer wants to be arrogant tough and dictatorial then the employee has the right to go to the employer with a formal request. But even then there are several reasons why the employer can reject such hours. 
So the bill is not Draconian. It is very fair-minded. There is no great shakes about this bill. I would have thought the National Party would rethink its position. When this bill had its first reading New Zealand First was very nervous about it. I am not sure whether we supported it at its first reading. We were a bit reluctant. We thought it was going this way and that way and that it was too limited. But we were persuaded to support its referral to the select committee to see whether we could improve it and that process was undertaken very diligently by the committee where as I said Sue Kedgley played a very practical monitoring role. We have I think a very reasonable bill as a result. 
New Zealand will be all the better for this legislation. I do not think it will turn the world upside down. The sun will still rise in the morning and in the fullness of time the National Party members will think: “Why the dickens didn’t we support that?”. They will say they agree with this. It will be like the situation with paid parental leave. They saw the light after a while as they have done on a number of issues. I know that Wayne Mapp regards himself as some sort of expert in industrial relations and he will go home and think: “Goodness me! That select committee and the Committee of the whole House made this bill a really workable bill and I wish National had supported it.” I could tell from Kate Wilkinson’s speech that her heart was not in it. She was reading a speech that she really did not believe. It did not come across with any conviction at all. As I said the world will not end as a result of this bill. 
I suggest that it will be of benefit to a few employees who work for somebody who is very rigid very arrogant or very assertive in his or her approach and who turns down an informal request. Most New Zealanders most employees will still be able to go to their employers and say that they have a situation at home with their children their mother their father or a person they are caring for and ask to change their hours and that will be done without any problems at all. [ 
Interruption 
] The honourable Wayne Mapp is so keen to get up and change the National vote—he is bursting at the seams there. He realises already that National has made a mistake and he wants to get to his feet. That is an encouraging sign. The light is beginning to penetrate. 
Hon Member 
: Don’t get my hopes up. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says: “Don’t get my hopes up.” This is very simple legislation. As I say I think it will be of significance to employees who are unfortunate enough to work for a rigid employer who is not caring. Those employees have a formal out. They can put their request in writing and it has to be formally looked at. That I believe will occur on relatively few occasions and those people will be all the better for it. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. Kia ora everyone. The essence of this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill is to ensure that workers can negotiate with their employers more flexible working arrangements to create a better work-life balance and a win-win situation for all parties. What interests members of the Maori Party about the bill besides this intent was the innovative manner in which I am told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under the leadership of the Hon Mark Gosche facilitated a rather novel procedural approach. I am advised that the committee’s approach in May 2006 involved the debate of an interim report by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that set aside the House’s consideration of the bill for a year. It was set aside so that further research could be carried out more information sought and greater consultation had with workers employers and all of those who might be interested in this bill. We in the Maori Party understand that this has never happened before. 
Quite frankly we are encouraged by the fact that this one action perhaps demonstrates best that MMP politics can be accommodated despite the fact that the rules under which this Parliament behaves are deeply entrenched and have yet to catch up with the changing political environment. In speaking of the rules I refer to the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings which are remnants of another age and rules of first-past-the-post thinking and behaviour. 
We are encouraged because we in the Maori Party who view the world through our particular cultural eyes—for we cannot do otherwise—have a number of sayings that capture the idea of flexibility. One of the examples I want to read to members goes like this: “Na te ngutu kura ko te hinengaro; na te hinengaro ko te mahara; na te mahara ko te whakaaro; na te whakaaro ko te korero; ma te korero ka tu he tikanga.” This translates to something like: “Engaging the senses stirs the emotions; engaging the emotions stimulates the intellect; stimulating the intellect commissions the memory. From the memory comes the thoughts; from the thoughts come the words; from the words we construct customs.” Therefore from a Maori Party perspective it appears that the members of the select committee were stirred to do something differently and this they did. 
The motives—and no doubt there were probably different motives for each of the parties involved—are actually not of concern. What was important was that something different was tried. Time was made available and this legislation—the whakapapa of which like the whakapapa of many in this House originates from the United Kingdom—will very soon become law in Aotearoa. For that acknowledgment must go to the Green Party member of Parliament Sue Kedgley—and I say tena koe to Sue—who through skill and persistence in crafting winnable arrangements with her colleagues within this House has overseen this bill through to it soon becoming an Act. 
My perusal of the bill and the subsequent debates in this House certainly show that despite members of the select committee agreeing in 2006 to show their own flexibility goodwill and cooperation by having the bill delayed for a year old habits do indeed die hard. I say that old habits die hard because judging by the unfortunate number of times the word “majority” accompanied the select committee’s recommended amendments it seems the members of that committee and of this House continue to occupy oppositional positions. When cooperation actually occurs whistles and trumpets are blown and a press conference is called as we saw with the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act. But the normal modus operandi is oppositional. How sad is that? 
The Maori Party will be supporting this bill because in our view it is eminently sensible as well as being whanau worker and employer-friendly. We see in it so much that is good for whanau and it does not in and of itself penalise employers or other workers. We are not concerning ourselves with the modus operandi of polarised oppositional politics; our interest is in the macro level with the belief that what is good for Maori is good for Aotearoa. Even the title of the bill with the words “flexible working arrangements” indicates a relationship based on goodwill while having the guidance and protection of a legislative framework. 
The Maori Party is aware that often particularly with employment issues there is a cry that issues can be worked out between the workers and the employer. We know however that this is often not the case as the issue of the power imbalance between the two groups is not properly recognised and acknowledged. Although some would say that the employee has the power—with mention made of employee’s representatives and unions being indicative of that power—and the employers and their federations and associations are the weaker entities our experience and those of our whanau tell us a different story. 
We remember the ravages of the mid-1980s through Rogernomics and the 1990s too where no doubt a bill of this nature would never have seen the light of day. That period and its ongoing after-effects are a constant reminder to Maori of the vulnerable position of Maori workers who become the collateral damage under a more streamlined cutthroat neo-liberal economic philosophy which still remains as healthy as ever today. This bill is but a soft concession from that philosophy. It is a little gain for whanau and for respectful arrangements between workers and employers. Make no mistake it is a welcome departure from neo-liberalism but like the opposition inherent in the parliamentary system that philosophy has remained the modus operandi of all Governments subsequent to 1984. Again the Maori Party as a keen student of both history and power is forever mindful of the whakapapa and origins of legislation passed in this House and of those who will be the beneficiaries of it. 
In ending I congratulate Sue Kedgley most sincerely for continually keeping the Maori Party members informed of the stages through which this bill was passing and for continually making herself available to discuss any concerns that we might have had about the bill. Again I say that we support this legislation. No reira tena koe Sue. Kia ora tatou. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 United Future joins with most other parties in this House to support the third reading of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill a bill that we believe has advantages for both employees and employers. Certainly evidence from the British experience has shown that it has been a win-win situation. 
What I most like about this bill is the process that we have taken to get to the third reading. It is a stunning example of what I think all of us who are part of an MMP system and support MMP believe could and should be the case more often. I particularly commend Sue Kedgley. As the sponsor of this bill she was willing to allow it to be delayed and parked for a season so that the Department of Labour could do some ongoing work and improve the bill so that we could move it forward. 
I feel a little bit of sadness in mentioning the bill that comes straight after this one on the Order Paper tonight. The bill I refer to was a United Future initiative around private property rights. In the second reading of that bill which was interrupted many speakers talked about the fact that they could not support the bill because there were some things about it that needed to be fixed. Yet there did not seem to be the same will and collaboration to do that extra work when I know that the sponsor would have willingly allowed the bill to be parked so that it could progress. It occurs to me that it is rather interesting that we can be very picky and choosy about which bills this House will allow that work to be done on and which bills we just abandon through what feels to me at times like extreme laziness and an unwillingness to progress bills. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JUDY TURNER 
: Before the dinner break I was talking about the process that this bill has been through and about the willingness of the sponsor and the select committee to park the bill for a season so that extensive work could be done on it by the Department of Labour. That brought about good changes. What a great example of MMP this bill has been. 
I want to focus the next part of my speech on what I think is the most important gain for New Zealanders that this bill will deliver for New Zealand families. Today’s work environment is hugely different—in fact unrecognisably different—from the work environment that my own parents lived through. For instance when there are two parents in a family both of whom are working we have a family economy based around two incomes. We have very few non-commercial days. In fact I think we are down to 3½ days in a year in which we cannot trade. We have longer working hours. New Zealanders are working longer than they did 20 or 30 years ago. We have mums and dads with preschool children using their paid parental leave and then re-entering the workforce. Parents are using day-care facilities to care for their children with the stresses and strains that that puts on parents dropping off children who are often sometimes a little bit unwell or distressed and wondering how that will go. 
The other thing that has changed considerably in New Zealand is the fact that we have moved—and rightly so—towards community-based and home-based care for the elderly and disabled. We have closed down institutions. Therefore the impact on families is greater in that regard too. The expectation that families will be more proactively engaged in the care of elderly or disabled family members is an absolute reality. This bill provides an opportunity for workers to negotiate flexible working hours where that fits comfortably with the needs of the employer. 
When I flew down to Wellington this week I sat on the plane across the aisle from a local businesswoman in my town. She asked me about this bill and she had a tinge of anxiety in her voice. She had heard very negative things about the bill. When I explained to her what the bill is about she came straight back at me that with her particular business—the one she and her husband run—it would be extremely difficult for them to give flexible hours to their workers. They have a business where people work outdoors and that is very reliant on the weather. If they suddenly have a fine spell they can jump out and get a whole lot of things done. She said she could not imagine how they could offer flexible work hours. I explained to her that with the type of reasons she gave to me she would never be forced to offer flexible work hours. She would be free to conduct her business in the way she wants and no pressure would be put upon her. She was hugely relieved. As I went through the bill with her she changed her opinion considerably and became quite supportive of it. 
She is a family person herself and when she saw the value there would be for family people she became quite the convert to this bill. That is what I think we are looking at here: for the public—and particularly the employing public—to understand the rights that this bill gives them. That is one of the areas of the bill that has been strengthened by the delay and by the work of the Department of Labour. We have added additional justification into the bill as to why an employer can turn down a request for flexible work hours. Again I think that is to the credit of the member in charge and the select committee which worked very hard; of submitters; of the officials and staff of the Department of Labour; and of everybody who has put his or her hand on the wheel to steer this particular ship and who has contributed to what is now pretty fine legislation. 
This is extremely family-friendly legislation. United Future is absolutely thrilled at how it has come out of the select committee. Every concern we had in the initial stages of the bill has been addressed. We are very happy to support the third reading of the bill and to congratulate everybody who has worked on it. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take part in the third reading of the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. It has been a long time coming through the select committee process and the House. 
I talked with Sue Kedgley earlier about the 1-year delay we took. Having heard the submissions on this bill we basically put down a challenge to the employers who said that this matter did not need to be legislated for. They said that it could be done voluntarily which is the National Party’s position. We gave employers 1 year to prove to the Government this Parliament and New Zealand that they were capable of going out there and introducing the spirit of this bill in terms of a voluntarist approach. I have to say that they failed miserably. I say that because a couple of weeks ago statistics came out about the participation rates in employment in New Zealand. We heard that more people had taken up part-time employment in that statistical period than had taken up full-time employment. What was the reaction from employers and the National Party? They described that as a failure. They said that there were more workers out there now who were looking to take up part-time employment in New Zealand and that that was a failure as a result. 
