Volume 668 Week 58 - Wednesday 10 November 2010 
Volume 668 Week 58 - Wednesday 10 November 2010 
[Volume:668;Page:15151] 
Wednesday 10 November 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Financial Position Government—Reports 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister but it would be helpful if the House allowed the Minister to say one word before just a barrage of interjections. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am pleased the House is so enthusiastic about the 3-monthly accounts. The accounts show that the impact of the Canterbury earthquake and lower-than-expected tax revenue contributed to a $3.7 billion operating deficit which is about $2.2 billion higher than forecast. The lower tax take was due to largely subdued consumer spending as New Zealanders paid down debt and saved more. This in turn led to lower business profits which impacted on corporate tax revenue. Although Treasury expects some of the lower tax take to reverse in coming months the accounts reinforce the need for ongoing fiscal discipline. 
David Bennett 
: What steps is the Government taking to manage its finances responsibly? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is taking many positive steps. In the past 2 years the Government has identified around $4 billion of low priority spending and redirected it from back-office bureaucracy to better front-line services. We have also committed to capping future new Budget spending at $1.1 billion. In some ways though restraint in the public sector is only just starting. The Government has set itself the task of getting back to surplus which will take 4 or 5 years of disciplined spending constraint. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Government’s approach to managing its finances compare with approaches in other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would describe the Government’s approach as moderate and balanced. A number of other deficit countries like us have taken a more aggressive approach to spending cuts. The UK is looking at cuts of up to 20 percent in departmental expenditure. I am advised that in France the Government is in the process of sacking 45000 teachers. However in New Zealand we have focused on longer-term change. We have been willing to run significant deficits as the economy gets on its feet but over the next 4 or 5 years there will need to be strong spending constraint. 
David Bennett 
: What kinds of policies would put New Zealand’s return to budget surplus at significant risk and burden hard-working New Zealanders with more debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any policy that either allows wasteful and inefficient spending to continue or proposes more wasteful spending—such as a GST exemption on fruit and vegetables or Labour’s persistent call to keep the Wellington bureaucracy growing as fast as it was under the previous Labour Government—would be reckless. 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—2025 Taskforce Report 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has he reviewed table 1 in the latest report from the 2025 Taskforce; if so does he stand by his statement that the wage gap with Australia is reducing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; and yes. If the member takes a look at table 1 he will see that it does not refer to wages. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he stand by his statement that a “fundamental purpose” of his Government is to narrow the wage gap between ourselves and Australia; if so does he accept that the 2025 Taskforce actually shows that he is failing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes we do stand by that statement; and no we do not accept that about the 2025 Taskforce. In the shorter term the measure of real after-tax wages shows that the gap is closing but the member needs to keep in mind that the Government has had to deal with two substantial issues. One is the economic mismanagement of the previous Labour Government which left this economy in a mess. That was followed by a global recession. In that context we have made a very good start. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile that answer with the explicit statement by the task force: “… we do not see any realistic possibility that the gap in real per capita income has narrowed in the past year.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is curious to hear that member quoting Don Brash— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Minister that I have let him get away with an earlier answer that claimed that certain policies were the policies of the Opposition then dumping on them. That question was a perfectly fair question because the task force was established by the Government. There was nothing political in asking the Minister about statements contained in the task force’s report. The questioner was not being political and the Minister does not need to give the questioner a lecture about those sorts of things. The Minister should answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I disagree with the task force. It has not taken account of the decade of damaging economic management by the previous Government or of the global recession. In that context to achieve an increase in real after-tax wages has been quite an achievement. There is no doubt at all that if we followed the policies of the previous Labour Government New Zealand’s economic performance would continue to drop like a stone. 
Chris Tremain 
: How has real after-tax wage growth been tracking in New Zealand compared with that in Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Between September 1999 and September 2008 real after-tax wages in New Zealand grew by only 3 percent in that 9-year period compared with 19 percent growth in Australia. The wage gap blew out substantially. Since September 2008 real after-tax wages have grown by 8 percent in New Zealand compared with 5 percent in Australia so the wage gap has narrowed slightly. As I said before we started a long way behind Australia having been handicapped by a decade of economic mismanagement and this is just one small gain. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can he name any independent economic commentator who accepts his spin that the wage gap with Australia is narrowing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The calculations that the Government has done on real after-tax wages are based on the statistical series legislated for by the Labour— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will understand that the question was straightforward. I asked him whether he could name one independent economic commentator who accepted his view on the wage gap narrowing. He has not addressed the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say I have considerable sympathy for the honourable Leader of the Opposition. It is just unfortunate that he added the last bit about “spin” to his question because if the member had cut his question short to the first part I would have insisted on the Minister answering. Once the last part was added it makes my job hard. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any commentator who looks at the statistics used to calculate national superannuation will come to the same conclusion as we have. I cannot name one commentator who believes that following Labour’s policies would do anything but send us to the bottom of the OECD table. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister name one independent economic commentator who agrees with his position that the wage gap with Australia is narrowing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said before any commentator who looks at the real after-tax wage series— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member on this occasion asked a very specific question. The answer may be that the member cannot name a commentator but he should not rabbit on about stuff that is not the subject of the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. The Standing Orders are very clear about that point; information should not be included in an answer that is not necessary to answer the question. I have been pretty generous to the Minister and have allowed him to get away with a lot of comments about the Opposition’s policies. The Opposition has now asked a very straight question of the Prime Minister. The Minister is answering on his behalf; he should answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said any commentator who looks at the facts on real after-tax wages will have to come to the conclusion that the gap has closed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member if I heard the question correctly—and do forgive me if I am wrong—asked whether the Prime Minister could name any credible commentator who believed that the wage gap with Australia was closing. It may be that the Minister cannot name one but he should answer the question that was asked. There is nothing wrong with not being able to name one but it is not within the Standing Orders to include other information that is not the subject of the question that was asked. I have allowed a fair bit of licence. The Minister has dumped several times on the Opposition and has made claims about the state the country would be in if Labour’s policies had been pursued. In fact one of those answers was to a question from one of the Minister’s own colleagues. That is not in my view the way that questions from colleagues should be used—just to dump on the Opposition. The Opposition has asked a straight question; I believe it deserves to hear an answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think any commentators have looked at those figures. When they do look at them they will be forced to the correct conclusion: real after-tax wages grew by 3 percent in 9 years under the previous Government and they have grown by 8 percent in 2 years under this Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which of these apparently contradictory statements is correct: the statement in the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement that sets out the closing of the income gap with Australia as being a “concrete goal” or Mr Key’s or Mr English’s more recent statements that this is merely an “aspirational goal”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: ACT and National both agree that New Zealand can achieve parity by 2025 and that we should take all steps to achieve that. We know that the first steps have been to undo the incredible damage done to this economy— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was again quite straightforward: is this a goal that is simply aspirational or is it concrete? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well they are both— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should not be answering when he has not been called because a point of order is being considered. If the Acting Prime Minister is prepared to assist the House it would be helpful if he could now answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They are both correct. ACT and National both agree that the recipe followed by the previous Labour Government gave us reductions in real after-tax income a shrinking export sector and a bloated Government sector and put us on a path towards the bottom of the OECD ladder. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which promise is more credible: his promise to catch up with Australia or his promise not to raise GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Both of those promises are promises that the Government is adhering to. If the member is opposed to the rise in GST he is free to go out to Mana and announce Labour’s new policy: to cut GST and take away the income tax cuts. As far as I am aware the member has not been brave enough to do that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How is he adhering to his promise not to increase GST when he has just increased it by 2.5 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows there was much discussion over those quotes and as is usual with the Labour Party members they are making them up. The Prime Minister answered a question— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was again quite straightforward and a series of attacks were made on the Opposition but there was no endeavour to answer the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I will hear the Minister on the point of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I was dealing with the regular issue now whereby the Opposition manufactures quotes. We have the choice of either just ignoring manufactured quotes like this one today and one yesterday that was applied to me or of trying to deal with them. It is in the public interest that there is clarity over whether the assertion made by the Opposition is correct or not correct. In this case I attempted to clarify it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the Minister and that is a valid point. When a question contains a quote that gives a misleading impression a Minister can certainly correct that—I have no problem with that at all. But there is a difference between correcting that and just dumping on the questioner. Today it is my view that the Minister has attempted to dump on the questioner a little too much on the wrong questions. Some questions invite a political response and others do not. That last question I believe did have an element of politics in it. The reason why it had an element of politics is that anyone who has been around this House for a while would know the quote was taken from a wider context and the wider context was left out of the quote. But the Minister in answering the question should deal with that and not just dump on the questioner. That is the way to handle that kind of question if this House is to avoid excessive disorder. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is one further point. I accept that there is always a context to quotes but I think there is a difference between taking a quote out of context and manufacturing a quote which was the accusation. That I think is the equivalent of misleading the House and that accusation should not be made across the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think under the circumstances we should let things lie where I have ruled but I do understand the point that the member makes. There is a difference between manufacturing a quote and taking a quote out of context and I think the Minister should not have alleged that anyone was manufacturing quotes. I understand the concern about taking a quote out of context but the way to deal with that is to demonstrate the way in which it is out of context rather than just dump on the questioner unless the quote is used in a highly political way. Then I will not protect questioners and Ministers are free to deal with questioners in a reasonable way if they are foolish enough to make a question highly political. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am waiting to get the answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Some time has passed so I will invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: To the best of my memory the question was: how does he reconcile the statement that the Government is adhering to its promise not to increase GST when he said “National will not be increasing GST”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister never said that. He said he would not increase GST in order to close the deficit. What we did was to increase GST in order to pay for income tax cuts because we had to rebalance this economy from excessive consumption debt and excessive Government spending which occurred in the last decade to a focus on savings investment exports and a better reward for work which will be the tone of growth in the next decade. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table both the video and the transcript in which the Prime Minister says National will not be increasing GST and another quote that goes something like this: that a half-good Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not use points of order to try to score his political point. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Customary Title 
3. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he stand by his answer of “yes” to my question yesterday that under the proposed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill “…when we have Treaty settlements that shift property and titles to iwi groups those settlements are brought before the House and select committees for public scrutiny and ratification by Parliament yet when it comes to the foreshore and seabed a Minister by private treaty in his or her office can sign the deal with no public scrutiny and no oversight by Parliament”; if so what protection will there be against allegations of political patronage and corruption? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes the Minister answering yesterday confirmed that the processes are different. He did not necessarily accept the member’s description of those processes. As to the second part of the member’s question as recent experience has shown there can be no protection against allegations of patronage or corruption by people who either have not read the bill or do not care about the truth. The real question is whether patronage or corruption by individual members is protected against— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It should probably be ACT that raises this point of order but to accuse members in this House of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer and he was speaking in a general sense. He did not accuse anyone in this House of not having read the bill or whatever. If I recollect his answer correctly he said that there was no protection against individuals who had not read the bill making allegations etc. It is quite improper for a member then to try to twist that and aim it at an individual in this House. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is very important to listen to answers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister should just answer the question. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The real question is whether patronage or corruption by Ministers can be guarded against. The answer to that question is yes. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: In light of his answer what protections are there within the proposed bill to guard against political patronage and corruption? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I refer the member to Part 4. In the case of when agreements are entered into the responsible Minister is negotiating on behalf of the Crown. It is the Crown that enters into those agreements. There will necessarily need to be adequate Cabinet and Cabinet committee review of those processes. One can enter into those agreements only if the requirements of the Act in relation to customary title are satisfied. Any attempt to subvert those requirements would be met with an application for judicial review. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What public scrutiny and parliamentary oversight will there be of these decisions before they are ratified? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: If the procedure is done by way of an Act—and that is one of the options set out in clause 92—there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. If the agreement is what is entered into I refer the member to clause 95 about registration and notification of the agreement and to the points I made earlier which will indicate there will be an opportunity for interested parties to be involved. 
Primary Health Care—Hospital Admissions 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he agree with the Ministry of Health’s annual report for the year ended June 2010 that states primary health care has failed to reduce admissions to hospitals compared with the base period ending September 2008? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I can advise that the annual report details that the number of ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations increased by 3.2 percent in the year ended March 2010. But that number needs to be seen in the context of the total change in the New Zealand population of 119000 in the same period. I am advised that when this change is factored in the rate of ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations has increased by only 0.03 percent. Ambulatory sensitive admissions are not determined solely by primary care; they are just one indicator of the effectiveness of primary care. 
Hon Annette King 
: How many of the extra 2000 avoidable and costly hospital admissions over the past year arose out of cuts to home care for the elderly who suffered falls accidents and illness because help with things such as hanging out their washing and cleaning their toilets was taken away from them? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: There could be a long debate about funding for home care but the fact is that all district health boards have received more money under this Government and they have to prioritise funding to meet the needs of the communities they serve. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about the 2000 avoidable hospital admissions and how many of them related to cuts to home care for elderly people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member recollects her question she will see that she went on to describe all sorts of things about people hanging out washing. The Minister is at liberty to pick up on that part of the question and dispute it which he did. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen the information recently released by Capital and Coast District Health Board informing older people in the Mana electorate that after 1 December they will no longer be eligible for home help if their net income is over $399 a week; if so what is the expected rise in the number of avoidable hospital admissions from this decision and what is the expected cost to the taxpayer? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I would have to check the assertions that that member is making but I can tell her that in this annual report the Ministry of Health states: “Overall the state of public health results show continuing improvements in New Zealanders’ health and independence as well as ongoing improvements across a range of health and disability services and interventions.” Basically the state of the country’s health is getting better under this Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he believe that the 88-year-old woman living alone with osteoporosis in the Mana electorate who is living on $124 a week after she has paid for the basics like rent and food is able to pay the $30 a week for home care or is he unconcerned that if she cannot cope the taxpayer will be paying about $42000 a year to keep her in a rest home? How can that be the best use of taxpayers’ dollars let alone be humane for this elderly woman? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Once again that member has brought a set of facts that may be open to some debate but it sounds like an individual case. If she would like to bring that case before the Minister then we would be happy to discuss it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen the Capital and Coast District Health Board report on children from July of this year that cites children in Porirua disproportionately suffering from dental caries asthma gastroenteritis skin infections and pneumonia and that the solution proposed is to take even more funding from the elderly; and why should one vulnerable group in society be played off against another in order to meet his demands for efficiencies? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I can tell that member that Capital and Coast District Health Board has had an extra $57 million under this Government over 2 years and it is putting that money into the front line where it is needed most. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A pattern has emerged in health questions over the last year or two. The essence is that the Opposition says— 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What is the point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and members must not interject. That was very disorderly I say to whoever did that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The essence is that no matter what the Opposition raises about this or that aspect of health delivery—I exaggerate a little for effect—the answer from the Government is that more money is going in than ever was. Because in the history of New Zealand there is always more money going in than there ever was that seems to me to not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect on the questions asked. The primary question referred to the annual report of the Ministry of Health and then supplementary questions brought up specific cases and claims about specific individuals that have not been validated because there is no way to validate a supplementary question. Ministers cannot be expected to have information in their hands in the House to answer directly that sort of question. It seems not unreasonable when the question relates to the amount of money being spent for the Minister to answer by saying: “I do not have the information but I would be happy to look into that situation. But with respect to that district health board X number of dollars more have been spent in that district health board.” That seems a perfectly reasonable answer. If members want to hear different answers they need to think about the questions being asked. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This will be my last go at this matter. The last question that was asked by the Hon Annette King was not about an individual; it asked whether the Minister had seen a report. The Minister’s answer was that more money is going into the district health board than ever was. I do not think that is good enough. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker you are increasingly being put into the position of having to rule from the Chair about the content both of answers and of questions—but more often it would seem in respect of answers. That is a completely debatable matter. It is nothing to do with order in the House other than the fact that if we get into too bad a state we get disorder. But merely calling for your ruling on the content of an answer is incredibly disrespectful to your role. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not hear any more on this issue. It is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I heard a question asked and I heard an answer given and I was perfectly satisfied with the answer given. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What other recent reports from the Ministry of Health has he seen about access to hospital services? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I have been pretty tough on Government Ministers today when answering questions and I expect a little more respect from the Labour front bench. The Minister had not started his answer and there was a barrage of interjections. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I have seen a report released today about neurosurgical services for the South Island and I note that the outcome is quite different from all the speculation that has been aired during years and years of uncertainty. The acting director-general of the Ministry of Health has announced that the South Island service will have seven or eight neurosurgeons with at least three based in Dunedin and it will include an academic focus. The decision on how South Island neurosurgical services will be configured shows the value of finally having clinicians involved in the planning of services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call Dr Russel Norman to ask question No. 5 I say that if members want a little more order in the House then applauding answers to patsy questions is not a great look. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say that nor is it a good look for the Speaker to have a go at the Government over the types of questions it poses to its Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but it is a tradition in this House that questions from the governing party have often been referred to as patsy questions. All I am pointing out is that it is not a great look to be applauding the answers to them. When Ministers give great answers to tough questions there is nothing wrong with applauding. But it is not a great look because it adds to disorder in this House. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat. I have dealt with that matter and I am not inclined to take it any further. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It causes disorder in the House if questions asked by members about matters that are of great concern to them are dismissed by the Speaker as being of less relevance than some other questions asked. This is a members’ question time. Members on this side of the House have as much right to ask questions of Ministers as any other. The Speaker referring to them as patsy questions is no less offensive than the use of the terms “Tory” or “screaming lefty”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the rebuke. 
Economy—Sustainable Development 
5. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have a plan to enable our economy to develop in a sustainable way; if so what is it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It depends on one’s definition of sustainability. In our view the first call on sustainability is that new jobs and growth and incomes should be able to be maintained over time and that is what we are setting out to do with an economic programme that will contribute to sustainable economic growth. That programme consists of investment in productive infrastructure removing red tape supporting business innovation and trade lifting productivity and improving services in the public sector and strengthening the tax system where we took a significant step in Budget 2010. We believe this will make jobs and growth much more sustainable than the consumption-fed debt-financed growth over the last decade. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does his definition of sustainability accept the reality that the natural environment has finite resources; if so how does the fact that the natural environment has finite resources affect his plan for sustainable development? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will use two examples that are relevant. One is the introduction of the emissions trading system. The member and his party were of course instrumental in putting that together. The current Government modified it but we have continued with that modified version. Secondly the Land and Water Forum has been working extensively to build consensus around better rules and regulation for water as one of our strategic advantages and a resource that is increasingly constrained around the world. In both of those cases I think the Government has shown an interest and an ability to recognise resource constraint and come up with what are generally accepted as effective tools for dealing with those constraints. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept then that within such a definition of sustainability the environment has limited ability to absorb our pollution and waste and therefore weakening the emissions trading scheme has actually reduced the sustainability of his economic development plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it represents a better balance of the two definitions of sustainability that have been mentioned here. On the one hand the sustainability of the environment is recognised by the fact that we have a pretty comprehensive emissions trading scheme and others I am sure will follow. On the other hand we have introduced it in a way that ensures we are not putting at risk an economic recovery and the need for investment and jobs. I am pleased to say that the investment community is now seeing the presence of the emissions trading scheme as an advantage rather than a threat because it provides certainty for their investment decisions. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept the former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner Professor Joseph Stiglitz is correct when he says that events such as traffic jams or oil spills increase GDP while at the same time reducing people’s quality of life; if so does he still think that maximising GDP should be the sole and central driver of Government economic policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not believe it should be the sole driver nor is it any more than maximising personal income is the sole driver of individual New Zealanders. They have a range of motives and a range of things they want to achieve that add up to quality of life. I think the Government has shown as I said before a willingness to use tools of environmental policy that may compromise economic growth—such as an emissions trading scheme or restrictions through the Resource Management Act—as part of the trade-off that New Zealanders want for quality of life here. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner Professor Joseph Stiglitz is correct when he states that GDP figures can hide large increases in inequality that can result in most people being worse off even as GDP is rising? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Professor Stiglitz is an eminent economist and on that matter I do agree with him. That is one reason why the Government publishes a range of reports and I think the previous Government initiated some of them. GDP figures are published regularly. There is also a social report which measures progress against dozens of indicators and we are moving into a range of environmental reports—including I think one report pretty soon on water quality—which are other measures of welfare. I think that most New Zealanders are capable of looking at that range of data and making their own assessment as to whether their quality of life is improving. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of that answer when he presents his Budget next year will he consider adding indices of environmental and social sustainability alongside GDP as a measure of progress? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think a number of those indices are readily available. It is tricky enough measuring GDP on its own without complicating that measurement; other measures are available. But I say that there is no doubt that a rise in GDP is a key to lifting environmental standards. Countries with higher GDP generally have higher environmental standards. Many people measure their progress by their economic progress. That is why it is pretty important we have policies that encourage growth. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister of Finance agree with world-renowned scientist David Suzuki who happens to be speaking at the Green economics conference on Friday who argues that separating economics from ecology is bad news for humans that it is not sustainable and that it is suicidal for the human race? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is the kind of dramatic thing I might expect to see at a Green economics conference. But I do not disagree with the general idea. That is why—and the Green Party has been an advocate of economic tools for solving environmental problems—in that sense we are in agreement. All the work that the Green Party did on the emissions trading scheme has resulted in a tool that combines economic and environmental objectives. It does so in my view better than bureaucratic whim or random regulation. I expect as we evolve our thinking about water we will end up in pretty much the same kind of place—that is integrating our environmental and economic objectives. We have learnt a lot from the emissions trading scheme about how that might apply in a bit more relevant way to water. 
Economy Rebalancing—Contribution of High New Zealand Dollar 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he consider the high New Zealand dollar is contributing to “rebalancing” the New Zealand economy; if so how? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It is arguable as to whether the New Zealand dollar generally is high. It is high against the US dollar but not against all currencies. The economy has been rebalancing towards savings and exports as it needs to. As governor Bollard noted this morning if a high currency is continued then rebalancing towards the tradable sector would be more difficult to achieve. Although the dollar is highest against those countries that are experiencing the weakest growth the exchange rate with Australia is close to its lowest level in 15 years. Australia is our largest trading partner and that represents a major boost for New Zealand manufacturers. Overall on a trade-weighted basis the currency is today very close to its average for the past 5 years and is 10 percent below its recent peak in July 2007. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In respect of the comparison with Australia does he then agree with the Reserve Bank’s  
Financial Stability Report 
 page 11 which states: “Against the Australian dollar the NZD has fallen significantly as diverging economic data point to a widening growth gap between the two countries.”; if so does he still maintain that his Government is closing that gap and that the markets and the Reserve Bank are therefore all wrong? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have only to look back over recent years to see that there has been a diverging growth path. That has been a consequence of two things: first the huge lift in prices for Australian resource exports; the other has been the dreadful economic policy that this country pursued for the last 10 years. We are in the process of changing that and it will take some time for the gap to close. 
Craig Foss 
: What has been the path of the trade-weighted exchange rate in recent years and why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The so-called high dollar is not a phenomenon of just the last month or two. New Zealand experienced sustained overvaluation between 2003 and 2008. In fact over that 5-year period the average level of the real exchange rate was the highest since the 1960s. That was driven by the irresponsible economic policy of the time such as rampant Government spending which contributed to the Reserve Bank lifting the overnight cash rate to 8.25 percent. It is currently 3 percent. The consequences were disastrous in particular for our export sector which went into a 5-year recession. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows exactly what he is doing. We have just had an exchange over this earlier in question time. A question from a colleague asked about the pattern of the trade-weighted index exchange rate over a certain number of years. The Minister then went into a whole further exposition over whose fault it all was and that was not the subject of the question asked. What is more in my view it is not appropriate for questions from one’s own colleagues to be used to dump on any other party. The other party has asked plenty of questions and some of them invite being dumped upon but Ministers should not use questions from their own colleagues for that purpose. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just make two points. First of all the question asked what had been the path and why so I was asked why. Secondly if we are going to get into this territory of deciding what can be said then you as Speaker will have to be able to determine between facts and political assertions. There is a set of facts in this case about why the exchange rate is high. I do not think the House should be prevented from hearing those facts because in someone’s opinion they might sound political— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what level of education one needs to understand the difference between “disastrous”—or an emotive term to describe an administration by another Government—and facts. In my view and forgive me if I am wrong where one uses an emotive term to describe something—such as “disastrous management” or that kind of thing—that is hardly a fact. It certainly is a legitimate view that some people might have but it is not difficult to discern in this House when questions are politically loaded and when they are not. All I am asking of Ministers is to show a little more discretion and to not use colleagues’ questions to excessively dump on other parties. I did not pull the Minister up initially; it is just that the Minister started to go on and on about it. All I am asking for is a little reasonableness in answers otherwise the Opposition will start to become more and more disorderly the place will become more and more disorderly and the public will suffer because they do not actually hear the facts that the Minister is referring to. I have no problem with the Minister referring to facts so long as they are facts from the record. My concern is where emotive language is used to describe what has gone on previously because those are not facts. 
Craig Foss 
: Why is it important to rebalance the economy and what success has the Government had? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand economy needs to rebalance because it has been spending more than it has earned particularly over the last 10 years and we now owe the rest of the world $170 billion. There are some early signs of success now because New Zealanders are restraining their spending increasing their savings and paying off debt. At the same time the export sector has started to get some momentum after 5 years of recession. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of his ongoing concern about the level of the trade-weighted index does he agree with Dr Bollard who said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that our dollar is currently overvalued or with the Prime Minister who said yesterday that he expects our dollar to go above US80c? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course both of them can be right: it can be overvalued now but still be likely to go higher. In the light of US policy and the weakness in that economy and UK policy and the weakness in that economy there is every probability that the dollar could continue to go higher even though it is overvalued. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister is arguing that the dollar is both overvalued and could go higher who then is right: the Prime Minister who says there is nothing that can be done about the high New Zealand dollar or the Governor of the Reserve Bank who told the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that if currency appreciation continues he would consider tactical intervention in the foreseeable future if the appropriate tests were met? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the proper role of the Reserve Bank. There can be a discussion over whether interventions work. The Reserve Bank Governor has a role and I am sure he will execute it independently of the Government. The Prime Minister has been responding to calls from people who think that the exchange rate can be fixed at a level that suits us and that is simply not the case. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he then consider Dr Bollard correct in saying this morning that the continued rebalancing of economic activities towards the tradable sector is difficult to achieve with a high New Zealand dollar; if so what action will his Government take to relieve pressure on struggling exporters and savers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is taking a whole series of actions that will assist with that rebalancing. It needs to deal with domestic cost structure so that our exporters can be competitive. It needs to persist with free-trade agreements because as the experience with China shows even if the currency is against us we can increase our trade. And it needs to get the non-tradable sector back under control after many years of reckless growth under the previous Government. 
Prisoners—Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation 
7. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What priority is being placed on the provision of alcohol and drug addiction treatment in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that I have just recently opened another drug treatment unit for prisoners. The new unit at Auckland prison is the first of its kind in the Greater Auckland area. It brings to eight the number of treatment centres operated by the Department of Corrections. There are now more prisoners receiving drug and alcohol rehabilitation in our prisons than ever before and we are going to increase this number further. By 2011 we will achieve our goal of doubling the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment in any year from 500 to 1000. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why is the Government placing such a high priority on increasing drug and alcohol treatment for prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is because drug and alcohol addictions are major drivers of crime in New Zealand. About two-thirds of prisoners enter our jails with drug and alcohol problems. If we want to reduce the number of people behind bars it is crucial that we break the cycle of drugs and alcohol offending. Drug treatment units are very effective in doing this and the programmes run by the Department of Corrections are producing excellent results. Recent analysis has shown that they can reduce reoffending by up to one-third and we plan to open a further treatment unit in Whanganui next year. 
