Volume 689 Week 40 - Wednesday 17 April 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 689 Week 40 - Wednesday 17 April 2013[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9429. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 17 April 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Sittings of the HouseHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House): In accordance with discussions at the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to suspend for the dinner break following the third reading of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill and for the House to suspend until 9 a.m. on Thursday 18 April following the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Questions to MinistersCost of Living—Economic Policy and Reports1.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to theMinister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to keep down the cost of living for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has taken a number of steps and assisted by general economic conditions is helping to keep interest rates at 50-year lows and annual inflation at around 1 percent. The steps the Government has taken are to maintain a track to surplus which will take the pressure off interest rates and reduce inflation pressures; responsible and orthodox monetary policy is helping keep inflation low; increased competition in the electricity industry has halved the 8 percent annual increase in electricity prices in the 9 years up to 2008; cutting red tape and increasing flexibility for businesses means better prices for customers; and investing in infrastructure and delivering better public services helps the economy become more competitive.Maggie Barry: What recent reports has he received on the cost of living?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One measure of the cost of living is the Consumers Price Index. Statistics New Zealand today reports that consumer prices rose by 0.4 percent in the March quarter and annual inflation—that is the inflation for the year up to the end of March—was 0.9 percent. This means that annual inflation has now been running at 1 percent or less for four quarters. This is well down on inflation of more than 5 percent per annum which was the rate when the Government took office in late 2008. The impact of low inflation on interest rates means that a family with a $200000 mortgage is around $200 a week better off in interest payments compared with late 2008.Maggie Barry: What reports has he received on recent food prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The food price index came out last week for March. Of course food prices fluctuate often for seasonal reasons as much as for cost and price inflation reasons. This report showed that food prices fell in the month of March. Food prices for the year to March which encompasses the whole seasonal cycle fell by 0.4 percent—that is on average food prices for the year to March went down.Maggie Barry: How do these moderate cost of living increases compare with increases in real after-tax wages?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well these moderate increases and of course for some classes of expenditure such as food reductions in the cost of living compare quite favourably with wage increases in the last 5 years. Since September 2008 gross wageshave increased by 14 percent. After tax they have increased by 22 percent. Inflation has been 9 percent which means that real after-tax wages have increased by 12 percent since September 2008. In the 9 years up to September 2008 after-tax wages increased by only 4 percent.David Shearer: Is it correct that power prices went up by 5.2 percent to 31 March which is nearly six times the rate of inflation? Can he confirm that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will take the member at his word. That price increase is included in the collective CPI which went up by 0.9 percent for the year. So some households would have paid more for electricity and they paid less for food; on balance their cost of living went up by 0.9 percent. But all households are grateful the Labour Government is no longer in charge—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is quite a sufficient answer thank you.Sue Moroney: Well can he explain then how keeping ACC levies artificially high keeps down the cost of living for New Zealanders when the regulatory impact statement on this decision shows that the Government’s refusal to lower levies as recommended by ACC and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is costing workers and employers up to $2 billion more a year than what is needed to cover the cost of injuries?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a bit rich coming from the party that expanded entitlement to ACC without increasing the levies but I agree with the member. If we can continue to reduce ACC levies it will reduce the cost of living. Two years ago we did decrease those levies by $600 million per year and we are looking at every opportunity to decrease them further.Iain Lees-Galloway: How does increasing fuel taxes by 9c a litre keep the cost of living down especially given that transport officials advised the Government that an increase of that magnitude would raise nearly $20 billion more than what is required to carry out their road-building programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well I do not agree at all with the member’s last assertion. In fact the fuel tax is calibrated to the roading investment programme in a highly transparent manner. That fuel tax increase is part of the collective measure of price increases the CPI which shows that over the last year the cost of living went up by 1 percent. I hope Labour keeps going on about this issue because the more it complains about the rise in the cost of living the lower it seems to be.Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table two tables from a briefing received by the Minister of Transport from the ministry that indicate that fuel excise taxes of 9c a litre will generate nearly $20 billion more than required.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two tables. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. They can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Prime Minister—Statements on Power Prices and Government Communications Security Bureau2.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “We’ve done as good a job as we can in the conditions we’ve got to try and help low-income New Zealanders.”; if so does he think power bills going up by six times the rate of inflation will help low-income families?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I think it is worth recalling the track record of this Government which has seen power prices go up by about 20 percent in our time in office compared with the 72 percent increase under Labour. But I have no doubt that the little Labour elves will be trying to dream something up to back up their—David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He did answer the question when he said yes. I do not think he needed to go on.Mr SPEAKER: He did and I certainly agree with that and on that basis we will call a supplementary question.David Shearer: Given that he has been in power now for more than 4½ years can he guarantee to consumers that electricity prices will not increase further as a result of the asset sales programme given that power prices have gone up by six times more than inflation?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe that the mixed-ownership model programme will have any influence on the prices that consumers pay. It is actually not true that State-owned enterprises offer cheaper prices than private companies. The most recent information I have shows that Contact Energy the largest privately owned company has the lowest national weighted average price for electricity of any retailer.David Shearer: Given that electricity prices increased more rapidly than in our competitor countries over the last 4 years at a time when electricity demand is flat does he think the electricity market is working for the benefit of hard-working New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is certainly working a lot better than it was. Let us face facts. Prices went up by 72 percent under Labour. This Government has actually reformed the electricity sector with some very significant moves including closing Whirinaki and including virtual swaps that have taken place. The truth is that on Monday to get in the paper David Shearer said he would keep power prices down. He has got no clue how to do that. The little Labour elves are trying to work out how to make that happen and it will not.David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The only person without a clue as we found out yesterday is the Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. It is not a point of order but I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.David Shearer: Has his Minister for Social Development told him that requests to Work and Income for grants to pay for electricity and for gas tripled in the 2-year period; if so does he intend to take any action to bring down electricity prices for ordinary hard-working New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the Government has taken action and that is why the rate of power increases is going up slower under a National Government than under a Labour Government. Secondly the Government in very difficult economic times has provided tremendous support for at-risk New Zealanders and will continue to do so.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Twenty-four hours after first being asked how many phone calls he made to Ian Fletcher prior to his appointment as the Government Communications Security Bureau head what is his answer?Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister as far as it relates to the primary question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The same answer I gave yesterday: I do not have that information with me. If the member wants to put it down in writing my office will provide it to him.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Any Prime Minister would realise after yesterday’s answer that that was never going to be satisfactory.Twenty-four hours later he turns up here and he does not know the answer to a very critically serious question. That is just a cover-up.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty with the situation here is that it was a very general primary question. Many Speakers have ruled that it is inappropriate to demand an exacting answer to a supplementary question that follows a very general primary question. The Prime Minister has given you what I think is a satisfactory course of action—for you to put down a more specific question at the next question time.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The difference between one and two which is the question here I think—whether there was one phone call made to Mr Fletcher by the Prime Minister or two—is not really exacting. I mean it is 100 percent different. Anyone would remember whether they made one or two phone calls.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the comment the member is making. It is for the Prime Minister to determine how he has decided to answer the question and he has answered it in the way that he has. That has addressed the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why does the Prime Minister not treat this House seriously and get his staff to trawl through his phone records for the period prior to Mr Ian Fletcher’s appointment and come to this House and answer frankly openly and properly the way former Prime Ministers have done?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member has two options: put it down as a primary question and I will give him the answer or put it down in writing and my office will give him the answer.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given his previous statements about intelligence matters did the SIS tell him about the residency application of a man by the name of Kim Vestor when he met with them on 12 October 2010 one day before the SIS strangely blocked the man’s application?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table an affidavit of Grant Kenneth Wormald for first defendant in relation to minutes 28 September 2012 in the Kim Dotcom case.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that affidavit. Is there any objection? Is it a matter that has been before the courts and then been released by the courts or does it breach any—Grant Robertson: Released.Mr SPEAKER: It has been released I am assured. I therefore put the leave. Leave is sought to table that affidavit. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Resource Management Act—Business Investment and Proposed Reforms3.AARON GILMORE (National) to theMinister for the Environment: What recent reports has she seen on the impact of the Resource Management Act 1991 on business investment in New Zealand?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Earlier this week Statistics New Zealand published its 2012 Business Operations Survey. It shows that in the last 2 years hundreds of New Zealand businesses have cancelled projects worth potentially $800 million to our economy due mostly not to the standards that they have to meet but to the uncertainty and the long time frames in the Act. It also shows that of the businesses that identified the Resource Management Act as a constraint 87 percent of these were small and medium enterprises showing that it is our mum and dadcompanies that bear the brunt of these problems. More than half of the cancelled projects were cancelled in the pre-application stage or well before even receiving a decision.Aaron Gilmore: Why should we be concerned about the impact of the Resource Management Act on investment?Hon AMY ADAMS: The uncertainty within the Resource Management Act means businesses and developers are reluctant to invest in projects to extend and expand their operations and are potentially scaling back projects that might otherwise have been more ambitious. The impacts of this are real. The delays and uncertainties mean new jobs are not being created houses are more expensive and communities have no idea what to expect in their neighbourhoods. Unnecessary costs are borne by every single New Zealander in one way or another.Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Would the Minister agree with Whanganui iwi that “the voice of the environment is being overtaken by the economy” in her Resource Management Act reforms; if not why not?Hon AMY ADAMS: No I do not agree with that statement. The greatest gains for business are very clearly those that come from creating more certainty and making the processes easier to comply with. It is not about lowering standards; it is about having clearer rules about what you can do and where you can do it. If this House is genuinely interested in creating jobs and creating opportunities then I am hopeful that it will back me in making proposals that make it easier for new jobs to be created for new opportunities to be created and for New Zealanders to get ahead.Aaron Gilmore: How will the Government’s proposed reforms to the Resource Management Act led by that Minister help to increase investment?Hon AMY ADAMS: With a lack of certainty around outcomes and time frames being a key barrier to investment we are proposing a number of reforms to the Resource Management Act to address these issues—for example clearer national guidance reducing time frames for processing consents and collaborative planning to create more robust solutions. Providing that sort of greater certainty will lead to more jobs and more affordable housing for New Zealanders.Wanganui Collegiate School—Integration4.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement in relation to Cabinet’s decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate that it was a very difficult decision but he is sure it was the right thing to do; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): It is important to note that at the end of the day it was the Minister of Education’s decision to integrate Wanganui Collegiate School not Cabinet’s. But the Cabinet Manual is clear that significant statutory decisions must be discussed at Cabinet. This was a very difficult issue as the Minister herself has acknowledged and Ministers had a range of views on it. We discussed it at length after which the Minister of Education decided to integrate the school. I do think that that was the right thing to do because Wanganui Collegiate School has been a high performing school it has a longstanding history the community support for it is very high in Wanganui and it plays an important role in the community.Metiria Turei: In 2010 did the Prime Minister have any discussions including dinners with the proprietor with members of Wanganui Collegiate School’s Board of Trustees or with its lobbyist Saunders Unsworth about its intention to apply to integrate the school; if so when and with whom?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have those details with me. I would have to ask my office. I will put it down in writing if you are prepared to as well.Metiria Turei: What instructions or encouragement did the Prime Minister give to the education Minister to start negotiations with Wanganui Collegiate School despite the advice of ministry officials not to because it would be a $3 million a year waste of money?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It was a longstanding issue so I cannot hope to document all the discussions that took place but what I can say is that the situation was looked at on its merits. I could see the argument from both sides but I believe the Minister made the right decision in integrating the school.Metiria Turei: Why did the Prime Minister seek an update on the proposal to integrate as noted by the then education Minister Anne Tolley on the front of an August 2010 briefing paper where she wrote “Send copy of this to PM please; he has asked for an update.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Joined-up Government! The member may well be aware that the school was in significant financial difficulty. For a long period of time when Anne Tolley was the Minister of Education there were instances where the Government had to make a rapid decision as to whether to provide some support to the school to bridge it while there was a view being taken of whether it could integrate it or not. Obviously I was interested in what was going on there.Metiria Turei: Did the Prime Minister similarly ask for or request individual updates on Ōuruhia Model School as it began discussions on closures last year or perhaps Pōtaka School in Gisborne which is still waiting for news on its future; if not why did he single out Wanganui Collegiate School for his very special attention?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of broader schools there are substantial discussions that take place between my office—and if you want to ask the current Minister of Education you know I have taken an active interest in what has been happening in terms of school closures in Christchurch and the impact on those committees. In relation to Wanganui Collegiate School I go back to what I said earlier. The school was in significant financial difficulty. The Government was forced to make a decision at the last minute as to whether it would provide some support for the school. We did that on a number of occasions and we did that until a decision could be made about whether the school would be integrated or not.Metiria Turei: Did Cabinet defy the advice of the education Minister that integration would be a $3 million a year waste of money and bail out Wanganui Collegiate School because the Prime Minister is prepared to bend the rules for elite schools for wealthy kids?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No we do listen to officials and it is no secret that the Ministry of Education thought we should decline the application. The Minister has considered a wide range of issues and in the end the Minister of Education made the decision to integrate the school.Chris Hipkins: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that there will be no school closures or mergers in Wanganui or citing excess capacity within the State school system; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is ultimately a matter for the Minister of Education not for me.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a 25 August 2010 briefing from the ministry to the Minister that includes a handwritten note from Minister Anne Tolley which says: “Send copy of this to PM please; he has asked for an update.”Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that briefing. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a document dated 4 April 2011 a briefing from the ministry to the education Minister recommending decline of integration on the basis of increased State costs and risk of school closures in Wanganui.Mr SPEAKER: That is quite a sufficient explanation. Leave is sought to table that briefing to the Minister dated 4 April 2011. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hospitals—Catering Services and Meals on Wheels5.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Is he confident that the Government’s initiative to provide “Better Sooner More Convenient” health care is meeting his expectations; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes but there is always room for improvement and I dare say it is possible we could get an example of that in the next minute. It is important to understand that despite tight times this Government has invested an extra $2 billion into public health services including achieving the third-highest percentage increase of developed nations in the OECD’s latest report.Hon Annette King: What is the basis for the claim that he made that more than $10 million per year will be saved through changes to hospital food provision when most district health boards have made it clear that like the Prime Minister they have no clue how the savings have been estimated and the Audit Office yesterday reported that Health Benefits Ltd needs to improve its transparency of reported savings?Hon TONY RYALL: That advice comes from the Health Benefits Ltd information that has been provided—information that makes it clear that the claim in the House last week that 50 hospital kitchens would close was untrue and similarly the claim that 1300 people would lose their jobs was also untrue.Hon Annette King: Is he aware that Meals on Wheels are also included in the contract and that the meals are to be plated frozen and stored at two production plants before being transported and stored at a regional distribution hub then sent to a hospital kitchen to be reheated before being delivered by volunteers to the clients and how will this provision reduce costs and improve quality of food for those who receive it and pay for it?Hon TONY RYALL: I think the member is jumping to assumptions like she did last week. What we know is that the proposal at the moment sees 65 percent of the food cooked on site which is the complete opposite of what the member told the House only a week ago.Hon Annette King: Why did he tell the public that the contract to provide hospital food from two production sites as set out on page 33 of the Health Benefits Ltd document was “in its early stages” when Health Benefits Ltd has already shoulder-tapped the provider which is already inspecting hospital kitchens and staff have already heard from him last week that “Some people may lose their job”?Hon TONY RYALL: Because clearly it has not even moved to the formal business case process for consideration by district health boards. Let us be quite frank here: 50 hospital kitchens are not going to close as Mrs King claims; 1300 people are not going to lose their jobs as Mrs King claimed; and all the food is not being cooked at two production centres as Mrs King claimed. I think the biggest apology that needs to come from this Chamber today is for the fact that Mrs King told so many stories last week.Hon Annette King: Talking of stories when did Health Benefits Ltd advise him that the contract to provide hospital food from two production sites which he denied last week in a cook-chill style—airline provision of food with food being able to be kept inthe fridge for up to 7 days before being fed to patients—could “lead to negative publicity that could prove harmful for the Minister” as set out on page 52 of the Health Benefits Ltd document if you want a few facts?Hon TONY RYALL: I have been kept regularly informed by Health Benefits Ltd of its activities. I would have to say this to New Zealanders. The No. 1 priority in all of this is to maintain and improve the quality of food nutrition in New Zealand. That is why Health Benefits Ltd has a group of expert nutritionists working with it in developing this proposal. The public of New Zealand were misled last week when Mrs King told them that 50 hospitals would close and 1300 people would lose their jobs and when she said that everything would be served to them frozen. What we know is that at least two-thirds will be cooked on site. That is quite a different story from what Mrs King misled them on last week. The No. 1 priority though is better nutrition for New Zealanders in hospitals.Hon Annette King: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Hon Annette King and it will be heard in silence.