I want the National Party and employers to think about the commentary on that statistic. They say that they are in favour of people taking up flexible employment and of more part-time work but when it happens they come out and say that it is a failure and that it is terrible and they ask how dare those workers decide to take up part-time employment rather than full-time employment? They tried to blame it on Working for Families. They tried to say that it was about Working for Families. They do not know what that last word means. I am looking forward to that funny organisation called Family First coming out tomorrow with a full-page ad in support of this bill. That will be a case of “Yeah right!” 
This legislation actually helps families. This legislation recognises that families are under pressure in a labour market that has been consistently deregulated since the late 1980s. That member over there who acts for the Exclusive Brethren does not know anything about industrial relations; that is why the National Party gave her the job. In the National Party if someone does not know anything about industrial relations he or she gets the job of being spokesperson. She knows how to act for the Exclusive Brethren who actually threw money into the campaign last time because they did not like the fact that they were not exempted from industrial relations legislation. That is why the Exclusive Brethren spent the million bucks. That is what they want the National Party to deliver and that is what the National Party will deliver if it ever gets the chance—to exempt the people who pay the bills for them. 
However I want to get back to the bill. This is very light-handed legislation. It has been dramatically improved by the process the select committee put it through. When the bill came in Sue Kedgley had removed a couple of bits and pieces from the UK legislation. We put them back in. The legislation was going to apply only to a small number of people but we have actually extended it to apply to the group of people in New Zealand who will most appreciate it. I think the National Party and New Zealand business people—Business New Zealand the Employers and Manufacturers Association and the Business Roundtable—who purport to represent the interests of business in New Zealand need to start to think a little more deeply than their entrenched anti-union anti-worker attitudes which they have had for so long have allowed. It is time for them to come into this century not to stay back in the last one—which National members over there would do if they had their way. 
The bill is about work-life balance which the National caucus and the ACT party know a lot about. Has anybody ever seen Rodney Hide here on any other day than pay day? He sits on the same select committee as I do and I hardly ever see him. He came in the other day to do an advert for the movie about himself. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I will do it. The member knows that he cannot refer to members’ attendance in the House. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: Sorry Madam Assistant Speaker. I apologise to Rodney Hide for that slight. 
This is a bill that National members over there do not support that Business New Zealand does not support that the Business Roundtable does not support and that the Employers and Manufacturers Association leadership does not support. We are told that New Zealand employers will allow flexible working hours without a law. Well let us think about that. The Hospitality Association made the worst submission I have ever heard in my life in this Parliament. It said that there were flexible working hours in the hospitality industry—if people did not like the hours offered by restaurant A they left their jobs and went down the road to restaurant C. That was its idea of flexible working hours. No say was given to the worker. There was no right to ask. The boss would set the terms. 
Colin King 
: Grow up! 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I grew up a long time ago unlike the member working in that industry and representing workers in that industry. I have seen the worst behaviour and I have seen the best. Sadly examples of the best behaviour are few and far between because the lowest common denominator actually prevails. The worst employer sets the rate and the conditions and the good ones who try to take them on find out that their prices do not match. That is why legislation is necessary in this country. 
This legislation is very audacious! It allows workers to make a request for their boss to consider whether they should be allowed to have some sort of flexibility as to where they work and when they work. And the National Party is opposed to that! The National Party says that employers should have that absolute right all on their own and under the law—that is what National wants. Well we do not think that that is the way to go. 
I want to tell those people over there who are screeching like hyenas to think about this. On Monday I was at a conference. Most of the people there were women. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: All your union mates. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: They were my mates. Their husbands had had strokes and could not work any more even if they wanted to. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Bob Clarkson that they had given up their careers. They would not have stuck with him as a husband; they would have ditched him long ago if he had had a stroke. I take my hat off to those people because they care about their husbands and their partners and they were there telling their stories. They were saying how difficult it was to stay in employment if a loved one had had a stroke. There was a woman there whose son had had a stroke. She had to give up partially her career. Fortunately she worked in a job where she could down cut her hours to 2 days a week. But she had made an enormous sacrifice to be there for her son. I sat beside women who had done the same sort of thing in order to look after their husbands. I ask the opponents of this bill what is wrong with that? What is wrong with their being able to make a simple request of their employers? What is wrong with it? 
Chris Tremain 
: Why can’t they do it now? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: That member over there who does not know industrial law from one end to the other says they can do that now. If they could do that now satisfactorily why have they given up their jobs? Why have they given up their careers? Why have they had to sacrifice their future? It is because they were not able to work the flexible hours that this legislation would see them work if they had an employer who was willing to listen. 
I just cannot understand why anybody in this House could be opposed to this legislation and why any employer’s so-called leader could be opposed to it. It is a simple right to make a request. If an employer says that that does not suit his or her business for reasons x y or z—in fact there are about seven reasons in the bill—then he or she has the right in the law to say that for one of those reasons the request cannot be acceded to. 
Those National members opposite who think they have the skill and the ability to govern had better start thinking again. The one thing they have missing is a heart. I say to Bob Clarkson that not one of those members can get up and be brave tonight by voting for this bill instead of opposing it because they are told to. Kate Wilkinson knows that this is a sensible bill that she would actually support if she were allowed to. But no the whip has been called so National members cannot vote for it. Those members are saying to New Zealanders that they do not care and that workers can go on suffering because employers must have the absolute right to make all decisions and workers just have to cop it. That is last century; this bill is this century. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I guess one would have to say of the previous speaker Mark Gosche that it seems he is unaware of the legislation that was passed in 2000 and amended in 2004. An inherent part of that legislation is in fact good faith. What is good faith about? It recognises that in the modern and contemporary workplace there is a dialogue between employers and employees. The essence of what the member says is that the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill means that one can ask. Well what employee could not ask anyway? It is inherent under the principle of good faith that one can have dialogue. 
The Government is promoting the case that the only thing this bill does is give people the right to ask and therefore we should support it. Well I have news for the Government. People can ask right now and they do and in large numbers of cases depending on the individual circumstances of the employer and employee arrangements are made. You know we challenged the previous speaker to table the press release where we said we are opposed to part-time work. We gave him the opportunity to do so. We asked him to give us the proof that we were opposed to part-time work. Did he raise a point of order? Did he ask to table a press release? Frankly he was speaking arrant nonsense. We recognise that in the modern workplace people will work part-time. People do work part-time because that is what suits their circumstances. 
I want to make a general point. National members thought long and hard about this bill. We had a very substantial internal debate. We did not just take a reflexive approach and say: “Proposed by the Greens—ergo bad.” We thought about the issues and decided we needed to think about them. We ultimately decided that no we would not support the bill. I want to tell members the reasons why we decided this. We went back to first principles and we asked ourselves what the fundamental problem is with New Zealand’s economy and we said that its fundamental problem is a lack of productivity. 
There are a variety of reasons why that is the case such as a lack of capital and a lack of skills but one of the critical reasons is excessive compliance costs. Although each of these things might not seem to be significant in itself their cumulative effect is to add to compliance costs and regulations—and in this instance quite needlessly because good faith means people can ask anyway. In huge numbers of cases because of the dynamic of the New Zealand workplace because we are largely small and medium sized employers and because there is a dynamic marketplace of employers and employees people make their own arrangements. Labour the Greens and indeed New Zealand First have said that Britain does this. Well Britain was required to do so under the European Union. 
Again if members are looking at first principles they should ask which economies are growing faster—the North American model or the European model. In essence the North American model trusts employers and employees to enter into their own arrangements. It is the model that by and large Australia has and that by and large Canada has adopted and I guess one might say that New Zealand stands a little bit in between. We tend as a nation to borrow from both. But the difference is that Europe—particularly Western Europe—has fundamentally lower rates of productivity and overall growth. [ 
Interruption 
] That is true. I know that it comes as a shock to Darren Hughes to find that out but Europe has lower rates of growth than the North American model. A vast amount of evidence supports that proposition. 
In essence we are asking whether this is a question of supporting this bill or of supporting our overall philosophical approach. We said that the fundamental challenge facing the New Zealand economy is shown in the evidence from this week—the largest number of New Zealanders in the history of our country have voted with their feet and have gone to Australia. They have done that because there are better opportunities there. 
I heard the Minister of Finance saying that it was nothing to do with wages. Well I guess one cannot say that someone lies but he has to be deluding himself to suggest that. He knows perfectly well that the income gap is sending New Zealanders from here to Australia and even Mr Rudd knows that he also has to have a light-handed approach to business. So a large number of the changes made under the Workplace Relations Act in Australia would be retained by a Labor Government. That is part of Mr Rudd’s commitment. He knows that Australia needs to grow quickly and part and parcel of that is not being excessive in the levels of regulation. So he is talking about amending that legislation not repealing it. 
New Zealanders are voting to go to Australia because of higher incomes and those incomes are higher simply because there are fewer compliance costs. Basically it is easier to accrue capital and it is easier to gain skills; ergo Australia has higher productivity and therefore higher incomes. That is because Australia has taken a different philosophical approach from that taken by New Zealand’s current Government. Mr Rudd knows the truth of that which is why part of his election campaign is based on his claim that he will not change the situation fundamentally. That is the truth of the situation. 
The New Zealand Labour Government in contrast is following the European model. Whenever those members look at a situation what is the first thing they look at? They look at whether Scandinavia Britain or the European Union did it. If those countries did it then our Labour Government says that we should do the same thing. That is the path to slow growth. We would have to say that in the last few years that is exactly what this Government has delivered—slow and declining growth. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Fastest in the OECD. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: There are reams and reams of reports on New Zealand’s low productivity. This is all news it seems to the new Minister Darren Hughes so he should listen. He might learn something about economics. Actually I say to Mr Hughes that he might even become a decent Minister if he did a bit of reading on this stuff in the 1 year in which he has the job. 
Essentially National has gone back to first principles on this bill. We asked ourselves two questions. First we asked whether there is already a reasonable level of flexibility in the workplace and we said yes to that. The evidence produced before the select committee was quite clear on that. There is plenty of flexibility in the New Zealand workplace so that box was given a tick. The second thing we asked ourselves was whether this bill would add additional compliance costs perhaps not in a huge way but in its own way and the answer is obviously yes. 
So on a first-principles basis we say that this bill does not help. It will add unnecessary compliance costs and in its own little way it will harm New Zealand’s prospects. New Zealanders know the truth of this and that is why they are going to Australia. This is the challenge we face in our country—whether to compete with Australia—and under our current Government we know the answer: failure. 
National says that we will turn things round in this country. We will get growth going again in this country. New Zealanders are crying out for a new direction. They are crying out for the next agenda for our country whereby the Government will stop the interfering nanny State ways that tie up New Zealanders and restrict freedom. You know the last speech made by Mr Gosche seemed like a speech on electoral finance did it not? Do members know why? It is because Labour members want to control things. They want to tie up people and restrict their freedom. That is the approach of Labour that is the approach National rejects and that is the approach that makes New Zealanders say they want an end to the nanny State. National will deliver that. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document that shows that under the Labour-led Government the New Zealand economy has grown faster than the OECD average. 
Document not tabled. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make a serious contribution to this debate and I will start by congratulating the member Sue Kedgley on her determination to bring this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill to Parliament and to see it through. From the time her bill was tabled more than 2½ years ago she has worked patiently with like-minded parties to make improvements and to meet genuine concerns. I am really proud that Labour members are supporting this bill and that during its passage we have been active in assisting its progress. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as other speakers have mentioned put this bill on hold to encourage employers to prove that an education process was more likely to succeed than legislation. We gave them a year in which to do that. Did they prove it? Well no they did not. During that period we also encouraged extensive consultation and debate on flexible working arrangements through the Department of Labour. During that time and since that time has the call for this legislation diminished? No it has not. In fact the call for it from the community has strengthened. 