Roading State Highway 1—Decision to Delay Announcement of Route 
8. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: On how many occasions was he in contact with the chairperson of the New Zealand Transport Agency on the weekend of 30-31 October regarding the decision to delay announcing the route of the new State highway through Kapiti until possibly after the Mana by-election; if so who initiated the contact? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 On Thursday 28 October prior to the weekend I received a verbal briefing from the New Zealand Transport Agency which I followed up with one phone conversation with the chair and also one with the chief executive on Saturday 30 October. I was informed during those conversations that the nature of the consultation document as it stood would mean that a second consultation would be required at the northern end of the alignment at a later date. The outcome of the conversation with the chair was agreement between us that the level of uncertainty in the consultation material over the northern end of the route was likely to be unacceptable to householders there. The chair advised me of his intentions—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —to raise it with senior executives and the board at their meeting on Monday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Darren Hughes I say that a very particular question was asked and the Minister went to some trouble to give a detailed answer to it. That kind of interjection when members are trying to hear the detail of the answer is very unhelpful and the Hon Trevor Mallard knows whom I am talking to there. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If the decision had nothing to do with the Mana by-election why does the agenda for the agency’s meeting last Monday make no reference to the new State highway through Kapiti when other roading projects the agency was being updated on were specifically named? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I pointed out in my answer to the substantive question it was as a result of the discussion that the chair and I had on Saturday that he advised his intention to raise the issue with senior executives and the board at the meeting on Monday. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Was any aspect of the idea or decision to delay announcing to the public details of the new State highway’s location through Kapiti discussed during item 11 of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s board meeting which is headed up: “Board members meet the Minister at his Beehive office at 2.15 p.m.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I met with the board members at my office on that afternoon to discuss the statement of intent. At that time they informed me that they had made the decision to postpone the consultation and we had a general discussion about the importance of providing as much certainty as we can about roading projects before we proceed to consultation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did anyone—members of his staff officials or parliamentary colleagues—point out to him the closeness of the proposed consultation to the Mana by-election before he discussed it with the chair of the agency towards the end of October? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think it was obvious to blind Freddy that the Mana by-election is coming up. The point of this though is that the focus of the change was nothing to do with the Mana electorate; it was because of insufficient detail on a section of the road towards the northern end of the alignment which the member may or may not be aware is outside the Mana electorate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What is his response to members of the community who resolved unanimously last night for the details of the plan to be released immediately—in other words before the Mana by-election—at a public meeting that did not have $22000 worth of advertising spent on it but in fact had zero spent on advertising and still got a good turn-out reflecting the deep concern the public has with the games the Minister is playing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member has to decide which side of this argument he is running. On the one hand he is accusing me of interference; on the other hand his press release today says that I should step in and immediately release detailed plans of the planned route for the Kapiti Expressway. He cannot have it both ways. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. After a slight glance to my leadership and a search for the rapidly shifting Hekia Parata over there I seek leave for her— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s board meeting agenda which made no reference to the Kapiti road. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Education—Increases in International Students 
9. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What trends are there in New Zealand’s international education industry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The number of international students enrolled to study in New Zealand is continuing to increase. The latest enrolment figures show a nearly 5 percent increase in numbers for the first 8 months of this year. This increase comes on top of an increase of 6 percent for 2009. International education contributes at least $2.1 billion to our economy and supports about 32000 jobs so it is very pleasing to see the sector continuing to grow despite strong competition from Australia and other countries. 
Allan Peachey 
: What more can be done to improve the industry’s contribution to New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government of course is already investing additional funds in marketing international education with an additional $2 million in the Budget last year and again this year. The Government is confident that New Zealand has an excellent education system and the Government— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There was a massive cut the year before. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: If there was a massive cut the year before it was when Mr Mallard was in Government in 2008. I think that is called an own goal. 
Ministers—Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
10. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What recent advice if any has he given to his Ministers on ensuring they are clear about in which of the three capacities set out in paragraph 2.52 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 they are acting when signing documents? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 As is standard practice after every election Ministers are briefed on their responsibilities as Ministers and the provisions contained in the  
Cabinet Manual 
. The Prime Minister expects that Ministers will abide by them. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he stand by the answer of his office when asked by Radio New Zealand whether the Hon Pansy Wong had used her position to further her husband’s interests that “That is not a question that can really be answered.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the member looks at the circumstances surrounding his allegations of yesterday he will see that Ms Wong signed as a witness a contract between two private companies. She then listed her occupation as a Minister in the New Zealand Government as she is required legally to do. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he not think the New Zealand public would much prefer that the question as to whether Ms Wong was there to further her husband’s interests could be answered and that the answer is that the aim was to make a bunch of money but the deal went bad? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister answers that question I say that I am not sure the Prime Minister has a responsibility for why a Minister might be somewhere on a private trip. I alert the Acting Prime Minister that there are limitations on what the Prime Minister is responsible for. I am happy to let the Acting Prime Minister deal with the question as long as he realises that there are limits to how far he is expected to go on such a matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The whole point of this series of questions is that while on a private trip the Minister purported to act as a Minister and used her ministerial designation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can see what is happening here. The member in raising his point of order is entering into the substance of the “debate”—it is not really a debate—or rather the issue. He can see how this leads to disorder. Points of order should not be used for that; they should be used with respect for the processes of the House. There are clear bounds around what the Prime Minister is responsible for. The Prime Minister is answerable for Ministers’ management of conflicts of interest and he is also responsible for his confidence in Ministers. But members cannot use question time to examine the private affairs of Ministers. That is the only point that I am making. I sensed that the question went a fair way towards the private activity of a Minister in a private capacity but rather than rule it out I want to give the Acting Prime Minister the chance to handle the question in the way that he sees fit. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to invite my colleague to repeat his question because the question was very carefully worded around the— 
Hon Member 
: Who’s running the House? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That was Jonathan Coleman again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard the member’s point of order and before I make a decision I want to hear whether the Leader of the House wishes to add to it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Not to that no—that’s rubbish. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is highly disorderly. Someone over here on my right yelled out very loudly: “Sit down.” It is up to the Speaker to deal with such matters. I do not want to distract the House on to these issues. This is a serious issue and I want it dealt with fairly and properly. The member has asked for his colleague to repeat his question. I do not want to cause a problem through my simply alerting the Acting Prime Minister of the bounds in relation to what the Prime Minister is responsible for in this regard. Given that I have now led to a considerable time lag I will let the member repeat his question but I make it very clear that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Ministers’ management of conflicts of interest and for his confidence in his Ministers. Question time cannot be used to question the Prime Minister about the private activities of Ministers beyond the point where it affects his confidence in them. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order—and I accept what you ruled—relates to how we got into this little exchange. Some comments were made to the House by way of a point of order by the Hon Trevor Mallard that were disorderly and they ascribed improper motives to another member. That is outside the Standing Orders and that member should formally withdraw those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want the House to take more time on this matter. I did not interpret the member as trying to do that. I believe he was pushing the bounds around a point of order more than I was comfortable with and that is why I sat him down. Then things got messy because he did not sit down fast enough and someone yelled out: “Sit down.” The place got disorderly. If anything I will accept the blame for that myself because I want to move on. I do not want to take more time over this. I caution members to please be a little more respectful of the Standing Orders. I invite the Hon Pete Hodgson to repeat his question so that it can be heard clearly but I alert him that he cannot use question time to pursue the private affairs of Ministers beyond the issue of whether the Prime Minister has confidence in them. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No one is more concerned about time-wasting in the House than I am. We want to get on with Government business as soon as possible. Today is a members’ day and obviously we want to see members given a fair go as well. Mr Speaker you will see from  
Hansard 
 that Mr Mallard’s comments earlier were extremely disorderly. They ascribed an improper motive to a member they are outside the written Standing Orders and he should withdraw his comment. I appreciate that you do not want to deal with that at the moment but I ask you to look at the transcript afterwards and perhaps the video this evening and consider the words that were used. Perhaps then you will reconsider your position this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not an unreasonable request. By practice I always look at what has transpired during the day because one can always live and learn—I fully accept that. I accept the concern over the issue and I ask members to be careful in how they use points of order. I will look at that matter. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he not think—[ 
Interruption 
] How much more of this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to just ask the question please. I have shown him the courtesy of enabling him to repeat his question. There are often plenty of interjections when members ask questions; there is nothing unusual about that. I ask the member to please ask his question. I have extended the courtesy of allowing him to repeat it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he not think the New Zealand public would much prefer that the question of whether Pansy Wong had used her ministerial position to further her husband’s interests could be answered and that the answer is that the aim was to make a bunch of money but the deal went bad? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to the question is no she did not. The next statement I would make is that the member’s allegations are disgraceful. They are just another example of the kinds of smear campaigns that the nasty Labour Party runs. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is the difference between his management of this case as opposed to that of the honourable Dr Richard Worth due to the fact that the honourable Dr Richard Worth was the director of the company in question whereas the Hon Pansy Wong was merely the spouse of the director in question; if not where is the brightline to be drawn? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is no comparison in the examples the member is using. The fact is that the Hon Pansy Wong signed a private document that required her to list an occupation. If there was any influence at all it could only be that she influenced her husband. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: At times like this why is the Prime Minister quick to tell the public that he has supposedly received advice from the Cabinet Office that no conflict has arisen yet he refuses publicly time and again month after month to ever release such advice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will know we are following a convention with Cabinet Office advice that the previous Labour Government followed for 9 years as well. The fact is that the member’s allegations are disgraceful and they have impugned a member of Parliament in a way that is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified. It is more from the nasty smearing Labour Party members who believe that if they keep saying it eventually someone will believe it. The member should be ashamed of himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 11—[ 
Interruption 
] Tensions are high when an issue like this arises. I accept that but I ask members please to respect this House. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Assessment and Repair of State Houses 
11. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What progress has Housing New Zealand made in assessing and fixing State houses that have been damaged by the Canterbury earthquake? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Since the earthquake Housing New Zealand Corporation has investigated 6000-plus of its properties and carried out 2000 interim repairs. In fact almost 4000 State houses were damaged 38 have major structural damage and 183 require land remediation. Of the 4000 houses damaged contractors are completing about 100 permanent repairs a week on 1500 properties so they should be finished by about March next year. Of the 2500 remaining that require more serious work that should be completed within 12 months. So progress is very very good indeed. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How has Housing New Zealand Corporation assisted tenants whose properties have been significantly damaged by the earthquake? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Tenants whose homes are not safe to remain in due to structural or health and safety reasons have all been relocated to alternative accommodation. Tenants who opted to stay in their homes but who were suffering some sort of significant inconvenience due to unreliable essential services or things like that had their rent halved. So if they chose to stay and there were no health and safety issues they were paying only half rent at this stage. Housing New Zealand Corporation is actively working with many tenants to find interim measures such as installing temporary sceptic tanks and that type of thing in order to improve their living conditions. So Housing New Zealand Corporation is working very well with its tenant base. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker; kia ora tatou. Is the Minister aware that one of the four safe houses of the Battered Women’s Trust in Christchurch which suffered extensive damage to the piles of the house during the earthquake will not be replaced as the local-level community housing manager has told them that the home that was being looked at for their relocation will not go forward as they will not replace the broken window and put up a fence or a gate; and what action can be taken to ensure there is sufficient emergency housing to respond to the increased levels of domestic violence in Christchurch? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I think the member will be delighted to know that the women’s refuge will be moving into a new home in the weekend. The refuge is delighted to be doing that and I am delighted that that is able to happen. 
Brendon Burns 
: What assurance can the Minister provide to residents in areas like Richmond Avonside Dallington and Kaiapoi where there are ongoing concerns among Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants for their security of tenure where they have already been relocated to temporary accommodation because of uninhabitable homes and where there are those still occupying homes but who may have to move out to allow repairs to be made? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Tenants who need to move out of houses because repairs need to be made need to move out of their houses because repairs need to be made. Housing New Zealand Corporation will provide accommodation for them and when repairs have been made they will be able to move back into their houses. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: In the bigger picture as the national landlord what plan is in place to deal with the social impact of a disaster on social housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Housing New Zealand Corporation has an excellent system in place to deal with disaster impacts on social housing such as the civil defence situation with the Canterbury earthquake. As I outlined in my answer to the primary question members can see how that planning works through in practice in contacting its tenants relocating them getting repairs up and running as soon as possible and making sure that houses are fixed and then tenants are moved back into their home in due course. 
Research and Development—Tax Credits 
12. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: When will the “new research and development tax credit” described in the speech on behalf of the Minister of Revenue in the first reading of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill come into force? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I hate to disappoint the member but no such measure is proposed in the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. Last night the Minister who was introducing the bill in my absence was provided with the wrong speech by my office. I take full responsibility for this embarrassing error. I have apologised to the Minister for the situation that he was placed in and I now do likewise to the House. I seek leave to table the speech that should have been given last night. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether there is some way of having the document published in order to get it more widely circulated or whether it could be— 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would be happy to give it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Take leave to do it. Take leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member quite finished? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes he should have left ages ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Leader of the House now and to the Hon Trevor Mallard that when I am on my feet they will not do that. I accept that today I have let things get a bit messy. That is my fault; I took the point of order as being in good humour. Let us move on. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the Minister was also the Minister of Revenue in 2008 and praised the research and development tax credit what has changed his mind now? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member was not here at the time that the tax credit was repealed after the 2008 election but his colleagues would be able to tell him if they bothered to check that I voted against that particular provision of the legislation at that time. 
Stuart Nash 
: If the Minister himself had given last night’s speech would he have realised that it was not the correct speech before during or after the speech was delivered? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would have clearly realised that long before the speech was due to be given and would have given the correct speech which I have just tabled. 
General Debate 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I am able to confirm to the House today that the Labour Party is a rift of splits and divisions and that the statements made at the time that the Hon Chris Carter exited the party were absolutely correct. There has been a lot of speculation about that magic number 17. Who were the 17 people signed up ready to go wanting to give Phil Goff the shove? It has been a mystery up until now. We knew that Charles Chauvel was there and we knew that George Hawkins was there but we had an amazing revelation last night in the Chamber. When the Labour Party was voting on the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill it managed to split its vote into four different categories—those who were in favour those who were against those who were abstaining and those who just did not know what to do. The interesting thing is that the Noes the abstentions and the “I don’t know what to do’s” come to 17. 
One would think that on a bill such as the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill which is designed to make sure this is a very successful event for New Zealand the Labour members who have been through contortions at the Government Administration Committee for months would have followed the advice of Trevor Mallard—a major factional leader—and said to him: “We’re with you Trevor.” But no they did not do that. They split themselves into all sorts of factional camps. 
In just 2 short weeks the Labour Party has voted against the success of  
The 
Hobbit 
 and against the success of the Rugby World Cup. Who are these people? It will not come as any surprise that Brendon Burns is in that camp. It will not come as any surprise that Lianne Dalziel and Ruth Dyson are in that camp. Ruth Dyson may well be the leader of that camp now; I am not sure. There is also the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. There is also the Hon—no he is not—there is also Ross Robertson. That is a true shock to me. That man regularly comes to Parliament adorned in all sorts of clothing one of which he wears proudly is the blazer belonging to the Parliamentary Rugby Team yet he is voting against the bill. It is a factional decision on his part but I suspect it is also about securing his future. There is also William Sio which is no surprise and David Shearer which is no surprise although how disappointing for Mr Goff that a man he has been so close to has lost his confidence. Then of course there is Maryan Street. She is also tipped to be deputy to Ruth Dyson in this new faction. 
But there are a couple of names here that are very surprising. Firstly there is the Hon Damien O’Connor. That is a true surprise but here is the biggie: Clayton Cosgrove. Clayton Cosgrove was not a yes or a no he was an abstention. Actually he may ruin my theory because I suspect that he is out there wanting to set up his own faction and he would be a faction of one. 
There are two other interesting names. One is Lynne Pillay. I suspect that she just lost her way to the Chamber which would be nothing new. Then finally we have Shane Jones. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: How did he vote? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: He did not vote at all. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He wants to be the video ref! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I think Shane Jones was out there probably consulting the Ayes he probably consulted the Noes went off to have a talk to the abstainers and then just got lost on the way to the Chamber. He has no direction whatsoever. 
So there we have it: the 17 fingered by Chris Carter. These are the people who are all signed up and all set to go to say goodbye to Mr Goff. It is no surprise. Mr Goff has spent most of the last 6 months trying to find out what John Key’s appointments were around the country in order that he might turn up on those occasions to get a photograph opportunity with the Prime Minister. It is great to be able to confirm to the House that these splits these divisions and these factions are live and well in the Labour Party. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 An amusing little speech there from the Leader of the House a man of substance who always makes a major contribution on the issues of the day. An old saying comes to mind when we look at the flurry of activity of the National Party around the Mana by-election. That old saying that comes to mind is “lies damned lies and statistics” and we have had a liberal dose of all three over the past month. The bemused people of Mana have watched the passing parade of Ministers including the Prime Minister swanning through their electorate. Well that was a place those Ministers would not have been seen dead in a few weeks ago. They thought of places like Porirua and Titahi Bay very much in the same way that John Banks their man in Auckland thought of South Auckland. But the by-election has ignited a sense of panic in the National ranks because those members know that they must have a strong endorsement of their policies on 20 November. It will not be good enough to get somewhere near their last result; they will need a ringing endorsement of their policies in the by-election. They will have to really perform on 20 November. 
You know it was not so important at the time of the Mt Albert by-election; in fact perfunctory attention was paid to the outcome of the Mt Albert by-election. After all National put “The Brains Trust” in charge of the election campaign—Jonathan Coleman—the person who knows as much about campaigning as he does about giving somebody else’s speech in Parliament and not knowing that it is not National’s policy. National did not really worry about the Mt Albert by-election. John Key made a couple of visits and had his photograph taken and then he abandoned the National candidate for Mt Albert. He did not even bother to turn up on election night to be there with the defeated candidate. For me that was the moment when I got the measure of the man—the measure of this Prime Minister. He did not pass a fundamental test of leadership. A good leader is there in the good times and the bad and a good leader has loyalty. John Key was not there at Mt Albert. 
Two years on and there is a by-election in Mana. Well we no longer have a new Government as those members like to call themselves. They have been in power for 2 years and it is time they took responsibility for the decisions that they are making. We have had two Budgets since the election—two Budgets. All those decisions are Bill English’s decisions and he does not take any responsibility for them. We can look at him in the House day after day blaming everybody else except himself and taking no responsibility. 
In Mana we have also seen major changes being made to the lives of New Zealanders. Many old people young people and low-income and middle-income people in the Mana electorate have been detrimentally affected by the Government. It has passed many pieces of legislation. It had a Job Summit that did not produce any jobs. There have been countless reviews task force inquiries rising unemployment rates a rising cost of living and no plan for the future. There is no brighter future just slogans. All we have nowadays is the politics of “smile and walk away”. How will National convince the people of Mana to give it a strong endorsement? It must get a better vote than in 2008 and that will be very difficult. 
We can take one issue: health. The old people of Mana have just been told that on 1 December their home help will be cut unless they have the community services card. That means if older people receive over $399 a week they will not be able to get home help because they are over the limit for the community services card. That means they will pay for their home help. When we take off the cost of living for an old person he or she has about $124 a week to live on. We would need to take $30 from that to pay for that person’s home care. That is what National is doing to the old people of Mana and it believes that those people will turn out to vote for it. I say that National members are dreaming. They are in cloud-cuckoo-land. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The cry has gone up—the cry has gone up. Who is in charge over there? I think that probably the man who sits in the far corner of the House is in charge the one with the texts from the person sitting in an office in New York. He is the one in charge. It is very clear that there is no leadership on that side of the House. I have been a whip. I know what it is like to have a split vote. I do not believe that one would have a split vote on a closure motion—a split vote on a closure motion for heaven’s sake! Apart from the fact that Phil Goff seems to talk about everything and know very little there is no leadership in the Labour Party. 
The fact is that we look at this list of a split vote and we see that we again have as my colleague said the magic number of 17. Four Labour MPs came to this House and did not have an opinion on a bill as critical as the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill. One or two did not even bother turning up. I bet Chris Carter was sitting in the back of the room. It is outrageous that we should see Labour in such a mess that it has a split vote on a closure motion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tell the truth. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The mad dog sitting in the corner there who needs to take his pills wants to look at the truth. This is the truth. The list states that the Ayes were 23 the Noes were 11 four abstained and two were missing. That is the truth I say to Mr Mallard. How a former Minister for the Rugby World Cup can abstain—abstain—from voting on a bill that will ensure that the Rugby World Cup is a success is beyond me. 
While the Opposition is in disarray this National Government is getting on with the things that matter to New Zealand. Absolutely! The important things that matter to this—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for interrupting the Minister during her speech; I will stop the clock. The member will desist from that kind of totally objectionable interjection. I mean what I say. He will desist. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree with your comment but the difficulty that caused the reaction was a most unparliamentary comment the Minister whilst using the full microphone made about my colleague. She referred not only to a derogatory name but also to an action and it was broadcast with the full microphone on. My colleague did not have that benefit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have interrupted the member’s speech. I heard what happened and it was in response to earlier very unsatisfactory interjections. But as to the last one I will not tolerate members interjecting about personal matters of members of this House. I absolutely put my foot down on that. I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her speech but that will not be tolerated while I am Speaker. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I will take the opportunity this afternoon whilst the Opposition is in such disarray to talk about what is happening in the rest of the world. I recently attended a meeting of OECD Ministers of Education. It was amazing when we are in the middle of industrial negotiations with teacher unions to realise what is happening in the rest of the world and to realise how good we have it here under this National-led Government. In Italy 42000 teaching jobs are being lost—42000. In France next year 13500 teaching jobs will go and they are looking at losing 40000-odd teachers. In Russia they are talking about losing 200000 teachers out of their system in order to balance their education budgets—200000 teachers. In Ireland there is a 2-year pay freeze for public servants which of course includes teachers. In England they have just announced their Budget. There is growth of 0.1 percent in real terms each year for the education budget in the next few years. That means that schools will have to save about a billion dollars; they will have to make savings of around a billion dollars. 
That is extraordinary compared with this country where we put a new $300 million into education last year and the year before that. I read on a website today that schools in England will be forced to publish teachers’ salaries qualifications and sickness rates in order to determine whether they offer value for money. 
When we look at what the National Government is doing here in New Zealand we see that we are focused on lifting long-term economic growth in which we know education plays a key part. We want to make sure that all our children learn to read write and do maths while they are in primary school. We want to make sure that every child leaves school with a qualification that will enable them to succeed in this modern world. We know that we had to rebalance our tax system. We know we need better smarter public services. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 If any member of the executive greeted with great delight the announcement made by the Prime Minister this week that there will not be a major Cabinet reshuffle before the general election it would have been the Hon Anne Tolley. I think her lack of passion in describing her education portfolio at the tail end of her speech just shows why when everyone thought the skids would be put under her before the election she must have been so happy at John Key’s announcement that there would be no change in Cabinet. The national standards slogan that the Minister is trying to turn into a policy is a disaster up hill and down dale. Anybody who delves into the issue to understand it gets to see that it was a slogan for an election; it was never meant to be a policy for a country. That is what all the people tell us who sit in meetings and look at the issue in a clever way—be they parents students or teachers. The same thing comes through time and time again: the slogan does not work as a policy. But then of course it is part of the whole mantra of “smile and wave”. 
I want to follow on from what the deputy leader of the Labour Party the Hon Annette King had to say about the Mana by-election. There are some really important issues for that by-election to be held on 20 November that we believe are worth exploring. Annette King has talked about the health issues in that electorate. I want to touch on some of the transport issues in the Mana electorate. 
At the last general election residents of the Mana and Otaki electorates thought there was a bipartisan transport policy between Labour and National when it came to transport. They thought that both parties were saying the same thing. In fact the National candidates went quite some way to wrap themselves in the cloak of the Labour Government of that time. They said they believed in Transmission Gully and they said they believed in the 90 percent Government subsidy for a local two-lane Western Link Road like the one that the Labour Party had proposed and funded. They said they believed in the further electrification and double tracking of rail. Those were the things they said at the time of the general election. 
Then about a year or so ago in the dead of night Steven Joyce the Minister of Transport who runs large swathes of the Government behind closed doors decided he had a better idea than everybody else—a bit of a theme there actually. He thought he knew better than absolutely everybody else. He turned up and said he had lived in the community 35 years ago so therefore he knew what the answer should be. He said a four-lane 110 kilometre an hour motorway an autobahn should go right through the whole of the Kapiti coast. That is what he said he was going to do but that was not what the National Party had campaigned on and the community was taken by huge surprise because of that. 
Of course during the consultation period the big bold decisive brave and courageous National MPs in the area when asked what their opinion was said nothing. They had no opinion on the preferred option in the consultation period. They had absolutely nothing to say about it at all. They sat on the fence waiting and waiting to see what the Minister of Transport would decide. As soon as he made a decision they were gung-ho behind him—the greatest cheerleaders ever to have walked along the Kapiti coast. That is how bold and brave they were. 
On Sunday this week the people of Kapiti were meant to find out where the expressway will be going. The New Zealand Transport Agency spent $22000 on inviting people from all around the region to come and see the plans. As we heard in question time yesterday and today Steven Joyce the Harry Potter equivalent of Lord Voldemort in this Government discovered that this issue would be coming up before the by-election and he decided— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Harry Potter saves the day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: If only Tau Henare had gone to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry he might be in a better state than he is in. But he would join any old organisation which is why he is sitting over there on the National benches at the present time. As soon as Steven Joyce found out that this issue was coming up too close to the Mana by-election he cancelled the consultation. On 2 November the Government cancelled the consultation due to take place on 7 November until after the Mana by-election. 
Do members not think that the National MPs for the area would be outraged at this disenfranchisement of the people of Kapiti? Do they not think the National MPs would be waving around pieces of paper saying that it was not good enough and that there comes a time when MPs have to put their community before their party so they were breaking ranks with their Government in order to make sure that their people had a say before the by-election? But can members guess what? There was not a word not a complaint not a criticism and not a demand for a new series of dates. The National MPs sat there boldly saying absolutely nothing. They are lambs in Parliament and lambs in the electorate. It is absolutely unbelievable. Now we know that these plans will remain secret because the Government is scared to release them to the Mana electorate. It is a disgrace. Government members should be upfront with the public about the situation. They should go back to Labour’s policy at the last election which they said they were in favour of as well. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I want to return to the theme that the mover of the motion started with and that is the chaos that currently prevails within the Labour Party. We can have a look at one of the names that the Associate Minister and Leader of the House mentioned—Charles Chauvel. I do not know whether members noticed but Charles was having a “Secret Squirrel” session with Chris Carter this afternoon at the back of the House. Perhaps Charles has decided that the mood for change has re-emerged and no doubt Charles wants to be at the front of the queue. Charles likes the baubles of office; there is no question about that. He wants to be where the winner will be. It is no wonder he was up there. 