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table page 58 of the Health Benefits Ltd report showing that all Meals on Wheels will be produced in a production plant and that they will then go to regional distribution hubs. They will then go to hospital receiving kitchens—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That document has been sufficiently described to the House. Leave is sought to table page 58. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It will be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Heart Disease—Angiograms6.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to theMinister of Health: What progress is the Government making on improving access to angiograms for patients with severe chest pain?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Waiting times for tests and hospital stays have been reduced for patients in the central North Island with severe chest pain. Eighteen months ago in the central North Island only a third of the people were receiving an angiogram at Waikato Hospital within 72 hours of presenting with serious chest pain—one of the lowest intervention rates in the country. As a result of a major project across the five district health boards the number of patients regularly receiving an angiogram within the 3 days is now over 70 percent.Scott Simpson: What measures are Midland district health boards taking to perform more angiograms?Hon TONY RYALL: The improvement in angiograms and access to better heart care for patients in the Midland region is a result of a project of the National Cardiac Clinical Network and the five Midland district health boards. The Midland Acute Coronary Syndrome project assures that at least 70 percent of patients who have serious heart symptoms undergo their angiogram within 3 days. Previously and for many years before then many people would wait in regional hospitals for an extensive period of time before they were referred to Waikato Hospital. We have now got up to 70 percent getting those angiograms within 3 days. There have been a lot of very innovative changes in clinical practice—such as preparation for tests while awaiting hospital transfer and the establishment of a 10-bed facility at Waikato Hospital’s Hilda Ross House to accommodate stable heart patients—that have helped to free up beds and achieve faster better care for patients in that region.Question No. 5 to MinisterHon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai): I seek leave to table page 33 of the Health Benefits Ltd report which says that there will be two production plants for the production of food—something that the Minister denied last week.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular page of the document. Is there any objection? There is objection.New Zealand Defence Force—Potential Cuts and Staffing Issues7.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to theMinister of Defence: Will he rule out further cuts to personnel numbers in the New Zealand Defence Force and cuts to the inshore patrol vessel fleet; if not what cuts are being considered?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): There are no plans to reduce the personnel numbers in the New Zealand Defence Force and no plans to reduce the number of inshore patrol vessels. Furthermore no cuts to capability are being considered.Hon Phil Goff: If there are no plans to cut the inshore patrol vessels why did the Chief of Defence Force Rhys Jones say on Sunday that reducing the inshore patrol vessel fleet was an option; and was that because there will be further cost-cutting or was it because he simply cannot put all the ships to sea because he does not have the trained personnel to staff them and the Aussies want their seconded sailors back?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There are a number of limbs to that question. The first thing is that the Chief of Defence Force’s remarks were taken out of context. He was talking about the long-term view out to 2035. As regards putting ships to sea both frigates are at sea and of the inshore patrol vessels three of the four are ready to deploy and the two offshore patrol vessels are at sea. If that member thinks that there are too many inshore patrol vessels I would remind him that he was the one who bought them.Hon Phil Goff: Just so that we can get it clearly on the House’s record will the Minister categorically rule out any further cuts in Defence Force numbers after the reduction that he made of more than a thousand in the Defence Force last year?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Numbers go up and down but the numbers where they are at the moment are about right. We are looking at a long-term regular Defence Force of 8500 to 9000 which is the range currently and there are no plans to reduce that.Hon Phil Goff: When the Minister was warned in the latest Defence Force Ongoing Attitude Survey not yet made public that “the combination of current levels of morale and organisational commitment poses potential risk to individual performance and attrition” why does he continue to deny that these factors could have contributed to the catalogue of errors that led to the death of Private Michael Ross?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well we have talked about this previously and I categorically deny that morale issues are anything to do with what was a very tragic accident. I would also go on to say that 77 percent of people across the Defence Force rate morale in the workplace as satisfactory or better and 70 percent rate their own morale as satisfactory or better—a lot better than I would suggest you would find in the Labour caucus right now.Hon Phil Goff: When there is so much emphasis on cost saving and cost cutting in the New Zealand Defence Force why is the Defence Force continuing to pay Commodore Kevin Keat $225000 a year when he was suspended months ago and it would take the Minister 10 minutes to find out whether he did fraudulently fill out the high-level security vetting form? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member asked a supplementary question. I certainly want to hear the answer even if the member himself does not.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was responding to an interjection from the Minister of Justice as you yourself heard and your response was unbalanced.Mr SPEAKER: Order! There were too many interjections from around the House including not only the member but other members of his caucus. Let us now hear the answer. I think that is a reasonable point Mr Goff has made.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Your response again failed to note that Judith Collins set off those interjections.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not note that but where I noted the loudest interjection coming from was the member who has just raised the point of order. I am going to ask the member the Hon Phil Goff to ask his question because we now have discontinuity.Hon Phil Goff: When there is so much being said about cost cutting and cost saving in the New Zealand Defence Force why is the New Zealand Defence Force continuing to pay Commodore Kevin Keat $225000 a year when he was suspended months ago and it would take the Minister 10 minutes to find out whether or not he inaccurately and falsely filled out his high-level security vetting form?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That member seems to be calling for me to override a legal process. Mr Keat deserves the benefit of natural justice. There is a process to follow there are legal issues and that member knows very well that it has to follow the prescribed process. I would challenge him: if he wants to go outside the Chamber and say that Mr Keat is guilty and should be sacked he should have the guts to do that.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think if you analyse pretty simply that last remark that was grossly out of order to accuse a member of not having guts. There are many many precedents on that and Speakers have thrown members out for that. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I think that on balance that is an absolutely fair point of order and I ask the Minister to rise and withdraw the last part of his answer.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw and apologise for that last part.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As you were seeking to correct the offence Mr Tau Henare decided to add to it by shouting out words that confirmed that he believed it was true. He should be asked to apologise wash his mouth out and leave the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If Mr Tau Henare said that I ask him to stand withdraw and apologise as well.Hon Tau Henare: I apologise.Mr SPEAKER: And withdraw.Hon Tau Henare: And I withdraw.Budget 2013—Tourism New Zealand and Department of Conservation8.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister of Tourism: Will any of the extra $158 million for tourism in Budget 2013 be spent on tourism marketing and promotion for the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign; if so how much?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Minister of Tourism): A significant portion of the new funding will likely go to Tourism New Zealand. “100% Pure New Zealand” has been the core of its marketing campaign since 1999 and will likely continue to be so. The member will have to wait for the Budget announcements though for more details.Eugenie Sage: When his Government cut Department of Conservation funding by $54 million in 2009 and by another $8.7 million this year and next year was his plan toaddress the growing gap between our clean green marketing image and the reality to spend more on advertising?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I mean firstly I think it is important to note that “100% Pure New Zealand” is not an environmental claim and never has been; it is a marketing slogan. Secondly if I were to reflect on the information that we have from visitors in relation to their satisfaction overall visitor satisfaction with the environment is ranked nine out of 10.Eugenie Sage: Why is he supporting funding to promote “100% Pure New Zealand” and not also supporting more funding for the Department of Conservation to help give integrity to that brand and to help protect and maintain the assets on which the tourism industry depends and which draw visitors to New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I do not agree with the premise of the question. I mean the Department of Conservation does have integrity and does do a very good job of supporting New Zealand for tourists who want to come and visit it from overseas.Eugenie Sage: Has the Minister advocated for more funding for conservation to help make the New Zealand brand real or is he happy to promote New Zealand as a destination to see more polluted rivers oil slicks from risky oil drilling and more big mines on conservation land like this one in Victoria Conservation Park?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Again I just do not agree with the statements that the member is making. If we just look at our 20-year plan in terms of rivers that may be unfit for swimming we are going to spend nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer and ratepayer money cleaning up those rivers and lakes. What I might add is that is five times more than was spent by the previous Government.Power Prices—Increase9.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to theMinister of Consumer Affairs: Has he seen any reports that New Zealand power prices have increased at twice the rate of most other countries?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Consumer Affairs): I have seen a number of reports on power prices including reports that New Zealand consumers are increasingly taking advantage of greater choice and competition and are switching companies for a better deal and that under a National Government consumers are far better off than the 72 percent or 8 percent per annum increase in power prices they endured under the previous Labour Government which may well have been twice the rate of other countries.Andrew Williams: What steps is the Government taking to address the widespread concern with rapidly escalating power prices as is reported in theNew Zealand Listenerthis week?Hon CRAIG FOSS: As far as it is under my portfolio of consumer affairs most of that is actually a question to the Minister of Energy and Resources. Under the Powerswitch programme 70000 New Zealanders have had the opportunity to switch power companies power providers over the last 2 years. That has been a very very successful programme as well as increasing after-tax incomes for all New Zealanders and those on fixed incomes to help them pay for their power and their cost of living.Andrew Williams: Given that power companies are making record profits despite falling demand for electricity why are power bills so high?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I thank the member for his support of the mixed-ownership model.Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask anything about the mixed-ownership model. That did not answer my question.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to put the question again please.Andrew Williams: Given that power companies are making record profits despite falling demand why are power bills so high?Hon CRAIG FOSS: A large proportion of the New Zealand electricity industry is currently owned by the Crown the State and under that model it has seen very increased prices particularly in the 9 years of the Labour Government and its 72 percent increase. That is one of the reasons.Andrew Williams: Will the Government assure the public that future electricity prices will not increase at a faster rate than the CPI; if not why not?Hon CRAIG FOSS: I note that the CPI today came out at 0.9 percent per annum and after-tax incomes are actually increasing under this National Government to help people afford their cost of living.Andrew Williams: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a simple yes or no answer that we required. He did not answer the question.Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot demand a simple yes or no answer but I accept the point that the question was not addressed adequately. Would the member please ask the question again.Andrew Williams: Will the Government assure the public that future electricity prices will not increase at a faster rate than the CPI; if not why not?Hon CRAIG FOSS: That question should be addressed to the Minister of Energy and Resources but I can assure him on recent track record that under the National Government power prices have increased by about half to a third of the rate under the previous Labour Government.Veterinarians—Rural Veterinary Bonding Scheme10.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to theMinister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on efforts made to increase veterinarians in rural New Zealand?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): Yesterday I welcomed 30 new vets into the 2013 intake of the rural veterinary bonding scheme. The scheme is now in its fifth year and so far 136 new vets have joined with an outstanding retention rate of 96 percent.Ian McKelvie: Why is the Government investing in keeping vets in rural New Zealand?Hon NATHAN GUY: Livestock farming is the engine room of New Zealand’s economy and a big part of rural communities. Tackling the shortage of rural vets is important for animal health and for realising the Government’s ambitious goal of doubling primary sector exports by 2025. For farmers it means a sustainable cost-effective and responsive rural veterinary workforce.Human Rights West Papua—Police Training Programme11.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to theMinister of Foreign Affairs: Will New Zealand journalists be able to visit and monitor the New Zealand Police training programme in West Papua when it recommences in September 2013 under an aid allocation of US $2 million; if not why not?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): The member is ahead of herself. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has received no advice on the design timing and funding of the project. There will be an announcement when a decision on the proposed project is made. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade itself monitors aid projects in a stringent way. There is no project yet for journalists to consider visiting.Catherine Delahunty: Will he support journalists and a parliamentary delegation to visit West Papua and monitor the effectiveness of the proposal announced yesterday of the New Zealand Police training programme and if yes how will he support that?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister has received no advice on the design timing and funding of the project. There will be an announcement when a decision on the proposed project is made. There is no project yet for journalists to consider visiting.Catherine Delahunty: After the ambassador’s announcement yesterday that the project is starting in September 2013 will this project include New Zealand Police training the West Papuan police to stop violently assaulting people who are alleged to have committed political crime such as raising the Morning Star flag?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The media reporting in theJakarta Post which I presume the member is referring to is wrong. The Minister has received no advice on the design timing and funding of the project. There will be an announcement when a decision is made. There is no project yet for journalists to consider visiting. What could be simpler than that?Catherine Delahunty: Keeping it simple will he raise the issue of military and police violence against West Papuans at the Pacific parliamentarians’ conference in Wellington this week?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: New Zealand continues to raise the situation in partnership with the Indonesian Government bilaterally and in multilateral fora including at the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review of Indonesia.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer but my question was very specific: will he raise this issue at the conference in Wellington this week the Pacific parliamentarians’ conference?Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may like to add to that but my interpretation was there is a multinational forum and they continue to raise the issue. But if the Minister wanted to add to that it would be helpful.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I have said the Minister continues to raise these issues in various multilateral fora. Whether it will be raised by the Minister at the conference to which the member refers I cannot say.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister for that.Government Communications Security Bureau—Legislative Reform and Legality of Activities12.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on 24 September 2012 in relation to the work of the GCSB “I think you can take confidence in the fact that to the best of my knowledge I’ve never been informed or ever had reason to believe there’s ever been an error before”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Grant Robertson: Why did he not mention at his media conference on 24 September that there were unresolved issues about possible spying as he was told in July 2012 by Ian Fletcher the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the context of the statement I made was in the context of illegal spying. It was correct then and it remains correct now.Grant Robertson: Did he say to the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau Ian Fletcher in July 2012 that he regarded the possibility of unlawful spying as a serious situation and that it needed to be resolved as he said on Radio New Zealand this week?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have said before in July when the matter was raised with me by Ian Fletcher I did say to him it was a very serious matter and that he needed to get a resolution to that issue. I would make the point that at no point did the inspector-general actually raise the issue with me; neither did he suggest to the agencies they should cease operations.Grant Robertson: If it was such a serious situation why when he was asked six times at the media conference on 24 September as to whether he had ever had any concerns about unlawful spying did he not mention that this was flagged to him by the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau in July 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the reason I gave—that the press conference was in relation to illegal spying. What is true is that by that point we had identified that there had been illegal spying in the case of Mr Dotcom. Also correct are all of the other statements I made that there was no other illegal spying nor are we currently aware of other illegal spying. It is very important to understand that the inspector-general is considering those matters at the moment. They are unresolved.Louise Upston: Can the Prime Minister tell the House how the Government plans to strengthen oversight of our intelligence agencies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can. The Government is proposing to significantly strengthen the oversight of our intelligence agencies. Among the changes we intend to make are the following: increasing the resourcing and staffing of the inspector-general’s office including creating a new role of Deputy Inspector-General; explicitly expanding the inspector-general’s programme of making the office work more transparent; removing the requirement that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should be a retired High Court judge—this will increase the pool of people who can do the job—and making the inspector-general’s office more proactive by increasing the requirements of the office and moving it a step forward from the existing review-focused work programme. These are all important changes that we need to make as we move towards rebuilding public confidence in the Government Communications Security Bureau. I would have thought they would be worth supporting by the Labour Party.Grant Robertson: How is it as he has said “a prudent course of action” to ignore what he said was a serious situation of New Zealanders potentially being illegally spied upon do nothing about that and fail to mention it when asked direct questions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is incorrect. For a start-off these activities had been undertaken for a very long period of time. Secondly—[Interruption] Yes potentially while Mr Robertson was in the Prime Minister’s office. Secondly a flag was raised and work was being undertaken. I made it clear to the director that he needed to keep me informed of that. I go back to this fundamental point: at no point did the inspector-general the person who was doing the thinking in this area raise the issue with me; neither did he suggest to the agencies they should cease operations.Louise Upston: Can the Prime Minister outline for the House why other agencies like the Police the SIS and the New Zealand Defence Force need assistance from the Government Communications Security Bureau?