This bill which is nearing conclusion tonight although still very modest in terms of legislation puts New Zealand further ahead in recognising the realities of the modern workplace. It takes some active steps to do something about the stresses on families and communities that the demands to put the firm before the family are causing our citizens and that is something we should all celebrate. I continue to be absolutely astonished that the National Party ACT and Gordon Copeland have not signed up to this very sensible logical and family-friendly legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] Are United Future members supporting it? Oh well I do apologise to the member; I am sorry. But the other parties of course say that legislation is unnecessary. I would say to those parties that they need to get real and talk to the families under stress who have made submissions on this bill. Those members on the select committee should talk to workers about the ever-increasing expectations placed on them regardless of their family circumstances. 
Bob Clarkson 
: What about employers? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Members should go and talk to those who responded to the Department of Labour’s consultation process and to the Coalition for Quality Flexible Work—which includes employers I say to Bob Clarkson. That coalition is made up of business professional and legal groups community organisations family advocacy organisations and unions. They all say there is a need for this legislation. 
Sometimes legislation is needed to lead cultural change and we can take many of the family-friendly legislative changes made in recent years. I would ask members opposite whether education would have encouraged employers to provide paid parental leave. 
Lynne Pillay 
: And opposed by them. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: And opposed by them. Well the answer is no actually. It took the legislation that was introduced by this Government and like-minded parties to lead the change which is in fact now supported by the National Party or at least I think so. Would education have delivered 4 weeks’ holiday for working families? No of course it would not have done so. That is another change that is also now apparently supported by National provided people can cash up their extra week’s leave although those members opposed it bitterly at the time. The truth is that National and its fellow travellers do not believe that legislation should ever lead change. Those members stick to their ridiculous belief that the market dictates the way and the invisible hand will always deliver. 
Throughout the debate our long-working-hours culture has been referred to as a reason for the introduction of this kind of measure and it is obvious that something needs to give in the world of work occupied by today’s workers. 
Hon Member 
: The worker’s got to give a good effort. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: This might be of interest to the member Wayne Mapp. A book published in the United States by Madeleine Bunting entitled  
Willing Slaves 
 describes how our overworked culture is ruining our lives. She is actually talking about the US situation but it is very similar to that of many other countries. Hard work is supposed to bring wealth and satisfaction but instead argues Bunting it is bringing worry illness poverty and debt. In Japan it is called karoshi; we have no word in the English language that matches it. But study after study finds that long working hours increases the chance of workers suffering from illness and injury. For those doing 12 hours’ work a day there is a 37 percent increase in risk compared with those working fewer hours. Another well-known study shows that if people work consistently longer than 40 hours a week it will damage their health and it will damage them physically and psychologically. That is a problem and this Government faces up to those sorts of problems. As well as being bad for individuals long work hours are bad for families and for society. They are also bad for business because long working hours relate directly to lower productivity. Tired employees work more slowly they make more mistakes and they become sick more frequently. 
The National Party likes to have a go at Labour on the issue of productivity because National members have no new ideas other than the low-wage low-skill economy they created in the 1990s which caused the problems we are debating today. I suggest that they have a look at the UK. I know they will not want to talk about the UK but I ask them to have a look. Workers there work the longest hours in Europe yet the UK economy is the least productive in the industrialised world. The National Party needs to ask itself some hard questions and come up with some different answers just for a change. 
We do not want New Zealand to be like Japan which has the longest working hours in the OECD. In 1987 the Japanese Government acknowledged that the country had a problem with death from overwork. Do we really want to go there? The Japanese Government began to publish statistics on karoshi as it is called in Japan. Now lawsuits for death by overwork are common with the victims’ families seeking compensation payments. In 2002-03 there were 819 claimants. The notion that we work to live not live to work should never be superseded by the notion that we work until we drop but that is what the National Party would like to see workers in New Zealand do—work until we drop. 
Flexible working arrangements are just one tool for dealing with the impact of longer working hours on family responsibilities but on their own they will not solve our long working-hours problems and we should not kid ourselves that they will. I am watching with great interest the debate in other countries around exactly the same problems that we face here in New Zealand. What is emerging about tackling the working hours issue is the need for a mix of policies starting with legislation like this which gives all workers with caregiving responsibilities the right to request flexible work. But we also need to look at stronger working-hours regulation better work organisation more investment in technology and improvement in low pay which this Government is making significant strides on. There is no doubt that workers and their families are saying they want greater control over their hours and patterns of work. I ask members just to raise the issue and see what response they get from the community. This bill is an appropriate response to that along with other Government measures either already taken or in the pipeline. 
Although the emphasis in this debate has been on reducing long working hours the Department of Labour reports that of 100000 people who work part-time 78000 of them who are women would like to work more hours. So we have to be careful that flexible working is not seen largely as a women’s issue. Large numbers of women workers work part-time where a high and persistent part-time pay penalty is incurred. Part-time work is just not the silver bullet that the National Party seems to think it is. It has often been created explicitly to recruit or retain women while the continuing workplace expectation that long hours are to be worked in particular jobs such as management helps to preserve those areas of employment as a largely male enclave. 
The change in this bill from the right of parents with children under 5 or parents of disabled children under 18 to request flexible hours to the right for any worker with caring responsibilities to make such a request will help to balance equal opportunities with equity by enabling all parents and carers to have access to flexible hours. We want to encourage men to participate fully in their caring responsibilities and to ensure that the reduced pay from fewer working hours or part-time work does not continue to unfairly penalise women. 
This bill has been accompanied by the usual predictions of gloom and doom from the National Party and their mates at the big end of business. They talk a lot about first principles; their principles are the principles of the Business Roundtable. The member Sue Kedgley and the Government have bent over backwards to accommodate concerns from business about potential litigation. Similar litigation in other countries has not opened the floodgates and there have not been massive disputes around this kind of legislation. 
This is a good bill. It is a simple bill. It gives workers with caring responsibilities the right to request flexible working arrangements and it gives employers legitimate reasons to say “No”. But its real value will be in the contribution it will make towards changing the culture of New Zealand’s overstressed workplaces. I congratulate again the member on her wonderful work on this bill. I acknowledge the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the other parties and the cooperative efforts that have gone into reaching a bill tonight that we can all feel proud of. 
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
: 
 I too would like to commend Sue Kedgley for bringing the bill to the House because if nothing else it has opened up a debate and it is a debate that in some respects has been worth having. The debate has been about our families and it has been about the effect of the number of hours that parents work and what it means for them. But the debate that perhaps we have not gone into when we have had an opportunity to do so with the introduction of this bill and one that I think we could have taken the opportunity to take further is a discussion on the role of parents and paid work in their lives; how they juggle family and how they juggle the issue of who is looking after their children. 
There have been immense changes over the past 15 to 20 years. I do not think anyone can absolutely deny that. Are we seriously monitoring what those changes mean? Are we seriously looking at what those changes mean for families and for our children? We have one longitudinal study in Dunedin but are we asking ourselves who is raising our children? What does a push towards longer working hours for mothers and fathers actually mean for those children when we put them into more care on a week-by-week basis? What does it mean when the Prime Minister stands up and tells women that they need to be in productive work? The Prime Minister herself stands up and says women need to get into productive work and raising children is not considered productive work. 
I do not for one moment stand up and pretend to have the answers to all of those questions because I do not think we do yet as a society. I do not think society has had those discussions. I do not think we are even having the discussion let alone starting to come up with some of those answers. But piecemeal bits of legislation like this bill are not the answer. Until we have actually sat down looked at longitudinal studies and really looked at what it means for our children to be in care for a longer time and for their parents to be working longer hours and look at those in significant detail what we are doing is making it up as we go along. That is not the role of this House and it should not be the role of this Government. Legislating for flexible arrangements is simply not the answer. Looking at what is best for families is the answer. Politicians dictating to families what they think is best for them is most certainly not the answer. We need to look at common sense and formal approaches that are currently happening and the fear that this legislation can take them away. 
The difference is that members on this side of the House appreciate that New Zealanders are common-sense people. New Zealanders know what is best for them. They are getting on with it and they are doing the best job they possibly can for them and their families. Let us not continue to treat people as stupid and incapable. I think that is a really important point and one I would certainly like to make again in this House. Let us not continue to treat people as stupid and incapable. We need to recognise that people know what is good for them and know how to get it. We need to recognise that they know how to manage their families and their working environments. They have the ability to talk to each other to negotiate and to come to reasonable solutions. 
Constantly telling people that they are incapable of making representations and decisions for themselves is in its own way an exploitation of those very people. It is another way of making people dependent and it is simply wrong. This is the key difference. Here the difference is stark. Members on one side of the House say: “We know what is best for you and we will legislate accordingly.” The others—on the National side of the House—believe in people. We believe in people’s ability if given the chance to do what is right for them and their families. Trusting people and their own abilities and their capabilities is at the heart of it. That means not regulating every part of their lives. The New Zealand people are standing up and saying “No more.” We do not believe that people want or need legislation to rule every part of their lives. Will this legislation outlaw informal requests—those common-sense approaches that are happening day upon day in workplaces throughout New Zealand? This regulation has the risk of pitting one employee against the other. 
Hon Member 
: Just lip service. 
PAULA BENNETT 
: One can talk about lip service or whatever one likes but let us deal with the realities. Let us deal with a real workplace and deal with what is actually happening in our workplaces now. People are discussing amongst themselves and with their employers what will work in the workplace and they are making it happen. They are making it happen for themselves they are making it happen for their families and they do not need legislation to tell them how to talk to each other. People are coming to arrangements amongst themselves; what they might say is: “I need a Tuesday off to have with my young child because I want to pick my child up early.” A colleague says: “I’ll work Tuesday afternoon and step in for you.” The reply might be: “Well I’ll do Friday morning.” They then go to the employer. They job-share and work part-time and those arrangements are already happening. 
One may not hear it out on the air waves but there is this snippy snappy coming from the other side of the House all through this speech. Quite frankly it is the whole “us and them” mentality. We have heard it tonight and we are hearing it now: snip snip snip coming from over there and it is that whole divisive unhelpful “us and them” mentality that is actually going to destroy workplace relationships. They are continuing with it and it is their only way to try to get personal and undermine us. But the snip snip snippy “us and them” is simply not going to work when it comes to dealing with relationships in the workforce. 
There is nothing wrong with people asking for flexible hours. We can exaggerate it from the other side and make things sound all dire because it is coming from the National Party but the simple fact is that there is nothing wrong with people asking for flexible hours. They can do that now. In fact anyone has the right now to go to his or her employer and ask for flexible hours and flexible working arrangements. It is called—and everyone wait for this because this is important—a conversation. It is called an actual conversation. 
One of the other concerns that one must have is that these requests now must be in writing. So those people who do have trouble putting a letter together and putting their thoughts down in writing—and there are number of people who do have problems in putting a letter together and putting a request that makes sense to their employer—are going to be disadvantaged by this piece of legislation. Because they cannot simply go and talk to their employer as they have always done because now the request will have to be in writing. And they can of course ask only once a year under this legislation. Once one starts legislating for this this is simply what one gets—one request a year and that is it. Who is to say that employees’ circumstances are not changing regularly? There is a real fear that this will take away common-sense approaches in the process—another layer of bureaucracy. 
How many more people will the Department of Labour need to employ to administer this bill? What will happen under this legislation is that if the employee is not happy with the result it goes to a Labour inspector then to mediation and then to the employment authority. So we have three layers. We are going to need more people. How many cases does this House expect to go to the authority and at what cost? Well start legislating and that is what will happen. 