Grant Robertson spent most of the debate last night speaking against the motion. He rose three or four times last night to speak against the motion. I looked at the list. What does it show? It shows that he voted in favour of the motion. Grant cannot actually make up his mind. He naturally probably belongs with the Chris Carter faction—the 17 faction—but he has obviously decided that currently as he has moved up in the ranks to the front of the 2008 fraternity he clearly owes some patronage some payback to the current leader. So he obviously decided in the end that he is making better grass where he is at the moment. Clearly though he is ready to jump ship. 
We then move to Iain Lees-Galloway. He spoke vigorously and regularly against the bill but he voted for it. I am not quite sure but he clearly was a mirror image of Grant. He is really in Phil’s camp and unfortunately he got a bit betwixt and between. But that is not unusual. He proceeded to tell us how the annual Rugby Sevens tournament should be run but he then admitted he had never been to one. But that is not unusual behaviour from Labour members. They spend most of their time lecturing people on things they have never known and never experienced. 
I come now to Trevor Mallard. Here is a guy who has fought this particular bill tooth and nail. He lost every battle—but I look at the voting sheet and what has he done? He has voted in favour. Why did he do that? I suspect that it is because he wants to make sure that he gets invitations to the corporate box. He is a bit scared and I know for a fact that he has already had a conversation with the New Zealand Rugby Football Union about getting free tickets to the Rugby World Cup. I know that for a fact. On the one hand he wants to fight the bill but on the other hand he knows that if he does not vote for it the New Zealand Rugby Football Union will not give him tickets. 
Shane Jones my friend at the back did not know what to do. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know it was done in humour but I think there was some suggestion of motive—in this case very expensive motive—in my regard as to a vote yesterday. I want to place on the record that that is not correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. If the member with the floor had alleged that an outside influence had influenced the member’s vote that would definitely be an issue of order. But I do not think he quite did that. He put it the other way around. He alleged that the member was thinking about something and I do not think that is out of order. A point of order should not be used to interrupt the speaker. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I come now to Shane. Shane did not vote at all. He wanted a foot in both camps. Do members know why he wants a foot in both camps? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: He wasn’t here. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Well he wants to be the TMO. He wants to watch the video. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Wants to be the video ref. 
PAUL QUINN 
: He wants to be the video ref—the TMO—but he is also a bit worried about making sure he gets the corporate hospitality. What he does not know is that he is I think off the list for corporate hospitality because people do not want to host people who watch bad movies. 
Let me finish by mentioning Sue Moroney. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 The speech made by the member who has just resumed his seat Paul Quinn is evidence that the Government is clearly struggling. Not only has it put up Paul Quinn for the general debate but it is talking about a personal vote and how the Opposition voted on a personal vote. The Government is clearly struggling and that was evidenced by Paul Quinn who suffers from being two inches shorter that he needed to be to become an All Black according to the rugby fraternity. But I think that sad speech he made is just more evidence that he is suffering from short man’s legacy. 
I want to focus on the poll that is coming up and we will see whether the Government is struggling. I refer to the poll that is about to happen in Mana. We know that it will be a poll on the Government’s policies. It has to be because Hekia Parata said she does not do second place. So if she comes second in that by-election it must be a commentary on the Government’s policies. John Key knows this. 
Hekia Parata 
: It’s a highly aspirational electorate that’s been held for 60 years by a low-ambition Government. 
SUE MORONEY 
: She is very loud here in the House but we will see how she gets on in the electorate. 
John Key knows that the Mana by-election will be about the Government’s policies. The  
New Zealand Herald  
of 24 September said we should not blame him for chasing every potential voter in Porirua and Whitby. Then it went on to state: “It was reminiscent of a scene in  
The Simpsons 
 movie where the US Government having lost its credibility gets super-nice-guy and actor Tom Hanks to announce the destruction of the town of Springfield while gently rustling a boy’s hair.” That is what the  
New Zealand Herald  
had to say about John Key and his campaign style out in the electorate of Mana. 
Of course John Key has gone to a few early childhood education centres. He was very brave to do that because we all know that the National Government has cut funding to early childhood education thereby increasing costs to families and making it extremely difficult for the parents of Mana to have their children participating in early childhood education. John Key visited Mana Montessori a centre that has 60 children and yes the quality of education for those children is in doubt because it is one of the centres where funding has been cut by John Key. He cut the funding in the Budget then he visited the early childhood centres and stroked a small boy’s hair just like Tom Hanks in  
The Simpsons 
. But it did not work very well. The school head Nicola Dickie said she wished there had been no funding cuts to early childhood education and that the school was likely to introduce a fee increase for parents. What will that do for the young children of Mana and their future? We know that families really struggle when fees go up. 
What about First Five Community Childhood Centre? I do not know whether Hekia Parata has been there but I know that Kris Fa’afoi has. He is an excellent candidate for Labour and he has been to visit the centre. That centre has 34 children and it will also face a funding cut. In May its treasurer David Conwell said there was no choice but to increase fees for care over the 20 hours scheme. He said that parents using that centre would be facing increases of $40 to $50 per week per child. He said that the parents were shocked but they understood. 
One of the parents actually knows about this because she is also on the management committee and her name is Niki Alefosio. She has two children at the centre and she knows that she now has to find $100 extra per week to keep sending her two children to that centre. She is part of the centre’s cooperative management group and says that if she takes into account other factors like rising GST—another National Government policy—she is looking at an extra $10 per day per child. She says she may need to look at cutting back on family outings or savings. That is the sort of impact that this Government’s policies are having on the families of Mana. Mrs Alefosio works 30 hours a week but she said part-time work may not now be viable. She said she may now need to look at going to full-time work or looking at another form of childcare just to make ends meet. 
Then there is Jane Wild who also has two children at the same centre. She said that the funding cuts were “really stink”—that is what she had to say about it. Her son Max receives 20 free hours of childcare and she pays for an extra 4 hours. She also has a 1-year-old by the name of Cameron and he goes to that centre for 16 hours. She will have to pay extra for him. That is the effect of the Government’s policies in Mana. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 We have just heard from my parliamentary colleague Sue Moroney. Yet again she concentrated on Mana. It seems to me that Labour members are concerned about Mana and indeed they should be. If they do not get more than their current majority then it says a lot about Labour. 
It seems that Labour cannot even run its own caucus; I dread to think how it would try to run the country. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it really does pose questions. One need look only at the votes last night to see that Labour is at sixes and sevens as a party. 
Hon Member 
: Six and 17. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Yes six and 17. On a matter of national significance a bill that ascertains how we are seen internationally Labour splits its vote. It seems it is as divided on this matter as it is on the party leadership. The Labour Party cast 23 votes in favour and 11 votes against and four abstentions—abstentions. These members of Parliament are paid to make decisions not to sit on the proverbial fence twiddling their thumbs leaving the hard thinking to the rest of Parliament. If they abstain on this one one wonders what else they might abstain on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There have been previous Speakers’ rulings about tedious repetition. There is tedious repetition from one speech to another. Maybe they should just table the research unit notes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not have any further points of order on this. The member should not interrupt the member’s speech like that; that is not fair. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt. There have also been Speakers’ rulings about idiot interruptions through points of order. The member should be brought to order; it is not good enough. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know where the member has been for lunch but it is not hard to see that I am on my feet. He will be silent. Points of order should not be used to call a member what that member just called him; I will not repeat it. I have already reprimanded the Hon Trevor Mallard for frivolously interrupting a member’s speech. At least it was in moderate humour and it was not nasty. The member raised this point of order in quite a nasty way and that is not helpful. I go back to the first point that members should not interrupt especially in the general debate. 
Hon John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am quite embarrassed by the comment you made about my lunch. It was quite inappropriate actually. For lunch I was not very well and I had a piece of chicken if that is of any use to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. If the member was not aware what he said I say that he called another member of this House an idiot under a point of order. That is totally unacceptable. He continued to interject when I was on my feet. He will not do that. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Thinking of the point of order that was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard it is interesting that he talked about repetition. Goodness me! After wondering who the shadow Leader of the House is one has to wonder at the repetition of his points of order—it is all the time and it goes on. 
Let us come back to the point that I know minds are seized with and that is the fact that the country cannot afford to be mired in the sort of prevarication that Labour members have been. In military parlance yesterday’s performance by Labour can be seen as the “Charge of the Labour Extremely Light Brigade”. Those members not only charged in the wrong direction—the wrong way—but they went in all directions at once. My parliamentary colleague Mr Damien O’Connor—back in the saddle I am told—leapt on to the horse and went in completely the wrong direction altogether. To top it all off we had a number of desertions from the ranks. 
On a slightly more serious note why do Labour members hate success? They hate success. It seems that everything that might benefit New Zealand such as  
The Hobbit  
and the cycleways Labour is dead against—dead against—and it will do everything it can to vote against it. Is Labour seriously trying? Is this perhaps a cunning Labour plot to seriously damage New Zealand’s tourism potential? We in National fortunately are more focused and we are working hard on the real issues that affect New Zealanders on a daily basis. The National-led Government has maintained a clear and unrelenting focus on employment in the midst of a recession. 
I was very taken by the very beginning of the Prime Minister’s statement which stated that we would protect the entitlements of beneficiaries. We have done that. When we have made changes to the cost of living when we have made changes to GST we have compensated for that. I do not remember Labour engaging in any such activities. 
Let us go through a list of the things we have done. We have a growth-enhancing tax system and we have better smarter public services. With respect the resolution of the neurosurgical questions in Dunedin came to me as a surprise during question time. I think the answer was fully deserving—fully deserving—of strong and sustained spontaneous applause because that is what it merited. We are lifting education we are lifting skills and no matter how rude Labour might be towards our Minister of Education she is doing a great job. We are boosting productive infrastructure we are pursuing an ambitious trade agenda and I say well done to Mr Tim Groser for his efforts in that direction. We are cutting red tape and regulations. 
To conclude on the matter of cutting red tape and improving regulations I have been going around a number of councils lately. We did not just reduce the number of complaints about the Resource Management Act; we stopped them altogether. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa me huri te kei o te waka ki wahi ke. Kua waimarie te Pati Maori i enei marama. Tuatahi na matou te take o te kai hikareti i kokiri ki mua i te Komiti Take Maori a katahi ano taua purongo ka puta. Kua oti i a Tariana Turia te whai ake i etahi wahanga o tera purongo hei whakatinana i ona korero. Koi ra te pai o te noho turanga a-Minita nei. 
Nonatatanei i puta te purongo o te Komihana a-Ture mo te waipiro. Ara no ona korero mo te tau e tika ana kia taea ai e te hunga taiohi te hoko waipiro unu ranei i te waipiro ko te rahui tonu i etahi inu i te tirohanga kanohi era take katoa. 
Ko te mea tuatoru ko te pire whakakore mihini a-petipeti i raro i toku ingoa. He mea tenei i puta na runga i te tokomaha o te iwi Maori e whai ana i tenei momo ahuatanga. I toku kainga tonu i Rotorua i a au e haere ana ki te taunga waka rererangi ki te haere mai ki Poneke nei ma te waka kawe i kaha korero mai nga kaitaraiwa mo o ratou kitenga ko te ahuatanga o te hunga whakapau moni na nga mahi petipeti. Kua kite tonu au i te kino kua puta mai mo tetahi whanau na tenei mahi kino. No reira e tika ana kia whai te Pati Maori i enei take. 
Ko tona tikanga ka tae taku pire gambling harm reduction ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata a nga ra tata kei mua i te aroaro. Ko te ahua nei ka aro mai etahi o te Whare ki te tikanga o tenei pire. Penei i a au nei kua kite tatou i te kino o nga mihini nei. Ehara i te mea kei te ki au karekau he painga e puta mai ana na nga mihini kao! Kei te mohio tonu tatou he moni te painga. He moni e tukuna atu ai ki nga ropu nga tima hakinakina hei awhina i a ratou pea ki te hoko kakahu. He moni awhina i nga marae he aha atu he aha atu. Ko ta matou ki e penei ana he kino ake te kino i te pai. 
Koi nei te mea ohorere ki a au ko nga ropu penei i a Problem Gambling Poverty Action Waikato Salvation Army Family First. Ko Len Brown tonu te tumuaki hou o Tamaki-makau-rau kua kaha tautoko mai i te wairua o tenei pire. Ko etahi o nga mema o te Ropu Nahinara tonu kua ki mai ki a au kei te tautoko ratou i te tikanga o tenei pire. He poti a-wairua tenei me ki he conscience vote 
.  
Ara ma te wairua o te mema ia e tohu ae ranei me tautoko kare ranei. Ko te mate ke ko te ahua nei kei te herea te kaki o nga mema o te Nahinara o ACT tonu a ka whai ratou ko te korero o to ratou wepu. He aha i penei ai mena kei te mohio tonu te nuinga o te Whare he take kei konei? He take ki te hunga pohara ki nga Maori me Ngati Pasifika he take e pa ana ki te hunga hoko mihini ki nga papara kauta e tuku koha mena ka whakawatea mai nga kaihoko waipiro i nga kuaha ki wa ratou mihini. He take kei konei i te mea ko te moni ka puta mai i Rotorua ka whakapauhia ketia ki wahi ke. He take kei konei i te mea ko etahi o nga moni o nga mihini ka haere ki nga karapu whakaomaoma hoiho hei moni tuku. Ko enei korero katoa kaore e kore ka puta hei te panuitanga tuatahi a ko ake nei engari ko taku ke he aki i nga ropu katoa kia kaua e here i wa ratou mema mo tenei take. He poti a-wairua tenei waiho ma te wairua o tena o tena e tohu.  
Koi nei nga akoranga o te noho i te Whare Paremata. Tuatahi mena kei a koe te minitatanga ka taea te whakatinana i nga kaupapa here o to ropu. Tuarua ahakoa pehea ahakoa ko te wawata me te ngakaunui me whai hoa koe to ropu ranei kia eke ki te ono tekau ma rua o nga poti ara kia toa to poti. Ki te kore he moumou taima te korero. Ka toru me noho hei Kawanatanga. Ki te kore e noho hei Kawanatanga ko tau he painaina i te ra he moemoea te mahi he whiuwhiu kohatu te mahi. Koinei te ahuatanga o Reipa i tenei wa e kore e taea te aha. He korero noa iho te mahi a karekau he whiwhinga. 
Koinei te ahua o nga korero e rere haere nei i tenei wa i te Ao Maori ara mo te pire hou mo te takutai moana. I ki ake te Pati Maori ka ukuia katoatia te pire takutai moana na te mea he mea muru taua pire. Ka rua ka whakatuwherahia nga kuaha ki nga huarahi katoa kua mutu? Aroha mai. No reira kua ea te wahi ki a matou o te Pati Maori. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings one and all. Allow me to set the stern of the canoe in another direction. The Maori Party has been fortunate in recent months. Firstly we brought the issue of cigarette smoking before the Maori Affairs Committee which has just released its report. Tariana Turia has begun implementing some aspects of the report. That is one of the good things about being a Minister of the Crown. 
The Law Commission recently released its review on alcohol. Among other things it recommends a minimum purchase and consumption age for youths and a total ban on some drinks. 
Thirdly there is the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill under my name. It emerged because of the large number of Maori people involved in this sort of thing. It is very prevalent in my town of Rotorua. When I have been on my way to the airport to catch a flight to Wellington taxi drivers have spoken at length about what they have seen and how people spend their money on gambling. I have seen for myself the terrible effects that some families experience as a consequence of this terrible addiction to gambling. So it is only right that the Maori Party address issues like these. 
According to procedure my Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill should come before the House soon. Interest in the purpose of this bill is apparent from some members of the House. They like me see the evil side of these gambling machines. It is not as though I am saying that these machines have no benefits at all. Far from it! We are absolutely sure that revenue accrues. Organisations receive grants sports teams get assistance to purchase uniforms marae receive financial help and so on and so on. But what we are saying is that negatives far outweigh positives. 
Organisations like Problem Gambling Poverty Action Waikato the Salvation Army and Family First New Zealand are a surprise to me. The new mayor for all of Auckland Len Brown is a strong supporter of the spirit of this bill. Some National members have told me they support the purpose of this bill. This is a spiritual or conscience vote. The conscience of each member will determine whether they vote yes or no. The problem is that it seems that members of both National and ACT are tied by the neck to follow what their whip demands. Why did it come to this if most members of this House realise that there is an issue here? It is an issue for those on lower incomes for Maori and Pasifika people. There is an issue here that relates to those who sell gambling machines to pubs and who make donations if alcohol vendors make their gambling machines available at the door. There is an issue here because some of the revenue that comes from Rotorua is being spent somewhere else; some of the money from the machines is going to the horse racing industry as grants. All of these points will no doubt soon emerge at the first reading but I really urge all parties not to force their members to vote along party lines. This is a conscience vote. Let each member make up their own mind.  
This is what one learns by being a member of Parliament. Firstly if one has a portfolio one is better placed to implement party policies. Secondly regardless of personal desire and commitment a member must have an alliance or their side must receive 62 of the votes to ensure their vote finishes at the top. If this is not achieved talking becomes a waste of time. Thirdly one must be in Government to be effective here otherwise all one can do is lie in the sun dream on and cast stones about. That is Labour’s current position: merely talking and getting no rewards. 
This is the current situation in Maoridom with all the commentary flying about over the new foreshore and seabed bill. The Maori Party stated that it would repeal the foreshore and seabed Act totally because it is confiscating legislation. Secondly the new legislation opens up doors to every avenue. Is that it for me? I am sorry. So that is it from us the Maori Party 
.] 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Mr Speaker talofa lava and to members of this House I am grateful for the opportunity to also make a contribution to this debate. In the past several weeks perhaps the past three general debates we have listened to the members of the John Key Government talk about Mana. All of a sudden today they are no longer talking about Mana but are trying to make a big ado about nothing. Yet in those past several weeks I have sat and listened to members of the John Key Government keep repeating how good and wonderful they were to the people of Mana. That reminded me of an old saying: “Na’o le moa sope lava e toe vivi’i e ia lava ia.” 
I will translate that saying for my friend across the room Tau Henare whose Samoan is not as good as mine. It says: “The cock is the only bird that crows its own praises.” For the past three or so general debates that was all we heard from the National Government members—praising how good they were towards the people of Mana. 
It is important that the people of Mana know that the success or failure of this John Key Government and its policies can be measured by how the Government treats the people in communities like Mana. The Mana electorate is diverse in its peoples cultures languages and faiths. Mana is a microcosm of New Zealand society now and into the future so the way the John Key Government treats the Mana community enables us to see how it would treat the rest of the nation. We have to ask and I hope the people of Mana continue to ask this Government between now and 20 November how the Government treats the people of the diverse communities of Mana. 
I say with the greatest of respect this John Key Government has treated Mana in the same way that we saw John Banks treat South Auckland not long ago. This Government treats the people of Mana in the same way that John Key treated South Auckland; he treated it with disdain and disrespect. I have to add that he was aided and abetted by the John Key Government. 
I give some examples of how the people of Mana have been affected by the John Key Government and its policies. In June this year we read in the  
Kapi-Mana News 
: “More than 2000 Mana children will be affected by Budget cuts to early childhood education and the people of Mana their families have every right to feel betrayed by this Government.” Information obtained by Labour from the Ministry of Education shows that 2109 children are enrolled at 47 early childhood education services in the Mana electorate. Those services currently receive funding because they have 80 to 100 percent qualified staff. The John Key Government will cut that funding from next February leaving a shortfall of $25 per child per week. Early childhood centres will likely pass that cost on to parents or sacrifice the quality of education those children are receiving. Local families have every right to feel betrayed by this Government which broke its promise to keep existing early childhood education subsidies in place. When I visit groups churches and community organisations in parts of Mana I hear parents express their concern about the future of their young children. They express that concern because not only is this Government cutting the valuable funding that goes into the education of those children— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Not true. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: It is very true. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Not true. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: I tell the Minister to read what is written in the  
Kapi-Mana News 
. The Minister’s comment is another example of somebody who sits in an ivory tower so does not know the pain and struggles that the people of Mana are going through. I tell him that Kris Fa’afoi knows what is going on. 
Hon Members 
: Who? 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO 
: Kris Fa’afoi. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa me te Whare. I am delighted to stand as the National list MP based in Mana and to have the opportunity of my parliamentary role to congratulate Porirua on winning three Gold Awards at the International Awards for Liveable Communities held in Chicago last night. Porirua achieved gold for its Village Planning Programme winning first place in the socio-economic section of the Environmentally Sustainable Project Award. It also won a Gold Award in topping the community sustainability criteria in the Whole of City Award. That is particularly important because they competed against 43 other cities from around the world included in which were Montreal Vancouver and Beijing. 
The reason I start my contribution with that today is that if we listen to the Opposition the only thing we would hear about the Mana electorate would be doom and gloom. The people there want the full story of all the communities of Mana told to the world because they are proud of what they are achieving every day. Unfortunately the attitude of members opposite was personified and typified by their vote on the Rugby World Cup 2010 (Empowering) Bill last night; they try to ride all sides of a story—they are for they are against they do not know they are ambivalent and they are ambiguous. That they are in disarray is the fact of the matter. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: A casserole? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I thank Mr Calder. They are a verdant casserole of complexities in disarray. 
The fact is Mana has a great story to tell across the board. The crime rate in the Kapiti-Mana Police District is the lowest in the Wellington region. In terms of health I am sure the House was delighted to hear—although it could be forgiven for thinking otherwise because of the acrimonious remarks thrown by members opposite—the Minister of Health yesterday advise the House that in the 2 years of this National Government the number of elective surgery procedures has climbed 57 percent in the Mana electorate. 
Hon Members 
: Hear hear! 
HEKIA PARATA 
: It climbed by 57 percent. As for outpatient consults they have climbed 30 percent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So what! 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I will tell Mr Mallard so what. For 60 years the Labour Party has had—apparently—a safe seat in Mana and what does it have to show for it? A legacy of poor health a legacy of deferred maintenance in housing a legacy of people who are undereducated. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So what! 
HEKIA PARATA 
: So what! I and the National Party care about making a difference for the people of Mana. We care about backing the people of Mana into business. We care about the Porirua youth of whom there are a significant number as witnessed by the Porirua Youth Awards which were held last week. This party in Government wants to celebrate achievement. Yes there are problems; yes we must address them and are we? Yes we are. This record in health demonstrates that. 
I have been criticised by the Opposition for apparently remaining silent on roading. I am not silent on roading; I absolutely support this Government’s decision to invest $2.2 billion—by the way our scheme has been costed unlike the Opposition’s scheme—in a corridor from Wellington Airport to Levin. I have spent my time advocating that the impact be as minimal as possible that the schools be as little affected as possible that the focus on environmental screening be important and that the interchange options be the best possible available. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Where are the plans? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Unlike Mr Hughes I do not think public silence means total silence because effectiveness does not require press releases every 5 minutes that say or mean nothing. My interest is in how we get the best possible outcome for all the communities of Mana. It is a young population it is multicultural and it is aspirational. I want more for the families the kids and all of those communities. Unlike Labour which has had 60 years to do something about it I in 3 years have made significant differences and I can point to them. This Government can point to them because what we are interested in is— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How sweet is the kumara? 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Yes quite right Opposition members also specialise in cultural insults which they put other people up to talk about. 
Our Government is interested in sustainable economics. It is interested in sustainable health which is why we have seen an improvement. It is interested in sustainable policing which is why we have seen a decline in the crime rate. It is interested in sustainable employment which is why we have seen an improvement—yes it is modest but it is an improvement nevertheless—in employment. That is what this Government stands for. Kia ora. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Kris Fa’afoi’s chances of winning the Mana by-election just went up even further. Every time Hekia Parata stands up in Parliament or shifts so that she is sitting behind somebody who is speaking Kris Fa’afoi’s chances of winning the Mana by-election go up just a little bit further. The people in Mana like the rest of New Zealand know that they were sold a lemon at the 2008 general election. All of the promises that National made are being broken right left and centre; it had no intention of keeping them. Hekia Parata thinks that if she just screams a little bit louder about how proud she is of all the promises that National has broken then somehow the people of Mana will be gullible enough to vote for her and put her in as their member of Parliament. They are not as gullible as that; they are not as stupid as that. They know that National has not delivered what it promised. They know that they are not better off under National. 
There is no ambition for the people of Porirua under this National Government. Phil Heatley wants to take away their houses. The old people in Porirua who have lived in those State houses and who have raised their families in those State houses will have them taken away by Phil Heatley. They will have their houses taken away from them. I say to Phil Heatley that they are not just houses; they are homes. People have lived in those homes for many years they have raised their kids there they have neighbours whom they have known for most of their lives and their kids have gone to the local school. It is not just a house; it is a home. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that Phil Heatley thinks that it is acceptable to throw them out of the houses that they have lived in for all that time. Hekia Parata has said nothing. She has said absolutely nothing about Phil Heatley’s plan to throw State housing tenants out of their homes because he wants to give them to somebody else. 
Phil Heatley claimed that the previous Labour Government was a slum landlord. What has he done since he became the Minister of Housing? He has cut funding. He has cut funding for maintaining State housing since he became the Minister. I bet very little money is going into redeveloping State houses in Porirua just as very little money is going into redeveloping State houses in my electorate just across the hill in Rimutaka. In fact National has abandoned a whole lot of State houses. The houses are now in such bad nick it will not put tenants in them. Instead of doing them up it has just abandoned them altogether. It is leaving them completely empty. That is what this Government thinks is the priority in housing: turf people out of their houses turf them out of their homes and then leave the houses empty. That is this Government’s housing strategy and it is an absolute disgrace. 
The people in Mana will know. They will pass judgment on this Government in another 2½ weeks and the judgment will be clear. They have had a gutsful of the broken promises. They have had a gutsful of being told that they were going to get a Government that was ambitious for New Zealand. It was going to turbocharge the economy. Do members remember that? National was going to turbocharge the economy. What has happened instead? Unemployment has gone up. Bill English called the unemployed collateral damage. That is what Bill English thinks about the people who have lost their jobs. Those people are National’s collateral damage. National does not care about the people who have lost their jobs because of its bad managing of the economy. 
It does not care about the people who feel betrayed that it broke its promise not to increase GST. What did John Key say? He said that if National did a halfway decent job of managing the economy it would not need to increase GST. Either John Key was not telling the truth or he has admitted that National has done an appalling job of managing the economy. He said that if National did a good job of managing the economy GST would not go up. GST has already gone up. Less than 2 years after National became the Government it put up GST. It is another broken promise to add to the long list. 
National said it would not cut education funding. It should tell that to the parents in my electorate who send their kids to kindergarten because the Rimutaka Kindergarten Association has lost $1 million in funding. It has lost $1 million in funding at the hands of a Government that said it would not cut funding for early childhood education. That is exactly what it has done. 
Across the board the communities are feeling the pinch. They are feeling the effect of the Government’s funding cuts. Our elderly are struggling to make ends meet because of the rising cost of living. What does the National Government do? It cuts their home help hours. It cuts their home help hours which will ultimately lead to more old people ending up in hospital. It is a Government that is already out of touch with ordinary working New Zealanders like the people who live in the Porirua Basin in Mana. This Government is out of touch. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I guess it is up to the Government member for the electorate of Kaikoura to have the last word and I have to say that the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Bill was the winner on the day. When we stop to look at it we see that it truly paints Labour in the colours that it stands for. It is red-faced it is all over the show and it is not presenting a unified face. At a time when it should be unified and focused on the challenges ahead it is divided into factions and it is dysfunctional. When we stop to look at Labour in that light we see its true colours. 