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can. The bureau has unique skills and capabilities that the other agencies do not have. Those agencies need to access these high-quality skills and capabilities for a variety of reasons all of which are vital. At this time assistance to the Police and the SIS in relation to New Zealanders remains halted. Some assistance to other agencies has resumed and only where the Crown Law Office has advised it is lawful to do so. This includes assistance to the New Zealand Defence Force. Government Communications Security Bureau support may contribute to non-combative evacuation operations humanitarian aid disaster relief and monitoring ofillegal activities throughout New Zealand’s search and rescue areas. These activities are important examples of the role the bureau plays. I would have thought these would be the sorts of things that Labour would be interested in voting for.Grant Robertson: Why did he not tell the truth in September about what he knew about potentially unlawful—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way that question has been framed has clearly led to disorder. Would the member just rephrase the question without reference to a Minister telling the truth.Grant Robertson: Can he understand why New Zealanders do not believe him about the Government Communications Security Bureau saga when he did not tell the truth to them in September 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and given the forensic analysis that Mr Robertson goes through—they must be interesting the conversations he has with Mr Shearer about his forgetfulness about his bank—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: In July 2012 did Ian Fletcher raise with him a flag about possible unlawful spying and why when asked about that by the media with almost those exact words in September 2012 did he not mention Mr Fletcher raising that with him?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I feel that it is repetition but as I have said the statement was made in September about the context of illegal spying. It was correct then and it remains correct now. Those matters are unresolved. The inspector-general is looking at those issues but no decision has been made.General DebateHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. Today we have seen the Labour Party eternally in Opposition acting exactly like that—eternally in Opposition. Opportunities have been given to Labour to start to act like a Government but no it fails on every single opportunity.I want to talk today about something that should be of importance to all New Zealanders and that is the cost of living. Let me begin by acknowledging first that we live in the best little country in the world bar none—bar none. This has not come about by chance and it certainly has not come about because of any Labour Government that has ever been in office.What we should think about is that one of the best things that has happened as a result of our economic policies has been that interest rates are low. They are around half of what they were when Labour left office—when it was thrown out in 2008—when our economy was in recession when home interest rates were around 11 percent and when the cupboard not only was bare but had been mortgaged as well. Floating interest rates are now around half of that—around 5 to 6 percent; around half. For a family with a $200000 mortgage—and lots of families around New Zealand have that—that means $10000 after tax a year that they get to keep. That is a fantastic achievement and well done. And what did we see under Labour? Electricity prices rising by 72 percent.Hon Tony Ryall: How much?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: By 72 percent. But our economy is growing benefit numbers are dropping crime is down to the lowest level in 30 years and we have got a lot of very strong policies to keep this going.Actually today is a very important day because today is in fact the funeral of Baroness Margaret Thatcher. I think everybody knows that I am a big fan of hers. She was however a person of her time. She was a person of her time. She was influencedby social norms of the day. Looking back in hindsight you think that maybe there are a couple of things she did that you would not do. But she was always dead right on the economy and she was always dead right on democracy. She was asThe Economist has noted this week a freedom fighter—and she was.One of the things she said—this is a really good quote from her and I am sure that the Opposition wants to hear it—goes like this: “Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay—that ‘someone else’ is you. There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” Well that was true then and it is true today. Of course we are working within a budget and we have to be very very careful about what we do with other people’s money. But is it not great that we can today commemorate the passing of a fantastic woman Baroness Margaret Thatcher?I would like to celebrate all the other women in New Zealand who are doing so well. That is why I was so pleased to be able to appoint Dr Jackie Blue to the role of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner—very good Jackie. Jackie Blue would have to be one of the least partisan MPs in this House—the least partisan. In fact I have always said: “See I have appointed a lefty.” so there you go. Would it not be great in this Parliament if we could have all the women celebrating Jackie’s success in her appointment? Some of you have and I would like to thank all the MPs—male and female—who have come to support Jackie and to offer her their sincere congratulations.Jackie Blue is an outstanding New Zealander who has spent her life helping others helping others in a Parliament that is normally very divisive and actually trying to bring people together. She has been chair of three cross-party parliamentarian groups. All of them have been around disadvantaged people—women in particular—and that actually makes Jackie Blue a fantastic appointment. I am really proud of that and I have to say that the country’s gain is the National Party’s loss Jackie. I am very pleased to have been able to do that.I come back to my favourite topic—Baroness Margaret Thatcher. Let us think about a few more quotes for the Opposition members because they are not very well read. Here is another one: “Pennies don’t fall from heaven they have to be earned here on earth.”Hon SHANE JONES (Labour): Jackie Blue thank you for bringing Paul Quinn back and improving the intellectual capacity of the National Party. Up and down the country and around the rowdy halls and the lonely places formerly known as the Labour electorate committee of the National Party they are happy that Paul Quinn is going back into that side of the House. But they are disappointed that the former spokesperson who is soon to disappear on to something else did not go to see Mrs Thatcher and her family and compare handbags. I could imagine Gerry Brownlee not actually going and seeing Judith Collins going and actually celebrating the connection that she no doubt had with Baroness Thatcher—not intellect not forcefulness and not leadership but accoutrements such as handbags.I want to turn to the Prime Minister who is not unlike “The Fisherman of Parliament”. Like “The Fisherman of Parliament” he does not focus. Most fishermen focus on whoppers but when he tells one he pretends that it is a tiddler—a small lie a small untruth. But in actual fact up and down the country in families marae and businesses they know that this person this Prime Minister can no longer be trusted. It is an arcane area when you talk about spies police agencies etc. But when you consistently stand up in this House and your body language gives it away and your colleagues are starting to look down—even if it does cause my Radio Live colleagueJudith Collins to look up believing perhaps that she is the Baroness Thatcher of 2014. When you see that person looking down fudging cannot find the exact words you know the poll results in their own data collection are going only one way. They are going the way—not only down but also as Paul Quinn rises their fortunes slip. It could be that that is the final feature they have to offer given the poor performance.It is not unreasonable that the Prime Minister should take a delegation and be patriotic in Asia to drum up business but do not go there and declare war on North Korea. It is not unreasonable that the Prime Minister would want to shoulder-tap someone whom he may think is a reasonable applicant for a very important position but do not come to this House and hide that. Do not come to this House and conceal that and then get panicked into making a half-baked admission and then go overseas and pretend that neither he nor Steven Joyce knew anything about the leaks. Those are not the hallmarks of a Prime Minister.But anyway we have heard up and down the country the promise that the sale of these assets is going to improve the economy that energy prices will become less of a burden and that jobs will flow. I can tell you that up and down the country people loathe the idea of paying higher prices for power. People loathe the idea that foreigners are going to end up owning more of our assets as a direct consequence of that side of the House. Those members want only one thing. They want to hock off these assets reward a narrow caste of their fellow travellers and they do not give a hoot about the long-suffering garden-variety Kiwis who cannot afford property in Auckland cannot meet escalating medical-related costs and cannot find jobs.In the forestry sector 18000 jobs are at stake—18000 jobs are about to dwindle. This Minister for the Environment for example boasts that the Resource Management Act reforms are going to deliver new opportunity. For 4 years as a small example the forestry sector has been waiting for an environmental policy statement to simplify the functioning of the forestry sector. Not a dicky-bird. Mills and manufacturing plants up and down the country will applaud the announcement that energy costs are going to come down because they are getting no leadership no assistance—no assistance from this Government.If people do not like those reforms then they are going to have an opportunity to give their views. It is called an election. That is one reform where support will come massively our way because there is not a single idea that is lessening the burden of daily life on Kiwis and certainly not from this Prime Minister who is a stranger to the truth.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koutou huri noa i tō tātou Whare. I am delighted to stand and speak on this Government’s record in terms of its contribution to lowering the cost of living. Under that previous administration electricity went up 8 percent in every year and let us remember here that those were great years when surpluses were being returned and yet that same Government was raking off costs from ordinary New Zealanders those whom the previous speaker the Hon Shane Jones and that administration pretended to support. This Government however understands how to both focus on keeping the costs of living down by keeping interests rates as low as possible by working to get a competitive electricity market by ensuring that consumers have in their own hands the ability to switch between power companies and on the other side of it focus on encouraging work and employment.First of all this side of the House understands that it is not Governments that create wealth; it is businesses it is employers and it is ordinary Kiwis who back themselves. The other side of the House specialises in slicing and dicing and redistributing other people’s money. Our side of the House specialises in asking how we support businesses to grow opportunity and grow employment. How do we ensure that more tax stays inthe pockets of New Zealanders? Because we believe actually that they make better choices for themselves than Governments do.On this side of the House we understand that we need to get the best value out of assets. I as Minister of Education am happily awaiting the possibilities that will flow from realising value out of our assets. This side of the House understands the distinction between ownership and shareholding. That side of the House does not. We want to grow the value of our assets. We want to reduce the cost on New Zealanders. We want to invest and entrust their ability to employ people to grow the wealth and to distribute it. That side of the House does not understand that equation. We understand that it requires a whole lot of levers. That is why we are having welfare reform which again follows the principle and theme of investing in what people can do not what they cannot do and in perpetuating independence not dependence—two significant differences between this side of the House and that side of the House.We want to invest in education because it has the medium to long term ability to grow the economy and grow productivity because we believe in New Zealanders who have skills. We believe that if they have skills and they can read and write then they can get jobs they can keep jobs and they can grow in those possibilities. That side of the House wants people angry and aggrieved and dependent on it. We do not. We believe in New Zealanders. We believe in this country. It is the little country that can under this Government. Under that Government it is the little country that cannot.That side of the House and all its friends believe that the answer is to borrow and pray. Our side of the House believes in the fact that we need to pay our debt get it out of the way and support our economy so that New Zealanders can make choices for themselves and afford to pay for them. We have done that in some of the toughest years this country has ever faced. Again we understand appreciate and respect that wealth comes from businesses from people working and from releasing value from assets which is something we share—picking up from my colleague’s earlier acknowledgments—with Baroness Thatcher. She came into a country in as parlous a state as we came into in this Government. She recognised that she had to break the hold of those Opposition members who wanted to keep the greatness of that country and that empire down. We here on the other side of the world empathise with that and appreciate how important it is to do away with the constraints and the obstacles that otherwise would prohibit the flow of the creative and imaginative genes that New Zealanders have. That is why we are investing in science and innovation. That is why we are reducing compliance costs. That is why we have a Minister of Health who is investing in New Zealanders being strong in good state well and able to look after themselves not dependent aggrieved and operating on myth rumour and half-truths.Our Government believes in strong New Zealanders capable of looking after themselves not dependent on a bunch of—I see I am being waved to sit down. But can I say that it is a delight to be on this side of the House with right-thinking New Zealanders who trust and believe in Kiwis—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): The Ministry for Primary Industries was informed last October that milk was contaminated with dicyandiamide. What did it do with that information? Did it inform all other milk processors immediately? No it did not—no it did not. Fonterra and the Ministry for Primary Industries sat on it. They sat on it right through for another 3 months into 2013 before they let the community know before they let their trading partners know and before they let the other processors which were just as likely to be affected by contamination of milk by dicyandiamide know. So what was this? This was basically a major cover-up a damage controloperation by part of the industry but not by all of those in the industry. They could not even participate as they were not told.The Official Information Act papers that the Green Party has obtained show that the team working on this issue was almost singularly focused on not letting the story get out. What was its concern? Well it had quotes like that it was agreed that “until the meeting on 21 [January with Fonterra] the issue will stay between the two parties without involving other organisations.” and that “MPI need to be careful of the time frame between being made aware of the issue and communicating this to the public …”. This is a public that could buy something that may or may not have been contaminated. There are obviously a range of views on the risks to that public. The ministry had contingencies for when the balloon went up. It had words like the run-up to “D-Day” and said: “Ideally we would like no media coverage.”Our regulators should be concerned with food safety producing high-quality products and protecting our international reputation which needs to be maintained. Clearly that was part of that but was that the right way to go about it? It certainly was not. Not keeping food contamination a secret being open and letting people know what was going on straight away would have been a good idea. I am sure there have been lessons learnt but it was 3 months later before they made it public. Not only that Fonterra has also got a lot to answer for because it had the results from August 2012. The ministry decided to tell the world it was September but it actually had them earlier. The results were coming through on 24 August 27 August—it did know that back then.But there was another issue in behind there. In the meantime while this was all happening the Fonterra share float happened. Of course while that happened—and a number of people in here will have been at Darfield on 30 November opening the big new factory when the share float effectively happened—it went up by 20 percent in value in the first few minutes. But all that time it was sitting on the fact that it had something that it knew would affect markets and would affect the reaction of people to that share float. Exporters reported very very quickly that sales fell through the floor after the news broke.Is there an alternative? Of course there is an alternative. We do not need to be using theoretical silver bullets that will bite us in the butt because they are a short-lived unsustainable solution to an unsustainable farming system. There are good solutions. The solutions are in using sustainable farming systems—genuinely sustainable farming systems—that tick all the boxes. They ensure farm profitability like organics can do and does when it is given the opportunity in this country and is not suppressed by the Government or by the principal people in the sector. Clean safe food is possible in this country and as I say it is profitable as well. The demand for organics for example has just gone up by 28 percent in 2012—30 percent up in prices as well.I note that the ministry when it has ever looked for dicyandiamide—even when it tested for itself further back in 2010—did not even do it properly. It looked when there was a narrow window when it would not be found and it was in areas where it would not be found. We can do better and organics is part of it.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): I am sad to say that this is a sad day in this House. It is a sad day for a couple of reasons. The very first reason is that one of the first speakers from the Opposition in 2013 when speaking about women politicians—fine women leaders in this House—reduced the conversation to being about handbags. Not one—not one—female member of the Opposition took umbrage at that neanderthal sexist language that was displayed by that member. I have to say that I am sad to be in this House in 2013 with the soon to be starting Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Dr Jackie Blue and have that kind of statement said in this House and accepted by those female Opposition members. I am sorry and it is a sad day in thisHouse when we tolerate that kind of sexist language that neanderthal language when we have strong competent fine women represented across this House.It is particularly sad because of the timing of today—today of course being the funeral for Baroness Thatcher.Hon Annette King: Trivial matters! Talk about the real issues.LOUISE UPSTON: “Talk about the real issues.” bellows one member from the other side of the House. Talk about the real issues? What did we cover today in question time? Yes the real issues that matter for New Zealanders. The real issues that matter for New Zealanders are low interest rates reducing crime increasing early childhood education participation increasing results in National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 decreasing numbers on benefits and growing the economy. Those actually are the things that matter to New Zealanders.I want to come back to this connection with Baroness Thatcher. She took office in very very challenging times. She took office when the economy from the previous Government was in a shocking shocking state. She was not liked by all but she did an incredible job with difficult environments and she got results. That is what this side of the House that is what this Government is doing in every area that I mentioned before. Those are the results those are the things that matter to hard-working taxpaying New Zealanders not some of the personal petty sexist politics that we had today from a member of the Labour Party.I am proud to be part of a caucus where we have fine female Ministers in Cabinet. We have had two today who have already spoken about the results that this side of the House is producing. The fact is that we have a very fine Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner in Dr Jackie Blue effective from next month. I am proud of the results that our Government produces. I am proud of our woman MPs. I am not afraid to stand in this House and be proud of the results that we are producing because they are the results that matter to New Zealanders.I want to come back to the conversation about the cost of living. Price increases clearly make it difficult for households. So in the House today the Labour Opposition raised questions about power prices. How ironic is that! Under its 9 years power prices went up 72 percent. Now it talks about how we must do something about power prices. Well actually this is a Government that gets stuff done. This is a Government that is actually doing things that matter for New Zealanders in terms of keeping prices manageable.Looking at an increase in wages—that is another thing that I did not mention in my results but New Zealanders have had gross wages increase by 14 percent. That is a significant number. I want to come back to the results in NCEA level 2 because we know that if we want our young people to leave school get a qualification and get a job NCEA level 2 is the minimum that they need. Since we came into office—listen to this percentage—in 2008 there has been a 6.7 percent increase. That is 6.7 percent. You guys do not like facts and figures. You do not like hearing the facts about what we are achieving. You do not like the fact that we are in tune with what New Zealanders are interested in because that side of the House focuses on petty issues—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Apparently you do not like a lot of things according to the speaker on her feet. She should be told because she has been around for a little bit of time now to follow the Standing Orders and refer to the House but not you.Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s comment. The member is quite right and the speaker Louise Upston should not bring the Speaker into the debate.LOUISE UPSTON: That side of the House cannot cope with the fact that this Government is delivering results. The fact that we just had an interruption there meansthat the Opposition does not like the facts and figures the results that this Government is producing for hard-working New Zealanders.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I would have a great deal more respect for that member who just resumed her seat Louise Upston and her views on the representation of women in this House if she was not standing by while her Government reduced the equal representation of women on State sector boards—that target—if she did not stand by while her Government voted against paid parental leave and if she did not stand by while her Government reduced the training incentive allowance for sole parents. If she actually stood up for women in this House when it mattered with her vote I would have a great deal more confidence and respect for what she has to say about how women are represented in Parliament.But let us move on to the real issues not about Maggie Thatcher at all because those are not the real issues that New Zealanders are thinking about. What they are thinking about is the cost of living. What they know now as a result of this week in Parliament is that the Prime Minister John Key is clueless. They used to think that he was just gormless but now they know he is absolutely clueless because he said so himself.Today we learnt—if people did not know this before—that what Hekia Parata said before is completely wrong. Just 10 minutes ago in this House Hekia Parata stood up and said that the Government wants to keep money in people’s pockets because it thinks they know best. However we know that the Government clearly has its hands in people’s pockets because today we heard that the petrol tax is going up to the tune of $20 billion more than the Government needs for the roading that it has planned. That is $20 billion that is coming out of the pockets of New Zealand parents New Zealand families which they could be spending on other things because that Government made a decision to put the tax up for no real reason at all.I want to remind New Zealanders that from 1 April this year they are paying more in ACC levies than they ought to be paying. Even by the officials’ own estimates—the estimates from Treasury—this Government is taking up to $2 billion each year out of the pockets of hard-working employees and employers in New Zealand for no other reason than it can. That money cannot be spent on anything else but injuries and accidents because it is an ACC levy. The officials have told us that the Government is taking more than $2 billion more than it needs to cover injuries and accidents. That will sit in surplus in an ACC account not going anywhere not doing anything productive just simply sitting there creating a surplus in an attempt to make it look as though the Government’s whole Crown operating expenses are going into surplus. Well it is a nonsense. It is a cruel trick being played by that Government on every worker and every employer who are paying more in ACC levies than they need to to cover the costs of injuries and accidents.The question needs to be asked: why is the Government doing this? It is doing this because it promised to bring the books back into surplus and the only way it is able to do that—because it is not growing the economy it is not getting jobs and it is not actually bringing productivity into this country—was to unfairly go into the pockets of workers and employers and take more out in ACC levies than what it actually needs.Today we learnt that that Government’s decision to actually reduce funding for pharmaceuticals and put prescription costs up has increased the cost of pharmaceuticals by 9.3 percent.So that is what is driving the cost of living. It is not anything to do with a robust burgeoning economy; it is to do with decisions made by that Government quite deliberately to take money in petrol taxes that it does not need to take money in ACC levies that it does not need for accidents and injuries and to actually make sure thatNew Zealanders are paying more for their prescription charges. Those are the things that are creating real stresses on New Zealand families because they cannot afford to be propping up that Government’s commitments that it made in order to go into surplus. When the Government made that commitment New Zealanders honestly believed that it was talking about actually getting the economy going. New Zealanders honestly believed that it was going to go into surplus by getting out of recession. But no. It is getting into that surplus surreptitiously by raising levies raising taxes and raising the cost of living for every New Zealander.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): It is great to be speaking today with the other women MPs for the National Party. The inspiration for this all-women debate is the funeral today of Baroness Margaret Thatcher because love her or hate her—and there are many in both camps—she was a powerful and determined woman and she crashed through the glass ceiling of UK politics.Internationally New Zealanders have been given credit for leading the empowerment of women but even so it has been a slow and imperfect process. In 1893 New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote and that was a fantastic achievement of Kate Sheppard from Christchurch and her supporters. But it took until 1919 for an Act to be passed to allow women to stand for Parliament and until 1933 before the first woman MP Elizabeth McCombs was elected and she was elected because her husband died in office.It was the mid-1980s before the number of women MPs reached double figures but with MMP we went from 20 to 30 percent of women members but there has been little change ever since. In 1997 we got the first female Prime Minister the Rt Hon Dame Jenny Shipley and then a second one and then a series of female appointments that included the Speaker of the House the Chief Justice and the Governor-General. At one stage all four senior appointments were held by women. Now there is only one. But thanks to those who have gone before the door is open and that is the way it should be—not quotas not pedantic balancing but an absolutely open process for selecting the best person for the job.If New Zealand wants to grow the economy protect our environment and increase our quality of life for the next generation we need to make sure that the talents and skills of women are fully understood and used and we need to appreciate more of what women can offer not just the narrow skill set that is generally recognised and utilised. Margaret Thatcher may have been the first and only woman Prime Minister of the UK but she got that position through stubborn aggressiveness and basically out-manning the men.Often it is a crisis that provides opportunities for women. During the Second World War women ran our businesses they ran our farms and in many cases record results bumper crops and top returns were delivered. During the earthquakes in Christchurch in the media we saw men in uniforms in fluorescent vests and hard hats and that was good but everywhere women less visibly were also doing the hard yards doing the invaluable work long-term planning organising supporting making things happen creating new solutions advocating for the community and making sure that everyone was being looked after.To hear their stories and recognise their achievements I organised a series of meetings called Bird’s Eye View and it has been both fascinating and inspiring. We have heard from Mary Devine from Ballantynes who was instrumental in the Re:START Mall; from Di Lucas about the Christchurch “black map” which shows how it affected our geotechnical information; and from Karen Gilliland about how midwives kept delivering during the disaster and about how they have rebuilt a better and stronger headquarters. We have been fascinated by the work of Coralie Winn Gap Filler theMinistry of Awesome and much much more. And every week I see new recovery stories led by women that are worth telling.So as we rebuild in Christchurch and as our country strives for a brighter future we must be smart enough we must be bold enough to appreciate and utilise the human capital of all our citizens—all our citizens—men and women.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I met Maggie Thatcher. She was beautiful focused intelligent and she could seriously speak—and there the contrast ends.This is where we are at with the electricity-generating sector in New Zealand. Under a system that National set up and Labour governed with power companies are making record profits and the Government is extracting massive dividends from power companies which is seriously an undeclared taxation system. We pay tax on petrol alcohol and cigarettes and the tax is acknowledged. The Government takes hundreds of millions out of the electricity sector by way of dividends and the tax is by stealth.The entire electricity generation sector is a shambles. It is a phoney fictional market. The so-called competition is a fantasy designed to hide what is actually happening. The model is hopelessly flawed and needs to be radically overhauled—and now. I seriously doubt there is any person in this country even someone with a PhD in advanced electronics or economics who could give a clear coherent explanation of how the New Zealand electricity sister—the New Zealand electricity sector—actually functions.Jacqui Dean: The “electricity sister”—ha ha!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I know that woman over there could not—the woman who is laughing about it. Apparently rocketing prices on the farms of her electorate and in the homes of her part of the country are of no matter whatsoever. They are a laughing matter—what is her name?Andrew Williams: Jacqui Dean.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Jacqui Dean does not give a tinker’s damn about a huge cost to New Zealand businesses farms and homes. Jacqui Dean needs to get out there and find out what is going on in her electorate.If one sets out to design a system that would gouge the public with electricity price hikes one would create the system we have ended up with now. It is a complete mishmash of half-baked economic theories foisted on the country by National and Jacqui Dean thinks it is a great idea. Jacqui Dean does not give a hoot for her electorate. She thinks this cost structure which benefits the few—Jacqui Dean: Where’s that member’s electorate?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is no use hysterically shouting like a fishwife. Answer the challenge: what on earth is going on? It is a mess. The public and businesses are paying through the nose for this mess.Jacqui Dean: Say my name—say my name.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No strident hysterical anti-feminine call from there is going to change my mind. The Government ploughs blindly on with its State asset sales and the cannon fodder that Jacqui Dean and her ilk represent just signs up every day. Something has to be done to earn the “Max Bradford market matters”—remember what he said? He said: “I’m going to plateau prices.” It was 1998. Well under National this is what electricity plateaus mean. It is a vertical line straight up straight through the roof and Mr Key has the audacity to blame Labour for the system that he and his party set up.What is the Government doing to reduce electricity prices? Nothing. Despite—Hon Tau Henare: Turn the lights off—that’s New Zealand First policy eh?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh I see. The solution that Tau Henare and Jacqui Dean have got is that if you want to save electricity turn the lights off. Turn the fridgeoff. Turn the heater off. In fact why not just turn things off completely? That is their solution.I know that there are people from the Pacific Islands here and they will be shocked to think that this Parliament in the First World has got such puerile debate from one side of the House namely the side of the House that is the Government. There those ones—not over here. We have predictably been told by Dr Geoff Bertram from Victoria University that in comparison with the US the UK Japan France and South Korea for example our prices are much higher.Hon Tau Henare: What are you going to do about it?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: What are we going to do about it? Here is the answer. This is what our policy is and today I am announcing it. New Zealand First will restore the State-owned electricity generators now being sold back into public ownership and put them under a single generating entity. We will seriously investigate putting a cap on electricity pricing related to the CPI and no more.Mr Henare said in a lucid moment: “What is your policy?”. He has heard it. It is definitive. And if he concerns himself about his people up there in west Auckland he should be cheering from the rafters that finally there was announced today a solution that will work. We are going to—Hon Tau Henare: He’s going to nationalise it—that’s all he could come up with.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well the volume of noise over there suggests that he should wind up—you are right Mr Speaker. So today we have announced our policy and tomorrow and in the next few months—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): It is ironic is is it not that Helen Kelly Sue Moroney and others are so ready to discriminate against the appointment to the role of Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner of Dr Jackie Blue just because she is a soon-to-be former member of Parliament and member of a political party. Should that disqualify her from being able to step aside from party politics and assume a neutral role? Do these same women hold that view about maybe H V Ross Robertson who leaves his Opposition party bench to sit in the Speaker’s Chair and preside over Parliament? Well he can do it he can be neutral but Jackie Blue cannot? Eric Roy can do it he can be neutral but Jackie Blue cannot? Lindsay Tisch can do it he can be neutral but Jackie Blue cannot? And what about Helen Clark? Under those same rules is she therefore unable to hold a neutral position at the United Nations? Do these people even think these things through?But it is quite different for them of course is it not because when Labour was in power there were many many appointments of Labour luvvies. Does anyone remember Dianne Yates? Lovely woman—Hon Trevor Mallard: No!JACQUI DEAN: No they said from the other side—no they said from the other side. Not even her Labour mates remember her. Does anyone remember Dame Ann Hercus? Does anyone remember Mike Williams? Does anyone remember Helen Kelly?How convenient for them now to discredit Jackie Blue’s years of cross-party work—those 8 years in Parliament of cross-party work on a number of issues three or four I think including her advocacy of women—her very very clear advocacy of women—and her strong unforgettable and successful campaign for the funding of Herceptin. What a triumph that was for Jackie Blue—something to be so very proud of. And where were the Labour women where were the Green women in 2005 and where were the New Zealand First women—were there any in 2005? There might have been. Where were they in 2005 when Jackie Blue was calling on the then Labour Government to helpsave the lives of breast cancer sufferers with the funding of Herceptin? Where were they? They were silent.Hon Annette King: We funded Herceptin.JACQUI DEAN: Oh they are talking now. They are talking the talk now but they were silent when it really mattered. In terms of making a contribution Dr Jackie Blue has done more in this House than most. So Helen Kelly Sue Moroney Metiria Turei—it is so easy is it not to pull someone down to denigrate their work and to doubt their motives just because they do not come from your side of the political spectrum. Well I say thank goodness for strong women at any time in history—RIP Maggie Thatcher—in any Parliament whether it is in the United Kingdom it might be in the Pacific parliaments or here in New Zealand who are prepared to have a view who are prepared to stand up for what matters to them and who like Dr Jackie Blue want to act in a role to provide equal opportunities for all of us.This week we welcome parliamentarians from all around the Pacific to our Parliament. This is the first time such a significant number of Pacific MPs and political leaders have assembled together to discuss the key issues facing the Pacific region. The forum is a good opportunity for us to develop networks with our Pacific colleagues. Although many Pacific Island countries have a pool of well-educated women who are already leaders in their fields women’s participation in these parliaments varies from a high of 44 percent—not so bad—to three countries who have no women parliamentarians. Would it not be great to encourage and assist women to conduct successful election campaigns and to become effective MPs? We need strong women in all of our parliaments so let us celebrate and encourage and not try to pull each other down just for the hell of it. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): When the Government set up the Auckland super-city many people said it would have very far-reaching consequences and there is no doubt that right now Auckland is on the move. For the first time ever the city has a plan to deal with growth it is dealing with the gridlock Wynyard Quarter and Britomart Place have shown what high-quality urban renewal can do and the place is really buzzing. There is a new sense of unity and pride in Auckland.Unfortunately there is one thing holding it back like a dead weight—Wellington. Although Auckland is moving fast to transform its regional economy to focus on innovation and exports the National Government is a brake on progress. But when it comes to the big issues in Auckland the Government has no plan of its own. All it knows how to say is no to Auckland no to the popular city rail link that would have allowed trains to run every 5 minutes and that is supported by more than 60 percent of Aucklanders and no to the Auckland Unitary Plan that would allow Auckland to grow a little bit up and a little bit out.And what has the Government done? It has dispatched Laurel and Hardy—big Gerry Brownlee the tsar of Christchurch and Nick Smith the MP for Nelson; Nick Smith the “Minister for Sprawl” and Gerry Brownlee the “Minister for Gridlock”—to tell Aucklanders how to run their city. Well I have got a word of warning for the National Government: Aucklanders are getting fed up with Laurel and Hardy coming to Auckland and telling them how to run their city. Aucklanders had the super-city forced on to them. They accepted it they are making it work but Wellington simply cannot let go because their man John Banks did not win the mayoralty.While Gerry Brownlee pours scorn on the city rail link and Nick Smith threatens to legislate to take powers away from the Auckland Council the Prime Minister is all over the place. In recent weeks we have seen him misleading Aucklanders misleading the public on two key issues. He said that the Auckland Council wants the Government to enact the unitary plan straight away with no input and no opportunity for Aucklandersto have a say. Wrong. Right now thousands of Aucklanders are having their say and once the plan is notified in September even if the Government gives it legal weight like the council has asked the public can do it all again with the Government-appointed independent panel. How is that for having no input? Why is the Prime Minister misleading the public?He was caught out again when he said on television that Auckland Council is saying it is going to intensify it is pretty much going to go up within the urban metropolitan limits—just go straight up—and we are saying you need to go up and out. Nothing could be more misleading. The Auckland Plan says that up to 40 percent of new dwellings will be built on greenfields land over the next 30 years. For the benefit of Nick Smith what that means is that land equivalent to six times the area of Nelson will be freed up outside the current urban boundaries.It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not agree with Kim Campbell of the Employers and Manufacturers Association who said recently that the Government’s refusal to ratify Auckland’s plan before 2016-17 will load big costs on to Auckland’s ratepayers and hold back Auckland’s growth. It is a shame that he does not agree with John Roughan of theNew Zealand Herald who said that the Government is “on the wrong side of the city’s plan” and that no one else is putting up an alternative. It is a shame that the Prime Minister does not agree with Federated Farmers Chief Executive Conor English who says that Auckland needs to stop sprawling across the countryside and invest more in public transport. That sounds remarkably close to Len Brown’s Auckland Plan. So not only is the Government offside with Aucklanders but the National Party’s closest political allies in Auckland—the Employers and Manufacturers Association Federated Farmers and the chamber of commerce—have all deserted the National Party and are backing Len Brown’s vision for Auckland.Labour’s policy is to back Aucklanders not to fight them. We agree with the Auckland Council we agree with its balanced approach to managing the city’s growth and the fact that our country’s biggest city has to incorporate a million extra people in the next 30 years and we agree with the balanced approach to land supply and intensification. Labour will invest in the city rail link because it will allow trains to run on our rail network every 5 minutes. The biggest roadblock to progress in Auckland is this Government and New Zealanders deserve better.Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): It is a pleasure to speak in this general debate which is more than likely going to be my final general debate. I would like to begin by acknowledging the many many MPs in the House who have wished me well in my new role as the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner which I begin in early June. I want to acknowledge the contribution that the former Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner Dr Judy McGregor has made in this role. Her work output has been extensive and her work extraordinary and outstanding. I have got huge massive shoes to fill I know and I will certainly do my very best to do that. I am truly and sincerely humbled by the messages of support from throughout the House and also from well-wishers around the country.On this day I would like to acknowledge all women MPs in every party in this House. It is not easy being a woman MP—it ain’t easy that is for sure. At times it is brutal it is personal it is combative and it is hostile. So well done everyone—all women MPs in this House. And with the exception of the Green Party women MPs are in the minority in their respective parties. We make up 50 percent of the population and it is unacceptable that we make up a little over 30 percent of the current Parliament. That I know by international standards is not bad. But New Zealand has been a leader in this area. We gave women suffrage in 1893; we can do it again. I lay down thatchallenge to all parties with the exception of the Green Party and that is also for future political parties that might be forming.I would like to particularly acknowledge the cross-party groups that I have had the pleasure to work in over the last 7 years. They are the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development and that role has a focus on sexual reproductive health and rights of women in Pacific Island countries domestic violence and our aid budget; and the Commonwealth Women Parliamentarians group which I co-chair with Louisa Wall which has the focus of increasing the number of women MPs in Pacific parliaments. That is why we are so very excited about the Pacific forum tomorrow and the debate that it will have about gender. We are looking forward to that very much.I have so much enjoyed working in the cross-party space working collectively for an objective with like-minded people. Whether it is about sexual reproductive health and rights or increasing the number of women MPs in Pacific parliaments or whether it is lobbying for the Arms Trade Treaty it has been a pure pleasure it has been rewarding and I have enjoyed it immensely.The work particularly in the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development has left me with the absolute and utter conviction and passion that in developing countries by backing and empowering women and girls economies countries and communities will go forward. But the same applies to the developed countries. As women progress everyone progresses and that is why I am so thrilled and excited about my new role.Judith Collins told the House today that with my appointment to Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner she has appointed a lefty to the position. She said that with mirth but I will wear that as a badge of honour.I am grateful that while I have had the opportunity to be a member of Parliament in this House I have been given the opportunity to advocate in a number of areas which I will just outline as time allows. But first of all I would like to wish Louisa Wall really well in the third reading of her Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.I have a bill in the ballot which I hope a colleague will take up and that is the Marriage (Court Consent to Marriage of Minors) Amendment Bill. That bill would mean that if young people of 16 or 17 wish to get married they will need to go through the Family Court. Parental consent is out of the loop though obviously when the Family Court judge hears an application the family would be included. I believe sincerely that that would take possible coercion out as a factor with the marriages of young people. These marriages happen only about 100 times a year so in the background of 20000-plus marriages each year we are talking about a small number. So I am hopeful that a colleague will take that up and that it will get drawn be debated and pass through the House.I am particularly proud and I will always be proud of the fact that the Government took up the 12 months’ funding of Herceptin—absolutely. I know that has made—Hon Member: Jackie it was your work too.Dr JACKIE BLUE: Well yes it has made an enormous difference. Studies that have since come through have proved beyond any shadow of doubt that 12 months is the gold standard. I am so proud a National Government funded it immediately after becoming the Government in 2008.I am also particularly pleased that I have had the opportunity to advocate for enrolled nurses and I am pleased that the Minister of Health expanded that role into acute services as well.Mr Speaker thank you for your leadership in the House. Thank you everyone each and all thank you so much.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa. I a au e tū nei me mihi rā ki tērā mema i tū ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata i tēnei ahiahi i a ia e kōrero ana mō ngā mea kua oti i a ia.[Greetings to you Mr Speaker and to us all. As I stand here I must acknowledge that member who stood before the House of Parliament this afternoon while she was talking about the things she had done.]So can I just add my congratulations to Jackie Blue and thank her for her contribution. I feel a bit of a killjoy after that speech with all its positivity in raising the issue that I want to put before the House. I wish you well Jackie in your career ahead of you.In the time I have got I want to talk about a topic that often provokes all sorts of severe reactions as if it were the first time the words have ever been uttered. What I am talking about is the topic of institutional racism. Over 30 years ago it was identified that Māori experience disproportionate treatment in the New Zealand justice system. People do not see things such as overrepresentation of Māori in all of the worst statistics as a result of racism; on the contrary they tend to think that it is a Māori problem that we often try to justify by claiming racism. I reject that. Those are ignorant and divisive thoughts and they are preserved by our current systems which are geared towards disadvantaging Māori in the police force the courts corrections and of course the justice system.One of the good things about being in Parliament is that you get clear statistics and information that might back the claim. Of course in the past week or so the organisation JustSpeak released a very clear overview that spoke about the chances of being prosecuted for a crime if you are a young Māori. It said that it was far more likely that you would be prosecuted if you were Māori than non-Māori. For the 3495 theft apprehensions recorded as Caucasian there were 588 prosecutions and for Māori for the 5660 apprehensions recorded 1173 resulted in prosecution—in other words rates of 16.8 percent versus 20.7 percent. Even worse there are 15 categories of offences ranging from homicide to theft to property offences with everything in between and in 14 of those 15 categories Māori have a higher proportion of apprehensions leading to prosecutions. The category that is the exception is “miscellaneous offences”.Such was our concern about this that we asked questions of the Minister of Police who is in the House at present about this matter. It is something that we do take seriously and we will continue to advocate against this type of racism.Most people would think that there is a simple reason—if you commit a crime then you do the time. The thing is that following apprehension for a crime the percentage of Māori who are then prosecuted is far higher than the percentage of Pākehā who are prosecuted. If a Māori teen and a Pākehā teen are apprehended for the same crime the young Māori is more likely to be prosecuted while the Pākehā youth is more likely to get off. Does this not raise questions of fairness and of discrimination in those people who would be sceptical of institutional racism? That is the question. Sadly I would not expect so.When the apprehension of a suspect occurs there is often an element described as discretion. It can be used by the arresting officer as to whether to proceed or to not arrest. One might ask what is considered by that officer when they are using their notions of discretion. Are their decisions going to be informed by their own views about Māori people and about Pākehā people? Once in the system of course what are the options that are being offered to offenders that might enable them to plan for a future without being stigmatised by the slur of a criminal conviction? We know about diversion schemes and restorative justice programmes but are those being offered fairly? Are they being offered to young people in order that they might be able to avoidconviction and have a shot at growing up and learning from their experiences? The data that was presented by JustSpeak suggests not.Ethnic bias within the police and criminal justice system is real. There have been numerous instances and reports in New Zealand that tell us that it is real. Kim Workman from the Rethinking Crime and Punishment group suggests that there are a number of avenues that need to be looked at including traffic stop procedures ethnic profiling offender eligibility for diversion and pre-charge warnings to name a few. I have been interested in the whole notion of community law forums. So that is the concern and the Māori Party will be raising a bill in the near future called the Elimination of Institutional Racism Bill and we hope to introduce that into the members’ ballot very shortly.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment BillThird ReadingGRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) on behalf ofDr David Clark (Labour—Dunedin North): I moveThat the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. As many colleagues around the House will know Dr David Clark is on an Eisenhower Fellowship in the United States of America. He has asked me to step in and do this third reading. I am very happy to do so because this bill the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill was in the members’ ballot originally under my name—and there is no truth to the rumour that I ordered Dr Clark away from the building so I could do this. This bill is one that was also in Darien Fenton’s name for a period of time and I am very pleased that the Labour caucus’ members who were involved in the original drafting of the bill will now have the opportunity to speak on it.At the very outset I would like to thank the parties that have supported this bill right from its first reading—the Green Party New Zealand First the Māori Party Mana United Future and Brendan Horan. The support of all of those parties and MPs is much appreciated. All of those parties have taken this bill as a point of principle and I thank them very much for sticking to their principles on this issue.The origins of the bill were in 2010 when both Anzac Day and Waitangi Day fell on weekends and there was no holiday on Monday for either of them. That year New Zealanders got only nine of the 11 public holidays that they are entitled to under the Holidays Act. That is not fair and this bill seeks to give hard-working New Zealanders a fair go—time to spend with their families and to continue to commemorate these important days in our calendar 7 years out of 7.We do need to recognise the value of holidays to working people and indeed to businesses. Holidays are about recharging. They are about spending time with families about enjoying recreation and downtime. They are actually very important for productivity for good morale in the workplace. That is what holidays are for. They are not things that should be begrudged by the Government; they are things that should be supported by the Government.It is important to note that this bill does recognise the importance and significance of these 2 days to New Zealanders. Waitangi Day is our national day and as David Shearer and others have stated we need to continue to work to ensure that it is both a day of reflection on our past and present and a celebration of what we have and what we can become. Anzac Day assumes a greater significance every year in our country. It does note our coming of age as a nation on the battlefields of World War I and thesacrifice of New Zealanders then and in other conflicts that have followed. It is a day of commemoration that we hold dear and that grows in importance every single year.Next Thursday we will commemorate Anzac Day and thousands and thousands of New Zealanders around the country will go out to do this at Dawn Services at community services right around the country. That is important. It will also be a holiday. It will not diminish the day at all as it has not done in past years. The same will now be the case as a result of this bill when the day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday.Let me be absolutely clear. The commemorations of Anzac Day and Waitangi Day will continue to be on 25 April and 6 February every year as they should be but there will be a holiday every 7 out of 7 years not just 5 out of 7 years. This is already the way that things are done in most of the states of Australia—in Western Australia Victoria ACT New South Wales South Australia Queensland and the Northern Territory. All of them have—Hon Annette King: Do they care about Anzac Day?GRANT ROBERTSON: That is right. As my colleague says: “Do they care about Anzac Day?”. You bet they do. The reports from Australia where the Mondayisation process is in place indicate that the numbers of people attending Anzac Day services are increasing year on year. It is also what we do for Christmas Day and Boxing Day and New Year’s Day and there is no confusion. If Christmas Day falls on a Saturday the presents are opened people attend church services and the only change is that the day after Boxing Day we get a holiday for it. That is what will happen in this case.So workers support this bill in large numbers but so do many businesses. They recognise the value of holidays for their workers. They also know that the cost of this bill is not huge. It is already dealt with and budgeted for by businesses 5 out of 7 years and it is simply a matter of making that 7 out of 7 years. In previous calls I have noted the work that David Farrar the National Party’s pollster has done. He has said that this represents 0.12 percent of an annual wage bill. I want to actually congratulate Mr Farrar. It is a pity he was not able to influence the National Party with his support for this bill but employers across the board have been coming forward and supporting this legislation. I particularly want to acknowledge the Tourism Industry Association which has strongly supported this bill. In its submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it said that any costs associated with this bill will be outweighed by the overall economic benefit. That is a statement from the Tourism Industry Association that can be applied right across the board. Real economic benefits will occur as a result of this legislation.Unfortunately with all of the parties that I have mentioned for whose support we are grateful the National Party has yet to come around to supporting this bill. Well it is not too late. It is not too late for the National Party to come on board get on the right side of history and get on the right side of the other parties in this Parliament. I have got no hope for John Banks by the way. I am not asking for him to come on board with it but there is a chance for the National Party to come on board today and say: “We support workers. We support workers having the ability to spend more time with their families.”But the track record does not look good in terms of bringing them across because every time legislation that gives more holidays to workers comes up in this House the National Party opposes it. When the 4 weeks’ annual leave came in the sky did not fall in. Nothing happened that went wrong there. Business productivity and profits went up after the 4 weeks’ annual leave came in but the National Party still opposed it. But it is not too late. National can come in and say that its commitment to supporting families actually has some reality that it is prepared to back a piece of legislation that is going to make sure that people have more time with their families.But the National Party’s criticisms of this bill have ranged. They have ranged from the fact that this is the end of civilisation as we know it through to: “Why are you bothering? It doesn’t make any difference.” The National Party needs to get a consistent stance on that. But in the end it has the chance today to get on to the right side of history and vote for this legislation. Many people have asked when this provision will next come into effect. The next time that this will happen is on 25 April 2015 when Anzac Day will fall on a Saturday the following year Waitangi Day will fall on a Saturday and then in 4 and 5-year gaps after that.We on this side of the House are not pretending that this is the big issue in industrial relations. We are not saying that. What we are saying is here is an opportunity to do something. Here is an opportunity to give New Zealanders a fair go. Here is an opportunity to give New Zealanders some more time with their families. It is not the biggest thing in the world in industrial relations but it is important. It represents an important principle—that people deserve to have holidays; that those holidays in the law 11 public holidays should be granted.We know that there are bigger issues out there for workers—the loss of thousands of jobs wages not keeping pace with the cost of living precarious work and the coming changes to employment law from this Government. These are all big issues and they are ones we need to be working on. This bill is not on that scale but it can do a simple thing for workers. It can give them a fair go it can give them time with their families and it continues to ensure that we commemorate these important days in our calendar. This is a fine bill and I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Since Mr Grant Robertson just gave the opening speech on this bill the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill I think we all need to pay credit to Dr David Clark for the work he has done on it. This is actually his bill. I would not let Mr Robertson take credit for the bill.Grant Robertson: It was mine.DAVID BENNETT: He says it was his bill but no David Clark is the one who has promoted this bill. David Clark is the one who has done the work on this bill and—Hon Annette King: It was his bill first David.DAVID BENNETT: I know what you are saying but Mr Clark is the one who actually should be promoted here today not Mr Robertson. I think it is strange that the Labour Party members are now fighting amongst themselves over who is to take the credit for this bill. That is a very disappointing thing but it just shows the contempt that Labour Party members hold for their own membership—the way that they treat their colleagues in this House. Today we are seeing a battle between two Labour front-benchers over who should actually take the credit for this bill when this is a serious bill.I would like to pay tribute to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which actually looked at this bill and went through all the arguments in a very fair and reasonable way. It was very well led I must admit through the select committee consideration and I think Mr Clark should take a lot of credit for the way he actually approached the bill unlike other members of the Labour Party here today who are trying to make mischief while one of their members is out of the country. It is a shame that they will do that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just remind the member that it is out of order to refer to someone being absent from the Chamber. All of us have to take time from the Chamber sometimes.DAVID BENNETT: Yes I understand that.Hon Annette King: How long has he been here?DAVID BENNETT: Mr Clark? He has been here for just his first term. I think it is disappointing that you do that to a first-term member and try to take the credit away from him—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member cannot bring you into debate and he just did.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You are absolutely right. You cannot bring the Speaker into the debate.DAVID BENNETT: Just to the people listening I say that I think it is disappointing that we are talking about a serious bill here and the Labour Party for the first couple of minutes of my speech has been attacking the National Party around who is actually in control of that bill. I think that is very disappointing coming from the Labour Party.When we have a look at this bill this is a bill where we understand the arguments on both sides. There are good arguments on both sides for this bill. Nobody denies the important role that holidays play in the working life of people to give them the chance to spend time with their friends and family in the community.We have very special days in New Zealand that are represented by holidays. Traditionally you have the statutory holidays the 11 basic public holidays which are very important to our culture and our community. We also have the annual holidays that are available to New Zealanders as well. If you look at New Zealand you have 11 public holidays and 20 days’ minimum annual paid leave. If you go to another country like for example the United States it has 10 public holidays and it has zero minimum annual paid leave. So New Zealand has a very generous system and nobody would hold that against the New Zealand community or workers or anybody involved in the system. I think the holidays that we are talking about today Waitangi Day and Anzac Day are especially special days because they represent very strong parts of our history and our country going forward and I think nobody takes that away from those very special days.So this is not an attack on workers as the Labour Party will try to portray—it is far from that. It is not the situation as Mr Robertson has tried to indicate that the National Party does not support workers. That is not the case. This is a case where the National Party likes to take into account the full circumstances around this issue.One of the big circumstances that I think people need to be aware of in this debate is the actual effect of this bill. In 2015 there will be 1 day that will be Mondayised in 2016 there will be another day and then there will be nothing until 2020. So the effect of this bill is very remote in the extreme. This is not a big bill that is going to deliver for New Zealand workers or for the New Zealand community. This is not a bill of the consequence that the Labour Party tries to portray and it is a bit sad that it even has to fight over a bill that does not have that consequence either.The next time this bill will be effective will be in 2015 and that will be with Anzac Day and then in 2016 it will be with Waitangi Day. Then workers will have to wait until 2020 for the next Anzac Day.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well come on move an amendment. We’ll give you leave.DAVID BENNETT: So this bill does not have a lot of effect on New Zealand workers. What are you saying Trevor?Hon Trevor Mallard: Add three or four more—we’ll give leave.DAVID BENNETT: So Mr Mallard wants to add more days. Well this bill does not add more days. It indicates that these days—Hon Trevor Mallard: That Government’s taking them away.DAVID BENNETT: Oh we are not taking them away. Mr Mallard is saying we are taking them away; that is just not the case. We have been through this before with MrMallard about getting the facts right. It is simply not the case that anything is being taken away.In New Zealand we value the role that our public holidays have in our community and in our country. We understand the importance of them. The National Party by not voting for this bill is not attacking workers’ rights. It is merely that we represent that there are some other issues involved in this bill. For me one of the big issues involved in this bill is that it has limited effect. Waiting until 2020 to see any effect is not a big thing. It is a bit like the Labour Party and its superannuation policy. That will not have any effect until 2025 will it? That was its last superannuation policy. It might be interesting to see how the new one actually pans out. But this bill does not have a large effect in the immediate future and that is a shame for this House.When we actually went through it in the select committee there were a number of submissions in favour of this bill. I would like to thank those submitters for coming in and for the way that they did their submissions. I would like to thank the variety of submitters we had as well.Dr Cam Calder: How many did you have?DAVID BENNETT: We had numerous submissions and there were a lot of arguments made around different sorts of issues in the bill. One of the big issues is the actual cost of the potential holiday. That is something that there was some debate within the select committee around that cost.Dr Cam Calder: What was the cost?DAVID BENNETT: Well because the cost indicated—there is always a financial cost if you are granting a holiday. But then there were arguments made that there is actually a financial gain too for the potential spending in such things as the tourism community and suchlike. Those are valid arguments that were put up. The select committee considered them at length and came to very good conclusions around them.This bill is a good start by Mr Clark in his political career. It is a bill that he has portrayed and built through this House and we commend him for that. Unfortunately though this bill has some issues with it. It does not have a large effect in the immediate future and that is why it is a bit sad that the Labour Party is pinning its hopes on this bill. There are other ways that we can address these issues. I recommend to the House that this bill is something that we should consider but unfortunately at this stage the National Party will not be voting for this bill.