If an employer has already approved a few requests in a year—and this is a huge concern for us as well—met with the first one met with the second “Yes yes” and finally says: “We can do no more; the answer is no.” then that person is simply disadvantaged for the rest of year in many respects we think. So what will happen? The employers talk to each other talk to themselves and come to arrangements. But that does not happen once one is putting legislation in and once one is making it in writing. It is true and those members know it is true. It is quite a simple fact that once one starts legislating once rules go in place like that there are dire consequences and it will be to the detriment of the employee. 
So I stand up to say that this legislation is not what we believe will work for employees to make the workplace a better place. We simply stand by our conviction that flexible working hours and flexible arrangements are a given and are a right for any New Zealander; we simply do not need to legislate for them. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 That was apparently the National Party’s best weapon for opposing the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill. Paula Bennett a young woman is actually opposing this bill. Sadly Paula Bennett may have supported this bill when she was a member of the Alliance Party. What a pity her principles have changed. What a pity the best she can do is come into this House and say that the members of the coalition for flexible work—and I shall name some of them: Parents Centres New Zealand the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Grey Power the National Council of Women of New Zealand the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and many other unions—do not know their own minds or know what is best for them and their workers. What a pity! 
This is a great bill. It is good for women. It is good for men. It is good for workers. It is good for families. It is good for employers. It would have delivered for my father who gave up his last job—a job he loved—to look after my mother who was semi-paralysed by a stroke. It would have worked for me years later when I looked after that same elderly father and juggled a full-time job. It would have worked for many other carers I met during those years who struggled with either giving up jobs or somehow working a few paid hours here and there. It would have worked for all those people. 
Members of the coalition for flexible work who came and said that this bill is a great bill and is necessary and who supported Sue Kedgley and the select committee as we went through the work of making this bill even better than when it started knew exactly what it was talking about. 
What I find really sad tonight is the so-called philosophical principled attitude of the National Party to this very very good bill. The National Party philosophy and principle tonight is the same old sound and fury—signifying nothing—that I have heard in this House for months. It is the same old insubstantial jumping from cloud to cloud and the same old hollow vessel catcalls across this Chamber. 
The National Party is the party with a leader who has actually been heard to say that flexible labour markets are the way to go but then somehow manages to flip-flop and lead the National Party into a flip-flop opposing this very important flexible working arrangements legislation. How do they live with themselves? Why do they oppose the bill? They oppose it because their mates—the Business Roundtable the Employers and Manufacturers Association and Business New Zealand—have told them to oppose it. It is not because they believe in opposing it and not because people like Paula Bennett actually believe in what they have said tonight but because their mates have told them to oppose it because it actually does something for workers. 
Let me tell the other side of this House that not only does the bill do something for workers but it does something very significant for families and for employers. I tell members on the other side of the House that what the bill does for employers is widen the recruitment pool keep experienced people in employment reduce absenteeism and make a culture in which it is more likely that staff will remain with a company. What is bad about that? 
This is a very good bill. But no members on the other side are doing exactly what they did with paid parental leave Working for Families and raising the minimum wage. They oppose the bill because philosophically all they can do is oppose anything that might be good for the workplaces of New Zealand. They do not want good employment legislation to come out. National wants to try to get back into power so that it can restore the Employment Contracts Act and bring in a 90-day probation bill. It is not interested in good workplace legislation in this country. It is not interested in what is good about this bill. It has not even considered that this bill delivers on work-life balance. Do National members even know what work-life balance means? 
They appear not to have even read this bill which quite clearly states that workers can make a request for flexible working arrangements. There are also a number of very lengthy grounds as to why an employer may refuse a request. There are things like an inability to reorganise work an inability to recruit additional staff a detrimental impact on quality and a detrimental impact on performance—and the list goes on. 
This is a very light-handed piece of legislation. It provides employees with an ability to request something that improves workplace relationships in this country. But do the National Party members care about that? No. What they seem to care about is what they came to this House with: their philosophical approach as a previous speaker called it. It is the same philosophical approach that meant opposing paid parental leave and opposing raising the minimum wage. They seem to think that anything that might be good for the workers of this country and for the families of this country is bad and therefore they will oppose it no matter what. 
It appears to me that members on that side of the House who were on the same select committee as I was listening to the submissions on this bill did not take in anything whatsoever of what they were told by any submitters who came to us. The submitters talked about the bill being employer friendly employee friendly and family friendly and about the bill being good legislation. But no it appears that all that the members on the other side could see was that somehow they had to oppose the legislation because philosophically and on first principles it is bad to have something that is family friendly employee friendly and employer friendly. 
They also seem somehow to have got away from their belief in what Mr Cameron the leader of the UK Conservative Party had to say. Mr Cameron said that his ambition is to make the right to ask for flexible working hours available to as many people as possible. He says that he understands that having flexible working hours reduces absenteeism and means that staff are more likely to remain with a company. He seems to understand all that. Mr Key seems to follow Mr Cameron’s lead constantly but on this particular issue suddenly the Tory party on the other side of the House has some sort of philosophical first-principles objection to this very good family-friendly employer-friendly and employee-friendly legislation. 
I say to the members on the other side that this is very good legislation. Sue Kedgley is to be complimented on the fact that she has brought this bill to the House and that she was willing to take an extremely lengthy period of time and to bend over backwards to have a piece of legislation now going through its final stages in the House that is even better than the bill she began with. It is an excellent bill. It is the sort of bill that in many years’ time when many of us look back at our years in Government we will say we were very proud to have been a part of passing in the House today. 
This bill delivers to New Zealanders. If the National Party thinks there is a single worker or a single woman out there whom they have impressed tonight or with any of their other speeches opposing this bill then they will learn otherwise. New Zealanders see this bill as the very good family-friendly employer-friendly and employee-friendly legislation that it is. New Zealanders are proud of its being passed. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It is great to see this Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill successfully completing its long journey through the House tonight. I congratulate Sue Kedgley and all who worked with her on this bill on their tremendous achievement. I know now after some considerable experience of my own with members’ bills in the last couple of years just how much work stress negotiation and patience is required to shepherd any bill like this through the House. It is just great that my colleague has persisted and succeeded with her original goal of making flexible working hours far easier to achieve for some of the workers who need this the most. 
Indeed as Lesley Soper has just said the bill has gone further than Sue even dreamt of. It is a fantastic achievement. Although I know that many of us inside this House and outside would have liked this bill to go even further than it does now it is a great step forward and will I think herald a sea change in how both workers and employers view the possibility of more flexibility in the workplace from now onwards even in this interim period before the bill becomes law. 
The fact that a majority of parties in this House support employees with dependants having access to the right to negotiate when they work full time—or more than full time—so that they can do the best for their dependants is a great thing. I am sure that there are some National Party MPs sitting here in the House tonight who would prefer to be voting for this bill. I am sorry that their party’s ideology has for some reason continued to deny them that privilege. All we have heard from National members tonight—and I am sorry to be repeating some of what my colleague Lesley Soper has said but it has been quite striking—is a kind of prolonged justification as to why they cannot bring themselves to support the bill. I am sure that a number of our National Party colleagues do not even believe their own excuses. 
The National Party constantly says that one of its main goals as it goes into the election next year is to support the family. I do not know how many times I have heard Judith Collins say that on platforms around the country. But when something very practical comes along like this bill which would help to alleviate the stress that so many families experience when trying to balance the competing demands of paid work and raising a family the National Party turns round and fails to vote for it. How can New Zealanders believe National’s rhetoric about the family if National members cannot even bring themselves to support a simple piece of non-coercive legislation like this? 
Right through this debate I have been surprised that National MPs seem to be blissfully unaware that their Conservative counterparts in the UK strongly support similar legislation and in fact have policies to extend it. This speaks volumes about how comparatively reactionary our own home-grown Tory party is and how out of touch its members are with progressive developments that even emanate from parties that share their conservative world view. 
One of the things that I personally am most pleased about with this bill in its final form is that it has been extended to include anyone who has a caring responsibility not only for children but also for people with impairments and older or sick relatives or whanau. I was very moved by Mark Gosche’s speech earlier in this debate on his own situation and by his courage in giving us a glimpse of the reality of how hard it is even with our well-paid jobs here to cope with caring well for a dependent family member. The small moment he shared of his and his family’s reality is something that is also shared by tens of thousands of workers around the country every day many of whom do not have the privilege of the pay or the comparative flexibility of hours that this particular job affords those of us sitting here in this House tonight. I am sure that this bill will go some small way towards making a real difference in the particularly stressed and difficult lives of workers who have those kinds of major responsibilities for family members with long-term illnesses or disabilities. 
I also hope that this bill will see many of this country’s most insecure low-paid and vulnerable employees—like cleaners and caregivers for example—given a new right to request some stability in their hours and their days of work. Many of those workers have children and other dependants and have just as great if not more of a need and right to flexible hours as people like lawyers policy analysts and MPs who operate very much at the other end of the scale. 
In conclusion I thank once again all those parties here in the House who have seen fit to support us in passing this bill for their role in making such a significant change in New Zealand’s workplace culture. The hours we are working in New Zealand these days are far too long. Wages for many people are far too low and too many parents and other caregivers are working far more than they would like. Although we cannot hope to solve all these problems with one small bill like this what we are doing and can do is to implement at least this reform which will be of immense benefit to all those affected not just in the short term but for years to come. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to take a call on this bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Flexible Working Arrangements) Amendment Bill be now read a third 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 third time. 
New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 7 November. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker and thank you for the acclamation from the other side of the House as well as from my colleagues here. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: In life or on the bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I notice that I am already being interrupted by Darren Hughes who is interjecting not from his own seat in the House I note. But never mind—he applies that rule to others but not to himself. 
The first reading of this bill was on 11 May 2005 a couple of years ago. Members from all sides of the House of all political flavours on that particular occasion seemed to be very much in favour of the bill’s introduction with the noted exception of the Green Party. Dr Wayne Mapp Dr Michael Cullen Dail Jones Stephen Franks David Parker the Hon Georgina te Heuheu and Peter Dunne were all very supportive in their comments at the bill’s introduction and even though the party representation was diverse a common thread in many of the speeches was the link between the rights of private property and democracy itself—albeit that was qualified particularly during Dr Cullen’s speech. There were though a couple of warning shots across the bows of the bill and I mention this for Gordon Copeland’s benefit or memory. A couple of warning shots were fired across the bill during its first reading. There was a call for a definition of “property” and of the word “deprived”. I guess it was hoped that these things would be taken into account during the select committee considerations. 
I suggest that this bill fails not in the submissions we received and not necessarily in debate but in reality because for all it expresses currently it is an emotional response to a yet-to-be-determined and yet-to-be-defined reality. I can understand the apprehension associated with the thought processes that went into putting the bill together. If one has property then one has the right to use it and to enjoy it without being deprived of it without compensation. I guess that is a natural thing to feel. It is written into the constitutions of other legislation so why is it missing from ours? 
However it is not a simple matter to produce legislation just to fit a whim or an emotion. For instance my wife and I own property in what must be one of the most tranquil and beautiful parts of the South Island Lake Brunner the largest lake on the West Coast and a heavenly place to live. We use it— 
Kate Wilkinson 
: A beautiful place. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: It is a beautiful place. We use it and we enjoy it. 