Let us have a look at Labour when it was in Government. It is very good to see what actually happened in the dying days of that reckless overspending Labour Government. One of its leading bills was the Electoral Finance Bill. What was its aim? It was to divide and rule. It was to control. When we look at the way it was responded to we see that it really wound up the people of New Zealand. What did the foreshore and seabed legislation do? It divided New Zealand. Again Labour was going to divide and rule. What we are seeing today around the Rugby World Cup bill is no different from what we saw in the dying days of that Labour administration. 
So what are we seeing today? We are seeing exactly the same thing. Let us reflect on it. Earlier in the year we had that bus driving around the country. It was painted red and had the words “Axe the Tax” on it. What was Labour going to do? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: The blunderbuss! 
COLIN KING 
: Yes it blew up in Labour members’ faces. They are now in a cleft stick in the sense that within their own numbers they cannot actually make a policy decision. Again they are divided. 
A couple of weeks back we had the unbelievable audacity of Labour doing the work of the unions. It was doing the bidding of the unions and working against the economic best interests of New Zealand. It backed the unions and backed the Australian initiative to create chaos and mayhem in our remarkable film industry. When we look at the track record we see nothing but chaos and confusion around Labour. I believe that that is a strategy Phil Goff is employing to maintain the leadership. Obviously the state of confusion is the key to his leadership and his survival. 
So what conclusion do we come to? When there is a lack of leadership there is confusion. I and other members on this side of the House in Government say that New Zealand deserves better. Two years ago the people of New Zealand made the best choice of their lives and that was between two very stark contrasts: a focused grounded National Government and a confused and dysfunctional split Labour Opposition. 
Let us talk about the positive things that the Government is doing. I may run out of time in doing so. We are building a brighter future for all New Zealanders which is very important. We are rebalancing the economy with 75 percent of New Zealanders paying 17.5 percent tax. The Budget will deliver over 4 years 170000 jobs and an increase in wages of $7000. In health we are transferring as much as is possible of taxpayers’ dollars to the front line to deliver better medical outcomes for New Zealand. And of course the main policy in education is improving plain-language reporting to parents in order to improve achievement in literacy writing and numeracy for our children which are musts in a modern economy. 
Then we have the incredible efforts and strategy in infrastructure. The wisdom of this Government to put commissioners into Environment Canterbury will show a very good dividend for this country’s economy going forward. The Canterbury Water Management Strategy is an amazing strategy. It took backbone courage and clarity of leadership. In the research and development field the 2010 Budget provided science and innovation grants and vouchers that will certainly help our businesses to compete globally. Our free-trade agreements are working very well and we are looking forward to the Trans-Pacific Partnership coming to fruition. Of course there are modifications to the Resource Management Act and business compliance to make sure that businesses can survive. 
New Zealanders can have confidence that they are in good hands. The Government is doing a fantastic job. We are aware today that Labour is totally dysfunctional. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave also for members to be able to make more than the usual four calls they would have if we were doing this clause by clause. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is also sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Clauses 1 to 5 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I would like to invite the member Paul Quinn to take the opportunity of what is I think his first time in the chair to answer some questions because that is really his role as the member in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. 
The first question I have—because I could not get the answer to this question at any stage during this entire debate and I do not think my colleagues could get the answer to this question from the select committee hearings they had either—is how many people voted in the 2008 election while they were in prison. I want to know how many prisoners actually voted in the 2008 election. The reason I want to know the answer to that question is this: when one designs legislation one obviously has a mischief that one is seeking to remedy. Everyone knows that one of the basic rules of interpretation is that judges will always go back and ask what the mischief was that the legislation was designed to remedy. In looking at the mischief that this was designed to remedy we look at the provisions of the bill. The provisions state very clearly that the legislation prevents people from going on to the electoral roll—in fact they are disqualified from being on the electoral roll—if they are serving a sentence of imprisonment. They cannot register as an elector and that is the technique that has been used. It is probably obviously because a specific number of people have taken up their duty to vote in a general election while they have been in prison and I want to know how many did that. How many did that in the 2008 election? I could ask for previous years’ elections figures but I am asking the member in charge of this bill to tell us how many prisoners—how many people in prison—on the day of the last general election actually recorded a vote. That is my first question. 
Then I would like the member to address—once he has addressed the question of how many prisoners voted—some of the anomalies that have arisen as a result of how his bill will apply. I ask the Committee to remember that it is the disqualification of the person from registering as an elector that prevents them from voting on the day. It does not say that one cannot actually vote; it just says that one cannot register as an elector. Someone has to come off the electoral roll. That is quite an interesting thing to do for somebody who is in prison for say a 4-year period. It means that they will be disqualified from registering as an elector so they will have to come off the electoral roll when they go into prison. But what if they come out of prison before the general election is held? If they come out of prison before the general election is held they will have to reregister in order to be able to start voting again from that point on. Of course they will be legally allowed to vote from that point because they will be legally required to register as an elector. I think what the member in charge of this bill has not really responded to in any of the debates so far is that it is a legal requirement to be on the roll yet he is saying to somebody that because that person has committed a crime he or she is no longer legally required to be on the roll. It seems rather ironic to me. Anyway the member can perhaps deal with that. 
We will have one person released the day before the election and one person released on the Monday. They have exactly the same sentence for the same crime but one gets released the day before the general election and one gets released two days after—as general elections are always held on a Saturday—so what happens then? Why is one person treated in a way where they can get on the electoral roll that day? As they leave the prison gates they will go straight down to the post office and get on the electoral roll; I am sure they will will they not? That will be their real incentive for good behaviour to get their right back to vote! They will dash down to the local post office and they will get on to the electoral roll as quickly as they can so that they can vote the next day. But the person who is released on the Monday will sadly miss out. Why will we have such an anomalous situation? That is my second question. 
My third question goes to the difference between someone who gets a prison sentence and someone who gets home detention for exactly the same offence. There will be different criteria applied to each one. I want the member to tell the Committee whether he has thought this through for people who cannot get home detention not because of the nature of their crime but because of the nature of the home that they would be applying for home detention to. I know a couple of guys in Christchurch young men both convicted of exactly the same offence in different circumstances but essentially they got the same sentence. They both applied for home detention. One did not get home detention; the other one did. I know that members have said it was because one lived in Fendalton and one was Maori and lived in Aranui but there is more to that story than meets the eye. The parents of the Fendalton young man were very ashamed of what he had done. They were backing their son to rehabilitate himself. They wanted to keep him out of prison at any cost not only for his future career but also so he would not mix with people who perhaps would lead him on the wrong path. They admitted that he had already gone down that way but they were prepared to provide him with genuine support discipline and love. They were going to ensure that he would stay on the straight and narrow from there on in. The Aranui kid did not have that and that is why he did not get home detention. I do not think our society will do fair justice to people in his situation until we are prepared to offer him an alternative to prison—the same that the young man from Fendalton got. I do not disagree at all with the young man from Fendalton getting home detention; I think it was the right thing to do. But I think the State owed an obligation to offer something similar even though it could not offer this at home to the young Maori lad from Aranui as well. That is the third question. 
The fourth question is why the member has chosen the mechanism of prohibiting people in prison from being on the electoral roll. How will they get on the roll in time if they are released the day before an election? I question him about the concept of a civic duty to vote when we are treating voting here as if it is a privilege. We actually require people to be on the electoral roll as I said before; we do not legally require people to vote in the way that people are required to vote in Australia. But every time we get up and speak at public meetings we always say it is a duty—a civic duty—to be engaged in the political process. So how do we send that message to anyone when we are treating voting as a privilege? 
I imagine that one day someone might ask Paul Quinn what he did when he had a term in Parliament and how he left his mark in those 3 years he was here. He would say: “I stopped people from voting.” and the reply would come back: “But don’t we have a civic duty to vote?”. He would say: “Yes but they were criminals who were in jail.” The person would say: “Oh really serious criminals like that guy Graeme Burton or William Bell?” and he would say: “No no they already couldn’t vote. My bill stopped people convicted of much less serious offences from voting.” When the person asks: “Like what?” he would answer: “Like a bit of tax fraud or something minor.” When he gets told that people get home detention for those sorts of things these days he would say: “Well the people on home detention were never covered—you had to have been in prison on the day of the election.” The person speaking to the member would say: “Wow what an achievement that was! I am sure that that made a real difference.” Paul Quinn would say: “Well it was a deterrent and the reality is that we should not let people vote who commit crimes.” The question would come back: “So how many people do you think the bill stopped from offending?”. Paul Quinn would say: “Well look people would say to themselves: ‘If I commit this crime I’ll end up in jail. OK that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.’ But then they might say: ‘Hang on I might be in jail on the day of the election. I don’t know whether that’s a risk I’m prepared to take.’ ” I ask whether members think that will happen. No I do not think that will happen. 
I have a whole stack of other questions in relation to the decision that the member in charge of the bill made to send the bill to the Law and Order Committee and to have Department of Corrections officials advising on this bill rather than Ministry of Justice officials. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to offer some comments on the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. 
Committing a citizen to a period of imprisonment is one of a number of sanctions available to the State to use with those citizens who break the law. Imprisonment is a sanction that is designed to deter the citizenry from committing a crime to protect the public from lawbreakers to rehabilitate those in prisons and of course to punish through loss of liberties the incarcerated citizen. 
Imprisonment is a significant sanction. I doubt that many prisoners would find much solace in Byron’s lines: 
Eternal Spirit of the chainless Mind! 
Brightest in dungeons Liberty! thou art 
Loss of liberty is a terrible travail to most human beings. I ask members of the Committee to think for a moment of being stuck in a well-appointed hotel room. Imagine if the door was locked one did not have any meals of one’s choice one could not turn on the television or the Internet and one could not have any visits from any mates. It would not be a lot of fun; one is not free in other words to associate with whosoever one wishes or otherwise exercise liberties that we daily take for granted. 
The philosopher Isaiah Berlin referred to the positive conception of liberty; not freedom from but freedom to. Imprisonment at Her Majesty’s pleasure involves a loss of a number of freedoms to. In prison one loses the freedom of movement of liberty and the loss of a number of freedoms to: the freedom to associate the freedom of speech the freedom to communicate freely with phone or Internet and many other freedoms to. 
I believe the freedom to vote is an integral part of an individual’s liberty and of an individual’s freedoms to. The loss of the freedom to vote upon going to prison is perfectly consistent with the loss of the other aforementioned freedoms to concomitant with a term of imprisonment. Let us explore the reality. Many criminals have a long string of convictions before they receive a prison term. A judge does not sentence a person to prison lightly in this country. It is a last resort reserved for either the more serious offenders or repeat offenders. 
This Government is committed to addressing the drivers of crime and is aiming in the long term to reduce the size of our prison muster. New Zealand and Australia currently ban prisoners’ suffrage for prisoners having a sentence of 3 years or more but among democratic countries there is no clear policy or threshold at which those convicted of crimes lose or do not lose their right to vote. 
Internationally we run the whole gamut with regard to prisoners’ suffrage. Some countries have no disqualification and even the worst serial offender is allowed to vote. Some ban voting even after prisoners are released. Others have a total ban on prisoner voting. There is a continuum; arguments can be made for any number of scenarios about where along the continuum the threshold for a ban on prisoner suffrage should be. It is logical less arbitrary simple to understand and entirely consistent with the concomitant loss of Isaiah Berlin’s freedoms to which is inherent in any sentence of imprisonment for the ban to apply to any prisoner sentenced to prison. I commend this bill to the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was a fairly good second reading speech but I was quite surprised that the member Cam Calder was the one speaking rather than the member in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I think the normal practice at the Committee stage of a bill as I think the member should be aware is that when there is a substantive Supplementary Order Paper the member in charge of the bill—normally a Minister but in this case Mr Quinn—gets up and explains the substance of that Supplementary Order Paper. In this case I think he should have taken responsibility for the situation that led to the Supplementary Order Paper which effectively reverses the guts of the bill. 
I know that all of us have our first time in the chair. Like the member I was lucky enough to be involved in a bill well before my ministerial time. 
Grant Robertson 
: A very good bill. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I do not know if it was very good actually; it was legislation on Waikato electricity and gas. As I am indicating to the member it would have been better and it would have been polite to the Committee if he had stood up. I think it is fair to say that this will be the highlight of his 3-year parliamentary career when people go back and look at the changes that he has made. In the future when he is looking out from his home in Roseneath over to the prison on Mount Crawford he will be able to say that for a period of time as a result of his work there were people there who could not go on the electoral roll. That will be the peak of his parliamentary career: he will be able to look out from his house in Roseneath over to Mount Crawford and to say that. I do not think he can actually see the prison in the Hutt Valley from his place; I think he would have to look around the corner a bit from Roseneath. I know where Rimutaka Prison is and I know where the Hutt Valley is unlike Mr Quinn who is a fairly irregular visitor out there. 
In fact he did not make it to either of the school prize-givings last night. He is the champion of the valley! 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Was he up for a prize? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The dunce’s prize because I do not think I have seen in a bill the time that I have been in Parliament that shows such gross incompetence in the management of a simple piece of legislation. This is not complicated legislation; it is relatively simple. I can understand the problems that Maurice Williamson had with his shipping legislation in the past because it was substantive. I do not really understand Kate Wilkinson’s problems a couple of weeks ago as that was simple too. I would have thought it was impossible to have an effect that is the reverse of the intention of the member in charge of the bill. I would have thought that a member in charge of legislation who was even half competent would read it. If he could not understand it then he could get someone to read it too him. If he could not understand it then he could get someone with some legal knowledge such as Simon Bridges— 
Grant Robertson 
: No someone with legal knowledge! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: To be fair the junior lawyer from Tauranga has some legal knowledge— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: He never won a case. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Oh no he could have explained the bill to Paul Quinn. Then we would not have had Paul Quinn with Supplementary Order Paper 174. That Supplementary Order Paper can be well summarised as him saying he is sorry. Paul Quinn in Committee moved an amendment to new clause 6: “To add the following clause (after line 24 on page 2):” but really it should say: “I’m sorry”. What the member has done is almost unforgivable. He sat on a select committee on a bill he looked at it carefully he went line by line through the Supplementary Order Paper and he looked at all the changes that were done in the select committee— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: And then he woke up. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no he did not wake up; that is the whole point. The legislation came to the House wrong because he was asleep. All I want to do is to congratulate my colleagues on the select committee who let him do it. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Somewhere in the Standing Orders I am allowed to upon resumption of the seat of the previous speaker correct a statement of fact. He claimed that I sat on the select committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member can take a call and do that; I would need to look up the Standing Order. Does the member want to seek leave to correct it? What is the member doing? [ 
Interruption 
] I will take a call. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you. It was a difficult decision I know but you came up with the right answer in the end Mr Chairperson. 
When I look at the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill I wonder if the member Paul Quinn actually spoke to the National Government’s Minister of Justice—I wonder if he did. When I look at this bill I see that the only people who will be in jail for 3 years or less who will vote will be the blokes who voted for that side of the House anyway. They are the chaps from the 40-odd finance companies who I hope will end up as guests of Her Majesty in the big house for the damage they have done to the vast majority of people. 
I must say one thing: the previous National speaker Cam Calder spoke about denying the rights of Kiwis who had done great harm to society. Well I may be wrong but the way I read this bill is that it is only for people who are in jail or have committed an offence and are jailed for 3 years or less. The men who have murdered our citizens and the women who have neglected their children the ones who are in jail for a long length of time have already been denied their right to vote anyway. 
When I look at this bill I see that this is a nasty bill. What does this bill do? It does not save any lives it does not protect society and it does not deliver equity. There is no mention of rehabilitation there is no mention of redemption and there is no mention of restoration. It delivers only a further kick in the guts to people in jail who have made wrong decisions and who are there at the moment for 3 years or less. We will be denying them every single possible right that they could have. That is the wrong message to send. 
I wonder whether in fact the member who is sponsoring this bill took it to caucus to be debated. The reason I ask is that the Attorney-General himself who we know knows absolutely everything about everything wrote a report that stated that this bill contravened the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Attorney-General said that. I am sure the Attorney-General would have been in the caucus when that member brought the bill to caucus and said that he wanted to put it in the ballot. I cannot believe that the Hon Chris Finlayson did not stand up and say “Whoa hold on a second here. This is not what our party stands for. This contravenes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” 
Simon Bridges 
: Whoa! 
STUART NASH 
: I know that member over there would not have stood for it; he admitted he lost 50 percent of his cases. 
Is this what we want to do? Is this the sort of slippery slope that we want to send our society down denying the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act a fundamental piece of constitutional law which outlines the fundamental rights of every citizen? The Attorney-General said “No”. 
The other thing is that Simon Power stood up in the House—well he has stood up numerous times—and said this Government would be hard on criminals. Is this legislation hard on criminals? He said this Government would look after the rights of victims. Does this bill attend to the rights of victims? No it does not. It does not do anything positive at all—it does not do anything positive at all. As my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel asked will this bill stop people committing crimes? Cam Calder said it may. Of course it will not. People who commit crimes will not stop and think “Well hell if I go to jail I’m not going to be allowed to vote.” 
This bill has no positive impact whatsoever. It will not stop crime it will not address the causes of crime and it will not address social equity. It does nothing. It does nothing to help rehabilitate people who are already in jail and it is not the track that I think our society needs to go down. I am sure Mr Bridges over there would agree. I cannot believe that a lawyer who is versed in constitutional law would back any bill that would deny the rights of citizens and would go against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—I just cannot believe that. 
So I ask Mr Quinn to have a look at this bill to take a deep breath and have a look at what he is trying to achieve because I do not know what this bill is trying to achieve. The worst offenders in our society who have committed the most abhorrent crimes have been denied the right to vote already—they have been denied the right to vote already. This bill is aimed at the petty criminal who has a chance of rehabilitation. It is aimed at the petty criminal who we can provide rehabilitation for. This is not a good bill. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill is a worthy bill from a great citizen of New Zealand Paul Quinn. What a great citizen of New Zealand! He has done a lot of good things in his life. Some other members are saying that this will be his finest hour but I have a feeling he will get comfortable in that green chair over time. I have a feeling he might get to sit in it a little bit more in the future. But not only does this man champion the Hutt Valley— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Will the member include him in his Cabinet? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: If Paul Quinn is in Parliament he will be in my Cabinet. Not only does this member champion the valley but in his spare time he is coming up with a lot of legislation and a lot of ideas and this is a very good one from that member. 
Stuart Nash says this bill is about petty criminals but I ask him whether it really is about petty criminals. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Petty tax fraud they said before. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I am sure members opposite say that to people who have been ripped off by so-called petty tax fraud. It seems to me that one of the central debates throughout the readings of the bill and now in the Committee stage is whether sending someone to prison is serious enough to take their right to vote from them. Absolutely it is. 
The last Labour Government during its several years in office liberalised the law and I am not saying I necessarily disagree with that. It introduced a number of sentences—I think it was seven—that one could get before imprisonment. One can go through supervision intensive supervision electronic bail and electronic this that and the other thing before one gets home detention. To be sentenced to imprisonment a criminal has to have been convicted of a serious offence. Not only that person’s liberty but also their right to vote should be denied. 
I think Paul Quinn has done a very good thing here. We come back to the question of principle. Should serving prisoners have the right to vote? That is ultimately what this comes back to. 
Grant Robertson 
: But that’s how it is now. You have to argue why they shouldn’t. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I ask the member to give me a reason why serving prisoners should have the right to vote. Give me two or three reasons why they should have the right to vote. 
Grant Robertson 
: No no that’s the status quo. You’re the one changing it; you make the reason. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Those members do not like it do they? There is no reason why serving prisoners should have the right to vote. Those people have landed in the clink because they have done something serious. They have not stumbled their way into prison as Lianne Dalziel or Stuart Nash would have us think. Those people have systematically committed serious crimes. Under the Sentencing Act the judge has to go past a number of other sentences before getting to imprisonment. The law says that for people to be sentenced to imprisonment the judge has to be satisfied that none of those other sentences are suitable. I ask Labour members to tell me why serving prisoners should have the right to vote. The only reason I can think of is that Labour wants prisoners to vote; it thinks that prisoners should have the vote. Why should they? I ask Labour members to give me some good reasons. 
Lianne Dalziel talked about how it was a civic duty to vote. I absolutely disagree with that. I absolutely disagree that it is a civic duty to vote. That is why I am against and have been consistently against compulsory voting. I do not think people have a duty to vote. People can opt out of the system if they want to do so and decide not to vote. Members should not get me wrong; I think people should vote. As a personal choice I think people should— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Labour’s soft on crime. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Labour members are soft on crime. They want criminals to vote. I think people should not opt out. They should take seriously their right to vote and they should look at the options but it is not a duty. Labour members do not like what I am saying and it probably is controversial but I think of council elections and the plethora of choices people have. Unless a person has gone through and thought about all of the candidates does that person have a duty to vote? I do not think so. If people do not know the candidates maybe the best thing for them is not to exercise their right to vote. 
I come back to the fact that it is a right to vote not a duty. Yes it is a precious right that this country needs to guard jealously. As I said during this bill’s first reading it is a right that people have gone to war for have fought over and have shed blood over. It is not quite right to say that ultimately all wars are fought over democracy and the vote but one could almost make that case certainly for wars in the last century. It is a right that should be used responsibly. It is a right that has to be jealously guarded. Should we give that precious right to vote that people have gone to war over to serving prisoners who have done something exceptionally serious? As a society we have decided that we need to incarcerate those people and keep them inside. Should we then give them the vote? 
Labour is on the side of the criminals on this. Labour says that we should give prisoners the vote. All I ask of those Labour members who stand in this House and speak on this bill is that they give me some substantive reasons why prisoners should vote. 
Grant Robertson 
: Who’s changing the law? You’re changing the law; you give the reason. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I have said why we are changing the law. Prison is the sentence for a very serious offence. Voting is a precious right that comes with responsibilities. Prisoners forfeit that right. They have done something to cause us to say: “You are going inside. You must be kept away from society.” Maybe it is old-fashioned but I do not want those people inside people who have been incarcerated to have the vote. When they come out of prison and have been rehabilitated back into society let us give them the vote. 
I think we are on the side of the angels here and the Labour members are on the side of the criminals. Labour members say that criminals who have done very serious drug offending or as Stuart Nash said have committed serious fraud should be able to vote. I do not think so. Voting is a precious right that has been fought over in war. 
I commend Paul Quinn for championing the valley for bringing in this bill and for doing something good. I am sure it will not be the last good worthy solid piece of work he will do in this House. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call in the Committee stage of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I begin by complimenting the speaker who just sat down Simon Bridges on his loyalty to his colleague and indeed to his party. I believe that only loyalty could drive him to make a speech in support of what is deeply flawed poorly conceived and poorly targeted legislation that will not achieve any positive end. To the contrary it will have only negative outcomes. 
It is quite timely that we are debating the bill this week. In fact it was debated by a number of people last evening at the launch of a website. I was privileged to attend a Robson Hanan Trust function under the heading “Rethinking Crime and Punishment” at which a website was launched. In that room were numerous people representing a number of church-based community-based and other organisations who have positive and real solutions to the problems of prison and incarceration in this country. 
There are very real solutions out there. We know how they could be applied and how we could save an enormous amount of money and a great deal of social discontent. A great deal of human suffering could be avoided by applying some of the very practical very real and very achievable solutions proposed by people outside of the House and within some of the networks of penal reformers. 
The bill has very little to recommend it. Admittedly I have not been in this House a very long time but the report from officials on this bill has the strongest language I have ever seen endeavouring to dissuade a select committee from supporting a bill. The report talks about prisoner disqualification cases having been argued in the highest appellate courts of comparable international jurisdictions. It waves red flags to say that this bill if it is passed not only will be challenged in our own Supreme Court in New Zealand but also will inevitably be taken to international courts where it will be challenged in its turn. 
This week we have seen news from the United Kingdom that after 5 nearly 6 years of resisting the UK Government has finally bowed to a European court decision from 2005 that the blanket ban imposed by the UK Government was illegal and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. Under article 46 of that convention the UK is obliged to abide by this final judgment. The direct and inevitable consequence of the UK Government’s failure to abide by that ruling of the court is that to date 1340 inmates or former inmates are lining up to claim compensation from the UK Government for what was effectively an illegal removal of their right to vote while they were in prison. 
Clearly we are in a different jurisdiction and we would not be subject to those rules. But if this legislation goes through we can take it as a given that there will be appeals to international courts. It may be nothing that can require us to respond—perhaps we will not ever face compensation charges—but think what it will do for New Zealand’s reputation internationally as a country that pays attention to human rights and that acknowledges that prisoners are humans despite being in prison and are still deserving of human rights. 
The previous speaker challenged us to come up with some ideas and some examples of why people in prison should retain their right to vote and I am very happy to offer a few examples. I ask why we ought to deliberately further alienate people who are already removed albeit often for quite short periods from society from social interaction and from making some useful contribution. Taking away the right to vote from all prisoners says to them that voting is a limited right and that perhaps it is something they ought not to give any particular weight to when they re-emerge from prison. 
I ask whether it is not more intelligent and more sensible to do everything we can to keep people engaged with the wider society as a step towards their more secure and better integration when they inevitably return to that wider society. We are not talking about the high-end people who commit horrific murders who commit extreme crimes that none of us could possibly contemplate. We are talking about people who are in prison for relatively short periods of time for relatively minor property offences who will also lose the right to vote. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to the contribution from Simon Bridges and the random interjections from Tau Henare. It is quite clear in debating this bill that there are distinct views in this Committee about the purpose of sending people to prison. The purpose of sending people to prison is indeed to take away their liberty as Mr Bridges mentioned before. I would have thought that as he is somebody quite close to the criminal justice system he would also have noted that the other purpose—particularly of sending people to prison for terms of 3 years or less—is to attempt to rehabilitate them and to attempt to set up a situation where those people can reintegrate into society. Mr Quinn shakes his head which is interesting. I think that shows the very point I am making here. 
People sentenced to crimes punishable by 3 years’ imprisonment or less will be back in our communities. They will be back in our communities I say to Mr Quinn and I ask in what way are we making our communities safer by removing those people from the electoral roll. That is what this bill does. It removes people from the electoral roll. It does not take away their right to vote as such. Simon Bridges told us that he was against compulsory voting. The question for Simon Bridges is whether he is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. That is the question. I ask whether Mr Bridges is against the idea of all New Zealanders being on the electoral roll. [ 
Interruption 
] He says that is different. 
Mr Quinn and Mr Bridges have to face up to the fact that this bill does not just take away the right to vote; it removes people from the electoral roll. That is the concern the Attorney-General raised in his comments on this bill. The Attorney-General specifically raised the concern—as did a large number of submitters to the Law and Order Committee—that this bill breaches section 12 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which affirms that every New Zealand citizen who is of or over the age of 18 years has the right to vote and to stand in general elections etc. The Attorney-General has raised that concern and Mr Bridges and Mr Quinn need to ask themselves the question of what their commitment to democracy is. We heard a lot of pious claptrap from Simon Bridges before about this precious right to vote and how people have fought for it. 