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): It is with great pleasure that I speak in the third reading of the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. My only regret is that its sponsor Dr David Clark is not here to see it pass through this third reading. I want to send my congratulations to him in America as I know indeed Grant Robertson and all of the Labour caucus do on the great work he has done on this member’s bill. I am also acknowledging the role that Grant Robertson has played but it has been a Labour effort actually. We have all worked hard to see through a change that actually does change life for the better for working people.It is not often that that happens and it certainly never happens under a National Government so this is a special day. This is a very special day considering that we have had 5 years of attacks on workers’ rights. Those attacks have included a foolish dependence on being able to sack people within 90 days without reasonable justification as a job creation measure a minimum wage that has increased by only $5.60 a week or just 14c an hour in real terms over the 5 years since National became the Government and cuts to the wages of young people that come into effect on—guess which day? On 1 May—International Workers’ Day. There is a wonderful reward for young people the hard-working young people of the country on International Workers’ Day 1 May!There is more to come. We know the legislation is heading our way. The employment law changes are coming. And—you know what—the Government is even going to cut workers’ tea and meal breaks. It is even going to make cuts to the tea break the smokers’ break—the smoko break. Hard-working New Zealanders have been forgotten by this Government. It cannot even bring itself to support what it knows in its heart of hearts is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do.We have heard some interesting arguments through the passage of this bill but one that has been canvassed at length by the National Party is that it undermines the special nature of Anzac Day. Anzac Day on 25 April has been a holiday since 1921. It was first gazetted as a half-day holiday in 1916. But back then a holiday meant a real holiday. It meant a real day off like Sundays used to be when no shops were open—Hon Trevor Mallard: Even Saturdays.DARIEN FENTON: —even Saturdays that is right—the pubs were shut the local dairy was closed and the buses did not run. That is what it used to be like.A lot has changed through the last hundred years. There have been several amendments to the Holidays Act and there have been several amendments to the Anzac Day Act and the Waitangi Day Act. Annual leave and public holidays have been increased without the vote of the National Party of course—without its support. But also what has changed is that more workers are now expected to work on public holidays. So while the pubs and shops are still closed on Anzac Day morning—it is only until 1 o’clock whereas once it was the whole day—on Waitangi Day it is a free-for-all so everything is open. Meanwhile despite the changes support for Anzac Day as a day of commemoration has built over time and people’s understanding of the importance of Waitangi Day has also increased. Nothing in this bill will change that.Anzac Day will still be on 25 April. Dawn Services will still be held. Large crowds will still turn up to services and parades throughout the country. I will attend and remember my father and grandfather who fought in World War I and World War II. Anzac Day will still be observed as a holiday on that day regardless of which day of the week it is and people who work on that day—and many do—will be paid time and a half and they will get a different day off with pay. Waitangi Day has a much more recent history but its significance as a day of celebration and commemoration on 6 February will also remain the same in the same way Anzac Day will.But to take the National Party’s argument to its logical extension nobody in this country should be able to work on Anzac Day or Waitangi Day because those days are just too sacred. But during this debate I have not heard one word of concern from the National Party for the thousands of workers who have to work on Anzac Day and Waitangi Day.There has been not one word of recognition that many workers do not get a holiday at all and that for them Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are already on different days—not one word from the National Party. There has been not one word of ownership of the petty and distrustful extension of employer power that the National Government introduced in 2010 where employers can transfer Anzac Day and Waitangi Day to a different day without the consent of workers—not one word of concern from the National Party about this. Instead there has been a whole lot of sanctimonious concern that somehow having a holiday having these days Mondayised 1 year in 7—2 days out of every 7 years—is going to undermine the sanctity the sacredness of Anzac Day. The National Government brought in legislation in 2010 that allows employers to decide when Anzac Day falls or Waitangi Day falls and allows employers to decide when workers get the days off. Anzac Day for them can be any day other than 25 April. Waitangi Day for them can be any day other than 6 February.So let us face it for thousands of workers in New Zealand there is no Anzac Day or Waitangi Day. It is meaningless and for this Government to argue that this bill undermines those holidays is quite frankly—a word that I am not allowed to use. The National Government has done away with Anzac Day and Waitangi Day for them and now it has been crying crocodile tears. Simon O’Connor was the best—10 minutes of reading from the diary of a World War I soldier. Unbelievable. Yet it was the National Government’s legislation in 2010 that means that those 2 days just do not exist for many workers. They work on the days and they get other days off that the employer decides on. Anzac Day and Waitangi Day can be any days that the employer has decided on.Andrew Little: It’s worse if they’re an independent contractor.DARIEN FENTON: Yes of course—there are some people who get no holidays like independent contractors and that is another story.Then we have had all the arguments around cost. David Bennett made a bit of a feeble attempt at it. I cannot accept that New Zealand is in such a bad state that our businesses are so so hard up that this will send businesses broke as the Government has claimed even to the extent of using its dodgy figures. It is far more honest to just accept and own up to the fact that it does not want workers to have more holidays. Employer organisations like the Employers and Manufacturers Association were very honest with us. When we asked the association whether it had ever supported more holidays it at least owned up in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and said no it has never supported 4 weeks never supported extra holidays—just like the National Government.Then as support has gathered for this bill John Key has tried to do this “What me worry?” routine—“The world’s not going to end.” I think the Government is now embarrassed that it opposed this bill. It knows that it is on the wrong side of public opinion. It knows it cannot justify its opposition because it has already changed the law to undermine the special nature of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. I believe that the Government knows in its heart of hearts that this bill is the right thing to do. It is a sensible bill. Kiwis know this is a fair deal. This is a great day for Kiwi workers. This is a great day for Dr David Clark. It is wonderful to see a Labour bill that will advance things for New Zealand workers in this House again. In 2014 there will be a lot more when we are the Government.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Mike Sabin. Tēnā koe.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Thank you. Kia ora. I appreciate the greeting. Can I firstly take an opportunity just to acknowledge David Clark the member introducing this bill the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill and—Hon Trevor Mallard: The reverend doctor.MIKE SABIN: That is the one. As I now understand I can always rely on the Hon Trevor Mallard to correct me if I go astray—very helpful very helpful. I do appreciate having a wing man with such integrity. Can I acknowledge Grant Robertson also as the original author of this bill and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am now a member of that select committee but I was not involved in this process. It is worthy of acknowledging the fact that when any member sees legislation pass through this House there has been a lot of hard work undertaken in that.However as members will be aware the National Party will not be supporting this bill. For me it comes down to quite a fine balance. First and foremost for me as a former naval officer and serviceman the recognition of Anzac Day—the full recognition of Anzac Day—is not something that requires Mondayisation. Let us make it very clear that Anzac Day needs no form of recognition other than the fact that it isAnzac Day a time at which this nation gathers together to remember the sacrifices and the lives that were lost in 1915 in Gallipoli and all the other conflicts in which New Zealand servicemen have upheld the honour of this country and democracy. That is something that I do not believe needs a public holiday in order to be recognised.Darien Fenton: It already is a public holiday.MIKE SABIN: Well it certainly does not need Mondayisation. I will come to that member’s points in due course.For me the special significance of that day runs the risk of being lost in the idea of a public holiday—a 3-day weekend being the reason for celebration. And as we say goodbye to the last of those most senior veterans it falls upon the next generation and their children to pick up that baton and carry it as we remember those who survived those wars and have passed on. For me that is something that certainly does not need the recognition of a bill such as this which really in its title underpins I think exactly what it is about: the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. It somehow suggests that there is not adequate recognition of those days and that by making it a long weekend we will somehow more fully recognise them. I believe that that is unnecessary.As to the question of Waitangi Day as a member of Parliament for Northland again it is a very very special and significant day for the nation. It is a day that has seen some controversy. I remember as a policeman one or two battles of the bridge as we used to call them up there but I have to say that on the last Waitangi Day this year in 2013 there was definitely a change of mood at that place where the Treaty was signed. None the less it is a very very significant day to this nation. It signifies the modern New Zealand that we know now. It was a starting point for that. And as a member of Parliament for that area it is very important for me that that day is recognised for what it actually is.Some have referred to it as New Zealand Day. In fact members of the Labour Party in years gone by have done that. I want to read just a couple of quotes fromHansard that reflect the sentiment of the Labour Party of old. It may have some views as to what today’s Labour Party is about. I will leave that for the punters out there to speculate on.Former Minister of Māori Affairs Matiu Rata said: “Like Anzac Day New Zealand Day is not to be Mondayised. It is the significance of the occasion that is important rather than the fact that it is to be a paid public holiday. It should not be regarded as merely an extra paid holiday.” That is one of them.We heard the member Darien Fenton who spent most of her 10-minute speech talking about workers holidays and so on and so forth and although everyone will accept that an honest hard day’s work deserves recognition in terms of a break again I come back to my original point about what these days are actually about what they mean in the hearts and minds of New Zealanders versus becoming some default setting as another holiday another long weekend.It goes on because former Minister of Internal Affairs Mr May also of the Labour Party said: “The Government believes the Mondayising of New Zealand Day … would detract from the importance and significance of the event it commemorates.” Former MP Paraone Rēweti said that the committee considered that it was justified—Hon Trevor Mallard: Who?MIKE SABIN: Do you want me to write that down for you Mr Mallard?Hon Trevor Mallard: Yeah yeah yeah.MIKE SABIN: I will send it over in a note for you.Hon Trevor Mallard: Where does he come from?MIKE SABIN: I am sure you know. You must be a great author of the Labour Party history I am sure. That member certainly carved his name well into it.Grant Robertson: I think he was here.MIKE SABIN: Yeah well that is good. Then the member should know so there is no need to ask me. I am sure he can make a mental note for himself. Mr Rēweti said that the committee considered that it was justified in declaring that Waitangi Day should not be Mondayised because the Labour Party had gone to the electors in 1972 on the policy that Waitangi Day would not be Mondayised. If the member Trevor Mallard was here he probably remembers a lot of those speeches. He probably remembers what the old Labour Party the working Labour Party of old was all about.But I come to my point which the member Darien Fenton has raised and it is about the consistent attack as she puts it by the New Zealand National Party on the workers. That is ironic given that the member who introduced this bill David Clark also introduced the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill which sought to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. If we could just legislate the minimum wage without any consequence to the employer who ultimately has to find the means to employ that person then why stop at $15? Why not chuck $25 $50 or maybe $100 an hour? That member David Clark considers himself to be the best spokesman on economics in 50 years and yet he has been a member who has single-handedly introduced two members’ bills to this House both of which have a significant fiscal consequence to the employer.Andrew Little: No they don’t.MIKE SABIN: They do. Of course they do.Andrew Little: No they don’t.MIKE SABIN: Well I am not going to listen to the union strongman over there bellowing his comments from across the floor because at the end of the day—and that member would have to recognise this—at some point employers need to find money to pay their employees. To do that they have to be actually making a profit and there is a very fine line there. So the member who has introduced this bill the so-called economic spokesperson will actually be hurting small and medium sized businesses. That is what that is about.Can I just close by saying that I acknowledge the work that David Clark has done. I respect the parliamentary process that has been followed here and for me this has been about a fine balance. It has been a very fine balance.Andrew Little: You know you want to vote for it. Come on Mike.MIKE SABIN: No I certainly will not be. I certainly will not be. It has been a fine balance and for me it falls on the side of those servicemen in particular. As we approach Anzac Day can I just acknowledge those fallen soldiers and servicemen from across New Zealand who have served this country so well in upholding our place in the world and doing our bit and far more those veterans who have survived those wars and the existing servicemen who are out there serving our country today.On Anzac Day I will proudly be standing there to commemorate and to acknowledge those people. I wonder whether Mr Clark will be confronted with a little bit of flack as a result of this bill. Can I close by saying that Anzac Day is a very important day to all New Zealanders and I look forward to this Anzac Day to celebrate commemorate and remember those who have fallen. Lest we forget.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Tēnā koe. I am pleased to take a short call on this Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill to affirm the Green Party’s support for this very good bill. Our compliments to whatever combination of Labour hearts and minds brought it into being. It is a very well-thought-out and quite simple piece of legislation. It simply affirms that every year New Zealanders will enjoy 11 public holidays rather than having them in only 5 years out of 7 years and missing out in those other 2 years.I am genuinely surprised that Government members have not come round to supporting this legislation. I have listened reasonably carefully to their speeches in various readings and that is not always an enjoyable experience listening to speeches from that side of the House but it has been interesting to just try to unpick what their objections are.My fellow Northlander Mike Sabin who just resumed his seat gave a very sincere speech reflecting on his commitment to Anzac Day. I would have to say that if I thought or if any of my Green colleagues thought that the passing of this legislation would in any way diminish or degrade the importance or the integrity of that celebration we would probably not—well in fact I can say certainly I would not support it and I suspect neither would my colleagues.Anzac Day is critically important. I confess in my former life I was more or less committed to attending services on any given Anzac Day. As an MP I have also seen it as an absolute duty to turn up at local celebrations and also a pleasure. It is an important day in our history and one we should continue to acknowledge.The proposition that somehow Mondayising Anzac Day will lead to less commitment to it and a smaller turnout to honour that day is at odds with the evidence from Australia where Mondayisation has been in place for some time and the numbers if anything are increasing for attendances at Anzac Day celebrations as indeed they are here in New Zealand as younger people realise this is not about the glorification of war. It is about acknowledging sacrifice and also a commitment to doing everything we can to avoid wars in the future.Some of the objection to this bill has been around the economic effect—the effect on business. Again I simply do not see that as being valid. We heard some extraordinary numbers in the first reading about the tens of millions of dollars it would cost the country every year to have two more days off 2 years out of 7 years. Those numbers simply do not add up. Some businesses will close obviously on days that otherwise they would not but that is more than compensated for in the scheme of things around the larger economic picture by the fact that the Mondayisation will enable people to have extra time off. Long weekends will become feasible. There will be a knock-on effect in tourism and elsewhere. So we do not accept that there is any economic difficulty or issue involved in that.It contributes to our work-life balance. New Zealanders actually work some of the longest hours of any developed country in the world. Unfortunately that does not flow through to productivity which I will say a little more about in a moment but we are just making sure that we do maximise the work-life balance opportunities for people in the workplace and this bill does make a small but useful contribution towards that.Mr Bennett seemed concerned that the bill did not go far enough that somehow its effect was so little as to not warrant his support. I am somewhat tempted to dust off the Green Party’s April Fool’s Day spoof that suggested another eight holidays per year. We might find support for that from the MP from Hamilton. But it does seem an extraordinary proposition that because this is a relatively minor matter albeit a positive matter it cannot be supported for that reason.I have mentioned Anzac Day and Waitangi Day too is an important observation in our history. It is very important to us collectively and personally it is an important day. I have both Māori and Pākehā tupuna who put their names to that document put their signatures on it so it has always been very much a part of my personal DNA. While living in the north—well even before living in the north—I have been a regular attendee at Waitangi Day celebrations in Waitangi. It is noticeable that where Waitangi Day falls on a weekend you tend to find a different attendance than through the normal course of events. The day of the week on which it falls does affect the attendance atWaitangi people’s travel arrangements and so on. The situation where it falls on a Saturday or Sunday and people know that the Monday is also a holiday will I think enable more people to come to Waitangi and enjoy the celebration at that very key site.It will do no harm for Northland tourism. As we know Northland is one of the still relatively undiscovered gems in the tourism crown of New Zealand. There is a great deal to enjoy there. There is an increasing supply of tourism attractions and accommodation and I would encourage people who are heading north to hang around a while and see just what a great deal there is to offer in the north.I mentioned the issue of holidays—the fact that people seem to think that if we have one more holiday in each of those 2 years that somehow there will be an economic cost to that. As to the number of holidays New Zealanders have be they large or small—you can argue about whether 11 is a lot or a few—our key economic issue around that is actually productivity. We do not have a productive economy. The reason for that is that the one significant and probably the single most important contributor to that low productivity is poor labour productivity. I believe firmly that the reason for that is that we have a very poor management culture in New Zealand. We have too many people in management positions who are actually not good at that task. We have this unfortunate habit of promoting people who might be good at a particular activity to a management role. This has been acknowledged by employer groups by employee groups by the finance sector by bankers and by a whole array of different sectors and different interests in the economy.The issues are not about whether we have 11 days off a year or only 9 or 10. The issue is that we do not invest enough in management and upskilling our managers in New Zealand. If we invest a little bit there we will get a great deal more productivity in our economy. People perhaps could stop working such extraordinarily long hours with no economic cost and in fact with significant economic benefit.All in all as I said the Greens have been pleased to support this legislation from the beginning. We will continue to offer that support and we look forward to in future years enjoying with the rest of New Zealand the time that it will allow for people to maintain work-life balance to spend time with their families and to enjoy this beautiful country of ours. We commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a great pleasure to take a call on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. This is a very important bill.I want to acknowledge the work of Dr David Clark my colleague who picked up this bill from Grant Robertson and also from Darien Fenton. I wanted to add that because as we know success has many fathers and failure is an orphan. Although of course when I say success has many fathers I might say in light of the debate yet to come that success has many parents and for those who have just tuned in their radios and their TVs when I say success has many parents I am talking in relation to the Mondayisation bill. I am not promoting polygamy; I am just saying as a saying that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. My contribution to the Mondayisation bill which we are debating now is that Grant Robertson had a conversation with me as he was drafting it so I feel that even my paw prints sit over this very important piece of legislation.Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m sure all of us talked to him while he was drafting it. Was it about this?ANDREW LITTLE: Well I am not saying he talked to me exclusively about it but I feel as if—Hon Trevor Mallard: But did he discuss the bill with you?ANDREW LITTLE: He discussed the bill with me even before I arrived here.I do not want to get into conspiracy theories about the old Labour Party and being driven by the unions because that certainly was not the case. But in response to my colleague Mike Sabin’s arguments about the old Labour Party versus the new I want to say about the old National Party that when it comes to labour rights it was the old National Party that actually introduced the first personal grievance law in this House in 1970. That was a National Party that respected workers and workers’ organisations. That was a National Party that actually wanted workers to have a good relationship with their employer to be respected and to have fair processes. What a sea change we have in the National Party of today and perhaps I will come back to that when I have a moment.What I also want to say to Mike Sabin is that this bill is not about not observing Anzac Day and Waitangi Day on the days they fall. Of course we will continue to do that. These are important days. These are the days and indeed the events that sit behind them that define us as a nation. We will always observe them and we will observe them with great emotion great consideration and great compassion towards those who have gone before us for the contribution they have made in the case of each of them. But what this does do at least in relation to those years in which the days fall on a weekend day—actually observing the following Monday as a holiday enhances our observation of them and the commemoration or the celebration of those particular days.This bill fulfils the promise of the Holidays Act which is to grant 11 days’ public holiday to every worker every year. That is an important thing and an important achievement. It fulfils the promise of a modern and civilised society and an economy that not only recognises the contribution of working people but recognises important events in our history and allows us as a community to commemorate them and celebrate them as appropriate.Let us not forget that in around about the last 15 years there has been a 25 percent increase in productivity and value in this country whereas real wages have increased barely 10 percent over the same period of time. There is no loss to business not in any aggregate sense at least anyway. There is no loss to business in the 2 years out of 7 years that this bill will allow extra days to be granted to workers in observation and commemoration of these very important days. As David Clendon said in his contribution we are a nation that over the last 20 years has shown that we are working longer hours on average and we are not being paid commensurately for those additional hours. We are not getting the reward. This might be seen for those who see some economic difficulty in it to provide just some little extra reward for those extra hours worked and the extra productivity produced in our economy as a whole.The truth is that this bill has widespread support across New Zealand not only amongst working people but across many businesses not the least of which is the Tourism Industry Association which represents literally hundreds of businesses big and small in this economy. It has a very important role to play. In fact the tourism industry is so important that this Government is about to grant an additional $158 million over 4 years to it. That is how much importance this Government sees the tourism industry having. Quite why it does not listen to it on issues like this I do not understand although I can explain it when I go back to the issues about the modern National Party and its attitude to workers and workers’ rights.Responsible regulation in the labour market simply means ensuring fairness. This bill is an example of responsible regulation and it is a bill that will ensure greater fairness for working people. This bill adds that. This bill—what it does; all it does—adds a maximum of 2 days’ leave in 2 years out of every 7 years—2 years out of every 7 years. This is not going to break the bank of New Zealand productivity or the bank of New Zealand business. It is a fair recognition of something that actually our Holidays Actalready promises but does not so far deliver. This will continue genuine observance of these important commemorative days when they would otherwise fall on a weekend.Let us talk about Anzac Day because we are on the eve of Anzac Day week. When we think about Anzac Day we know that young New Zealanders predominantly men—in fact it was all men—were conscripted into the army to go and fight thousands of miles away. That is important to us because actually one of the driving forces for the founding of the Labour Party was an opposition to conscription. Young men were conscripted to fight in a war many thousands of miles away. They accepted the argument that this was for Queen and country it was for a lifestyle and it was for a sense of freedom. It was not to work longer hours. It was not to lift their productivity by 25 percent and get nothing for it. That is not what young soldiers fought for in World War I. They fought for a set of values and for greater freedom and this bill properly and truly recognises the sacrifice that was made because it represents greater freedom—the freedom to spend time with one’s family and the freedom to express oneself how one wishes in one’s own time.That is what this bill does and we should respect it and support it for that reason. It is about putting work in balance with the rest of one’s life. That is the challenge of life in the modern world and this bill will help us to achieve that. It is about good rights at work.When we think about Waitangi Day and we think about the historical origins of that day and about rights to citizenship this bill is about conferring not only citizenship but “humanship” if you like. It is about the humanity of each of us—the right to have time off to mark important historical events to commemorate them within our communities and to celebrate them where that is required. When we think about kāwanatanga and tino rangatiratanga working longer hours and being deprived of the right to observe those important days is not what the Treaty of Waitangi stands for. It stands for people being people and that if anything is what the Treaty of Waitangi is about—people.So this bill is very important. This bill is very important because it is a chance for us to express our nationhood and those 2 important days on a real day by having the world of commerce stop for a moment and take a step back in years in which it would otherwise not do so on these 2 important days so that we can all observe them.I started this contribution by talking about the new National Party. Look at everything it has done when it comes to work rights. Every time this Government comes to turn its attention to work rights it is about taking away. It is about detracting from workers and their rights whether it is the 90-day trial period whether it is changing the test on personal grievances—a piece of law that actually originated from a progressive liberal National Party which we do not have today and we do not have any more. When we think about access rights at work when we think about the rights of workers to have a say over when they take their holidays every time this Government turns its attention to work rights it takes something away from workers.Well thank goodness for the Labour Party. Thank goodness for the Labour Party and at least in Opposition with good members like Grant Robertson Dr David Clark and Darien Fenton we have the ability to introduce laws like this and get them passed for the good of all New Zealand. That is why we are supporting this bill.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koe i tēnei ahiahi. I te wā tuatahi i tū au mō tēnei o ngā pire i te tau kua hipa ake anei taku kōrero: “I a tātau e kōrero nei mō tēnei o ngā pire e rua ngā take nui whakaharahara e pīrangitia nei e au mātau o te Pāti Māori hei whakatakoto ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. Tuatahi ko tērā o ngā waiata ngā karanga nei me kī ‘honour the Treaty’ tērā kōrero. Ka rua ko te āhuatanga o te waihotanga mai o Tā Apirana Ngata i te wā i a ia. Arā ko tana kōrero ko “the price of citizenship”. Ēnei takekatoa ‘honour the Treaty’ ‘the price of citizenship’ kei reira tonu tētahi hononga ki waenganui i ngā kaupapa e rua i roto i tēnei pire.” Koinā taku kōrero i te wā i tū ake au i te pānuitanga tuatahi o tēnei o ngā pire.Ko tā mātau aronga nui mō tēnei o ngā pire ko tērā e pā ana ki ngā kaupapa e rua nei ko Te Tiriti o Waitangi ka mutu ko te rā o Tūmatauenga arā e kī ana te kōrero ko Anzac; kaua ko te aronga ki te moni ka kore e kitea e te pūkoro o ngā kaituku mahi; kaua ko te haerenga ki tātahi ki reira ruku kina ai pāinaina rānei i te rā ēngari ko te tino pūtake o tēnei o ngā whenua i ahu mai ai i roto i te āhuatanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi ka tahi nā wai nā wai ko te rā o Anzac arā te rā o Tūmatauenga e iri nei i te pakitara ā-whare i tēnei wā.Kei reira tonu kei te Wāhanga 4 o tēnei pire te pūtake o tēnei pire. Kia huri ki te reo Pākehā mō te wā poto. In clause 4 of this bill the aim is “to amend the … [Holidays Act 2003] to provide for the transfer of the public holidays for Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day if they fall on a weekend.” Ko te tino pūtake o tēnei pire me kī te tikanga ia e hāngai tonu ana ki tēnei mea te kotahitanga o Aotearoa. E kī ana ētahi he iwi kotahi tātau e kī ana ētahi ko te whakakotahitanga o Aotearoa Pākehā mai Māori mai. Ki a mātau koinei kei te tino pūtake o tēnei pire.Ka mutu tērā pea ka kitea mai ai ko te hōhonutanga o tēnei kaupapa mēnā i tiro i kite tātau i te Pouaka Whakaata Māori i te tau kua hipa arā i te wā i whakanuia ai ko te rā o Anzac. I taua wā i taua hōtaka i kite mātau tātau pea; ko Mātai Smith i te Kāreti o Te Aute tērā o ngā kura rongonui o Te Ao Māori. I te wā o nehe ko Te Aute tētahi o ngā kura tino rongonui. Anā ko ētahi o ngā tama i haere ki tāwāhi otirā i eke atu ki roto i te 28 arā ko te 28th Māori Battalion. E ai ki tāku e mōhio nei 250 ngā tama o tērā kura i haere i raro i te parirau o te 28 ki te Pakanga Tuarua o te Ao. Ko tētahi o rātau ko Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngārimu. Ko ia tērā i whiwhi nei i te Rīpeka o Wikitōria mō tōna māia i te mura o te ahi.Nā i a au otirā i a tātau pea e mātakitaki ana i tērā; ka rongo koe i te ngākaunui o ngā tama Māori ki ngā āhuatanga o te hunga i tae atu ki tērā kura o te hunga i haere anō hoki ki tāwāhi ki te mura o te ahi. I whakanuia ko te 28. Ki taku mōhio koinei te āhuatanga o Te Ao Māori ahakoa pēhea te āhuatanga o tēnei mea o te pakanga: ko te ngākau o Te Ao Māori tino kaha whai nei whakanui nei i te 28. Nā runga i te aha? Nā runga i ngā kōrero i puta mai i te wā i a rātau e haere ana ki tāwāhi.He pērā anō hoki ki Te Tai Tokerau arā ki Whangarei ki tētahi kaupapa hōu nei kua tipu ake i ngā tau kua hipa ko te Leadership Academy o Kamupene A; tētahi wāhanga o te 28. Ki taku mōhio 18 ngā tama o roto o Whangarei e whai nei i ngā tapuwae o te 28—he tamariki he āhua tamariki nei. Ko te tikanga o te haere ki tēnei kaupapa tēnei akoranga tēnei academy ko te tika o te tū ko te aronganui ki te tangata ko te māia ko te angitu ki te whai kaupapa ki tōna mutunga.Ko ētahi o ngā tama i roto i tēnei kaupapa arā te leadership academy ko rātau ngā uri o te hunga i haere ki tāwāhi. He māia te tū āhua rite me kī ki a Tūmatauenga i tōna pūtake kia tika te kākahu ka tirohia te āhuatanga o ngā moenga ka mutu ko te pakari ā-tinana ēnei āhuatanga katoa. Koinei ngā kaupapa ka whaiwhai haeretia e tēnei hunga. Ko te aronganui kia tū Māori tonu ēnei tama kia mōhio mai ai ko wai rātau kia mōhio mai ai ko te waihotanga mai o te hunga kua ngaro i te tirohanga kanohi kia mōhio rātau he uri nō tērā hunga he uri nō ngā rangatira i haere ki tua o te pae ēngari ko te hunga i haere ki te pakanga. Nā mā ēnei akoranga ka mōhio mai ai he rā nui whakaharahara te rā o Anzac. Ka mutu ko ēnei uri e whai nei i tērā kaupapa i tēnei rā tonu nei ahakoa arā kei te whakanui tātau i te hunga kua ngaro.Kia hoki mai au ki Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Ki taku mōhio ka whakaiti tātau i te tino pūtake o tēnei pire mēnā ko tā tātau ko te nui o te utu ki runga i ngā tāngata tuku mahi ki tēnā ki tēnā. Ka aroha hoki i te mea kei te whakanui tātau i te hunga i mate mō tepainga o Aotearoa. Kei reira te tino kaupapa nui. Kaua ko te pūtea i tōna kotahi kaua ko te whakatā i tōna kotahi ēngari me hoki mai tātau ki te kotahitanga o tēnei whenua o Aotearoa. Ka pūtake mai tō tātau hītori i te āhuatanga o te nohotahi o tātau o Te Ao Pākehā me tātau o Te Ao Māori i raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Nō reira he kaupapa nui tēnei.Me kī 5 tau kua hipa ka puta te kōrero i a Carol Archie he kaituhi tēnei wahine i Waitangi ia ka mutu i puta tētahi kōrero i a ia mō te āhuatanga o te kaupapa nei o Waitangi. Anei tana kōrero ka huri ki te reo Pākehā. Carol Archie about 5 years ago at Waitangi said these words: “People in Māori/ Pākehā families say it’s not easy to either marry someone from another culture or to be the children of such a union. But most enjoy being able to walk between cultures with comfort and the chance to understand life from different perspectives. I feel excited about it because they’re doing the groundwork to help us understand who we’re becoming as a nation.” Taku mōhio me pērā wā tātau whakaaro mō te āhuatanga o tā tātau noho. Arā anō ngā Minita Māori e kōrerohia ake nei i pūtake mai ai i Ingarangi arā ko Dover Samuels tērā nō roto Ingarangi. Ko Sharples nō te clan o Bolton i Ingarangi. Ko wā tātau mokopuna he kahurangi ngā karu. Ka moe te Pākehā i te Māori te Māori i te Pākehā kei reira tonu wā tātau whakapapa e whakakotahi nei i raro i te āhuatanga o te aroha o tētahi ki tētahi.Ka mutu kai hea ēnei kōrero e haere ana? Ko tāku ko te tino painga o tēnei momo pire mō te kaupapa o Dr David Clark ko tēnei private member’s bill kua whakatuwhera nei i te āhuatanga o te kōrero o te kotahitanga o Aotearoa. Koinā tētahi o ngā tino painga. Mā reira kua mōhio tātau ki ō tātau hītori ka mutu kei te tino ngako o tēnei pire ko wā tātau nohotahitanga ka mutu ko te kaupapa nui o Te Tiriti o Waitangi i roto i wā tātau kōrero.Ehara i te mea he nui ngā kōrero i tua atu o tērā. Nā mātau te kōrero ki te David Clark nei te mema nei āe ka tuku te Pāti Māori i ōna pōti e toru. Āhua uaua i ētahi wā nā te mea kua puta ētahi o ngā Minita kua hoki mai ētahi Minita ēngari ko tāku ki te mema ki a Mr Grant Robertson i tēnei wā koirā te waha kōrero te tangata i wāwāhi i ngā kōrero kei te whakaae atu te Pāti Māori ki te tuku i te pōti tautoko i tēnei pire me te mihi ki te mema nāna anō tēnei kaupapa i kōkiri ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Pāremata. He mea pai tēnei. Ko tā te Pāti Māori he tautoko he tautoko he tautoko. Kia ora tātau.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Huge salutations to you. When I rose for the first time to speak at the first reading of this bill last year this is what I said: “As we debate this bill there are two concepts that we the Māori Party wish to present before Parliament. Firstly there is the activist chant ‘honour the Treaty’ and secondly there is the legacy of Sir Apirana Ngata’s phrase ‘the price of citizenship’. Both are connected intimately in this bill.” That was in my address at the first reading of this bill.Our main focus as far as this bill is concerned is on these two matters the Treaty of Waitangi and the God of War day otherwise referred to as Anzac Day. It is not about employers being out of pocket going to the beach to dive for sea urchins or basking in the sun but rather because this country was founded on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—that is one—and eventually over time Anzac Day God of War day which adorn the walls of this chamber currently.The essence of this bill is very much there in Part 4 of this bill. Let me turn to English for a short moment. In clause 4 of this bill the aim is “to amend the … [Holidays Act 2003] to provide for the transfer of the public holidays for Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day if they fall on a weekend.” The real essence or meaning of this bill shall we say relates directly to the unity of New Zealand. According to some we are one people; others say it is the oneness of New Zealand Pākehā and Māori. To us this is the real crux of this bill.Furthermore the depth of this matter would have been noted if we looked at and watched Māori Television last year when Anzac Day was being celebrated. At that time on that programme we—all of us perhaps—saw that Mātai Smith was attending that famous school of Māoridom Te Aute College. Te Aute was one of the greatest schools in the past. Some of the boys went overseas enlisted in the 28th Māori Battalion. My understanding was that 250 students of that school served under the wing of the 28th Battalion in the Second World War. One of them was Te Moananui-a-Kiwa Ngārimu. He was the one awarded the Victoria Cross for his valour at the battle-front.When I was—indeed all of us perhaps were—watching that programme you experienced the commitment of those Māori boys who attended that school and the commitment of those as well who went overseas to the battle-front. It was the 28th Battalion that was honoured. My understanding is that this is the situation in Māoridom regardless of the nature of this thing about warfare: feelings among Māoridom for the 28th Battalion are very very strong. The battalion is celebrated greatly as well. On what grounds? Because of the accounts that emerged at the time they were heading overseas.It is like that as well up north in Whangarei in regards to one of these new initiatives the Leadership Academy of A Company a division of the 28th Battalion that has developed over the past years. I understand there are 18 boys from within Whangarei following in the footsteps of the 28th Battalion—mere children youngish. The motive for going to this scheme training academy is to become disciplined focused on people bold and successful in pursuing something to its conclusion.Some of the lads in this leadership academy are descendants of those who served overseas. They stand with bearing just like one in the army correctly dressed and where beds are inspected. Furthermore there is physical training and all these sorts of things. These are matters that these young ones will address. The focus is that these sons be Māori in every way know who they are know the legacy left by those who are no longer alive and know they are relatives of theirs and of the esteemed ones who have passed over the divide and went to the war. It is through these teachings that they will become aware of how important and extraordinary Anzac Day is. Furthermore these are the relatives who continue to pursue that aspect today even though we are celebrating those who have gone.Let me come back to the Treaty of Waitangi. To me we will denigrate the real purpose of this bill if we focus on how much employers pay each worker. I empathise because we are commemorating those who died for the good of New Zealand. And that is where the real crux of the matter is. It is not about the money or the holiday on its own; we need to come back to the unity of this country New Zealand. Our history evolved from how we of Pākehādom and Māoridom lived under the auspices of the Treaty of Waitangi. So this is an important matter.Five years ago shall we say this woman Carol Archie a writer made a statement at Waitangi about the situation there. Here is what she said. I will relate it in English. Carol Archie about 5 years ago at Waitangi said these words: “People in Māori/ Pākehā families say it’s not easy to either marry someone from another culture or to be the children of such a union. But most enjoy being able to walk between cultures with comfort and the chance to understand life from different perspectives. I feel excited about it because they’re doing the groundwork to help us understand who we’re becoming as a nation.” What I make of the situation is that our thinking about how we live should be like that. There are other Māori Ministers referred to here like Dover Samuels whose name originated from England. The name Sharples is from the Bolton clan in England. Our grandchildren have blue eyes. When a Pākehā marries a Māori and a Māori marries a Pākehā our bloodlines are still there being combined under the love of one for the other.So where are these comments heading to? For me particularly the real benefit of this kind of bill belonging to Dr David Clark this private member’s bill is that it has opened up discussions on the oneness of New Zealand. That is one of its real benefits. Through that we will understand our history the gist of this bill our living together as one and eventually the main theme of the Treaty of Waitangi in our comments.There is not much more to add to the debate. We assured this David Clark this member that yes the Māori Party is going to cast its three votes. It is difficult sometimes because Ministers come and go but I can assure the member Mr Grant Robertson who at this stage is presiding over proceedings that the Māori Party agrees to cast its vote in favour of this bill and congratulates the member who brought this bill before Parliament. This is a wonderful outcome. The Māori Party supports approves and endorses it. Congratulations to us collectively.]BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First is very pleased that this bill has now reached its final stages. We would like to extend our congratulations to Dr David Clark on having achieved a real milestone with this bill. Very few Opposition MPs ever—ever—have one of their bills pass into law from this side of the House. It is a very rare event so we are very pleased. We are pleased too that there is widespread support on this side of the House for the whole bill and we are very happy to share in Dr Clark’s success. We are sure that there is some reluctant support across the other side of the House as well from the National members and I know their speeches have not had any really valid reasons as to why this bill should not be supported.Without a doubt Dr Clark or perhaps even Labour will be on the minds of many Kiwis up and down the country on 25 April 2015 the very first year that is affected by this legislation. Many will not remember or will not even care but they will be grateful for the Mondayisation of Anzac Day. Like the majority of New Zealanders New Zealand First is really pleased to see this bill finally passing into law.As it currently stands we believe that Waitangi Day and Anzac Day have been given second-class status among our public holidays. It is simply not good enough. We have Mondayisation of Christmas Day and New Year’s Day and there have been absolutely no problems whatsoever so there should be no problems forthcoming with the Mondayisation of Anzac Day or Waitangi Day. These 2 days stand out amongst our annual holidays in so far as they are applicable to all New Zealanders—each and every one of us. Irrespective of background or creed whether you grew here or flew here these are the 2 days that mark us all as New Zealanders. They are our 2 national days.We have heard right throughout the progression of this bill how much demand there is for the full recognition of these days. Research shows that over 80 percent of New Zealanders and the majority of businesses have welcomed Dr Clark’s proposal in this bill. It makes sense it provides a consistency it is a good deal for workers and for businesses alike and New Zealanders know this. The taxi driver who picked me up from the airport this week said that he cannot wait for this bill to pass into law. People are talking about it. They value the role that holidays have. We know it is realistic to say that New Zealanders do not work from 9 to 5 any more and this bill will help that work-life balance.Both Waitangi Day and Anzac Day will not have their symbolism eroded or their special character taken away by these changes. On 6 February New Zealanders right throughout the country will