Hon Member 
: Tell us more about it. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Would the member like to know more about it? We can do that. Are we deprived of our enjoyment of it at any stage? Well not during a normal week or during a normal weekend. There is a village population of 52. We all know one another; it is a very nice place to live. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Corner dairy? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well no there is not a corner dairy. It has a service station a garage and a fire brigade. It is a honey of a community. But what about on the weekends especially the long weekends when we get visits from a couple of thousand to 3000 “bachees” who come to take full advantage of the lake? Actually we do not object at all my wife and I. We are not offended by it and we find it great that more and more people seize the opportunity to share our perceptions of the West Coast the place we consider to be the stuff of good living. But there are those I can assure members having been the chair of the local community association—particularly those who suffer from the “last settler” syndrome—who feel they have been deprived of the use and enjoyment of their property by such activities as those involving jet boats jet skis helicopters and the wonderful wild parties that occur often at weekends. They feel deprived. 
How would the bill fit those circumstances? Well the bill in fact would trap those circumstances and it does. I could be told no doubt—and I think we were told at the select committee—that those things would not apply. We were told—and I urge my colleagues to listen to this one carefully—that common sense would prevail. Have we heard that lately? Have we heard that from the other side of the House? “Never mind what the law says—common sense will prevail.” We can tell that to a clever lawyer then watch to see what he or she can do with it. 
Hon Member 
: A rare breed the clever lawyer. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Well yes but I am told they are around. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: It’s an oxymoron. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Oh no. How can I say that sort of thing speaking as I am from my colleague Chris Finlayson’s desk? He would be very deeply upset and offended. 
Colin King 
: Deeply wounded. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Deeply wounded. But they do say that when—no I digress; I will get back to the bill. 
National though strongly supports property rights and I can imagine the bill’s author Gordon Copeland being disappointed that the bill has not received a more natural fit with National thinking. What I can say for it Gordon is that I have rapidly come to realise being a member of the National caucus that we think through legislation very very carefully unlike those on the other side of the House. It is not the intention of the bill that presents the problem; it is the areas of uncertainty the areas that are not defined the areas of the bill that leave questions hanging unanswered—a bit like questions directed to Ministers on the other side of the House at question time really. It is those areas that cause caution. 
The reach of the bill as it is is extraordinarily unrestricted. It could be used as an instrument for a great deal of litigation—indeed for mischief—against the Crown and heaps of other entities simply because it is available as a legal instrument. Lord knows we have a surfeit of directional regulation at the moment that purposely penetrates private personal and public life without lighting another firework to go on a random damaging journey. 
Just looking at my notes which I wrote a couple of weeks ago I realise now the error of my ways. I said in them that this bill would benefit from being a Government bill. I thought that if the bill were a Government bill it would enable the Crown to bring the full extent of advice on the issues to all that is encompassed in the bill. But that was before I went through the structural charade of the Justice and Electoral Committee considering the Electoral Finance Bill—and what a charade it was! That is the only word for it. I never thought when I came to this august distinguished House that I would be obliged to sit through the low-level procedures that were engaged in during the consideration of that bill—but more on that later. 
I notice that National also considers there should be a statutory basis for compensation and that it should not simply be left to the courts. Perhaps the greatest benefit of this bill—and the thing that Gordon Copeland can be pleased about—is its alerting the rest of us to the need for a review of the Public Works Act 1981 and the Resource Management Act 1991. I know that National will fix the Resource Management Act. 
Finally there is the potential of this amendment to affect the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is something that was completely ignored in the consideration of the Electoral Finance Bill and this bill I say to Mr Copeland would affect that Act. It really requires an exhaustive consideration before the putting of it could occur and the exhaustive consideration has not occurred. One of the committee’s major concerns is that further work was required to ensure that the terms can be properly understood and interpreted correctly without confusion before any amendment is passed. We doubt that that work is within the scope of a member’s bill. The member simply does not have the resources to achieve that in our view. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Me mihi ra ki a koe Mr Copeland mo te ahuatanga o tokoreroi te ponei. 
[ 
Thank you Madam Speaker. Greetings to us. I particularly acknowledge Mr Copeland for the tenor of his address tonight 
.] 
I pass on my acknowledgment to Mr Copeland for his bill the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill this evening. 
The Maori Party has a strong interest in the central concept underpinning this bill—namely the protection of private property rights in Aotearoa. It is as the bill itself states protection that has been extended to Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. But of course it goes back even further. Indigenous peoples across the world recognise property rights as having arisen in Western legal thought following the colonisation of Mexico and Peru in the 16th and 17th centuries. That obligation developed into the doctrine of aboriginal title and became part of English common law. As it was the Treaty simple reaffirmed those rights. 
We in the Maori Party support the basic proposition of this bill: that tangata whenua have the right to own property and to be compensated in the event of deprivation of property. The concept of property rights as they relate to tangata whenua have of course taken on particular significance since the dreaded Foreshore and Seabed Act hit our shores. We note in the advice from the Justice and Electoral Committee that some submitters had suggested—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Speaker— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Members should not be standing let alone talking and interrupting other people’s speeches. If members want to speak they can go outside. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I was talking about the fact that the concept of private property rights as they relate to tangata whenua have of course taken on particular significance since the dreaded Foreshore and Seabed Act hit our shores. We note in the advice from the Justice and Electoral Committee that some submitters had suggested that this legislation may well have prevented the passage of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004—a suggestion we felt we had better examine. It is of course a matter of huge and ongoing concern to us in the Maori Party as we think of the bill—just a few places down on the Order Paper now—in the name of my colleague Tariana Turia to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As I say to us all this is an issue that will never subside. It will remain an issue of persistent anger and grief for tangata whenua and tangata Te Tiriti alike. 
We well remember the Waitangi Tribunal report of 3 March 2004 which concluded that the Crown’s foreshore and seabed policy breached the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in terms of both article 2 which guarantees certain fundamental Maori rights and article 3 which protects rights of Maori as British subjects. The tribunal concluded that in legislating away existing Maori property rights the Crown lacked the necessary moral and legal grounds for overriding the guarantees made in Maori in article 2 of the Treaty. The tribunal was quite specific. Its report stated: “The removal of the means whereby property rights can be declared is in effect a removal of the property rights themselves. The owners of the property rights do not consent to their removal. In pursuing its proposed course under these circumstances the Crown is failing to treat Maori and non-Maori citizens equally. The only private property rights abolished by the policy are those of Maori. All other classes of rights are protected by the policy. This breaches article 3 of the Treaty.” 
The tribunal thereby considered that the Crown’s proposed legislation was in essence and in effect discriminatory given it abolished private property rights of Maori and no one else. It saw the removal of the ability of the courts to further define articulate and award property rights to the foreshore and seabed as a violation of the rule of law the protection of which was guaranteed to Maori in article 3. The customary rights were described as discriminatory because the bill placed no restriction on non-Maori whose property rights were able to be developed. This was the point that economist Brian Easton raised at the time of the introduction of the foreshore law stating his surprise at what he calls “the silence of the political right on this central issue of the protection of private property rights.” We believe this is a point well made although we do make exception for the ACT party which had strongly endorsed the right for Maori to fight for ownership in court describing Government proposals as amounting to property seizure. 
It is in light of this background—this background of expropriation and of discrimination—that the Maori Party has therefore taken considerable pains to consider the bill of Mr Copeland before the House tonight. We absolutely believe that property rights need to be protected and also that Maori should receive just and fair compensation if their property rights are confiscated by the State. We have no doubt that the support of the Treaty Tribes Coalition in the select committee hearing of this bill emerges from its commitment to the long-term and enduring defence of property rights of Maori and all New Zealanders. These rights are absolutely incumbent upon any interpretation of the common law as derived from the Magna Carta. We see such rights not merely as flowing through from article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi as this bill suggests but as a pre-existing right guaranteed continuance in article 2 of the Treaty. 
It is here that we in the Maori Party have to raise concerns around the general intention of the bill. We believe that unless this bill specifically recognises Maori customary property rights our experience shows us that such rights would not be protected but more properly would be subordinated to the individual property rights of New Zealanders other than Maori New Zealanders. It is irrefutable that the rights inherent in citizenship of a democracy have been and continue to be done away with in respect of Maori and other minority races in New Zealand. 
We note with some irony and scepticism the absolute reverence with which individual private property rights are held to be sacrosanct but that any rights that may accrue to Maori the indigenous people of Aotearoa are absolutely and totally seen to be of no consequence. The most cynical demonstration of how indigenous property rights do not matter of course rests in the ulcer of the foreshore and seabed legislation of 2004. This is where our dilemma was most profound. Although we strongly support the protection of private property rights we believe that there are already well-established principles that protect such rights as recognised in common law. 
So what would this bill add to the overall framework of human rights and of foundation values for Aotearoa? We commend Gordon Copeland for his initiative on raising the issues around private property rights as fundamental rights for all New Zealanders but we believe that the wider context in which such rights sit is appropriately the place for such a debate. We support the move to discuss the values and concepts that all people living in this land can debate around constitutional change. We note the advice of the Human Rights Commission that any amendment to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would be best achieved through a wide participatory process as we would expect in the process of constitutional review. There is a great need for a more substantive discussion on changing our constitutional arrangements specifically to consider the implications of which constitutional arrangements would give best expression to the articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
The Maori Party believes that it is vital to engage the nation in the discussion on Te Tiriti o Waitangi and whether its current constitutional and legislative status allows a full expression of its intent and purpose. We want to ensure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is fairly represented in the constitutional and legislative framework and in the minds and actions of all people of Aotearoa. We look forward to being part of an evolving and mature debate around a constitution that will grow from the land to which it belongs and that will derive from the whakapapa of this place. We look forward to a constitution that will be unique to this place and expresses the aspirations and values of this place. We look forward to a constitution that would best give expression to the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
In closing I say the Maori Party cannot support this bill going further but we certainly have appreciated the vision that the member has shown in initiating such a prime opportunity for debate. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to support the second reading of the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill. Like other members I congratulate the member whose name is attached to this bill Gordon Copeland. I congratulate him on bringing this issue to Parliament and I congratulate him on his stand on property rights. I am sorry that tonight we will not be seeing this bill go further. 
ACT New Zealand has a very strong commitment to property rights and therefore we will be supporting this second reading. This bill’s progress through the House has been long and as Mr Copeland might say tortuous. It was first introduced in May 2005 and I note that the person who gave the first reading speech for ACT on this bill was Stephen Franks who spoke strongly at that time in favour of the bill as I will do tonight. He noted in that first reading speech something that most members of this House are probably unaware of—that 7 years prior to that point ACT MP Owen Jennings had submitted an almost identical bill to this House. So this issue of the importance of property rights has been around for some time and has been discussed. I say to the member Gordon Copeland “Good on you for raising this issue again so that it could be debated as it should be in this House.” 
The purpose of the bill of course is to protect private property rights in New Zealand within the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is long overdue that this should happen. I will make a comment about that before I go on. This bill as Mr Gordon Copeland noted in his second reading speech simply aligns the position in New Zealand with the position adopted by a majority of the world’s nations. It should be emphasised as he emphasised that the continued omission of property rights from the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act actually puts New Zealand well and truly out of step with most of the developed world. He noted in his speech that even China today has private property rights in its constitution and it is a sad indictment on this Parliament particularly in respect of the two large parties that it has not taken note of this and will not be supporting this bill tonight. 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is actually very difficult to concentrate on my speech—and I note that the previous speaker had to raise the same point of order—and be heard when many members are standing and talking amongst themselves while we have empty lobbies. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are quite right although the leader of a party is entitled to wander around the Chamber as much as he or she likes to consult with members. But I note that there were more members involved than just the leader. I am sorry you were interrupted. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a sad indictment on this Parliament tonight that this bill is not being pursued further. It took some time for this bill to go through the Justice and Electoral Committee and very strong submissions were given by many groups that are widely regarded and respected in this country. The Property Council of New Zealand had strong things to say. Federated Farmers launched quite a campaign and its members I know are very disappointed too that this bill will not proceed tonight. The Treaty Tribes Coalition also made a submission so we had submissions from a wide range of groups. We heard from Business New Zealand and from the Human Rights Commission. We had a few quotes from them. The Human Rights Commission spoke very strongly in favour of property rights and their importance in this country. 