We have in this country a democracy and the greatest challenge to those of us who see ourselves as true democrats is when we come up against a situation like this. At what point are we prepared to stand up for democracy and say that the people who challenge us in society still have the right to vote? Mr Bridges said that prisoners have forfeited their rights. I ask whether they have forfeited their right to eat or their right to be not beaten up. I ask Mr Bridges where it ends. They have forfeited their rights—that is the view coming from members on the other side of the Chamber about the purpose of sending people to prison. It boils down to this question. Are we sending people to prison as a punishment or are we sending people to prison for punishment? That difference has to be decided on here. The punishment is the taking away of liberty. The exercise for prisoners who are serving terms of 3 years or less is to rehabilitate those people and to attempt to facilitate their reintegration into society and this bill will do nothing to support those goals. 
Time and time again from this National Government we have had legislation coming into this House in the criminal justice area and members on this side of the Chamber find ourselves asking whether it will make our communities safer because surely that is the aim. There is no evidence that this bill will make communities safer. In fact the Department of Corrections told the select committee that it would not. No evidence anywhere in the world points to the fact that this will reduce recidivism or that this will somehow act as a deterrent. It will not. It will not make our communities safer. It is in the same category as the “three strikes” legislation. It is populist stuff. It is the easy bit of criminal justice. The hard bit of criminal justice law is coming to this House with real solutions to stop people committing crimes to stop people committing crimes after they are released from prison and to help people reintegrate into society. This bill does nothing to improve the safety of our communities. 
Is it not interesting that once again the Government denied the select committee the right to hear from the Ministry of Justice. Once again as with the “three strikes” bill the Ministry of Justice was not allowed to come in because Government members know that the advisers to this Government on justice would not have approved of this bill. The Minister of Justice Simon Power is out of here. He is out of here quicker than Tau Henare moves from one party to another. He just said that he is not part of this. He has not even featured in this debate because the Ministry of Justice knows— 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 Having listened with interest and got a flavour of the discussion thus far I think it is an appropriate time to stand and perhaps inform the discussion a bit better because—to use the words of the previous speaker Grant Robertson—a lot of claptrap has certainly been shared around the place. Let me demonstrate that firstly by confirming to Mr Mallard that I was not a member of the Law and Order Committee which considered this bill. I was not a member of the select committee that considered the bill and perhaps if he had done a bit of work in preparing himself to speak to this bill instead of doing his usual trick of just winging things along and getting himself in all sorts of trouble he might have understood that. 
As I said in my second reading speech the Parliamentary Counsel Office was profuse in its apology for the mistake it freely admitted was its own in the redrafting of this bill. As a consequence of that yes there is Supplementary Order Paper 174 which— 
Grant Robertson 
: So you stuffed up. 
PAUL QUINN 
: No you see I did not stuff up actually. It is a matter of being able to understand English. The member should forget the law that he cannot understand; he needs to understand English. He can read my lips: the Parliamentary Counsel Office was profuse in its apology. I ask whether the member understands that. OK? But let us put that to one side. 
The second point that I will make relates to what Lianne Dalziel said. Lianne Dalziel who led the discussion from the Labour Opposition’s point of view wanted—pleaded for—the number of prisoners who might be affected by this bill. To satisfy her curiosity I can tell her that the number is about 8000 in round figures. 
Then she proceeded to go on to ask what the mischief was behind the bill. Well there is no mischief; this legislation is what the overwhelming majority of people want. I suggest to the Labour Opposition members that if they should for a moment go out and consult their constituents as I have done in the Hutt Valley they will find that the starting point for most members of the community is that they think prisoners cannot vote. That is what people out there are like. They actually think that prisoners cannot vote. That is what they believe. The point is that when they find out that some prisoners can vote they are aghast. The overwhelming majority of the community want prisoners not to be able to vote. 
The great thing about the New Zealand justice system is that it is decided by our peers and our peers are not the intellectuals. They are not the chardonnay socialists who pretend to be independent advisers they are not the academics who sit and pontificate to the world from ivory towers paid for by the Government and in fact they are not even the royal commissioners. There is not one blue-collar member there. I take my lead from the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who represent the ordinary sort of bloke. They are the sorts of people whom the Opposition claims to represent. I say to those Opposition members to get away from their chardonnay socialist wine bars and to go out and listen to the people. 
I will now address some of the issues raised by David Clendon. He talked about this bill going against the tide of other jurisdictions. I find this fascinating. This was from a party that has spent the last 2 weeks lecturing us about sovereignty—about doing what we want and not being influenced by other people. Yet those members are sitting there now and saying that we are going against the tide of all other jurisdictions in voting for this bill. Yes the UK has had to change its law. But let me read something from one of Grant Robertson’s many mentors. This is from Anthony Painter whose writings Grant Robertson has showered his colleagues with. Anthony Painter talked about this issue and by his own admission said that an overwhelming majority of British people actually believed that prisoners should not get the vote. I have here the paper that the member sent people to go and look at. In fact Britain does not want to lose its sovereignty on this matter; it is being driven to it by the EU. I find it fascinating that now when it is convenient the Green Party is calling into play other people’s sovereignty to try to influence this issue. But I say that New Zealand wants to stand up for itself and make up its own mind. The overwhelming majority do not want prisoners to have a vote. 
This argument is about a line in the sand. Where is the line in the sand? At the moment it is at 3 years. We heard a lot from Mr Robertson about the fact that Labour says it is 3 years because we try to rehabilitate people who are given a sentence of less than 3 years. I tell Mr Robertson firstly that he should read the 1986 royal commission report. The reason we have 3 years in the current legislation—and if Grant Robertson listens carefully he will pick this up—is that the commissioners when considering this point and with no logic given said something like: “From a starting point we think prisoners should have the vote but society probably thinks that at some point in time a crime is serious enough that they should not be able to vote. Let’s see: people who live overseas continuously for 3 years cannot vote so that is a good number.” That is the basis— 
Hon Member 
: That is not actually correct. 
PAUL QUINN 
: It is correct. That member should read the royal commission’s report at paragraph 186 if the member really wants to get down to it. Those are the facts. The timing is a line in the sand. It has nothing to do with the 3-year election cycle—nothing. The timing is incidental to this issue. Even now people with 3-year sentences can miss an election. They can go into prison halfway through an election cycle and miss the election so timing is irrelevant to this whole argument. It is a red-herring argument that the Opposition has become tied up in. 
This is about a line in the sand. The real issue about the line in the sand is that the royal commission based its recommendation on the fact that in its view people were sent to prison for committing misdemeanours; the simple reality of life is that they are not. People do not get sent to prison for committing misdemeanours. People who go to prison have committed serious crimes. I can give the Committee any figures it wants. Seventy-five percent of people who go to prison for the first time have committed at least 10 crimes. They have at least 10 convictions against their name. How do members think Mrs Vercoe feels? 
Grant Robertson 
: Don’t go there. 
PAUL QUINN 
: We will go there because this is the real issue. What do members think Mrs Vercoe thought when her son Hawea was killed and the guy who killed him received a sentence of 2 years 9 months? Do members think that is fair? I do not. He was sent to prison for committing a serious crime and that is what this argument is about. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am disappointed that the member Paul Quinn who is in charge of the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill allowed his contribution to disintegrate and therefore for the tone of this debate I think it is best that we do not descend to the naming of individual cases. I know that members on this side of the Chamber certainly try to avoid that except when it comes to trying to disprove some of the misinformation that is flying around about what our current legislation does. 
I start by saying that I still believe that the onus for proving that this legislation is necessary sits with the promoter of the bill. I listened carefully to the contribution made by Mr Quinn whom I spend quite a bit of time with on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I will come back later to the point of whether this bill was referred to the right select committee. I think Mr Quinn would have enjoyed being on the select committee that considered the bill—the Justice and Electoral Committee would have been a better place for it. I listened carefully to his contribution so that I could better understand why we are here and why we are debating this legislation. I take our role here seriously. [ 
Interruption 
] I hear Mr Bridges making a few little snide jokes but I do take very seriously our role of scrutinising the bill and I did listen to the comments made. 
The first reason I heard from Mr Quinn was that we are looking at this bill because he takes his guidance from his peers and people believe that no prisoners currently can vote and therefore that is what the legislation should be on. Personally I expect a little more analysis than that but even if we were to take that argument are not his peers the people who came to the Law and Order Committee? Or is he denying that the people who presented at the select committee had any right to take a position? If we were listening to his peers who submitted to the select committee we would have heard that 50 of them were against this legislation—50—and two were in favour. If we were listening to Mr Quinn’s peers and the people of New Zealand who know that their ability to access and persuade members of Parliament is via the select committee process we would have heard that they were overwhelmingly against this legislation. I invite any Government member to stand and explain to me why those submitter views should not be taken into account on this legislation because as far as I am concerned they are our peers. 
Although listening to the members of the public is absolutely and incredibly important the onus is also upon us to take responsibility. It is a cop-out simply to say that everyone thinks this is the way it should be and therefore it will be so. We have the responsibility to make the hard decisions in this House and that means weighing up the evidence and weighing up our responsibilities that are incumbent upon us whether it be through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act human rights legislation or just good conscience. It is incumbent on us to weigh up all matters not simply those that are brought before us because not everyone has access to the information that members have. We are in a privileged position as members of Parliament in that regard and we must take everything into account. I am still none the wiser as to whether the member or even the Government has done that. 
The second reason for this legislation that I heard from the member in charge of the bill Mr Quinn was that New Zealand should stand on its own—the fact that every other country does not have a piece of legislation like this almost becomes a reason to have this legislation because we would be making a point. I think probably the only point we would be proving is that we were wrong and everyone else is right and perhaps when the legal challenges come through we will prove that. 
The third reason is the technical issue of 3 years as an arbitrary cut-off for someone having the right to vote when in prison and that there was not any good basis for the 3 year cut-off—except that when someone travels overseas or is resident overseas they are eligible to vote if they set foot in New Zealand once during that time. Really the question comes down to whether we believe that anyone who is in prison should be eligible to vote at any point during their term of imprisonment. The cut-off point then becomes a point of debate. But the black and white question is whether anyone at any point during their term of imprisonment should have the right to vote. 
Secondary to that question therefore is the question of members’ views on the right to vote generally. Do members perceive it as a privilege or as a right and therefore that people have a responsibility to their community to exercise that civic responsibility? I think that what we are seeing in the Chamber today is essentially two divergent views on the role of voting in this country. I am happy to have that debate and I acknowledge that we are on a difficult side of this argument. The way in which we see the role of voting is a point that has to be discussed and acknowledged when talking to a member of the public. I think Labour is on the right side by taking up that challenge because in our view voting is much more than just a right. It is a responsibility and it is a civic duty and in that regard I really completely disagree with my colleague Simon Bridges. So why are we here? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Take it up on  
Breakfast 
. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: We have once before. I won; he lost. Why are we here? I think it probably helps to go back and look at the reasons—[ 
Interruption 
] I could make a gesture too. 
Let us look at the reasons why we use terms of imprisonment anyway. There are three reasons three Rs which are commonly used. There is an element of retribution in the idea of imprisonment but there is also the idea of restoration and rehabilitation—restoration to the victim whether it be an individual or society as a whole. On that test I do not believe that this measure passes. In my mind restoration to society means that that individual should become a fully contributing member of society once more. There is a certain cut-off point a line in the sand that we can draw where someone is likely to be in prison for lesser crimes. Those are the individuals who we should ensure are making a full contribution to society by exercising their responsibility. 
The second reason is rehabilitation. Again there are the same points and my colleague Grant Robertson made an excellent contribution on those. So even on the three measures for which we use prison I do not believe that the removal of the right to vote for a certain level of criminal actually fulfils those three aims for imprisonment generally. 
I make a point of clarification here. Simon Bridges interjected during someone’s contribution that the real reason this bill is before the House is that it make us feel better and I think that probably fulfils the third of the three Rs—that this is just blanket retribution without much analysis behind it. I think that some of the debate we have had is slightly misleading because it implies that currently all prisoners are eligible to vote and that is not true. That is simply not true. Under the current law if you commit a certain level of offence and you are convicted of that you are unable— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No no. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: I am sorry Mr Chairperson. You certainly have not been convicted of any offence. You were serving a sentence though by sitting next to Paul Quinn during his contribution! If a person is convicted for a particular crime he or she will not be eligible to vote and that includes the most serious crimes. So it is misleading to imply that voting is a right that everyone has. In fact the best way we have managed to prove that is through the accident that we see could have happened during the select committee process whereby the complete removal of our current legislation and starting from scratch with Paul Quinn’s bill would mean that everyone who is currently in jail would be eligible to vote even if they are currently serving a life sentence. So that accident has actually proven the point that our legislation has I think the balance right. 
I make the point again that the onus is on the Government to tell us why we should change the legislation as it currently stands and I do not believe it has done that. I want to make one anecdotal point. I wonder how many members in this House have ever doorknocked people aged about 60 or 65 who have never voted in their life. I have and probably a few members in the House have but the person I came across had never voted because they had served a couple of short stints in prison. They had been denied access at various points in their life or had never been given the opportunity to take up the responsibility and at that age probably never would. It gave me pause to think about that person because I doorknocked them when they were back in their residence and it was a civic responsibility that they should have take up at some point in their life but never had. It still sits in my mind as an example of exactly the kind of person whom we should ensure exercises that responsibility when in prison. In my view it is a civic duty. 
I come back to the process we went through in considering this bill. This bill should have been referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is electoral legislation and the Department of Corrections should never have debated it or given advice on it. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I think the excellent contribution we just heard from Jacinda Ardern gives us pause for thought about some of the facts we need to lay on the table. The first of those is around what Mr Quinn—well he has now blamed it on the Parliamentary Counsel Office— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What! He didn’t! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: He did—he blamed it on the Parliamentary Counsel Office. We need to clarify just exactly what happened there. I think that the whole House and indeed New Zealand owes a debt of gratitude to Associate Professor Andrew Geddis from the Otago University school of law because he— 
Simon Bridges 
: That famous Tory! 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Yes he is a former flatmate as well—that is true. He was the person who drew attention to the fact that repealing the current disqualification provision in section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act and replacing it with a new provision: “a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of this bill” meant that Clayton Weatherston Graeme Burton and William Bell would all be able to vote. That is what it meant. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: So what’s the debt of gratitude we’ve got? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: The debt of gratitude for us in the long term is that this fact has been pointed out. The problem is that Paul Quinn has come to the Chamber today and as Jacinda Ardern said has actually proved a point that is important to lay on the table and that is that most people in prison do not get to vote in New Zealand. What Mr Quinn has failed to do is come to the Chamber and explain to us why the status quo the law as it is now should be changed. As the law stands now serious criminal offenders do not have the ability to vote. Those who are serving terms of less than 3 years—and of course those people have committed crimes and deserve to be in prison—can vote. The question Mr Quinn has not answered is that every single one of those people will be back in society and at that point we have to ask ourselves what purpose is served by this bill. If we want people to be able to reintegrate into society and to be able to contribute constructively why would we take away their ability to be part of that society and to vote? 
During an earlier contribution when I was interrupted I was talking about defending democracy when it challenges us. This is a situation when it is challenging. As Jacinda Ardern said it is a difficult argument to make but the fact of the matter is that if we are not prepared to defend democracy and the rights of people who challenge us by their actions what kinds of democrats are we? That is the very point at which we as a Parliament need to stand up and think very carefully about whether we want to take away some of those fundamental rights. That is obviously why the Attorney-General brought forward the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report that he did. I mentioned before the concerns raised about section 12. 
I was interested in one of the comments in Mr Finlayson’s report. He said that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act inconsistencies are justified where “the provision serves an important and significant objective” and where there is “a rational and proportionate connection between the provision and the objective.” That is the problem with this bill. There is nothing wrong in the end with having a justifiable inconsistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. But the select committee’s analysis of this bill and the submission-making process has shown that there is no important and significant objective that will outweigh breaching those bits of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and there is no rational and proportionate connection between the provision and the set objective. 
Mr Finlayson’s report goes on to say that the stated objective of this bill is to disenfranchise the most serious offenders—the most serious offenders. The point here is that the most serious offenders are already not able to vote. So Mr Quinn’s bill does not meet the test of whether we should compromise those hard-won rights that people have. This is not about whether people are being punished sufficiently by being in prison. Those who are in prison have lost their liberty. At that point particularly—and I admit 3 years is a fairly arbitrary number—when we know those people will return to society what is our goal? Our goal surely is to find a way to help those people reintegrate into society and rehabilitate. Unfortunately this bill does nothing to assist that. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to respond to the Minister—the member in the chair Paul Quinn’s response— 
Simon Bridges 
: Not yet Lianne. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No not yet. I think we will be waiting some time for that to occur. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He won’t be here. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well Paul Quinn is here for only 3 years but the point is that this is his one big moment in time when he has a bill before the House. He has managed to persuade his colleagues to vote for it even though it is stupid and even though the Minister of Justice would have nothing to do with it—even though the Minister of Justice would have nothing to do with it. It is an electoral law reform bill but it was sent to the Law and Order Committee. Why was it sent to the Law and Order Committee? The bill deals only with sentences of under 3 years because sentences over 3 years are already covered by existing law. So it was political puffery right from the very start; it was nothing more than that. 
What offends me even more than all of this is that I asked a whole lot of sensible questions and he answered not one of them. The first question I asked was not about how many people are in prison at the moment. I know the answer to that question. I asked how many of them voted at the last election while they were in prison. As the member does not know the answer to that question perhaps he could just nod or shake his head. Maybe I could engage with him a little bit; a bit of eye contact would be useful. No he is not really listening is he? Never mind I did try. 
The point I am trying to make is that I have been asking this question all the way along and the point is simply that we need to know how many people vote when they are in prison—and that will be only people who have sentences of under 3 years so it is not 8000 people at all I say to Mr Quinn as that member knows; it has nothing to do with that. The answer I am looking for is how many people were eligible to vote and how many of them exercised that vote. Does he know the answer to either of those questions? It appears not. It is a shame he is not able to answer those questions. 
The second question was not about what mischief this bill did because that is perfectly plain on the face of it. It asked about what mischief it was designed to remedy. Without knowing how many people exercise their right to vote at the moment while they are in prison which is only people who are in prison for less than 3 years I ask the member to tell me what it is about the current law that needs to be remedied by this bill. It seems to me that it is not much. We do not even know how many people now vote who are in prison for less than 3 years. We have had examples of the sorts of crimes that receive those sentences and all sorts of umbrage has been taken in the House. In fact I think I heard some members on the other side of the Chamber say that on this issue we were on the side of criminals. I have never understood that taking away a person’s right to vote was somehow being on the side of criminals. But that is OK; we have had the odd criminal in here too. 
There are some people who have been on the receiving end of fraudulent behaviour when certain documentation has been signed by certain Ministers acting in their private capacity. We will not go into that one either but maybe we could. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What a shameful thing to say. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That member should talk to the New Zealand citizen—  
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Speaker earlier ruled out any accusations of that type towards a Minister of the Crown. That is what my point of order is. You just cannot allow— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Thank you; I hear what the member is saying. I ask members in the future to just be very mindful of previous rulings. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I was saying that there are people who have been on the receiving end of criminal fraudulent activity that has implications for their lives and it has been endorsed by people whom one would expect to see better from. Anyway that is another particular case and it will keep because individuals who have been affected by that behaviour will speak out I am sure in due course. 
The point I am making is that the other questions the member in the chair failed to answer asked what mischief this bill is designed to remedy and about the differential between a prisoner who is in prison on the day of the election but is let out the following Monday and somebody who is let out of prison the day before the election. We have had all sorts of umbrage taken in the House as I said before about the sorts of criminals we are talking about. Someone could be in jail on a charge of criminal nuisance on the day of the election and this bill would affect that prisoner. I do not understand why we are talking about serious offences when serious offences are already covered. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Before I begin my contribution I would like to thank National MP Mr Paul Quinn for introducing his member’s bill the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill because despite the fact that we are wasting the valuable time of the Committee on debating this silly bill by presenting it Mr Paul Quinn has clearly shown what this Government is up to. In a way the whole country has been saved a considerable amount of time because the Government’s veil of political correctness has been lifted. 
This bill is designed to look as though National is being tough on crime but the reality is that through this bill and a subsequent amendment recommended by the National and ACT members of the Law and Order Committee the bill will allow all existing prisoners including New Zealand’s worst criminals like Graeme Burton and William Bell to vote. The only winners should this bill pass into law seem to be Graeme Burton William Bell and Clayton Weatherston who are not permitted to vote under the current law. Graeme Burton and co. cannot vote. The very worst criminals are already disqualified from registering as electors under the current law. As a member of the Law and Order Committee I was amazed to see the National and ACT members who make up the majority of the select committee recommend amending the title of the bill and subsequently clauses 4 and 5. Mr Paul Quinn mentioned Supplementary Order Paper 174 in his name which has just reinforced my position. 
I take this opportunity to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office for doing a great job because its staff are professionals and they are not responsible for any policy initiatives. It is not fair for Mr Quinn to try to blame them for any mistakes originated from the policy initiatives. 
There is a recommendation to completely repeal the current disqualification provision in section 80(1)(d) of the Electoral Act 1993 and to replace it with the new provision which I will read out. It states: “a person who is detained in a prison pursuant to a sentence of imprisonment imposed after the commencement of the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010:”. It therefore repeals the legislative provision that disqualifies people who are presently serving lengthy prison sentences and instead only disqualifies people who are sentenced to prison after the bill is enacted into law. There would be nothing in law to stop anyone who is in prison at the time that the bill is enacted from applying to be registered to vote and consequently casting a vote at the 2011 general election. That includes the worst murderers rapists and violent criminals like Graeme Burton William Bell and Clayton Weatherston who are not permitted to vote under the current law. 
I do not agree with the view of the Department of Corrections that the disqualification would continue to apply to presently disqualified prisoners by virtue of the Interpretation Act 1999. Section 19(1) of that Act states: “The repeal of an enactment does not affect a liability to a penalty for an offence or for a breach of an enactment committed before the repeal.” The problem is that disqualification from voting is not itself a penalty; it is the consequence of a penalty being imposed. Under the Electoral Act 1993 all adult New Zealanders and permanent residents are eligible to be enrolled. Section 80 of that Act disqualifies some of those people by disqualifying prisoners who are serving 3 years’ imprisonment or more but the amendment to section 80 in clause 4 of the bill means that those people would become eligible to be re-enrolled. 
I agree with the Attorney-General that this bill is constitutionally flawed and is unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I will try to focus in on who is covered and who is not covered by the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill. I want the member in charge of the bill Paul Quinn to give me an answer with regard to a group of offences as to whether someone is covered. The first pretty simple question is whether someone who is guilty of fraud is covered by this legislation. I am interested in whether someone who has aided and abetted a fraud by being perceived to endorse a contract is covered by this legislation if convicted. I ask whether someone can be convicted of fraud for an action that involves a New Zealand company but which took place extraterritorially. I ask whether that person is covered by this legislation. Would that person lose their right to vote; would their status be changed? Would a New Zealand citizen who endorsed a fraud that was committed offshore by a New Zealand company be liable if convicted under this legislation to lose their vote? Would someone be liable if that person fraudulently introduced someone to another party and then was involved with the other party in the theft of intellectual property? Would the person who witnessed endorsed and was perceived to give even Government support to the commissioning of the fraud be caught by this legislation? 
I think we have a series of arrangements here that are in fact not complex in this particular case. We have international fraud occurring out of New Zealand. We have theft of New Zealanders’ intellectual property in China but aided and abetted by a New Zealander or New Zealanders depending on the level of knowledge of the people who were endorsing the particular commercial arrangement. I am very interested in whether any of the scenarios that have been set out in the Chamber earlier by my colleague Mr Hodgson are caught under this legislation. 
Simon Bridges is raising his eyebrows. I take from what he says that he thinks all of these scenarios are caught under the legislation: that the guilty parties who set up a fraudulent contract between a New Zealand company and a Chinese company will be caught; that the person who endorsed it and with the perception that the New Zealand Government supported it will also be caught; that the person who then stole the intellectual property and I understand $800000 would also be caught; and that the third party that was involved in the theft because they were Chinese-based and the offence occurred there may not be caught under the legislation. I think they probably would not be caught. If New Zealand was the US they would be caught but given our intellectual property arrangements they probably would not be although if I were them I would not want to visit New Zealand in case I was caught but of course if they were Chinese citizens they would not get the vote. But the two New Zealanders— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Yes if they were permanent residents. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The three New Zealanders who were involved in the arrangements and certainly the person who did the introductions and is now a major shareholder in the company that is benefiting from the theft— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: They stole the purchase? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: They stole the intellectual property and then took shares in the company that stole it after introducing the people to the people in China—and $800000 went missing as well. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Who would do such a deal? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not know but I cannot think of why a New Zealand Minister would sign her name to a document that endorsed that sort of behaviour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is now linking an honourable member of this House to a matter that is hypothetical and that is completely out of order. Up until that point it was OK but he mentioned a Minister of the House and that is unacceptable. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not understand how any Kiwi would sign their name to such a thing. I do not understand how any honourable New Zealander would sign their name would endorse a document would give the perception that New Zealand is behind— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I bring the member back to relevance. We are now straying into territory that is all hypothetical. The bill is very clear and I ask the member to come back to the point. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want Paul Quinn to tell us whether the New Zealander who signed her name to such a document was convicted of fraud or aiding and abetting fraud— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have already ruled that mentioning an honourable member of this House in a hypothetical matter is unacceptable. I ask the member to detest from that— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: You mean “desist”? I detest! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: “Desist”. I ask the member not to go down that track again. That is the second time and I will not accept it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I ask Paul Quinn whether someone who was convicted of aiding and abetting a fraud would lose their ability to vote under this legislation. Are they over the line or are they behind the line? I ask whether someone who was convicted of aiding and abetting intellectual property theft is behind the line or over the line. I ask the member whether someone who steals $800000 or aids and abets someone who steals $800000 is on the right side of the line or the wrong side of the line. Are those people affected by this bill? I look forward to hearing Mr Quinn tell us how this legislation will make a difference to future behaviour. I ask whether it will stop Kiwis going to China introducing parties to each other and then stealing their intellectual property. 
Is that the intention of this legislation or is the intention of the legislation to stop people going to China and getting involved in the theft of $800000 in cash? Is that the intention of this legislation? I presume it is about trying to drive behavioural change on behalf of Kiwis. 
Paul Quinn 
: It’s a deterrent. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Paul Quinn says that it is a deterrent. Will it deter Kiwis from going to China and stealing intellectual property from other New Zealanders while they are there? Will this deter New Zealanders from going to China and setting up companies that take intellectual property from other New Zealanders? Is that the objective of this legislation or will the member accept that this legislation will not deter crooked Kiwis from doing that in the future? 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I have not previously had anything to do with the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Bill but I feel the need to stand and speak on it because it causes me concern in three main areas. Firstly there are issues around participation in our democratic process. Secondly there are real issues about why we have such high rates of imprisonment. This is just another bill designed to thump chests and pretend to be hard on crime when in fact this Government is doing nothing at all to address the real issue: the causes of crime which include poverty and lack of opportunity. The third reason is that the bill is another shambolic and shoddy piece of work. We will deal with another piece of legislation tonight Tau Henare’s Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill which is equally shambolic and shoddy legislation. It was poorly drafted; it actually had to have the real reasons for it and its drafting dealt with in multiple ways. Like that bill this is a shoddy and poorly drafted bill. 
This bill is supposedly about being tough on criminals and dealing with serious offenders but for those listening to this debate let me reinforce what some of my colleagues have said—that is that people now serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more are already disqualified from registration as electors. People who have been convicted of and sentenced for serious crimes are already disqualified. I think the hype around this bill has fudged that point. 
There is no explanation of the harm that this bill is designed to remedy and no compelling reasons have been given for why this change is wanted or needed. It certainly will not make New Zealand safer. It will not reduce crime or recidivism. In fact that is what I really find offensive. National members love to look like they are tough on crime. The reality is that violent crime has been rising under National. Under this National Government violent crime has been rising. This bill will not do anything to stop it. It will not be a deterrent to crime. In fact no effort has been made by this Government to address the causes of crime or to look at what leads to people undertaking criminal offences. 
Poverty and unemployment are both on the rise in this country and there is a link between poverty unemployment and crime. There is lack of opportunity for too many New Zealanders—New Zealanders who already feel disengaged from the community they live in people who themselves have been victims of crime as children and people who have suffered from poor parenting. What is the Government doing about those sorts of things—the real causes of crime? It is doing nothing at all. That is the reality. The Government likes to put through legislation where it can say it has been tough on criminals. It is three strikes and they are out. It will stop those criminals voting. It says it is being tough on crime. I say to the Government that it should do something about the causes of crime. 
New Zealand’s rate of imprisonment is absolutely disgraceful. The rate of imprisonment in this country is disgraceful; we are at the top end of the OECD on rates of imprisonment. It is costing the taxpayer millions and millions of dollars that would be better spent on investing in people’s education upskilling them and working to find jobs. That is one of the reasons why I feel compelled to speak on this bill. 
I say also that this bill is likely to lead to mass disenfranchisement of many people who go to prison because they are unlikely to re-enrol on release. Anybody who works in our lower-income communities—as many of us do—will know that many many New Zealanders are not on the electoral roll now. This bill will just add to that number. That is of concern to me because I believe that all New Zealanders should have the right to vote and should vote and take part as a civic duty in the governing of their country. 
We made the decision years ago that people serving sentences of more than 3 years should lose the right to vote. We are happy with that provision; it applies to serious offenders. But this bill covers anybody who is sentenced to imprisonment. It has a whole lot of negative consequences. There was not a proven problem and submitters to this bill were overwhelmingly opposed to it. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 174 in the name of Paul Quinn to add new clause 6 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 6 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 41; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Report adopted. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 20 October. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 Labour will be opposing this legislation. We will be opposing it because it is not about choice; it is about taking away choice from universities with students associations like Waikato University. It first voted to get rid of compulsory student membership and then had to vote to bring it back because voluntary student membership was such a resounding failure and the student association fell apart. That university made a democratic choice to keep compulsory student membership and this legislation removes the ability of that university to exercise its democratic right to choose compulsory student membership as it did. Following the enactment of this legislation it will be forced to follow the 2 percent of people who voted for the ACT Party in support of voluntary student membership. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is complete rubbish. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is most certainly not complete rubbish as the member opposite Moana Mackey said. There are some key messages I want to reinforce as we draw to a close this bill’s second reading. We in National believe in getting the most out of every single dollar we spend in tertiary education. I know that at least one member opposite has heard that message once already this evening. We also want to see that students get value for money. Certainly this bill has given a large number of students a wake-up call. It has given them the opportunity to reflect on whether they are getting value for money. 
There has been a really interesting development in recent weeks. You see the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association has suddenly started asking students what they want. Is it not enlightening that that should happen probably because of this bill? National believes in freedom of association and personal choice. I guess one of the disturbing aspects of this bill for me was to hear about some of the services being provided by the students associations that were nice but I did not instinctively think they were core student services. This bill will mean that students associations look to what they should provide to what the students will support and to where the provision of those services should most usefully lie. National is committed to supporting students moving towards a much more accountable and higher-performing tertiary sector. I certainly believe that this bill is one step in that direction and I am very happy to support it. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I am sure members on the other side of the House will be surprised about that! I do not believe that this bill is rubbish by any means. I endorse the words of my colleague who made the point that this is about freedom of association and freedom of choice. That is something that the other side of the House rails in support of at every possible opportunity except when it comes to this. I wonder why that might be. 
I believe that any student attending any tertiary education institution in this country should have the ability to choose whether they want to belong to an association of students. I recall my time at university not too long ago where as a mature student I trundled along and like all mature students I sat in the first two rows of the lecture theatre because I could not see the whiteboard and I could not hear the lecturer. Like all the other mature students I brought my pencil case and I had my coloured highlighters and my ring binder—and the skinny little bugger who was 20 years old and came in with half a refill and a biro between his teeth got all the A’s and I got all the C+’s. 
The student union did not do much for me. In fact I did an awful lot for the student union when I was there not because I had paid a subscription or felt that I wanted to get my money’s worth but because I wanted to. That is why people should belong to students associations and that is why people should belong to unions. It should be because they want to help and they want to do something not because they are forced to or intimidated into doing it. I am pleased to support this bill. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 I rise this evening pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the second reading of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. ACT takes the freedom of the individual as one of the yardsticks in assessing Government actions. At some fundamental level relationships between individuals should be based on consent and on voluntary cooperation. Over time we have come to respect the importance of freedom of association. As Sir Roger Douglas reminded us in his speech on the first reading of this bill this House has ratified the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees freedom of association and explicitly includes the right not to associate. But one group of individuals in New Zealand is still forced to join an association. Currently tertiary students around the country are forced to join an organisation—in fact everyone other than those studying at Auckland University. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this speech? 
HILARY CALVERT 
: If the member would like a copy I can give him one later. 
Students are the only group that are forced to join an organisation and pay the fees that are set. ACT has always believed that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests unless they violate the freedom of others. Compulsory membership of unions went in 1983 and students remain the only group compelled to join what is essentially a union whether or not they want to. Students are having their freedom violated. Kiwis prize their freedom especially freedom of speech and freedom of association—the right to join any group one wants to and the right not to join a group with which one disagrees. So important is our right to freedom of association that it is protected in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This bill will finally see students have the same freedom that the rest of us currently enjoy. 
As the situation presently stands a student must pay the students association fees set by that body at the university or polytech that that student attends. The exception is Auckland University where membership is voluntary. The law provides an out—those who object to belonging to a students association can arrange for their fees to be paid by the association to a charity but this by no means allows students to choose not to pay for services they have not been persuaded are ones they would choose at a price they are forced to pay. 
Compulsory membership and payment of fees mean that the guaranteed incomes students associations receive regardless of their actions result in associations not actually representing students’ views and in many cases undertaking partisan political activities. There are a great many examples of student resources being wasted and of some associations indulging in resource mismanagement for the personal gain of association officials. Even if students association resources were all spent wisely students should be able to choose. Making students association membership voluntary will ensure that they are more accountable to their members. There is nothing like having to provide quality services to attract members to reduce the risk of money being spent on unwanted services and to prevent money going missing from time to time. Associations would have a greater incentive to provide services that students actually want—supply and demand in action. 
Opponents of voluntary student membership claim that if students are not forced to pay the union fees no one will join and services and the student voice will go. This attitude merely says that the associations have no belief in themselves. If they provide services that students want they will prosper. Auckland University is a case in point. Membership there is voluntary and students do join. The reason any customer service outlet provides quality services is that it knows that its customers have the opportunity to shop elsewhere. As soon as we have the option of withdrawing our money from any service the service becomes far more accountable. I commend this bill to the House. 
Amendments recommended by the Education and Science Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I move  
That the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. First of all I thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for a sterling job and I also give immense thanks for the assistance that I received from the clerks of the committee and the chairperson Mr David Bennett. 
I say this is a very very non-controversial bill—very very non-controversial. It does not set out to take rights away from anybody and it does not set out to give people something that somebody else in the community does not have. It codifies what is in a lot of union rules already and that is that when a group of workers—for whatever reason—decides to withdraw its labour all that my bill says is needed in order to do that is that they should have a secret ballot. What more could a democracy ask for than a secret ballot? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: A change of Government. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Well that was asked 2 years ago and I am afraid to tell the previous member for Rotorua that the members opposite lost. We won it has been 2 years so let us move on. 
All this bill says to people is that if they are going to withdraw their labour they have the right to have a secret ballot. Without any intimidation either by the union organisers or even by employers people will be able to have a secret ballot. It is interesting that Labour is supportive of secret ballots and I want to thank it too for its input into this bill. But I am perplexed that the minority report in the bill states: “The Labour Party is supportive of secret ballots for strike action because it largely reflects current practice among unions.” but in the next sentence the minority report states: “However in New Zealand union membership is voluntary and unions should be free to run their organisations according to the rules democratically agreed to by their members.” That says that although Labour members believe and accept that there are union rules out there they do not think that people should be covered by this legislation if they are not covered by it already. On the one hand Labour members are saying that yes they agree to a secret ballot if it is in the rules of the union already—that is not a problem; workers can have that right. But other workers who are not covered by a secret ballot cannot have that same protection; they cannot have that same right. 
So my bill clearly and in a simple way says to all workers who are members of unions that if they decide to withdraw their labour they can do it with the full knowledge that their decision will be made by a secret ballot. We have a secret ballot when we go to the polls. Is that wrong? Of course it is not wrong. Do we say to all the Third World countries and all the despots around the world that they should be democracies? Of course we do. We say to all of those African countries and from wherever around the world— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: African countries are from Africa not from wherever. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —“or” from wherever I said—that we are about making sure we are right behind democracy and it is a democratic right for a person to cast his or her vote in a non-threatening environment. All the bill does is to say to workers who want to withdraw their labour: “By all means go for it and you can also have a secret ballot.” Thank you very much. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think this Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill was a bill on which a marginal call was made by Labour to support it going to a select committee after a bit of discussion. We have heard the evidence. I think the general view is that it is mostly a relatively harmless bill but that there are some dangers in the bill that we were not cognisant of before it went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and so the marginal call is that we will now oppose the bill. 
I am not going to pretend that this is serious legislation in the way that most of the legislation that comes from Kate Wilkinson is. I am not going to pretend that it is going to make an enormous difference in the lives of workers around the country or that it is going to have them sacked left right and centre in the way that Kate Wilkinson tries to do with her legislation. But we have come to the point that the compliance costs and the extra regulation that flow from this bill are unnecessary and probably more important in the hands of the wrong employers it could lead to extra litigation. Again I am not saying that most employers will be at all affected by this because I think we all know that strikes are relatively rare in New Zealand compared with most countries and actually most employers are satisfied with the ballots that occur. I think we also know that unions are generally very reluctant to get involved in strike action unless they have a clear mandate from their members. If unions think a strike ballot is going to be a close-run thing chances are that the ballot is not even put because people want to have a groundswell and clear support if people are going on strike because it is a very serious thing for the workers involved. 
But in some cases a ballot happens and there is a clear majority. The concern that Labour has involves this legislation being in the hands of unscrupulous employers and I will give the example that always results in Damien O’Connor getting a phone call—the Talleys-AFFCO link. If New Zealand’s worst employer—the only employer to lose a case and be held to be in breach of the Employment Contracts Act—decided to use this sort of legislation in order to stop a strike it could cost a lot of money to the workers involved in legal expenses and that sort of thing to no major benefit. 
The other pretty obvious point I make is that there are no countervailing obligations on employers in this legislation. In most parts of industrial legislation there are countervailing obligations; if there is an obligation for employees or the organisation of employees there is an obligation for employers. In this case I am not sure what the obligation should be. Some of my colleagues have suggested that it may be that shareholders should approve a lockout and take that approach. There is a halfway point that I would possibly be more supportive of if we are going in for a countervailing measure which is that at least the board of directors should make a decision and not a lower-level official in a firm. 
Carol Beaumont 
: Too soft! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My colleague tells me I am too soft. Actually the whole legislation is rubbish and therefore where the countervailing balance is is probably not so relevant. But there is no countervailing balance in this legislation and to be fair equitable and balanced legislation there should be. 
I think it is fair to say that this legislation has come from someone who wants to fix a problem that does not exist. The only person I can remember being involved in ballot fixing in all my time—far too long—that I have been involved in the union movement from the late 1960s when I first became a— 
Carol Beaumont 
: That was a long time ago. How old are you? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Very generous. There is only one person I can remember who has been involved in any of that sort of allegation. There is one person still involved— 
Carol Beaumont 
: Tau Henare? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —no no—and she I think would be too scared to do it again because she is being pretty closely watched. 
Darien Fenton 
: Don’t look at me when you’re saying that. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not looking at that member but I know that the member knows who I am talking about. 
So Tau Henare is trying to fix a problem that does not exist and really in the last 15 years there has been no evidence of it actually occurring—he is out of touch. It might have been the way he acted when he was the chief bottler for the Northern Clerical Workers Union back in the mid-1980s. That might have been his approach when he was a union official but I am sure if that was his approach that would be inter alia one of the reasons he got the sack when he did. What we have seen here is the revenge of the bottler on the part of Mr Henare. I have witnessed the scar and it is no good his denying it. That member should go outside the House and deny his activities as a bottler and the reason that he lost his job—he could not keep a job as a Northern Clerical Workers Union official. Now he is so upset about it 15 or 25 years later—or however long it has been—he is attempting to get his revenge. Well he should know that now like then if a union official bottles someone that official loses their job. People should not go around trying to take revenge on their old colleagues their old comrades in the way that Tau Henare is doing now. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why doesn’t the member tell us how many times he was sacked as a teacher? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I will absolutely tell members. I have never been sacked as a teacher unlike Tau Henare who was sacked as a union official for inappropriate activity with a bottle. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to support my colleague Tau Henare who has done a fantastic job in bringing the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to the House. Labour members could not find a problem with this bill and they wanted to support it but they got a phone call from Helen Kelly an hour before tonight’s debate saying that Labour could not support it. She got on the phone and she went to Labour members and said that they could not support this legislation. She said the unions needed Labour’s support otherwise they would not campaign for Labour next year. That is what would have happened an hour ago. 
Poor Tau! Tau brought this bill into the House with genuine intentions. He took it through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and there were submissions on it. The Labour Party now says “No” to the bill and it is saying this only at the last minute because it cannot handle it and it has to do what it is told to do by the unions. I think that is a sad case. It is a very sad case for this Parliament when one of the political parties in it cannot stand up for what it believes in. Labour does not have a problem with this bill; it does not see this bill as a problem. In fact if there is a problem then Trevor identified it. He talked about one of his mates who had been fixing votes and he said that there was no problem but that one of his mates had sort of done that so there must have been a case that he was talking about. Legislation is needed when people break the rules like that. This legislation has good values and it is needed. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to make a contribution on the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill after that expert on industrial relations the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett. My goodness! We learnt a lot about workers’ rights and employers’ rights and all sorts of things through the bills that we have been through in the last few weeks. I think he just said it all really about his experience. Labour did support this bill at the beginning because we thought it was a bit harmless but I said some things in my first reading speech and I have not changed my mind about them. In my first reading speech I said that that this was a completely unnecessary bill. I do not doubt that the member the Hon Tau Henare means well but he is basing this on his experience as the only clerical workers union organiser who ever got sacked in the whole history of the country. That was 25 to 30 years ago and things have changed massively since then. 
His experience was so different. He does not seem to understand that today union membership is voluntary. That means that workers are free to join or not join unions. It means if workers do not agree with the decisions of their unions or their fellow union members they can resign. They are not captured. In his day it was compulsory union membership. That member used to go around and conduct strike ballots and I have no doubt he would stand over people but it does not happen these days. Unions are democratic organisations and members have a variety of ways of raising disagreements with their unions including resigning. They also have rights under the Employment Relations Act to raise issues of good faith because there is an employment relationship between members and their unions. 
As I said on the face of it this bill seems pretty harmless. It is unfortunate and I feel a bit sorry for Tau Henare actually that since this bill had its first reading and went to the select committee this Government has launched an attack on New Zealand wage earners and salary earners. It has removed any goodwill from unions or workers and any goodwill or trust on this side of the House. The truth is that bad employers are being given permission by this Government to behave even worse. I accept that most employers are good employers but we are legislating through a whole range of bills including this one for bad employers. When we combine this bill with other legislation that is coming through the Order Paper such as the meals and rest breaks take-away-your-rights legislation the 90-day trial fire-at-will legislation and the sell-your-holidays legislation we see that this bill is a lot less innocuous than it seems and that the member would have us believe. 
In addition during the submissions process I got quite worried. When we open the door to these sorts of provisions we start to get some bad employers who get some crazy ideas. For example Business New Zealand and the Employers and Manufacturers Association came along to submit and said that the ballot level should be 75 percent—there should be a 75 percent vote in favour of strike before it goes ahead. The majority applies to everyone else except workers. That is what they said along with a whole lot of other things that made me more uneasy about the bill. I acknowledge that the bill was improved in the select committee. I support some of the changes which I am greatly relieved about. I record my thanks to the officials and the clerks and the department for their advice and assistance with making this bill make at least a little bit of sense but it does not make a lot of sense. I am pleased that National and the member in charge of the bill took on board the right to strike on health and safety. This bill restores that right of workers not to be in a situation where they have to work in a situation where their lives or their health could be in danger. I am glad that we have at least fixed that part of the bill. Some other things are there that I think are good clarifications. They are all useful changes but it does not make the bill any less pointless. 
I think the member would acknowledge that at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I genuinely tried to understand where he was coming from and what his intentions and motivation were. I accepted the comments he made in the first reading that he was trying to protect a person’s right to withdraw their labour and to ensure that they were fully informed and not under any threat either physical or mental—I have not heard of a worker being under a physical threat of strike recently. But there was no evidence from workers that there was a problem; nor did the committee hear from anyone who said they had been intimidated into going on strike. As I say I know the member is referring back to his experience 25 years ago and maybe it happened then but it certainly does not happen now. If workers had come along and told the committee there was a problem then honestly we would have listened and that would have been more convincing but there were none. 
If the intent of the member in charge of the bill is to provide for more transparency and democracy he should look overseas and see what international conventions say about freedom of association which is an international convention that New Zealand has signed up to. His Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson goes off to the ILO and makes big speeches about New Zealand signing up to fundamental conventions but here we are considering a bill that will interfere with the rights of workers’ organisations and employers’ organisations to run their organisations democratically. As I said what does it mean when we combine this with the Government’s proposals on restriction of access? There would have to be a strike ballot but the employer may not let the organiser in to run the strike ballot. Often strikes are very very tense and complex situations. Even though the chair of the committee David Bennett does not believe this unions are more often than not involved in solving tensions and difficulties not creating them. The ability to deny access will only create more escalation. 
And while I am talking about strikes let us talk about the problem we have in New Zealand today with escalating strike action. The latest statistics for the year ended June 2010 show that there were 29 stoppages involving 13829 employees losses of 17989 person days of work and an estimated $3.1 million lost in wages and salaries. That was a combination of strikes and lockouts and it was much much worse than it has been in the past. Holding a secret ballot will not change those shocking statistics; the only thing that will change them is changing the Government. It is the only way we will get through that because this is a Government that does not care about workers’ rights. It does not respect workers. The Government sold out a whole group of workers a couple of weeks ago because an American corporate came over and waved a big stick. It is removing access to justice for every worker in New Zealand in their first 90 days of employment because ACT told it to do so. What sort of Government is that? 
If we are talking about fear I suggest that workers will be far more fearful of losing their jobs and getting the sack with no rights within their first 90 days of employment than being made to vote in favour of a strike. There was one way through this and I suggested it to the select committee. I genuinely tried to understand the member’s intent and I put up a proposal which I will put forward by way of Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage. We proposed a simple amendment to Part 4 of the Employment Relations Act which is about union rules. The chair of the select committee did not understand this but under the Employment Relations Act unions are required to have rules governing the democratic processes of their unions. I proposed that they should have in those rules under the law a requirement to have secret ballots for strikes. That would achieve the stated aim it would keep employers out of the mix it would stop litigation—because I think this bill will make the process extremely litigious—it would keep the process democratic and it would stop unnecessary compliance costs being imposed on unions. 
I think this bill will harm employment relationships but most of all it will do nothing to improve our economy our wages and the lives of New Zealanders. That is why Labour opposes this bill. Thank you. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill and in doing so I acknowledge my colleague Keith Locke who has led the charge and done the background work on this proposed legislation. At the bill’s first reading we supported its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but it was qualified support. In his first reading speech my colleague posed two challenges to the mover of the bill. He said that whether we support it beyond its first reading and its referral to the select committee would depend on whether it was proved at the select committee that there is a real need for this bill and secondly on whether there were ways to handle some of the downsides of the bill that were spoken about at that point. In summary he posed the question: what is the problem that exists that requires the intervention of this bill? 
It is often said that we are over-legislated that we have too many laws too much legislation. We have come to the view that this bill is simply unnecessary. It would serve no useful purpose and there are some definite negative elements to it that would do nothing for industrial relations and employment relations in this country. We have done the work the investigation and we believe that there is no demonstrated pattern of unions engaging in strike action without a democratic mandate from their members. Clearly any proposed strike that came without the support of the members of a particular union would not win their support and potentially would lead to loss of membership of the union. Indeed unions are legally established as incorporated societies and as such are obliged to operate in a genuinely open transparent and democratic fashion. To impose any sort of strike action on their members could clearly be seen to contravene that and could lead ultimately to the dissolution of a union. Clearly there is no case to be made for the imposition of the rules in this legislation. 
Any law that intrudes unnecessarily on the functioning of voluntary associations is bad law and that is what would be established if this bill were to pass into law. One of the aims of section 3 of the Employment Relations Act is “reducing the need for judicial intervention”. If this bill becomes an Act it is likely to lead to more legal challenges. It will create situations where employers could potentially use these provisions to challenge delay and harass unions that for quite legitimate and decent reasons were proposing strike action. The point has already been made for example that there is no countervailing requirement that the shareholders of a publicly listed company be obliged to conduct a vote and get a democratic majority position to impose a lockout on workers. One wonders why we would go down the path of imposing extra constraints on employees but not on employers. 
Thirdly the application of this law would be impractical. The Unite union made a very useful contribution pointing out that a union membership that consists largely of younger particularly transient members who are dispersed geographically around the country would find it extremely difficult practically to hold a democratic vote to test the waters amongst their members. 
There are issues about the consideration of health and safety. The bill purports to prevent employers from preventing a strike on health and safety issues. I recall an instance many years ago when a group of men went on strike because when they came to their break no hot food was available to them. There was something of a public outcry at what appeared to be quite a petty reason for strike action but in fact those men were doing hard physical work in a very cold environment. That example would be an interesting test of health and safety issues as we understand them now. 
Clearly this legislation would create the opportunity for legislative mischief for unreasonable and unsustainable challenges to the legal right of workers to withhold their labour when they deem that that is the last resort available to them to achieve decent salaries wages conditions or whatever it might be. It boils down to a simple fact. This bill is unnecessary. It would impose costs and burdens unfairly and unreasonably and the Greens will oppose it. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The Maori Party when it comes to the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill has to admit to being really open to the possibility that it can either support or oppose the proposal to force unions to hold secret ballots on strike action. We start from the position that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has recommended that the bill be passed with amendments such as the requirement for a union to hold a secret ballot before a strike and before unlawful strikes or lockouts when in contravention of a preceding requirement. 
The bill’s intention is very straightforward. It requires unions to hold a secret ballot for their members when voting on strike action. The Council of Trade Unions has signalled its support in principle for the bill. Its secretary Peter Conway has said that it largely reflects current practice. According to Andrew Little secret ballots are already a core component of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union’s rules and in his view he presumes that some 95 percent of other unions are the same. Other big unions like the 14000-member Post Primary Teachers Association are among those that already hold secret ballots. 
Despite the status quo in the Council of Trade Unions’ submission to the select committee the council called the bill “fundamentally unfair and practically flawed.” It concluded that “the Bill is little more than [a] cheap stunt and a poorly disguised attack on workers seeking to exercise their collective right to organise.” If that is support in principle then I would be fascinated to see what the council’s opposition looks like. But to be fair the Council of Trade Unions—which in its Maori arm of Te Kauae Kaimahi represents approximately 60000 Maori workers—really challenged us in our thinking about whether we should support or oppose this bill. 
Although the Council of Trade Unions said that it would support the bill the Unite union promoted much the same message but reached the decision that it should vote against the bill. Duncan Allan a management representative from Unite stated that the bill was unnecessary; it would stifle union members’ ability to take strike action it was prejudiced against employees and it breached the Employment Relations Act. Mr Allan advised the committee that the bill breached the Act in two ways. It contravened the principle of acknowledging and addressing the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships and it was inconsistent with the move to reduce the need for judicial intervention. When we went to the National Distribution Union its advice was absolutely clear-cut that we should not support this bill. 
The contrary positions of these three leading union organisations leave us in a quandary about whether this bill has the appropriate balance. On the one hand we must ask whether it is our business to interfere in the practices that unions seek to uphold. In Aotearoa union membership is voluntary and as such we believe that unions should be free to run their own organisations according to their own agreed rules. On the other hand we could support secret ballots for strikes as that merely represents the status quo of current practices amongst unions. 
This question of balance deserves a little more thought for although this bill focuses on the opportunities for workers to be involved in strike action it could have required—but did not require—employers to follow democratic procedures including holding a secret ballot of shareholders prior to a lockout. The Council of Trade Unions president Helen Kelly came out publicly and said that the bill fails to put the same onus on employers to ratify the lockout actions that have been used several times recently to force workers into accepting terms and conditions they do not want. That is right—that is from the Council of Trade Unions the union organisation that is supporting this bill. 
One of the key issues that the National Distribution Union raised as a concern was the fact that there has been no demonstrated pattern of unions engaging in strike action without a democratic mandate; that is simply not part of the worker history. This bill therefore provides a solution for an issue that does not actually emerge from an identified problem. What is even more fascinating about this bill coming from a party that is supposedly opposed to nanny State intervention is that it imposes another level of bureaucracy on the employment legislation paperwork. So this bill starts from a dubious base introduces a laborious level of accountability for unions and then produces a process by which the validity of legitimate votes in favour of strike action can be challenged. 
But the issue that has made us the most concerned is the claim from various unions that this legislation unfairly and disproportionately impacts on low-income New Zealanders. It makes for a fairly dismal context to recall that the New Zealand income survey results for the June 2010 quarter showed that income had decreased since the June 2009 quarter. The median weekly income for all people decreased to $529 compared with the June 2009 quarter figure of $538 and the June 2008 quarter figure of $536. Why would we intentionally want to support legislation that the unions tell us could be disadvantageous for low-income workers when we could instead be putting our efforts into far more worthwhile projects such as raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour? Our priority in employment legislation is that we give due consideration to initiatives that enhance labour relations rather than threaten to impact negatively on one side and advantage the other. 
The Maori Party promotes a framework for labour relations that is mutually beneficial to the collective and that encourages reciprocity and active participation on both sides of the employment continuum. We support people working together we support exemplary employment standards and we support a respectful environment that both is worker-friendly and avoids undue compliance costs for employers. For all these reasons we have given this bill serious and due consideration. In the final estimation we come down more clearly in favour of the unions which have shared their concerns about the adverse impact this bill would have on low-income workers. We are therefore opposed to this bill. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I support my colleague the Hon Tau Henare and I congratulate him on an excellent bill. 