The select committee also had input from the Law Commission. The Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer made a presentation to the committee. He put forward a speech in which he made some strong comments. He of course was responsible for the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He said in commenting much further down the track about that Act that he had taken a deliberate action in the 1980s to exclude property rights from that bill but on reflection today he believes they should have been included. 
Mr Copeland as I have already said should be congratulated on bringing this matter to the attention of the House but I do not think that this discussion should be finished tonight. It should be pursued; although sadly that will perhaps have to be done in a different forum. 
I want to make a few comments on the issue of individual property rights. Individual property rights and the rule of law together were England’s greatest gift to this country. Article 2 of the Treaty should have been embodied in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Property rights not democracy actually protect the weak against the strong in our society. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Ha ha! 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Fairbrother might like to listen because he might learn something here. Democracy if we think about it logically actually puts power in the hands of the majority but property rights—individual property rights or private property rights—are fundamental to the liberty of the individual. People who cannot hold their property inviolate against their neighbours or the State simply do not have the practical security to exercise any liberty such as free speech freedom of religion freedom of association or the like. My Maori Party colleague who spoke before me explored this issue in a great deal of detail and I agree with the comments he made. 
Individual property rights actually save environments. In the “tragedy of the commons” we have seen so many instances of communally owned assets simply being destroyed and at some points being turned into deserts. How often have we seen that in this country with regard to fishing? Property rights create incentives that allow people to plan and to work towards the long term towards the future. When occupiers cannot expect to get the residual they do not have any incentive to stop the property being degraded and they do not have any incentive to improve it. The concept of ownership—because this is what this is about—is extraordinarily important in any free society. Tonight this concept of property rights that are consistent with a society that works hard for the long term is being largely ignored by the parties voting against this bill. 
I proudly stand here tonight on behalf of the ACT party and support this bill. I congratulate the member once more on bringing the issue to the attention of this House. It is an important issue one that our society is founded on and one that I personally and the ACT party will continue to campaign for not just in this election but well into the future. It is a fundamental on which our society is based but something that sadly the National Party will vote against tonight. I thought that National members like others supporting this bill were champions of property rights but sadly New Zealanders are being let down in this regard tonight. ACT will be supporting this bill. Our two votes will go towards it and we will not let this matter rest here. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I rise to oppose the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill. 
Gordon Copeland said he sponsored this bill because he believes that New Zealanders firmly support private property rights. Without a doubt they do. He said that New Zealanders identified with the idea that a man’s or a woman’s house and home is his or her castle and that there should be no confiscation without compensation. Mr Copeland went on to add that the right to peaceful ownership and enjoyment of property rights is a foundation value of our legal tradition but he also said that common law has therefore always protected property rights carefully. 
National agrees with all that he said. But although we very firmly support the principle behind this bill we do not believe that it is the right way to go about protecting property rights or the right way to establish an equitable compensation regime for loss of property. The bill looks straightforward enough—there are only two clauses—but it is fraught with difficulty. We in National are troubled that its passage may have huge implications many of which have not been fully appreciated. 
The bill is a good example of a member’s bill that looks simple on the surface but amends important legislation in a way that could have far-ranging consequences. As a member’s bill it has not been subjected to the rigorous analysis we expect of a Government bill—although I must say that my colleague Chris Auchinvole was concerned about the rigorousness applied to some of the latest Government bills that have come forward. There has been no in-depth consideration of the possible impacts that this bill could have on existing legislation or even an estimate—not even an estimate—of the potential costs of passing this legislation. Without this work being done and a full understanding of the consequences of this amendment it would be foolish indeed to pass this bill. 
Mr Copeland argued that this bill takes its lead from article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and that many other countries such as the US Canada and the UK have similar legislation. He said he was disappointed that property rights were not included in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act passed in 1990. Interestingly enough property rights had been included in the early drafting of that bill along with some other clauses involving other economic and social rights but they were dropped during the select committee process with the comment: “This does not mean that those rights are of lesser importance but rather that they should be protected in a different way.” Our Justice and Electoral Committee once again debating this legislation agrees. 
Other countries also seem to agree because although some have included property rights in their bills of rights protection is often limited. In the United States the Fifth Amendment prohibits the deprivation of property without due process of law and the taking of private property for public lease without just compensation. The provisions are limited to the taking or deprivation of property and do not protect the right of private property as such. Property is not treated as a fundamental right in US constitutional law. In the UK until 1998 the protection of property rights was left to common law—a similar position to where New Zealand is at present—but in 1998 the UK Human Rights Act was passed and it does include private property rights. But it also incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights which includes an article that provides: “No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law”. The article goes on to say that these provisions “shall not however in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of the property in accordance with general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” In Canada property rights are included in the Canadian Bill of Rights but it is not part of the Canadian constitutions. Its powers are mitigated by a due process clause and have been overshadowed by new legislation passed in 1982 called the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The charter deliberately makes no mention of property rights or the deprivation of property apparently as a result of further consideration of United States experiences. 
Even the New Zealand Human Rights Commission which was in favour of including property rights into legislation recommends that amendments be made to this bill. The commission is particularly concerned that the drafting of the bill might give rise to unnecessary legal argument. 
National does not support this bill. It is poorly drafted and it has not had sufficient or robust analysis. Furthermore we believe that New Zealand property rights are sufficiently protected under common law without the need for the express protection of New Zealand constitutional documents. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take part in a debate in which every speaker addresses the issue seriously and from a different perspective. I hope I can add in a similar vein— though perhaps not of the same quality that we have heard tonight—some ideas on the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill and why Labour opposes it. 
I think the terminology of the previous speaker Nicky Wagner demonstrates one of the fundamental difficulties of the bill because when speaking of the British experience in 1998—when the British encapsulated a property right—she said that everyone had a right to retain his or her possessions. Of course “property” and “possessions” are similar words but they are two different concepts. 
Taxation is a property right. Taxation relates to some of one’s possessions and assets. This bill that we are discussing tonight offers no definition whatsoever of the term “property”. For that reason alone this bill must fail. We commonly think of property as real estate or we can sometimes think of it as motor vehicles or furniture but it also includes intellectual property copyright and other intangibles which I do not need to deal with tonight. 
The difficulty with a bill that has such an open-ended definition is that the unintended consequences will be tremendous. Our courts will be clogged for the next 10 or 15 years—as will this Parliament—as everyone tries to set right the cat that would be let among the legal pigeons if a bill with such a wide definition were allowed to go through this House. So for that reason alone—the lack of a definition of “property”—I must oppose this bill. It is one of the reasons why Labour opposes the bill. Of course there are other reasons as well. 
The previous speaker Nicky Wagner touched upon one of the key issues which is that what this bill seeks to protect is already protected in our common law. In a common law jurisdiction such as we have the common law exists by default when there is no statutory provision. There is no limit to the common law except what the judges perceive it to be at the time they apply precedent and consider principles. As a country that has a common law tradition such as we have—unlike the United States and Canada although common law applies in those places—New Zealand perhaps uniquely these days is one of the last true bastions of common law. For that reason alone the protections that are sought in this bill are already in existence. Therefore to vary the very wide-ranging protections that our common law does offer to those concerned about retaining any possessions or their rights to property requires very careful consideration indeed. 
That takes me to my friend Te Ururoa Flavell from the Maori Party and his argument about the Treaty of Waitangi. If one is going to support a bill such as this then one must ask why there has been no argument to lift the Treaty of Waitangi into statute form because article 2 of the Treaty makes specific reference to properties held collectively or individually. Article 2 makes very clear reference to the right of Maori to retain their property interests. But since 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi has sat in various stages of neglect and activism. Nobody has brought it on to the floor of the House to make it a binding statute of this Parliament. When the Constitutional Arrangements Committee of which I was a member last session considered these elements it also considered the issue of property rights—whatever they may be—and decided that that was a lesser issue than determining the major constitutional factors in our present constitutional arrangements. 
Of course the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is an important constitutional document and it forms one of the integral assets in our constitutional basket as it stands at present. I suggest that what Gordon Copeland is trying to achieve with this bill is already provided in section 27 of our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. If we look at the three subsections we see that anybody has the right to protect—particularly from the State—their property however it may be defined. Section 27 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives everybody “the right to the observance of the principles of natural justice by any tribunal or other public authority”. If we read that against the background of our common law tradition we see that natural justice applies to all aspects of life including disputes as to property. As the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies to actions by the State and the executive it replicates what Gordon Copeland is trying to achieve via this bill. 
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act avoids opening up a plethora of new definitions. It avoids using the word “property” with its many many different forms and uses. There is no clear legal definition of “property” just as there is no clear natural use of the term. The use of the term “property” in this bill—as I have said—is its fundamental weakness. 
To demonstrate the power of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we find in section 27(2) the mandating of the right to judicial review of any decision where the elements of natural justice may have been lost. We saw that just recently when my friend Chris Carter as the then Minister of Conservation made a decision in relation to the Whangamata marina. On an application for judicial review the High Court ruled that there were elements that the Minister should have further considered. Ultimately the marina went through to the regret of many conservationists. But that demonstrates more loudly than ever that there is a clear path already in our constitutional arrangements for property rights to be upheld. 
I want to touch briefly on my friend Te Ururoa Flavell’s comments on the Foreshore and Seabed Act. With respect to him I thought it was regrettable that he brought the Act into this discussion. I accept that there is an argument either way in this matter but I think that those who criticise the Foreshore and Seabed Act as trenchantly as they do have good grounds in some aspects but certainly not when it comes to claims for property. If one reads the Foreshore and Seabed Act with care against the common law that existed at the time one sees that the rights given by that Act are in fact potentially more expansive than the common law could allow. I know that the Maori Party will never agree with what I say here. I respect its position on most things relating to Maori sovereignty issues but I do not accept the criticism that the Foreshore and Seabed Act diminishes property rights. 
Because the Foreshore and Seabed Act has been raised in this debate and I do not think that having been raised it should be left without a response I wish briefly to recap what the Foreshore and Seabed Act does to protect property rights. The Foreshore and Seabed Act seeks merely to codify the existing common law on aboriginal rights which in part is what Gordon Copeland is trying to do with this bill. The Foreshore and Seabed Act broke the common law down into two aspects: customary rights and customary title. Customary title gives the claimants the right either to negotiate directly with the Government or to go to the High Court for a declaration. On customary rights customary usage the claimants can argue the matter through the Maori Land Court because those are restricted rights. 
The Waitangi Tribunal reflected in its report the difficulty of this concept because it is so different from European concepts of ownership. A large part of the tribunal report was dedicated to a description of tikanga. The tribunal itself felt that unless tikanga was understood one could not understand the aboriginal property rights that existed in common law. The Foreshore and Seabed Act codified the common law at the time in a form that one of the great scholars in aboriginal rights—a NgaiTahu scholar at Oxford University—said was a more generous and certain codification than the state of the common law at this time. When we talk about the Foreshore and Seabed Act we should be careful to separate the angst that exists among many from the reality which is the legal construct that it reflects and which does give certainty and breadth of claim to Maori claimants who can establish either a use right or a potential title right. 