It is a very simple bill; it is a very straightforward bill. I am not sure why it is so contentious or why people have a problem with it. It provides transparency in a democratic process and I ask who could argue with that. It is not anti-union; rather it improves the process that many unions already have in place. We have heard that some unions do not conduct secret ballots as best practice. The bill is quite simple. It requires that unions have a secret ballot when their members vote to strike. Who could have a problem with that? It is transparency in a democratic process. 
Strikes can be incredibly stressful for both workers and their families particularly in this day and age. Strikes are often held as the last resort when all else fails so they are held in an incredibly tense atmosphere. Strikes are not taken lightly and not every worker will be in the same situation. Individual circumstances have to be taken into account. This bill proposes a protective mechanism so that workers will not feel intimidated about the way they want to vote as far as the voting process goes. That process must be democratic and this bill will ensure that it is democratic. 
We heard from a number of submitters. I will make some comments on the submission of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern). The association represents business interests throughout the upper half of the North Island. Overall its members would collectively employ over 300000 people. The association had some interesting comments. Its experience was that on many occasions employees came to employers to tell them that they did not wish to go on strike or they cast doubt on the union’s decision to go on strike. They had concerns about what was being proposed. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Bullied. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE 
: Yes they probably felt intimidated and bullied. The Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) also agreed that some employees were not in a position where they wanted to go on strike because of their personal circumstances financial or otherwise. They might have had difficulty in the economic climate we have been in. The association commented that to go on strike is a very serious action. It is a last resort and has to be done in a very careful way. Although the employees might be financially affected by a strike the union organiser is not directly financially affected. It is OK for the union organiser but not necessarily OK for the employees. 
We have heard that the holding of secret ballots is best practice and is largely happening in this day and age. But we heard that many unions do not conduct a secret ballot. The submission from the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) reported that one union explained to their workers the absence of a secret ballot by saying it wanted to see the whites of their eyes. That is astonishing and absolutely appalling. It should not be happening in the year 2010; it is part of the age of Charles Dickens. It should not be happening. Another employee was advised that the vote to strike was taken by the union asking those who did not want to strike to leave the room and stand outside. That is not acceptable in this day and age; it is not democratic. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee made some very good changes to improve the bill. I will not go over the details but changes were made and they are in the bill as it stands. 
This is a good bill. It will be good for workers. It is democratic and it will codify what is already happening. I commend the bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to put it on the record that of course Labour supports democracy and supports secret ballots as Labour members have said. It is true that we supported the referral of Tau Henare’s bill the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so we could hear submissions and ensure that we were confident that secret ballots do occur in industrial action. Of course that is overwhelmingly what was said to the select committee. 
This is a nonsense bill. The bill is flawed and in its original form it was a complete joke. It merely required a ballot to be taken; the ballot did not have to have any particular result. That showed how flawed the bill was. But the bill is also a cheap stunt based on a flawed premise. It is based on the premise that union organisers as the previous speaker Dr Jackie Blue said force workers to take industrial action. The premise is that unions have to see the whites of employers’ eyes and have nothing personally to lose but of course the poor old workers do. Well the bill is based on a flawed premise because we operate in an age of voluntary unionism. We operate in an age where secret ballots are absolutely overwhelmingly the norm so there is no problem to solve. No evidence was presented by officials of complaints that workers felt that they had been pressured into taking strike action. Very little actual evidence was presented by submitters that this was a problem. Some assertions were made by organisations like the Employers and Manufacturers Association but there is no problem to solve. 
This bill is just like Paul Quinn’s bill: it is all about ideology and about trying to be tough. This particular bill is based on Tau Henare’s experience in the 1980s. He cited in the media that one of the reasons for this bill was his own personal experience of standing over workers to require them to take strike action. Of course that was in an environment of compulsory unionism and it was because he was being a bully. I have been a union organiser for many years—first of all in an environment of compulsory unionism and then primarily and mainly in an environment of voluntary unionism. I can say as can most of my colleagues that I have never stood over workers. But even if I had tried to stand over workers they have their own minds. They can choose whether to be members of a union. As Jackie Blue did get right in her speech people do not take strike action lightly because it costs them money. It is hard to do because it costs them money. 
In an environment of voluntary unionism why would workers strike when they can just leave the union if they want to? Workers take strike action when they are desperately trying to improve their appalling wages and conditions or when their employer will not negotiate with them in good faith. If members on the other side of the House had taken the time to genuinely engage with union members they would have found that the majority of union members in New Zealand have probably never taken strike action and those who have would tell them that they took a secret ballot before they did. That is the experience post the 1980s certainly. Tau Henare’s head is stuck in the 1980s when he personally stood over workers and bullied them into taking strike action. He said that himself in the media. 
I think it is very interesting—I am assuming this of course and I would love to be proven wrong—that the ACT Party will support this bill. Of course ACT supposedly is the party of freedom so I will be very interested to hear whether the ACT members rise to speak on this bill. Why do unions as organisations not have the freedom to determine their own rules and to have clearly set out in those rules—as most if not all of them do—provisions for secret ballots? Why does the Government have to intervene to solve a problem that does not exist? The reason is that it is about freedom for everybody except unions. Underlying this is in some cases a real hatred of and certainly antipathy towards unions by members on the other side of the House. Government members do not like unions. Why is that? The reason is quite clear: unions are about organising workers so that they can get a fairer deal—so that they can get a fair share of the pie. 
I would just love to try to open the eyes of members on the other side of the House as to what a modern union looks like. I genuinely believe that most members on that side of the House are stuck in a time warp. They do not actually know what a modern union looks like. If somebody like Michael Woodhouse was honest he would tell us that when dealing with organisations like the Nurses Organisation he has dealt with people who are very professional about their job who care intensely about the sector that they work in who resolve more disputes than they create who ensure that the voices of their members are heard who want to see their members get fair access to training and upskilling and who have a view about how people in the health sector should be treated. Michael probably could tell us that because he has dealt with modern unions in recent times. But unfortunately I think most people across the House are stuck in a time warp based on the sorts of bully-boy tactics that Tau Henare exhibited in the Northern Clerical Workers Union in the 1980s. That is not the reality of a modern trade union. The shame is that members on the other side of the House are not taking the time to find out about the reality. 
If this Government tried to find out about the reality it would see that in order for us to change our workplaces create workplaces that were really productive and create the sort of economic growth that we want workers have to be engaged skilled and involved and have to have an independent voice. I put that challenge across to members on the other side of the House. This bill is based on a failed and flawed premise. 
I have talked about my experiences. I have never in all my years as a union official stood over anybody. I have led strikes and I have been involved in organising workers who have taken strike action but I can say it was done democratically it was done by a secret ballot and it was done as a last resort. It was done because workers absolutely have the right to organise to collectively bargain and in the absence of getting any progress through collective bargaining to take strike action to put forward their case. We cannot force people to take strike action. It is nonsense to think we can force people to take strike action. Would we stand over them and physically push them out the door? Would we barricade the doors so they could not get back into the workplace? How could we require them to stay out when they did not want to? How could a union organiser imagine ever being able to organise that workplace again in that circumstance? Of course he or she could not. 
My colleague Darien Fenton touched on another issue: the problem with this bill is that it is unbalanced. It focuses solely on industrial disputation from the point of view of unions. It focuses on strikes and it has no interest in dealing with the other side. The Employment Relations Act aligns strikes and lockouts. Where is there any similar limitation on employers taking industrial action? There is none. A number of submitters made that point. I have to comment on a very big lockout of recent times. It is true that lockouts are rarer than strikes but they tend to be longer and more costly. The Progressive Enterprises distribution centre lockout cost the affected workers and their families thousands and thousands of dollars. They were locked out. Who made that decision? It probably was not the board of Progressive Enterprises; it certainly was not the shareholders. When the value of the shares in Progressive Enterprises—which is Foodtown and Countdown—went down did those shareholders have any rights? Did they have any say in that lockout? No they did not. So if this Government was serious about this issue it would also be looking at that side of the equation. 
We will see increasing disputation in this country. I predict that and I am sure that I will be proved to be right. This Government is anti-union and anti-worker and it is watching the gap between rich and poor grow. It is doing nothing to address the gap in wages between Australia and New Zealand. Hammering unions is the wrong way to go about closing that gap. If the Government was serious about addressing that issue it would know that collective bargaining is the way to close the gap. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 Well I feel like I have just been subjected to a tutorial on 19th century class warfare. I thank the member who has just resumed her seat Carol Beaumont for that. It has brought home to me just how far the Labour Party has not come. What a mystery that party has become to me! Labour used to boast and rightly so about its origins amongst the working class of this country. What has it transformed itself into now? Well that was never better illustrated than by the two previous Labour speeches: Labour is a party that has been reduced to representing the union organisers and bosses. I invite Ms Beaumont and Ms Fenton to spend a little bit of time out among the working-class people of the electorates they seem to be parading in. 
Carol Beaumont 
: We do. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: If Ms Beaumont would like one day just to cross Point England Road into the Tamaki electorate and be among the working-class people of Glen Innes she will get a very clear message and that message is that the working-class families of that area welcome this legislation. They welcome it because it is the final protection of their democratic rights. What this bill does—and I give credit to my colleague Mr Henare for initiating it—is finally guarantee to union members the most basic of all democratic rights. 
It has been really interesting to observe the Labour Party in this debate. When the Hon Trevor Mallard spoke I almost felt like we were flies on the wall of their caucus room—that big room on the third floor of Parliament House. It must seem a big room for so few people. When I heard Mr Mallard’s speech—and I will look at the  
Hansard 
 tomorrow—I suspect that by changing maybe six key words it could have been a speech in favour of this bill. I sense that that is where he is at but the old warhorse was rolled by the youngsters. I can just see it in the caucus. They have had their discussion about the leadership and it has been inconclusive. They have had a bit of a gossip about whether Chris Carter will resign and whether there will be a by-election—and oh my goodness Judith Tizard might be back! Now they have come to this bill. 
Mr Mallard and the experienced heads know that the Labour Party is betraying its tradition if it votes against this bill. What we have got from this debate is a very very clear indication from the Labour Party that in opposing this bill it has turned its back on its tradition of representing the average working-class people of New Zealand. It has fallen once again to the National Government to my colleagues on this side of the House to introduce legislation that provides workers with the ultimate protection. There is no greater protection in a democracy than the right to a secret ballot. When this bill passes the workers of New Zealand who choose to belong to a union will have that right. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand alongside the other youngsters in the Labour Party and denigrate the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. I was one of those people who had a bit of fun with this bill when it first came to the House. We knew that every union ran a secret ballot before a strike and we thought it was all a bit of nonsense. But then when the bill went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and submitters pointed out the perils and the bureaucracy that the bill would bring about common sense prevailed. I acknowledge my Labour colleagues and the Green Party. They listened to the majority of submitters and said that common sense had to prevail and that this bill should not proceed. 
Mr Peachey the great educationalist put out a challenge to us. He told us to get in touch with workers. I can tell Mr Peachey that we have been in touch with education workers a lot over the last few weeks from early childhood education workers through to tertiary education workers. We went to the early childhood teachers recently. There was a packed hall of about 300. They are so over this Government and the cuts to the quality of their teaching. Then we talked to the primary teachers. They are so over this Government. This is what the Government wants us to do to get in touch with workers. We got in touch with education workers. The Post Primary Teachers Association is in turmoil. So is the tertiary sector. 
What we are seeing under this Government is more strife and turmoil and more strikes actually than we have seen in the last 9 years. This shows the cheek of silly old Allan Peachey saying we are going backwards. Well what did National do when it came into Government in the 1990s? It got rid of pay equity. It got rid of the Apprenticeship Act. It introduced the Employment Contracts Act. National is a party that goes “Kapow!” and flip-flops backwards. Its members cannot help themselves. Chester Borrows is looking nothing short of embarrassed. He is not a bad guy. He has to be the best select committee chairperson in this House. 
Paul Quinn 
: What about me? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I will not even comment on Paul Quinn. He has made a complete idiot of himself today with his bill and he is closely followed by Tau Henare. 
This bill is absolutely ridiculous. For a party that wants to cut bureaucracy it is just a joke. This bill is nothing short of nanny State. Red tape; nanny State—that is the National Government. And for what? Where is the problem? Labour members of the select committee put forward a proposal and said we did not disagree that there should be a ballot regarding strike action and that we should just make it so that unions have to provide for it. Would that not have been a more common-sense solution? Would that not have been sensible? Would that not have been a little bit less 1990s? But no duh this National Government just could not get it—it just could not get it. It just could not work it out because its members do not understand. For National members to sit over there in their seats in the peanut gallery saying that they are in touch with workers has to be the biggest joke. I have never seen so many annoyed workers in New Zealand in my life—not since the 1990s. 
We have talked about the teachers we have talked about health workers and then we see Judith Collins. The poor Department of Corrections staff are subjected to having her as a Minister. It is just another shambles. This Government sits over there and wastes the Committee’s time. We have good bills on the Order Paper that my good friend Charles Chauvel has assisted in drafting and these bills would help to improve life for New Zealanders. But no this is the Government that wants to deal to workers. 
I will go back to that early childhood meeting. Someone put up their hand and asked why it was that the Government does not get it? This is really annoying teachers right across the spectrum. Most people have a lot of respect for teachers. We said to them that it was because the Government does not talk about teachers nurses or doctors; it talks about unions. The Government is not interested in workers’ rights. It thinks that if it attacks unions and implies that unions are the dinosaurs that Tau Henare is then that will somehow justify the old archaic and really silly polices that it puts out like the 90-day “sack at will” bill and restricting the rights of union officials to go to workplaces. It just goes on. 
We all know that and anybody who has been a union official would know that—and I am really proud that I have been a union official—except Tau Henare. I do not think he was in touch with his members. I do not want to get personal but we all know that he was a bit of a bully. I think he never took the time. He was one those union officials who fortunately we do not see much of now. He was a bit of a bully and he just tried to tell people what they should do. That is not the case now. Unions are accountable to their members. We do not promote strike action unless it is absolutely essential. It is becoming more essential under this Government. It is becoming more essential more common under this Government but it is a last resort. Nobody wants to see workers withdraw their labour and lose money unless it is absolutely necessary. A secret ballot is held because that is what members of a union believe is the right thing to do. 
But the other reason—and this is why it is so important—is that there has to be a clear mandate. If workers do not vote to go on strike and if they do not believe in what they are doing then they simply will not go on strike. No one makes them do it. They do it because they are so annoyed as workers are when they all protest. No one drags those workers down to outside of Parliament and says: “You tell this Government how lousy they are.” They do it all by themselves—they do it all by themselves. All the petitions that they bring down to Parliament to these grounds often out in the rain to tell this Government how bad it is for workers—they are not told to do that. They do it of their own free will. 
This bill is a joke. It is an absolute joke. We could have let it go but the point is that it does create mischief and there could be mischief. What would mischief mean? It would mean that an employer could challenge a legitimate strike action. I tell members that Tau Henare is a mischievous man. If anyone has said anything it is that he is a bit of a scamp. [ 
Interruption 
] He is not offended; he is flattered. Look at him: he has got a big smile on his face. He is full of mischief. He is laughing up there. He is sitting in the back seat laughing thinking: “This is all a bit silly but I have had a bit of fun with this.” The reality is that he has made the National Government again look really really silly. It looks really silly out of touch and back to the 1990s. That is not where labour relations should be in this country. Labour relations should be where unions are fully democratic and accountable to their members because members join voluntarily. They are not like Tau. In his day members did not want him as their union official—who would blame them? He said that it was compulsory unionism and that they had to have him. Unions do not operate like that in this country now. People join of their own free will because they need protection particularly when they have a Government like this which is so anti-union and anti-worker. 
This bill is offensive. It is offensive to workers it is offensive to unions and it is offensive to the Labour Party. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to take the final call in the second reading of the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. But as this is the first time I have spoken today I wonder whether Assistant Speaker Roy would indulge my acknowledging the people of Otago and Southland and the very good day this is for them. The South Island district health boards have unanimously endorsed the expert panel’s recommendations for the future of neurosurgical services. This is really a victory for common sense and for clinical safety and viability but most of all for people power and for the huge amount of support that was galvanised behind the issue and the success of the campaign. The expert panel acknowledged that were it not for that the outcome might well have been different. 
I will address the issue of my relationship with unions. Ms Beaumont is absolutely correct. I have a very very good relationship with unions; I regard them fondly. They make good managers’ lives easier. When those relationships work well they work very well. But like any organisation even unions can have their problems internally. I congratulate the Opposition on being an Opposition even when that flies in the face of absolutely everything it believes in. It believes in democracy and it believes in the International Labour Organization conventions that say this is a good thing to do. But it is also a case of “If you’re a sinner you must have sinned.”—if this bill is being brought forward by National it cannot possibly be a good idea. I think it is a terrible shame that in its efforts to be a good Opposition it cannot do the common-sense thing like the expert panel did and look at the issues and support this bill on its merits. 
As members know I am a rugby referee. I still get the odd game in; in fact even Mr Mallard has run touch for me on the odd occasion when I have been refereeing Hutt Old Boys Marist. One of the things players always say to me is: “Whether you get it right or get it wrong at least be consistent.” That I think is a message and a lesson that that party and its supporter unions could take on board. 
I will give members a couple of examples. I was fascinated by the Unite union campaigning outside Television New Zealand demanding the immediate sacking of Paul Henry. It wanted instant dismissal—no rights of process no rights of natural justice; it wanted just to get rid of him. It did not matter about the merits of the case or whether it was valid. There was a union that said that employee has no rights. I think we also heard that in select committee where we are simultaneously hearing the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and in particular the extension of the 90-day probation period. Members on the other side will recall asking employer associations what would happen to an employee when applying for a job if the employer said that there was a 90-day provision and the employee said they did not like that. The answer was that the prospective employee was free not to accept the job on those terms. Oh how terrible! Oh is that not absolutely appalling? 
I compare that with what we heard Carol Beaumont say tonight and the Service and Food Workers Union repeated it in submissions on this bill. When we asked what would happen to an employee a member of a union who did not like the rules that required an open process Ms Beaumont said they were free to leave. So that was it: take it or leave it. Members opposite should at least be consistent. This bill is a principled approach and a good idea. If it codifies what is exactly happening in practice why on earth do they oppose it? There is still time for Labour to support this bill. It is a good bill and I certainly support it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has a right of reply. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 No reply. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Then I will put the question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Employment Relations (Workers’ Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. 
Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 Parliament has a chance tonight to right a terrible wrong and to end the suffering that millions of factory-farmed animals experience every day of their short and miserable lives so that we can have access to cheap meat and eggs. Parliament also has a chance tonight to respond to the overwhelming desire of New Zealanders to get rid of cruel farming practices such as sow crates and battery hen cages by supporting this bill. 
Animals have no vote in this Parliament. They have no voice and they cannot vote so it is up to us to speak on their behalf and to protect them from cruelty and abuse. That is why every member of Parliament in this House tonight has a stark choice to make: whether to vote for the animals or for the vested interests who want to keep animals in cages indefinitely. That is the stark choice that every MP will make tonight and regardless of whatever weasel words are said MPs who vote against my bill will be voting to allow animal cruelty to continue indefinitely. 
Public concern about animal welfare has been growing steadily in recent years. New Zealanders were repelled by what they saw on television last year—images of pigs with sores all over their bodies looking demented and chewing on bars—and they cannot understand why Parliament has sat on its hands and done nothing since then to stop this cruelty. They certainly will not understand it if Parliament rejects this bill which would require sow crates and other cruel practices to be phased out within 5 years. 
Most people cannot understand either why Parliament allows millions of factory-farmed animals to be grievously ill-treated on a daily basis when we have an Animal Welfare Act that states it is an offence to ill-treat animals. People ask me why when it is an offence to ill-treat animals it is not an offence to ill-treat animals by locking them in cages where they cannot even turn round. The answer is that although the Animal Welfare Act has some very good principles it contains a series of loopholes that exempt the worst cases of animal cruelty in factory farms from having to comply with the Act. These loopholes mean that even though the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee acknowledges that using sow stalls for prolonged periods of time does not meet the obligations of the Act it can still recommend that sow crates continue by using the “exceptional circumstances” exemption in section 73 of that Act. That explains why we have ended up with an Act that pretends to protect the interests of animals but that really protects the interests of farmers and animal users; an Act that allows us to get tough on individual acts of cruelty and turn a blind eye to institutional acts of cruelty; an Act that makes it an offence to keep a dog in a cage but that says it is legitimate and somehow not cruel to keep a pig or a hen in a cage; an Act that allows one standard for companion animals and a completely different and lax standard for the treatment of farm animals. 
My bill removes that contradiction at the core of the Animal Welfare Act and states that any practice that breaches the Act but that is permitted under the “exceptional circumstances” exemption must be phased out within 5 years. It also expands the definition of the needs of animals to include having freedom of movement and sufficient space to express normal patterns of behaviour. It gives the Minister the power to amend an animal welfare code if the Minister considers this to be necessary in order to prevent the suffering of any animal. 
The Minister will trot out a series of feeble excuses as to why the National Government opposes this bill but the public will see them for what they are: the feeble excuses of a Government that is casting around for an excuse to try to justify why it pretends it is all in favour of animal welfare yet will vote to allow some of the worst cases of animal cruelty to continue indefinitely. The Minister will no doubt argue that the survival of the pig and poultry industries will be at risk if we require cruel farming practices to be phased out within 5 years. But he knows that is nonsense. It ignores the facts that 60 percent of pig farmers do not use sow crates and that free-range producers are booming in New Zealand. While the mainstream pork industry is losing its market share to imported pork some free-range producers expanded their market share last year by an extraordinary 170 percent. The managing director of Freedom Farms says it is absurd that the pork industry is clinging to cruel farming practices at the very time that consumers are clamouring for meat from animals that have been well treated. “Instead of behaving like King Canute” he said “they should be developing a niche for themselves as producers of quality humanely raised meat.” 
Animal welfare is above all an ethical and a moral issue not an economic one. Some farmers may wish it were otherwise; they may wish it was left up to them to decide whether they considered it to be profitable to treat animals humanely. But the truth is that the reason that people feel passionately about animal welfare is that it is an ethical and a moral issue. Our attitudes to animal welfare and to this bill hinge around ethical arguments such as whether we have a right to require highly intelligent animals like pigs to live miserable lives of suffering just to satisfy our demand for cheap meat especially when we can farm them well in free-range conditions where they can express normal patterns of behaviour. There is a substantial body of international research that shows that animals experience a huge range of emotions and suffer terribly when they cannot express normal behaviour. That is why I am seeking a conscience vote on this bill. It is incomprehensible and deeply offensive to me that Parliament would allow gambling and shopping hours to be voted on as a conscience issue but not animal welfare. It is a sure sign that vested interests have won out over the interests of animals yet again. 
Animal cruelty is animal cruelty whether it happens to a pig or a dog. We cannot in good conscience as a Parliament get tough on individual acts of cruelty to animals while ignoring the more serious cases of institutional abuse. We cannot have one law for companion animals and another law for farm animals. We cannot pretend that it is not cruel to keep a pig or a hen in a cage when it would be illegal and in breach of the Act to keep a cat or a dog in a cage. 
I have been inside factory farms—numerous factory farms. I have seen for myself the pain and the agony that sows experience when they are locked inside cages either desperate with boredom or screaming in agony. I have seen with my own eyes pigs lying motionless in their cages chewing on the bars in deranged frustration. I have tried to take a cross-party group of MPs to visit pig farms to see for themselves the suffering that sows endure in sow crates but the pork industry has refused to allow our visit. 
I believe that every MP in this House would like to see an end to the use of the sow crate and the battery hen cage and that the only reason some MPs are voting against this bill is that their party whips are demanding that they do so. I would like to thank Labour the Maori Party United Future the Progressive party and Chris Carter for supporting my bill. And I would like to say to MPs who oppose this bill that their vote will be a conscience issue whether or not they like it and it will be something that they will have to live with for a very long time. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I do not know whether anyone in this House could argue against some of the points that Sue Kedgley put up in her debate on this bill against cruelty to animals. I know that she is genuine in her desire to see an end to cruelty to animals whatever form it takes but from time to time—and I know it is sometimes challenging—one has to inject a few facts into the debate about farming systems why they have evolved in the way they have and what the member is railing against. 
The Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill has a genuinely admirable objective: to see an end to all cruelty to all animals. I stand here as a farmer as someone who has been working with animals all my life from the time I was old enough to walk. There is no logic whatsoever from a commercial point of view from an animal welfare point of view from a profit point of view or from whatever angle one wants to consider for being cruel to the very animals that provide one with a livelihood. It is as dumb as destroying the environment one farms in. Those two things are totally irreconcilable with farming; one cannot destroy the environment one farms in and one cannot bring about damage or harm or inflict pain or other such on the livestock that provide an income. 
I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that the member is raising but the officials have told us that if this bill were to pass the unintended consequences—in terms of the independent advice that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee would be able to provide to the Minister—are such that the bill would have an absolutely opposite effect to what the member desires to see. The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is an independent group that provides advice to the Minister regardless of the Minister’s political persuasion. It is a real irony I have to say that throughout most of the 9 years of the previous Labour Government supported by the Green Party no changes were made to the Animal Welfare Act but in the first 12 months of this National Government substantial changes to legislation came to the Primary Production Committee which the member was a part of and those changes were brought about. In addition those changes were supported by substantial increases in funding for SPCA officers and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff to conduct inspections relating to animal welfare issues. 
The issue the member raises around sow crates is highly contentious very very emotive and needs to be addressed and I do not know of anybody including those in the pork industry who would argue against that. The member herself made the point that commercially New Zealanders are making that decision; all customers worldwide are making that decision. We do unfortunately have to compete in an international market place to sell products and it is a fact that cheaper pork products have been imported into New Zealand from places that do not have the same high animal welfare standards that we do. That is not an excuse to allow cruelty but it is a commercial reality in this argument. 
I want to share with this House a very brief story a personal story about how sow crates were developed in the first place. As a young lad I was invited to a sporting event in the sport that I was pretty competitive in. I never had the funding to go to such events—my father was a sharemilker of limited means—so it was decided that as a fund-raising option I would raise a couple of pigs to a porker level and sell them to the meat company for profit to pay for my sporting trip. I got two small piglets from the same litter. I got them because they were small and not able to compete with the rest of the litter for their mother. I reared those piglets to within 3 weeks of when they could be sold off for profit but the male of the couple attacked the female injured her to the point that she was unable to be salvaged and she had to be put down. They were in a free-range environment; they were living in luxury. If there was ever a pig heaven they were in it. They were being fed twice a day by a very dedicated farmer who was farming them for profit and they were living in the lap of luxury. One pig attacked the other and that pig had to be put down as a result of the injuries. It was devastating for me because I had spent so much time raising the pigs to that point. The reality is that I should have separated them. They should have been contained. They should not have been able to be free range in the way that they were—for their own protection. Sow crates have evolved from the circumstance that pigs will injure themselves. Animal welfare is actually the reason why they were developed. 
I do not think that any member would condone what we have seen in some of the media coverage of the battery-type farming systems that the member spoke of. I do not think that there is a single person with any type of compassion towards animals who would condone that. But the irony of the debate is this: the founder of Kathmandu has decided with the money she has made from that enterprise to develop a campaign against animal cruelty but in the very television campaign shots I saw she had a beautiful Labrador dog in a townhouse or an inner-city apartment. Tell me that it is not cruel to keep a Labrador in an inner-city apartment. No one would see that as cruel; it is normal it is perfectly OK. The cruellest thing that someone could do to a dog designed and bred to roam and exercise is to lock it up in an inner-city apartment. Yet across the world that is perfectly OK and perfectly normal. That dog cannot show its normal animal behaviour in an inner-city apartment. Some of those dogs are so obese so unexercised and so unhealthy and yet that is perfectly OK. Society has normalised that. That is fine. That is OK. But if we design something in a farming or commercial sense that allows animals to be contained in some way then that is deemed to be cruel and should not be allowed. As we look to find a way forward through some of these issues in a way that is sensible humane and in the best interests of the animals we should at least be consistent in the argument. 
SPCA officers tell me that the worst cruelty they ever see to animals is on lifestyle blocks. People decide that it would be good to go out into the country buy a little bit of land have a few sheep have a few animals have a horse. Then they decide to go away on their normal summer holiday and they forget about the animals. That is the worst type of animal abuse that SPCA officers report back to me. Those officers are genuine about animal protection of course; others are on a political crusade against agricultural farming and have a different view. In the case of animal welfare I think we need to be consistent. 
In response to this bill I say that National is doing more for animal welfare than the previous Government did in its whole time in office including with the support of the Green Party throughout that whole time. We will continue to work constructively with the industries involved to ensure that animal welfare is No. 1. It is absolutely in our best interests to do that because we are an agricultural export nation that has to uphold the highest standards for us to be sustainable going forward in terms of both our production systems and our economic survival. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I truly regret that so quickly this debate has been trivialised by the previous speaker Shane Ardern who likened the inhumane cruelty that pigs and hens are subjected to under the industrial farming practices we are talking about tonight to the plight of an overweight Labrador living in a luxury apartment. I regret that the debate has been so trivialised so quickly. 
Labour is proud to stand alongside our Green colleagues tonight to support in particular Sue Kedgley who has brought the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill to the House. For a long time Sue Kedgley has been a leader on these issues and her commitment to this cause is appreciated by many many New Zealanders who care about this issue. 
I want to acknowledge the campaign that has been run by SAFE Save Animals From Exploitation and Hans Kriek who has mobilised people to send thousands of letters and postcards to members of Parliament asking that we support this bill. The campaign to stop pigs being kept in crates and to stop hens being kept in battery cages looks to me like a campaign whose time has come. I believe that New Zealanders are ready to support change in this area. 
The campaign has been helped particularly in recent times by Mike King the former poster boy for the pork industry who has since opened his eyes and turned against very inhumane farming practices. He has been awakened to the realities of the shocking farming practices that were shown on the television screens of New Zealanders. I think that caused a sea change in public awareness and strength of feeling on this issue. With the help of Mike King the campaign exposed horrific abuse of animals in the pork and egg industries. 
Following the images that were shown on TV we heard promises from the National Government that it would make a review of the pig welfare code a top priority and the Minister of Agriculture said it in this House. But almost 18 months later the National Government is still dragging its feet and pigs continue to be subjected to the most inhumane treatment. I say that that is unforgivable. 
Labour supports this bill. We believe that the maltreatment of animals this bill seeks to address is completely unacceptable and reflects poorly on our society. Secondly we believe that these industries must capture the high-value high end of the markets that they are in. That means high ethical standards in raising animals and in the egg-laying industry. The best-quality New Zealand beef and lamb is sold in high-end outlets throughout the world to some of the richest and most discerning consumers. One of the principal selling points of New Zealand beef and lamb internationally is that our beef and lamb are free range. That is an incredibly important part of the New Zealand brand. It has huge economic value for our nation and it is high time that the egg-laying industry and the pork industry follow the beef and lamb industry and protect the brand. 
It is time that Parliament changed the outdated and unethical farming practices that are allowed and perpetuated by the loophole in the Animal Welfare Act that allows practices that are deemed to be inconsistent with the principal provisions in the Act. The loophole allows those practices to continue in perpetuity under the guise of those practices being so-called exceptional circumstances. That is wrong. Sue Kedgley’s bill seeks to close that loophole and require those practices to be phased out within 5 years. That is the right thing to do. It is the right thing ethically and it is the right thing economically for our farming industry. 
The bill also clarifies practices that breach key sections of the principal Act. In line with international best practice it clarifies the definition of “physical health and behavioural needs” to include animals having freedom of movement to express normal patterns of behaviour such as being able to turn round and walk about. That minimal requirement should be part of our definition of ethical farming practices. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is with a fairly heavy heart that one takes a call on the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill because we appreciate that on balance New Zealand is judged as being a country that is a primary-producing economy and there is an expectation in the general public’s mind that we have a high level of animal welfare. Although we do that we know that presently there are campaigns being run to improve those practices. There is no doubt in my mind that at the appropriate time as viewed by those organisations that are accountable to their members and back to citizens in New Zealand and globally we will change those practices. 
As this bill stands it has a number of fundamental flaws. The principal part of it amends section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act. Clause 5 “Definition of physical health and behavioural needs” inserts in section 4: “ ‘(ca) freedom of movement that must not be restricted in such a way as to cause suffering or injury”—we can live with that; that sounds perfectly understandable and in the right direction—“and includes having sufficient space to display normal patterns of behaviour such as being able to turn around easily and walking:’.” That is where I personally have great difficulty because although we are talking about pigs and chickens in the popular context we are also talking about a broad range of animal farming. 
I have only to think about my background my experience in sheep farming and the things we do in the best interests of lamb survival to ensure that we can mother a lamb on to a ewe that will not take its lamb. We will immobilise the ewe in as careful a manner as possible so that that lamb can suckle its mother and build up the strength to survive. That in itself is often the difference between profitability and loss. One could say: “Well we don’t care. We want animals to have rights.” I accept that. There is even a practice to get a piece of string put it around the front foot of a ewe and tie it low down to the fence—especially two-tooth ewes young sheep that have not really developed a mothering intuitiveness and nurturing. We tie them up for a day or two and make sure they have water— 
Phil Twyford 
: Yeah a day or two not 6 months. 
COLIN KING 
: But under this bill we would be breaking the law. We would be criminalising people trying to ensure that we had 24 million lambs to slaughter and export under the clean green “100% Pure New Zealand” label not people farming in the backyard of Auckland or something like that. This is where I have some serious concerns. I understand the sincerity and genuine nature of the person who is moving the bill but in its realistic context I am afraid it falls well short. 
One has only to think of shedding up a shed full of sheep. One fills the shed up so that the sheep cannot move around so that they cannot walk freely and dance around and behave in such a way. Under this bill we would be criminalising every farmer who shedded up a shed of sheep. 
I think that although we can allow the emotions and the emotive words to boil over this situation clearly is best left up to the experts and to the advisory councils. There is no doubt that the message is getting through and that there have been dramatic changes. One change that I have noticed in my time is the practice of mulesing. Mulesing done properly in my view is actually an animal welfare activity but because it destroys our image overseas we have moved away from it. 
I could speak for a long time on this bill but I think my time has gone by. I will be voting against this bill. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I regret to say that we see crocodile tears from the members opposite when it comes to issues of animal welfare. They are selective about what they choose to act on. About 18 months ago we saw the  
Sunday 
 programme that exposed the appalling treatment that pigs are exposed to in sow crates. There was harrowing footage on our TV screens and graphic images of pigs in absolute squalor and distress. Those are not just my words in describing it; the Prime Minister for one said he found those scenes “very very disturbing”. The Minister of Agriculture said that he found the scenes distressing. There was a promise that there would be an urgent review of the animal welfare code yet here we are 18 months later and nothing has been done. Nothing has been done in respect of that code and making it work for animals. 
Meanwhile at the beginning of last year Simon Bridges introduced a member’s bill dealing with domestic animals which the Government chose to adopt as a Government bill the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. It was sped through Parliament as a Government bill with all the support that that entails because it was a very popular measure with many New Zealanders. But the Government sits on its hands in respect of pig welfare having said how distressed it was. 
Another example of the disparity that the Government shows in respect of animal welfare came about a year ago when there were reports that 18000 cows would be farmed above Lake Ohau if the application was approved. We would have seen those cows kept in factory farming conditions for up to 8 months of the year—8 months of the year! Such was the concern of the Government that again the Prime Minister— 
Jo Goodhew 
: What a load of bollocks. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: —and I will quote for the junior Government whip the Prime Minister’s own words—was very concerned about that issue the Minister of Agriculture was very concerned about that issue and the Minister for the Environment was very concerned about that issue. The issue has gone away in the interim. But the pigs are still left there—that percentage that is left in sow crates. They could be left there until 2017 if this Government does not act. 
One of the extraordinary things that came out of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill which concerned domestic animals was a submission in support of it from the Pork Industry Board. A Pork Industry Board submission said that the industry found the abuse of animals abhorrent. I found that to be the most extraordinary submission I have heard in my time on the Primary Production Committee. I challenged the Pork Industry Board representative. He thought New Zealanders were concerned about animal abuse but when New Zealanders think about animal abuse they think about those appalling graphic images on the  
Sunday 
 documentary of pigs in absolute distress kept in sow crates for most of their lives—an issue that this good bill the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill would address very rapidly. 
Let us not have any nonsense about this legislation affecting the transportation of animals; it has nothing to do with that. The bill simply asks that the Government act upon what is actually explicit in the animal welfare code already. There should not be so-called exceptional circumstances to allow pigs to live in abject misery for year after year under the current application of how those rules are put in place. 
Shane Ardern 
: I think we agree with you on that Brendon. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Absolutely. I put it to the representative of the Pork Industry Board when we were considering the very rapidly pushed through Animal Welfare Amendment Bill in respect of domestic animals how he would like to sit for most of his life in a sow crate about the size of this parliamentary bench that I am standing at. Sows are left in those crates for month after month. It is an appalling situation; this bill goes to remedy it. 
Government members have said that they are absolutely distressed about the images they saw on television. The images were not manufactured—that has been acknowledged—and now we have an opportunity through this member’s bill from Sue Kedgley to address this issue. Most New Zealanders want to see it happen. Most businesses in the pork industry have actually put in place practices to remove the constant use of sow crates. I applaud those in the pork industry wise enough to recognise the issues of animal welfare and to acknowledge that they are important not just to the fate of the pigs but to our own sense of ourselves as human beings. If we cannot treat animals properly and give them a fair crack of the whip how on earth can we expect human beings to look after each other? If we are not prepared to put in place a code that envisaged that sow crates would be allowed to be used only in exceptional circumstances— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 A dictionary definition of the word “conscience” is “the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one’s conduct or motives impelling one toward the right action to follow”. There is no question that the issue of animal welfare is a question of conscience. 
I accept what my colleague Sue Kedgley says. She believes that every member of this House in their own conscience in their own mind knows that the right thing to do is to vote for this bill and end these barbaric practices. Unfortunately that imperative tonight conflicts with a principle that the Government has used in its own political management of this Parliament and that is that when the House debates members’ bills from Opposition members the Government decides for political reasons not to give oxygen to the Opposition and routinely vote those members’ bills down. 
I ask the Government—whoever is in charge of the Government’s votes tonight; whoever has the opportunity to change the direction the Government has given to its members—to please consider all those New Zealanders who have seen documentaries on television about barbaric practices in chicken farming and about sow crate practices and who have been appalled by those practices overseas and in this country. I ask the Government to consider the view of New Zealanders when they learn that the Government tonight had the opportunity to act on those issues but chose not to and instead chose to act in its own political interest. I also await with interest what possible reason the ACT Party could have for voting against this bill tonight. 
In some ways I feel sorry for Shane Ardern and Colin King who were given the responsibility to speak against this bill tonight. We are I have to say still completely mystified about whether the Government holds any rational objections to this bill. Mr Ardern spoke at the beginning of his speech about there being no economic point of view that would justify animal cruelty. In actual fact animal cruelty occurs precisely because of the economic interest some farmers have in short-term economic gain. Practices like the battery farming of hens and the use of sow crates in pig farming enable farmers to carry more stock in a small area. It is entirely about short-term economic interest; that is the justification for the animal cruelty that is used. Mr Ardern breathtakingly argued in favour of sow crates. He ignored the reality that many farmers who practise free-range pig farming and free-range hen farming have found completely acceptable and viable ways of doing that and making a profit. No sensible reason has been advanced by Shane Ardern. 
Mr Ardern also talked about advice that the Government had on inadvertent consequences of the bill and of course there has been no detail or explanation in respect of that. That is precisely the kind of thing that a select committee inquiry could sort out. Colin King talked about the definition of freedom of movement and he brought up some minor quibbles about that definition. That again is something that a select committee could deal with. We heard a pathetic argument about Labradors in houses and we also heard Colin King talk about restrictions on the mobility of ewes for several days which is a complete red herring. It is totally outside the scope of this bill and it has nothing to do with section 73 of the principal Act. 
I have been exposed to the sow crate experience and it is a totally cruel experience. I take on board the Prime Minister’s comment that he is very very distressed by this practice and that the Government may consider doing something about it. Tonight the Government has the opportunity to do something about these barbaric practices. It will be judged by its refusal to do so. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The last few years have been pretty tough for funny man Mike King. The descendant of Te Mahurehure has been through his fair share of life experiences. He endured a serious motorbike accident at Christmas in 2007; suffered a massive stroke in 2007 which led to temporary paralysis and loss of speech; and then a year later underwent a major heart operation to correct an irregular heartbeat. But the Christmas Eve disaster of 2008 capped them all. After 7 years of successfully retaining a high-profile celebrity role with the New Zealand Pork Industry Board he was suddenly dismissed from his position. But it was not the sudden sacking that shocked King; it was the sickening sight of pigs screaming and froth pouring out of their mouths that utterly appalled him. 
Up until that point Mike King was known as “Mister Pork”. He had been commissioned by the New Zealand Pork Industry Board to encourage New Zealanders to eat more pork and he had been pretty successful—under his watch pork sales soared. That is when SAFE entered the fray sending him information about factory farming of pigs in New Zealand so he started asking questions to investigate for himself how pigs were reared for pork bacon and ham. He searched the Net he viewed footage taken by Open Rescue and he eventually arranged a secret farm visit to see for himself. His recollection of that experience makes disturbing reading. The North Island intensive piggery he visited included a shed crammed full of 50 to 60 large pregnant sows. He spoke of the noise as deafening the smell as overpowering and in his own words said: “I just walked around looking at these beautiful animals huge animals wedged in these cages. You look into their eyes and they were either despairing terrified lost … it was absolutely harrowing”. This story is all the evidence the Maori Party needs to support this bill. 
But there are of course many more such stories that could be told that describe the physical and mental cruelty meted out to animals in the name of profits. The Maori Party supports this bill to prevent a small but savage group of farmers who keep their animals in inhuman conditions from being able to carry on such practices. The bill will create an immediate disincentive for the use of sow crates by some pig farmers and for the use of battery hen cages on certain chicken farms. We really commend Sue Kedgley for this very significant bill which we hope will pass unopposed through this House tonight and be a fitting legacy of her work in Parliament. 
The key purpose of the bill is to clarify that certain practices although permitted by a code of animal welfare breach key sections of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and must be phased out within 5 years. We are interested in why these offenders are given a 5-year reprieve to carry on with such harrowing practices for so long before this bill kicks in. The Maori Party is committed to keeping our natural resources and environment healthy safe and intact for everyone—including future generations—and that certainly includes animal welfare. 
I have to say how impressed I am with the endorsement from some of our finest Maori celebrities: Mike King; Tammy Davis one of the stars of  
Outrageous Fortune 
; and the filmmaker writer and actor Taika Waititi. I want to leave members with the views of Mr Waititi which the Maori Party certainly endorses. “It’s not necessarily a question of what you eat but rather where that food comes from. We like to show off our “clean green” image to the international community but we still engage in many disgraceful practices that make me embarrassed to be a Kiwi.” 
One of the most disturbing assumptions surrounding cruelty towards animals is the view that people know no better. We utterly reject this notion. For example we know that there are many time-tried techniques that can protect the welfare of laying hens. There is ample evidence around the behavioural requirements of hens that demonstrates the importance of innate behaviour such as wing flapping nest building dust bathing preening or even walking—all actions ruled out in a battery hen environment. 
The Maori Party opposes the use of cruel cages to restrict the movements of so-called battery hens. We oppose the inhumane treatment of pigs in New Zealand and we totally support this bill. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak on the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. I feel quite disappointed tonight to see the chairman of our Primary Production Committee Shane Ardern who is a very conscientious person—I have a lot of respect for him as an MP and as the chair of the committee—vote against this bill which he will do for the sake of his party. I would have expected somebody like him who I know is against animal cruelty to be for this bill. Shane Ardern is a farmer and I have a lot of time for him. He raises animals like he would children and I know he has a lot of respect for them. I am really disappointed that tonight I suppose for the sake of his party he has to— 
Shane Ardern 
: Tell us what you know about it as a scientist Ashraf. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: Yes I know. There are two arguments here. One is that New Zealand is known for its ethical and sustainable primary production. The rest of the world likes our products because they know that the food is safe that it is produced ethically and that it is produced sustainably. That is the perception and perception is often reality. People out there love how good our agriculture is. They admire what we do. Part of that is related to the fact that we look after animals and feed them well. Often when we go to a developing country we see animals that are in a bad shape unhealthy sick and all of that and when visitors come here and see how the animals are treated on our farms they really appreciate it. 
This bill is about stopping animal cruelty. Animal production in New Zealand is very well known outside of our country. People like it because we are seen to be ethical and our food is produced on a sustainable basis. We want that perception to carry on. 
The second argument is about economics and I think that is probably where the Government is coming from—that this thing may not be economic. I say to Mr Shane Ardern that we have a brand and it is called “100% Pure New Zealand”. It is a good brand and people like it but that perception will change if people out there see that we do not treat our animals very well. It does not matter which animal it is. We do not export a lot of pork but the perception out there will be that something is not right if we do not treat our animals well. Whether it is cubicle farming or crate farming any confined farming affects the perception around the world of our ethical animal production. 
We have talked about animal cruelty in debating earlier legislation particularly in relation to the cats and dogs—to animals in the city. As I have said many times previously in these debates the world’s perception is changing and importers are becoming very aware that they are importing ethically produced stuff from New Zealand. As an exporting nation we do not want the perception to be that we do not treat our animals well. This bill deals with pigs in crates. The videos taken by Mr King are shown all over the world. Today it is a matter of just pushing a button and the pictures go around the world. It is very unfortunate but the perception will develop that somehow we are not treating our animals well. Generally speaking we treat our animals very well. Everybody knows that but this perception can change and I am worried about that. 
I hope that this bill will go to a select committee and that Mr Ardern will look into this. I hope that during the process of hearing submissions he will change his mind and maybe he will even cross the floor. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak on the first reading of the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Animal Welfare Act to phase out the exception in section 73 that allows in exceptional circumstances practices that do not meet best practice as set out in that Act. There is no doubt the intentions of this bill are admirable and laudable. However National is reviewing fully the Animal Welfare Act next year. This will be done in a very systematic comprehensive and thorough way. 
Animal welfare is a priority for this Government. We passed the Animal Welfare Amendment Act to increase penalties for animal cruelty and abuse. The Government has delivered the biggest boost in Government funding for animal welfare over recent years. It equates to an extra $8.2 million over 4 years. The Government has doubled the number of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare enforcement officers. We have also developed and introduced major new codes regarding animal welfare. 
No one in this House supports animal cruelty. No one would want to see any animal suffer. This is a well-intentioned bill but National will not be supporting it. There will be a major review of the Act next year and it will be thorough and systematic. 
The Government is also concerned about unintended consequences. The officials advise that this bill could undermine the ability of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to offer independent expert advice on animal welfare matters to the Minister. It has also been pointed out that it could empower the Minister to revoke or amend a code of welfare unilaterally without seeking independent advice from that committee. It could end up leaving politicians to develop animal welfare policy rather than the experts when clearly it should be the experts. There are other unintended consequences as well. 
I make the point again that the law needs to be drafted carefully thoroughly and methodically. The principal Act will be reviewed thoroughly next year. This is a well-intentioned bill. No one wants to see animals suffer. The Government does support animal welfare but we will not be supporting this bill. Thank you. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise tonight to speak on Sue Kedgley’s Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. Every person in this House who votes against this bill is voting in favour of animal cruelty. This bill is about 122 people and whether they have a conscience—that is what this bill is about. This is about whether 122 people will vote for animal cruelty or against animal cruelty. 
Shane Ardern 
: You’d starve thousands of animals to death and not think anything about it. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: So when Mr Shane Ardern shouts out across the House and decides that he will be voting against this bill he is voting for animal cruelty. When Mr Shane Ardern and his friends in the National Party and the ACT Party vote against this bill they are voting to protect the most savage farmers in New Zealand. When he votes against this bill he is voting to protect the most savage practices that exist in this country. When every single member of the ACT Party and the National Party look in the mirror after tonight those members will know that they have voted to protect the worst farming practices in New Zealand. Every single individual member of the National Party and the ACT Party will have voted to protect the worst and most savage practices and the worst treatment of pigs and hens in our country. 
We have heard some loud noises from National members. We have even heard that apparently the Prime Minister finds sow crates unacceptable. Yet here we are tonight with an opportunity to put in place some basic protections for animals in New Zealand and the National Party and the ACT Party are telling us that they will vote for animal cruelty. Every single member of the National Party and the ACT Party in this House who votes against this bill is voting for animal cruelty and those members will have to look at themselves in the mirror after they vote to protect animal cruelty in New Zealand. Instead of voting to support the best farmers and instead of raising the bar to the position of even the average farmer they are keeping the bar at the very lowest level in order to protect the worst farmers and the worst farming practices. Instead of saying that there are lots of great farmers in our country who have great animal practices and instead of setting the standard to support those farmers those members are undermining the best farmers who invest in the best practices. Those practices might cost a little bit more money— 
Shane Ardern 
: I doubt whether they do. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: —because those farmers have to compete against the worst farmers whom Shane Ardern is protecting by voting against this bill and voting in favour of animal cruelty in Aotearoa New Zealand. That is what the member is doing when he votes against this bill. When every member of the National Party and the ACT Party vote against this bill they are voting to protect the cruellest farming practices in our country. 
It does not have to be like this. New Zealand has moved on. Even though the National Party and the ACT Party do not understand this people in New Zealand want to protect animals. There is a fundamental raising of ethical standards in our country. People are moving to protect the rights of animals. We all remember the basic idea that a society will be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable. The animals in our country are amongst the most vulnerable. Whole bunches of chickens are shoved together in cages. Sows are kept in crates. Those animals are confined for long periods in incredibly distressing circumstances. 
I ask all members of the National Party and the ACT Party how they can listen to their conscience and vote to protect the farmers who are carrying out the very worst practices and vote against the farmers who have high practices who are trying to improve the circumstances of animals in our country through their good practices but who are being undercut by the bad farmers. If the National Party and the ACT Party vote against this bill tonight they are setting the regulation at the very lowest level in order to protect the worst farmers from decent regulations instead of rewarding the good farmers who are actually doing the right thing. 
It does not have to be like this. We are 122 people sitting in this place tonight. We can change our votes. At the end of the day this vote is as much about the 122 people in this House as it is about anything else. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I start by acknowledging as Phil Twyford did the members of Save Animals from Exploitation the SPCA and all the hundreds of New Zealanders who took the trouble to contact MPs to email MPs and to write to MPs pleading with them to support the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill. They will be desperately disappointed that Government members who claim to support animal welfare will tonight be voting against this bill. 
I predicted that feeble excuses would be trotted out tonight to try to justify the fact that Government members are voting for the vested interests that want to keep animals in cages and not voting for the animals. But I did not realise how feeble the excuses would be. I was astonished to hear for example that one of the reasons was that the Minister would have powers under this bill to override the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. The Minister of Agriculture has spent the last 2 years complaining that he does not have the power to change the pig code that it is up to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and that there is nothing he can do as he does not have the powers. So we have come up with this bill and we have given him the powers to amend the Act. But he says he is opposing this bill because it would give him the powers to amend the pig code which is what every New Zealander wants the Minister to do. How feeble is that? 
There was another feeble excuse; I think it was left to poor Dr Jackie Blue. I know that in her heart of hearts she wants to get rid of sow crates. She felt sick in her stomach having to stand up and make these feeble excuses. In fact we now know why National was so adamantly opposed to allowing a conscience vote on this bill. Government members knew that if a conscience vote was held on this bill every member of this Parliament apart from the few who are completely beholden to vested interests would vote for it. They would vote to support the animals and not to support the vested interests. The Government was desperate not to allow a conscience vote on this bill which is all about conscience issues and ethical and moral issues because it knew that its members would support it instead of supporting the vested interests namely the Pork Industry Board and the Poultry Board which do not want this bill. 
Colin King gave another feeble excuse. He said we should leave it to the experts and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee to decide what is best. I can tell members that New Zealanders are sick of listening to the so-called experts. As my colleague said the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and others are cruelty experts—experts in justifying continued animal cruelty. New Zealanders are sick of listening to those officials. They want this Parliament to act to end animal cruelty. 
My bill gives Parliament the opportunity to do this. It gives Parliament the opportunity to phase out sow crates and to respond to public opinion. Members of the public will be shocked to learn that National and the ACT Party have opposed this bill. I tell those members not to come up with their weasel words about how they support animal welfare and how they have increased the budget. This bill is the litmus test of whether members of this Parliament support an end to animal cruelty whether they support animals or whether they support the vested interests. Frankly it is a travesty and I hope that the MPs who vote against this bill can live with their conscience. I hope that members of the public who have implored MPs to vote for this bill will remember the actions of members tonight when it comes to the next election. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand Labour 39; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1; Independent: Carter. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The result corrected after orignally being announced as Ayes 57 Noes 62. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave under Standing Order 140 to have a personal vote following a party vote. The Standing Orders as you will know specify that a personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one—which I am doing—and if the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote was close and that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result. I believe that if a personal vote was held it would make a very material difference to the vote and I therefore request under Standing Order 140 that a personal vote be held. 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Ever since that Standing Order was brought to the House it has been well known that there has to be very clear evidence to the Speaker that there is some issue around the votes cast by the whips before the Speaker would consider having a personal vote. There is no clear evidence that there would be any change if a personal vote was held. Speakers have ruled on this on quite a number of occasions while I have been here over those years. I suggest that given that there is no evidence there is no reason for you to declare a personal vote. 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I do not need any more assistance on this. The Hon John Carter has set out the position very clearly. The whips have authority to cast votes on behalf of the parties. I accept as I and the House must always accept the honesty and integrity of the whips. The whips have cast their votes. The vote stands and in my opinion the request does not meet the test on two counts: firstly the vote was not particularly close; and secondly no material reason has been given to show that there would be any difference. The vote stands and we will now call on the next order of the day. 
Sittings of the House 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 Given that the House has made progress and in order for the next member speaking to complete her speech all in one hit so to speak I seek leave for the House to now rise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 9.58 p.m.