In conclusion that takes me to the question of whether property can ever be a human right. That is basically a Lockean argument. John Locke in his second treatise of Government argued that property was an important aspect of the legal construct. A New Zealand scholar Jeremy Waldron who I think is currently professor of law and philosophy at the New York University School of Law has taken quite a different view. He is a youngish man and says that to claim that property is a fundamental human right is disingenuous and reflects a view of the capitalist State that does not aid those who do not enjoy the fruits of extreme capitalism. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Bill of Rights (Private Property Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 12 
New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 107 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; Green Party 6; Maori Party 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Motion not agreed to. 
Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I am delighted that this bill is back before the House tonight for its second reading with a recommendation of support from all the members of the Law and Order Committee. Although this bill as originally drafted has been much amended over the nearly year and a half that it has been before the select committee I believe that the amendments are a useful and worthy reflection of the quality of the work that was put into the bill by submitters officials and MPs alike. 
Throughout this process I have been touched by how seriously members from other parties have taken my original concerns about the fate of babies and children whose mothers are in prison despite the fact that this issue affects only a very small number of people each year. I would like to particularly acknowledge Simon Power and Chester Borrows from the National Party and the chair of the select committee Martin Gallagher for the care and attention they put into this bill through quite an exhaustive process. We heard a number of interesting and useful submissions from very different perspectives ranging from prison reform groups breastfeeding advocates and experts on parenting and separation theory through to legal and health professionals and former prisoners. I would like to particularly acknowledge the latter for their courage in being willing to expose their own histories in order to help us understand the issue more clearly. 
A number of critical points came through strongly as we considered the questions raised by my original bill and heard what submitters had to say. I will take the opportunity to touch on a few of those points now. One of the first big issues to arise was that of the length of time that a mother should be able to keep her baby or child with her while she is in prison. Quite a large number of submitters made the point very strongly that a period of 2 years which was originally advocated in my bill was actually not long enough and that we should amend the bill to create a higher upper age limit—3 years being one of the more popular suggestions. 
The proponents of the longer period felt that removing a child at 2 years was not only too soon but developmentally quite the wrong age to separate a child from his or her mother. Submitters also frequently noted that in other jurisdictions it was quite common for children to be able to stay with their mothers for 3 years or even longer. There was no common agreement from submitters on what the ideal suitable upper limit should be with some even saying that there should be no limit at all. I confess that I was quite keen to try to move the limit upwards to at least 3 years but in the end I have of course accepted the necessities of political compromise. It is far better to achieve at least the 2-year reform that I originally advocated rather than no change at all. 
I also understand arguments that were made particularly by Department of Corrections officials that all the women’s prisons in this country are basically high-security prisons and that there are no open prisons of the sort that are available in other countries and are far more suitable for keeping older children within their confines rather than the closed prisons we have at the moment. 
Another criticism of my original bill which came from groups like the Puriri Trust was that in a humane society we should not be putting mothers with babies into prison at all. I have huge sympathy for this perspective. I believe that we should be working towards a situation where mothers who we feel should be locked up are located in some form of community-based habilitation centre outside prison walls but until that happy day is reached I would rather achieve at least some progress rather than leave things as they are now with babies removed from their mothers at 6 months and with some mothers not being able to keep their babies with them at all. 
I refer here to the situation of people on remand and to those prisoners who are given a security classification that completely denies them the chance to keep their babies with them. This happens because the practice in our prisons at the moment is that only sentenced prisoners classified as low security are qualified to apply to keep their babies and because regulations do not allow the mixing of accused and remand prisoners or the mixing of differently classified prisoners within the same part of the prison. 
Some organisations criticised my bill because they thought I was continuing these two exclusions. Not at all—the bill in its original and now amended form is geared to ensuring that ultimately all women who are remanded in custody will have the opportunity to keep their babies with them as will women with a higher classification level which currently denies them even being considered for this option. 
Another issue that came up on a number of occasions while we were considering the bill was that of mothers who may not be willing or able to breastfeed their babies. Some members were concerned that the bill might discriminate against such mothers if it were wholly focused around the right to breastfeed. Again this was a misunderstanding of what I originally intended and we have now made it very clear through the insertion of some new wording that all mothers and babies are included and that all types of feeding are included not just breastfeeding. I guess this misapprehension arose because so much of my original stated purpose for the bill was around the need to enable babies to have the right to breastfeed but it was certainly never meant to exclude those mothers who cannot. However all of us agreed that although a key element of this bill is to support the right of imprisoned mothers to breastfeed all mothers should be able to apply to be part of the programme. 
Given that another of the key drivers for me in putting this bill forward was my concern at stories I had heard of breastfeeding being used as a way of punishing mothers or of keeping them in line I note the statement that we have included in the commentary on the bill which was agreed to by all members on the select committee: “When there is no other reason to terminate the placement we expect that removing access to breastfeeding will not be used as a tool of prison management or discipline.” I sincerely hope that this will be genuinely taken on board and passed on through the Department of Corrections training and supervisions systems and that we will not be hearing stories of such practices emanating from our prisons any time in the future. 
One of the biggest problems with this bill is the lack of sufficient quantity or quality of facilities to cater for the possible demands arising from it once it becomes law. The Department of Corrections has made it very clear that substantial alterations and improvements will need to be made to all three of our women’s prisons in order to accommodate all possibly eligible mothers and children once the bill comes into force. 
As select committee members we were fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to visit the new Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility as part of our consideration of the bill. Although the units we were shown looked surprisingly homely modern and child-friendly I think we could begin to understand some of the logistical problems that will occur once this bill is implemented and the age group of the children being kept with their mothers goes up. 
Because it will take a little time—and I hope that it truly will be a little time not a prolonged period—before sufficient facilities are ready we agreed to an amendment that will mean there may be some limitations on who and how many mothers and children can be accommodated during the interim period. I note however that the numbers of possibly eligible women and children remain very low. In fact when we visited the prison we found that there were no mothers with babies there at the time. I trust that the Department of Corrections will do its best to maximise the availability of facilities that do exist until the additional accommodations are completed. 
Another lingering concern I have had around this bill was the fact that I had heard that in some overseas jurisdictions—for example the UK—some mothers with mental health problems or drug or alcohol addictions are denied the right to keep their babies with them simply because of those problems. This denial is then exacerbated by the fact that the prison does not offer them the health support they need in order to work through and overcome their mental illness or substance abuse problems. 
I am therefore pleased that we have made it very clear in section 81B inserted by clause 5 that the prisons will be obliged to “facilitate the mother’s access to any treatment or counselling required to support the mother to care for her child:”. As long as the mother agrees to participate in treatment or programmes these problems are not in themselves reasons to disallow a mother from keeping her baby with her. The Government has also advised that it is now putting substantially more resources into mental health alcohol and drug addiction services in our prisons. I certainly hope these extra resources are applied to women’s prisons as much as they are to men’s prisons. 
But on a related matter I like other MPs acknowledge that there are some situations where a mother should not be able to participate in the programme—for example if she has committed violent or sexual offences against children or if she has issues that would put her child in danger. Nor should any woman be required or feel pressured to keep a baby with her in prison against her will. This bill is not about requiring or forcing any woman to keep her child with her nor is it about doing anything that might hurt or harm her child or children. The needs of the babies and children involved are paramount as we make patently clear in the purpose clause and elsewhere. 
I would like to finish by once again thanking all the members of the Law and Order Committee and the officials who have worked so hard on this bill as well as all the political parties in this House that appear to be continuing their support for my bill. As far as I am aware votes for this bill appear to have continued to be unanimous and that is a most unusual situation in this Parliament. I thank all members. It is a signal that this bill is a progressive reform whose time has indeed come. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill that the member who has just resumed her seat referred to is legislation that most of us would like to think we would never have to pass or to use because to think of a mother with a little baby being in prison is a horrible thought. However I think that most members would understand that for parents there is no greater love than the love they have for their child. When we think about those few situations where this legislation is expected to be used where a mother with a very young child or a pregnant woman goes into prison we have to think of the best interests of the child. Some would say that the best interests of the child would be to remove the child and place him or her with a foster parent. I wonder how that could really be in the best interests of the child long term but in some cases it might be. But just the other day I read in the newspaper the latest story about the Chamberlain family. I am sure that all members remember Lindy Chamberlain who was falsely accused and convicted of killing her baby Azaria. She was pregnant when she went to prison and her baby was born in prison. Her baby was removed from her and put into foster care for some years. I actually cannot remember the name of the new baby because it was one of those unusual names—not Judith obviously. 
Hon Member 
: Azaria. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: It was not Azaria no; it was Azaria’s sister. The newspaper reported just the other day that this young woman had grown up and she was getting married. She was walked down the aisle by what she called her four fathers. Of course she had one biological dad—Michael Chamberlain—but she had been brought up by foster parents until her mother was able to come out of prison to reclaim her baby. Fortunately from all reports she seemed to have turned out a well-adjusted young woman and she seemed to have a very good relationship with her parents her foster parents and the extended families. But what a sad story it was. I thought about how sad it was that that girl has missed out on having her mum at such an early stage and that her mother has had a baby taken from her—how sad. 
When our caucus looked at this bill we looked at all those issues to do with what was in the best interests of the children and we considered very fully what the chances are for a mother who is in prison and who say is properly accused and properly convicted to be rehabilitated. To me that is a very strong point. I do not believe that most of the women in our prisons are there because they have been wrongly accused. I do not believe that at all. I believe that almost all of them are there because they have been properly convicted. But because people do bad things it does not mean to say that they will always be bad people. It does not make them bad people; it makes them people who have done bad things. If there is any chance at all for someone to be rehabilitated then surely it will be through the person’s child because that person will change for the child. 
Many of us will have known people over the years who have acted in very strange ways and who have gone through very bad times when they were teenagers or when they were in their twenties or thirties. They may have been inconsiderate and broken the law and then somehow along the way they have changed. Normally that happens because of their children. I have seen a number of people change their lives because they want to set a good example for their child. Those people can give us hope that yes people can change their ways. 
I think it is also very important to remember that restrictions are placed on a mother if she wishes to have her baby with her in prison. Those restrictions relate to drugs as there are no drugs and having the mothers being part of rehabilitation programmes. They are about making sure that the babies are looked after and cared for that they get their well child checks and that they are in a situation where they are getting something that in many cases they would not have received if they had stayed in their own homes even if they are in a prison. After having visited several prisons over the years I would have to say that they are pretty bad harsh places but let us be frank. These children and these mums often come from the most dire situations. When we think about whether we should have babies being brought up in prison we should also think about the homes that these children come from. This is a really sad thing to say but frankly some children will have a better chance by having a couple of years in prison where at least they will have supervision mum will be on a drug or alcohol programme mum will get a chance to bond with her child and mum will have a chance to be a human being to feel and to give love to her child. Those are the things that I think this bill can bring. The fact that this bill is being supported by all members throughout the House recognises that this is an opportunity for us to give a bit of humanity to a place like a prison which certainly seems to me—and thankfully I have only ever visited prisons—to be a place lacking in humanity in almost all cases. 
I see that the select committee has said that the chief executive should be able to not give that consent. I know the reasons for that are around the behaviour of the mother. They are also around the facilities and the availability of them. I would however have a word of caution about that provision and I would like us to keep an eye on it. I would hate to see a chief executive or a prison manager use the ability to remove a child as a punishment for a mother who steps out of line in terms of speaking up or standing up for her position or rights. I think that is something we should definitely keep an eye on. I can think of nothing worse than having a baby taken away—there is nothing worse. I simply cannot imagine how anybody could not feel like that. I do not think for a moment that I would ever want to see a child brought up in prison but as I have said before I think unfortunately there are some children—thankfully only a few—who will be in that situation. I cannot help but be reminded of those stories of Charles Dickens about the debtors’ prisons and the children growing up in them and how terrible we thought that was. 
Before I became a mother when I knew all about parenting—that was before I became a mother and then I got to know something and realised I was not an expert on these matters—I would have asked why we would want to do this and I would have said that it was not in the best interests of children. I am however a mother and I have learnt a bit of humility—thankfully not too much—along the way. I have also I think understood that unless a child is in danger unless a child is clearly going to be severely disadvantaged I would personally keep a mother with her child wherever I could because it not only is the right thing and the best thing for the mother but has to be the right thing for the child. 
In conclusion the committee has kept the opportunity for the child to be always at the forefront of this legislation and there is the ability if the mother is not complying with the drug and alcohol programmes—if she is not in fact looking after the child—for the child to be removed. I would like to hope that that will not happen because I would like to hope that these little children will bring a ray of sunshine into those places and that they will help these mothers rehabilitate. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I thank the two previous speakers for their contributions to this discussion. Some important points were made by both those speakers. I listened very carefully to the previous speaker Judith Collins who touched on one point that I also want to touch on—that is the best interests of children. 
As I take a call on this very important Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill I speak in support of the interests of the most vulnerable in our communities our children who are usually the unintended victims of maternal imprisonment. Maori children are particularly impacted as Maori women make up over half the prison population and this makes it difficult to break intergenerational offending. Not a lot of us in this House can relate to that but we have seen it in our own communities. 
Maternal imprisonment has been shown to have a negative impact on a child’s future development across a range of indicators including physical and mental health academic achievement social skills employment and risk of offending. Maternal imprisonment has much more detrimental impact than paternal imprisonment because women continue to carry out most of the primary caregiving responsibilities for children and especially young children. This means children are likely to have a stronger attachment to their mother and this is disrupted when they are separated from their mother. Women are also more likely to be sole parents than men and therefore likely to face greater difficulties in finding alternative caregivers for their children. The family unit is more likely to break down when the mother is imprisoned than when the father is in prison. 
In addition to being separated from their mothers these children may often experience disruptions to their living arrangements. They may be required to move to someone else’s home. If they have siblings they may be separated from them. They may not receive the level of care from a new caregiver that they would from their mother. They may experience being handed from caregiver to caregiver for the duration of their mother’s time in prison and they may also lose contact with friends and the wider whanau. From a social perspective they could also get lost in the system—and we can all relate to that—if they go from school to school change doctors change friends change contacts and change from the environment they are accustomed to. There are wide-ranging social effects in terms of children of women prisoners. 
The best way to reduce the impact of maternal imprisonment is not to send women offenders to prison at all particularly if they have dependent children. It is a very serious matter when we consider the impact on the family of sending mothers of children—young children—to prison. This Government has introduced a range of changes to improve the existing sentencing regime. It has provided tougher alternative community-based sentences to reduce the need to send offenders to prison because there is no suitable alternative. I acknowledge the work of the previous Minister of Corrections the Hon Damien O’Connor in introducing these programmes and providing the courts with broader sentencing options particularly when it comes to women prisoners who have children. 
As of 1 October 2007 three new sentences came into effect. Home detention became a sentence in its own right. Home detention is a sentence that requires an offender to remain in an approved residence at all times under electronic monitoring and close supervision by a probation officer. Community detention requires an offender to comply with an electronically monitored curfew imposed by a court order. Offenders can be sentenced for up to 6 months on community detention and the curfew can be for up to 84 hours a week. Intensive supervision is a sentence in its own right and can be used in tandem with other sentences like home detention and community detention. Intensive supervision requires offenders to address the causes of the offending with intensive oversight from probation officers. 
If these sentences are used as intended the children of women offenders should benefit as their mothers are not sent to prison and thus are able to continue to care for their children within their own homes or other environments. Using community-based sentences also presents an opportunity to get women engaged in key social services like Family Start Strengthening Families and many others. Community-based sentences also present a better opportunity to utilise community-centred approaches to addressing offending and creating positive futures and that is likely to be particularly beneficial to Maori children. 
If prison is unavoidable we need to determine how best to mitigate the negative impact on our children. Our focus should be on what is in the best interests of the child. The options for mothers and babies are solutions for very young children so that babies or toddlers do not experience a dramatic disruption to the key development stages of bonding and attaching to a primary caregiver. If the mother is breastfeeding the child can continue to breastfeed. Breastfeeding has well-established health benefits for the child and mother and child may enjoy a more stable and supportive environment than they might experience outside of prison. 
However even allowing for the above it may not be in the child’s best interest to reside in prison simply because there may be a person or persons willing and able to provide good primary caregiving to the child. From the child’s perspective what matters most is not the biological relationship with the caregiver but that the caregiver meets his or her developmental needs including providing love. The mother may not be able to support the child and provide all those things because she is grappling with big issues in her life such as serious alcohol and drug addictions. 
Either way our focus should always be on what is in the best interests of the child not what is in the best interests of the mother. I believe that this bill’s proposals go some way towards that. We do not want to see women cynically trying to take advantage of the options for mothers and babies simply because they view it as an easy way to serve their prison sentence. 
I have outlined in my contribution to this debate that the Department of Corrections has come some way over time in providing a range of options in terms of sentencing and this particular option put to the House by the member Sue Bradford is another one of those options to improve the environment around children whose mothers spend some time in our prisons. I understand that the Law and Order Committee heard a range of submissions throughout the hearings that during the select committee process there was cross-party support for this proposal and that the bill came back to the House with some minor amendments which had been proposed during the first reading and highlighted at that time by the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Mark Burton. 
It has been my pleasure to contribute to this discussion although I have not had any input to it prior to today. I congratulate the member on introducing the bill and I am sure there will be many more valuable contributions made on it. That is my contribution to this bill. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a delight to stand here and speak to the second reading of the Corrections (Mothers with Babies) Amendment Bill. Those listening might think that peace has broken out across the House and that does happen from time to time when there is a good idea and it is workable. Some of the changes that have been made through the select committee process have really enhanced the bill so I would like to pay tribute to the members on the Law and Order Committee who have played that role. 
The member who just resumed his seat Mita Ririnui made the very important point that initiatives like these can go a long way towards reducing intergenerational crime and recidivism and towards making changes to some families who really do need some kind of circuit-breaker in order to have change in their lives. Although Sue Bradford pointed out quite rightly that we are talking about a small number of families—a small number of mothers—this initiative will make a huge difference I think in forming good connections within those families. I cannot point to any particular academic evidence that would prove it at this point but I just have a belief that when one looks at the love that a mother has for her baby and that innate connection one sees that this can be something that becomes a strength in that mother’s life and she can work on that. As a result of that many problems can be solved along the way. 
The other thing is that when we look at the inmates currently in our prisons we see that they are there for a wide range of reasons. Simply because a woman has committed some crime it does not necessarily follow that she is a bad mother that she does not have a love for her children or that that connection is not going to be something that is positive in her life. I can think of one woman in particular who was done for bank fraud. She was breastfeeding her child at the time and letters were written to the editor about this issue. She had to break off from breastfeeding simply to go into prison. I have maintained an ongoing connection with a constituent of mine. Some members may remember that she was handcuffed during labour and the birth of her baby. I will never forget the pain she went through and the process she went through when she was told that she was not even allowed to start breastfeeding because she would not have her baby with her in prison—she would not be eligible. 
It might come as a surprise to a number of members in the House that women in prison have had the right to keep their babies with them since about 1961. There is a regulation that says there is that right with babies under the age of 6 months. But the reality is that in all of those decades there have not been the facilities to allow that to happen. So there has also been an access problem with facilities and good facilities. I think the self-management units were a step forward but the reality for a lot of inmates was that the idea of having a baby brought in for breastfeeding a number of times during the day was never going to be practical. If we look at the placement of a lot of our prisons we find that inmates have to have access to resources and people who are going to bring in the baby at certain times. I know that a lot of women just gave up. 
I think the success of this bill will hang on the quality of the facilities. If we look at some of the facilities that have been set up in the United Kingdom and Australia—in fact almost everywhere around the world except Slovakia and New Zealand; we are really out on our own on this one—we find that there are plenty of really good examples of the way it has worked. These centres or mother and baby units—whatever we want to call them—are very structured. They have mothers engaged in plans which is part of the bill. Mothers sign up to a plan for their babies and to a set of rules and guidelines. If those rules and guidelines are breached in certain circumstances there are consequences. But the big thing is that the best interests of the child are paramount. The safety of the child is paramount. That is the overriding feature that is strongly protected and preserved in this bill. There will be some really tough cases where the department has to say: “No we’re going to make a decision. This is not the best place for the baby to stay with you.” There will still be some heartbreak about that in the prison system; there will be some tough calls. 
I do not want to see a system that is similar in some cases to Child Youth and Family where babies and children are kept with parents at all costs basically beyond common sense and in some circumstances to the detriment of the children. I think this will work only if there are common-sense guidelines. If mothers do sign up to those guidelines they need to understand that it is a relationship and there are some rules and that there are good support networks around these mothers. I think it will take a lot more than just having regular Plunket visits. 
I was quite shocked actually when I visited Christchurch Women’s Prison and was told that none of the staff who were involved with any of the babies who had been at the prison from time to time had early childhood education experience or some kind of knowledge of working around small children. I think that in the long term working with various non-governmental organisations there is an opportunity to make sure that we structure more support around these parents. It is not a case of just opening up a centre and saying: “Go for it. It’s almost like being at home except you can’t leave.” We have an opportunity where we literally have a captive audience to be able to deliver some parenting advice some guidelines and some training. For a lot of these mothers the reality is that they have not necessarily had the good parenting skills handed down to them from their mothers their grandmothers and their great-aunts that many of the members of this House have enjoyed and got a lot from. 
I am very keen to see the maintenance of breastfeeding. It is kind of a shame that that had to be clarified because I do not think anybody ever assumed that women who chose not to breastfeed or who were not able to do that would be disadvantaged somehow. But I think it was a good idea to clarify that if that had been a concern during the select committee process. 
I have found it quite moving to read some of the submissions and to hear some of the personal stories of people who have written to us and told us of their experiences. Although some people in our communities say that a baby should never be in prison I really think they are in a minority. As Judith Collins said we do not want to see any babies in prisons frankly but we have to ensure that we get real. A lot of women inmates have children of varying ages—and I think that the age will go up over time as well—and we want to maintain their connections. Once they get out they will still be mothers. I can think of one constituent who has felt an enduring loss at not being able to keep her baby and pain at not being able to have a connection—the same connection any mother enjoys with her baby—when she left prison and found that her toddler had a stronger connection with the grandmother than with her. That is something that she probably will not recover from over time. 
So here is the start. It is all dependent on the quality of the facilities and the support we put around them. The safety of the child is paramount. I think that everybody is in agreement with that. We have to have the right people in the prisons and proper rehabilitation and proper services. Members would be appalled to hear that when I asked the question about rehabilitation in Christchurch Women’s Prison right now I was told there was ping-pong and that was about it. Well I think we can do more for our mothers. We can do more for our inmates to ensure that once they leave they are better people and they have the skills they need to be mothers on the inside and more important mothers on the outside. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Tell that to Simon Power. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That member over there should not chip in because when I asked him how many women gave birth in prison he told me that it was not important enough for his department to actually count the numbers even though Matt Robson had done that. It is 10 a year which is not hard to count I tell Mr O’Connor—not hard to count. It is obvious when women have babies; people can kind of notice. So I do not think it would have been a big thing to count them. 
I thank all those who are involved with this legislation. I think this is a really major step forward for our country. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.