mark the date of the signing of New Zealand’s founding document. We will reflect on past injustices. We will further reflect on the reconciliation process and look at how we might best move forward as a united country and a united people. Waitangi Day is something that sets New Zealand apart. It is a dayof recognition of the past of hope for the future and of unity. The mere fact that thousands of New Zealanders and expats in London come together on Waitangi Day to commemorate the occasion shows that even Kiwis overseas have got a really strong affinity for this day. How could Mondayisation having an extra day off if Waitangi Day falls on the weekend really pose a problem?The other important day that is affected by this legislation is Anzac Day—another one of our national days. It is a day on which we give thanks to those who paid the ultimate price for protecting the liberties of New Zealanders and others. Next Thursday we commemorate Anzac Day and no doubt every single one of us in this House will attend an Anzac Day service. The Anzac experience brought about a really strong bond between New Zealand and Australia recognising our common heritage our geography and our way of life. An increasing number of people and young people in particular are now attending Anzac Day dawn ceremonies. I know. I always attend my local Dawn Service in my town. They are eager to learn about the history and the symbolism and to share in the sense of camaraderie on Anzac Day. Many of these young New Zealanders proudly wear their great-grandfathers’ medals on their chests pinned to their chests—very proud.It is very interesting to note that the same thing is happening in Australia. People young and old are actively engaged in commemorating their heroes. All of this is despite the fact that in Australia they have already Mondayised Anzac Day with no detrimental effect whatsoever. Kiwis up and down the country knew that they were being robbed by a quirk of the system when they did not get their 11 days of public holidays and we always accepted it as a part of life. This bill is going to remedy this anomaly and streamline how we treat public holidays. On 2 days in every 7 years there will be the extra holiday.The tourism industry supports this bill. They can see only positive outcomes from this change as people will travel to other centres around New Zealand that they previously have not travelled to or never had the time to actually travel to. This bill has the support of workers it has the support of businesses it has the support of tourism and it definitely has the support of New Zealand First. Thank you.Dr CAM CALDER (National): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague Barbara Stewart across the House—a very eloquent presentation. However it has not been enough to get me to change my mind on this bill despite the eloquence. I wish to acknowledge Grant Robertson and Dr David Clark because it is always a pleasure to have a bill come before the House that one has crafted in Grant’s case—before he handed it on to Dr David Clark. I am hoping to have my own bill come quite soon to this House and I look forward to that. So I can empathise with the work done by Dr David Clark.Despite the eloquence of previous speakers I have a visceral distaste for this bill and I was just searching back as to why this should be. I guess the reason comes from the huge respect I have—and I am not suggesting other people in the House do not have that—for members of our armed forces men and women who have served. Where does this stem from? I spoke in the House some weeks ago on this very bill. My grandfather served in the Boer War. So I grew up being aware of the sacrifices made by actually thousands of New Zealanders very early in our history—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: The Boer war? Crikey.Dr CAM CALDER: In the Boer War—in the Boer War.Hon Member: Which side?Dr CAM CALDER: He was a member of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles. He had to take his own horse as I recall. He used to entertain me as a young lad with storiesupon his knee. As I was growing up—I lost my dad when I was 6—I was taught to shoot and I built a pram dinghy with my neighbour Ron Carr now deceased whom I would like to pay tribute to in this House who was a World War II veteran and who also served in the Korean War. I remember playing in the back garden with a Japanese jungle carbine that he had miraculously brought back from the campaign that he served in. I learnt how to handle weapons with him going out shooting rabbits in the foothills of Mount Egmont as we used to call it then or Mount Taranaki. Both names pertained at that stage. Look this background is just trying to shape my distaste for this bill because I have always honoured this day. Anzac Day has stood alone—Hon Members: We all have.Dr CAM CALDER: I know you are saying across the House that it in no way detracts—personally I believe it was raised above other days of significance by the fact that is was not always a holiday. I felt and I have said it in this House before that that was a way we could give credit and acknowledge the sacrifice made by generations who have gone before and who in many cases paid the ultimate price. For us to give up a holiday once in a blue moon is no sacrifice at all. So that is shaping my view.I also did a territorial officer selection board as a young lad and became a member of “the blue berets”. As many of you know “the blue berets” are the members of the Otago University Medical Company who went off to serve in Viet Nam. At the time when they were called—two officers went every year—I would have gone were it not for the fact that fortunately for the Viet Namese the peace process intervened. For a young lad from the Naki who was keen to go and serve in a medical corps it was a huge disappointment for me personally but a great joy for everybody else involved in that horrible ugly conflict. We were going to patch people up not to lay waste to them.Todd McClay: You’re not a very good shot.Dr CAM CALDER: As has been pointed out by my colleague Todd McClay with one eye I probably wasn’t a very good shot but that was not what we were going there for.It is probably appropriate to mention the extremely hard work done by one of the legendary chairmen of select committees. I refer of course to David Bennett. David Bennett is a legendary chairman of select committees and it was his Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that saw the submissions and dealt with submissions. Were there many? There were not many. In fact only 32 submissions on this bill were received: 18 submitters supported the bill and 12 submitters opposed the bill. The chairman has actually pointed out that there were some good arguments for and against this bill. There were arguments that came through in opposition to the bill. So what were some of these key themes?Well as we have heard the bill would create additional costs. And what would some of these costs be? The cost to the employers estimated by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is an estimated impact of $220 million to $280 million. That is not insignificant. The cost to the whole economy output estimated by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is $134 million to $186 million. These are not insignificant. So that was one of the thoughts. Some of the submitters thought that it might diminish the significance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day. It could create further unfairness it could create further confusion—these were some of the comments made—and it could encourage a change in shift and roster patterns. Those were themes coming out in opposition to the bill.One of the submitters in opposition was Business New Zealand. If I can be a little bit more specific here some of the points it made in its submissions are as follows. In its opposition to change it said there was little basis for change. I have to accept that. Imean this is a meaty beefy big and bouncy compact and perky little member’s bill. I have already paid my respects to Grant Robertson and to Dr David Clark as well.Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are noted by the submitters Business New Zealand as being specific to New Zealand and as commemorative days. Business New Zealand makes the point that “This is in contrast to Christmas Day and New Year’s Day which are not”—and this is a surprising point and it has a point here—“days of significance for every New Zealander.” It made that point in its submission.Easter Monday is another example of another holiday contrasted with these days. In this case Easter Monday was created to provide people with a holiday—[Interruption] Can we have a little bit of hush please? It was created to provide people with a holiday as it was previously uncommon to work on Easter Sunday. The submitter considers the title of the bill to be “inapt” as the original purpose of both days was to recognise their special nature. The submitter references the 1921 Anzac Day Amendment Bill and the 1960 Waitangi Day Act.Business New Zealand did acknowledge in its even-handed way that the tourism industry would benefit but it noted that other businesses are concerned about the potential costs and we have talked about how much that would be. I notice that Business New Zealand’s submission is supported by the National Association of Retail Grocers and Supermarkets of New Zealand. So there is a very strong submission and the overwhelming number of submissions were actually against this. In contrast the tourism industry supports this bill and it suggested that it may actually stimulate domestic tourism and would be affordable for business while increasing the importance of Waitangi Day and Anzac Day.One of the things that people have raised in the House and in closing I would just like to address this is that somehow it was thought that New Zealand was out of step with the rest of the world in the number of public holidays. Well in fact we are not. The United States has 10 and no minimum annual paid leave. The United Kingdom has eight. Australia has eight and 20 days’ annual paid leave—the same as New Zealand. So there are arguments for and agin this bill but I remain implacably opposed thereto.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call. Five minutes Carol Beaumont.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a real pleasure to rise and speak on a positive and necessary bill that will pass here today. We have had far too many negative bills in this House and we have had far too many pieces of legislation that are not in fact necessary but are really about dog whistle politics like bashing beneficiaries. But anyway I rise to speak on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge of course Dr David Clark and Grant Robertson and also the Labour members of the select committee who worked hard on this as others have said—Darien Fenton the senior member on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and my colleague and friend here Andrew Little—all of whom have contributed I think important points to this debate.This bill came about as a result of a real problem. Something in Parliament that we are meant to be aware of is identifying things that need changing and addressing the need for change. This was a real problem. Many people felt that in 2011 they had had fewer holidays than they were entitled to and in fact that was true. They had had 9 public holidays rather than the 11 that they had expected.The purpose of the bill is quite clear and it is not all of the things that the National MPs have been trying to say it is. They have been trying to run a line that somehow this is going to undermine important days of national significance for us. I do not think they have been successful and I am sure that those listening to and watching the House have not been convinced by their arguments but I will come back to that. What this bill is actually about is addressing an issue that arises only in those years when Waitangi Dayand Anzac Day fall on a weekend. It will amend the Holidays Act to provide for the transfer of the public holidays for Waitangi Day and Anzac Day if they fall on a weekend.The celebration of those very critically important days which are fundamental to our national identity will still be in the case of Waitangi Day 6 February and in the case of Anzac Day 25 April but there will also be a public holiday on the Monday that follows in those years when Waitangi Day or Anzac Day fall on a weekend. That is what it is really about. It is not about disrespecting those important days. Nobody here is of that mind and that is not what the bill does. It will ensure that certainly most New Zealanders—full-time paid employees—will get 11 public holidays every year rather than in only 5 out of every 7 years.This change as others have said is well supported. It is well supported by the public it is well supported by employees and it is well supported by a number of employers—particularly as others have said in the tourism industry. But also one of the few pieces of quantitative research done on this has shown that 87 percent of over 1000 small and medium enterprises that were surveyed actually supported it or were neutral on the question. So the argument that employers do not support this bill is nonsensical and it makes sense really because those employers also have families that they want to spend time with.Most New Zealanders and I would imagine every member of this House recognise that holidays are important. Why are holidays important? Well let me spell it out. Holidays are an opportunity for rest and recreation. Holidays help people balance paid working time with time off to spend with family and friends. Let us recognise that in the case of Anzac Day those who fought for our country fought for our values and that includes the importance of family and mateship. We all know that those were critically important to those Anzacs. So holidays are important and they have become arguably more important as paid work has become more demanding for many. There are longer hours flexibility that makes it harder to balance work and life and fewer people in workplaces which is intensifying work.I want to acknowledge also given that we are talking about paid work the many many New Zealanders who are without paid work at the moment—who are unemployed. I want to note again the Government’s failure to focus on jobs while it is at the same time taking a punitive approach to beneficiaries. We have very high unemployment—we have jobless growth at the moment—but on a rare occasion we are in this House celebrating something positive for those in paid employment and I commend this bill to the House.JAN LOGIE (Green): The Green Party is very pleased to support the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill on its third reading tonight and we look forward to it passing into law. We are supporting this bill for lots of reasons but primarily because we support a good work-life balance for New Zealanders and we believe that the economy is a tool to serve our planet and our people and a good work-life balance is something that looks after us.I would like to acknowledge Dr David Clark and Grant Robertson my old boss who was never able to give me that Monday off. I know he would have really loved to because his party has produced this wonderful bill. The Greens would like to do a lot more to support a balanced society—one where every New Zealander could have a great life. Just imagine if we planned for our economy to help us all have balanced and fulfilling lives. Would that not be a beautiful thing?This bill is actually just a really tiny thing and to be opposing it just seems curmudgeonly to me I have to say. We believe that this bill will enable workers and their families to enjoy the full entitlement of the Holidays Act—11 public holidays peryear every year. Under the existing Holidays Act in every 2 out of 7 years those 11 public holidays reduce to 9 days a year because Waitangi Day and Anzac Day are celebrated on specific days.We have other days on which the holidays happen on the same day every year they are marked and people get a holiday on a different day: Christmas Day Boxing Day New Year’s Day and the day after New Year’s Day. When those days fall on weekends the law allows for them to be transferred so that workers get the full entitlement from those days. We recognise the importance of doing that. The Greens maintain that the difference in treatment between Waitangi Day and Anzac Day and Christmas Day Boxing Day New Year’s Day and the days after those 2 days is an anomaly.We reject the notion put by some submitters and members across the House that it will undermine either of those important days to have a holiday on a separate day. We have not seen any evidence of this happening with Christmas Day and I do not think it has any less meaning to us as a people because we have a holiday on another day. Australia already transfers Anzac Day to a Monday when it occurs on a weekend and the day’s commemorations are still held on 25 April. Even with Mondayisation Anzac Day events in Australia are really well attended and I do not think that would change here.The majority of small businesses—I think all of us on this side of the House really strongly support the interests of small businesses—are supporting this initiative. The tourism industry as has been noted has said that it sees this as an opportunity to increase domestic tourism and that the economic benefits outweigh the costs to small employers. That is I think a good thing. The costs of this are not at all outrageous. Employers already bear the costs of public holidays for their staff most years. Another 2 years is not going to break the bank.I just want to talk a little bit about the fact that I think New Zealanders work really hard—too hard actually. I am not saying this as a slacker. I am the product of a Protestant work ethic and a workaholic father. I have never achieved work-life balance in my life without feeling I was letting myself or my employer down to be honest but I recognise that to be disordered. I saw the really significant health costs on my father who needed to be resuscitated by my mother after he had a heart attack in his 40s due to not being able to achieve work-life balance from being a workaholic. We have an ever-increasing pressure on workers in this country and they need to be looked after a little better. This bill is a tiny step towards that.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am very pleased to rise to speak on the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. The previous member Jan Logie was talking about small elements. I think what is important is that she mentioned a few details but of course missed the wider context. People have been talking about Australia and holidays and so on. Well in Australia just to look at a few facts they have eight public holidays a year and 20 days off by right. In New Zealand of course we have 11 days off not 8—we have 11. If this bill passes through we will move to 12 or 13 public holidays along with 20 days off. The US has only nine public holidays and no mandated leave. Canada—just across the border of course for those geographically challenged—has nine public holidays and only 10 mandated days of leave.So New Zealand already has 11. We have more public holidays than all those other countries. We have more public holidays—a small detail for the Greens—than Australia. If we pass this bill then we move to have even more public holidays. That can be right or wrong but it is a context that does make New Zealand less competitive in a global environment. It is really important that we provide the full context. So to themember who just resumed her seat “curmudgeonly” can be an excellent word I have to say. Personally I feel that the word “Mondayisation” is a crime against the English language and I feel terrible to even use it. But we need obviously to touch all the details. It is very important.I do not really want to get on to the economic front as well because those who have heard previous speeches of mine will know they have played more on the principle but the other side of it too is that there are always costs to decisions that are made. So we have heard here in the House today and it was from Grant Robertson in his initial speech that—Grant Robertson: A brilliant speech!SIMON O’CONNOR: Well it was a speech I will give it that. He said we should be giving and encouraging more holidays. We hear also from Labour the Greens and other parties that there is more we have to do we have to pay people more money and there have to be more opportunities. Whether that is right or wrong is one question but the other is always to admit there is a cost. Where there are more holidays where there is more pay someone has to pay that price.Andrew Little: And there are also benefits.SIMON O’CONNOR: Kiwis have to pay that price. Yes—I acknowledge the interjection from Andrew Little—there are benefits too. But there are also costs which need to be acknowledged.I do not support this bill. The reason remains very simple as I said from my first speech and that is that Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are not excuses for holidays. I think it is important for everyone to understand. It has been iterated in the House a few times that of course Anzac Day and Waitangi Day are holidays. It is not as if they are not going to be or will be more so; they are holidays be they on a Tuesday a Thursday a Saturday or a Sunday and that remains. We will be able to attend our services and so on. But this has become a bill that wants to use those days of commemoration to be an excuse for a day off. When we listen to the Opposition it does not take long at all before tourism barbeques and other commercial enterprise usages kick up. I invited the Opposition in my second reading speech—and this is an important point—to say to me: “Look we want to have a discussion about more holidays.” Then let us have that discussion. Let us have that discussion. I said: “Let’s not use Anzac Day and Waitangi Day as an excuse but if we want to talk about more holidays come and have a chat with me.”Sue Moroney: But they’re already holidays.SIMON O’CONNOR: Here we are—and one of the Opposition members has yelled out that they are already holidays. Yes that is right; they are already holidays. This bill is saying that we should use those existing holidays—those days of commemoration—as an excuse for more holidays. I reject that. I say: “Come up with better ideas.” They should come up with better ideas. But to date not one person from the Opposition—not one person from the Opposition—has come to talk about an opportunity to create new holidays. No they are more than happy to use these days of commemoration in this way. And it will harm them. It does make changes to mindsets.Principles are important. Consistency is important. That is lost on the Opposition members too when they are saying that these are just the same—these days are just the same as Christmas Day or Easter. They are not. They are not. Days like Christmas Easter and so on are days of festivities. One needs just to look at the etymology of where the words come from. They are days of celebration. But these days Waitangi Day and particularly Anzac Day are days of commemoration. We have the ability already in law in statute and by convention to undertake these days of commemoration. This bill uses this as an excuse to create more. The Opposition yellsup and down that it might be only every so often but that is not the point. If you are a person of principle then you stick to principles and you stick to consistency. That is the key operating here.In a few days’ time many of us right across the House will of course be undertaking our Anzac Day obligations and duties with a heartfelt desire and I am sure that goes right across the House. I am very much looking forward to joining the people of Tāmaki down in St Heliers Bay. We have a little war memorial there on the bay for a young man. I think it is for Guyon Brookfield who used to be a Scout troop leader who died in the First World War. A number of us right across Tāmaki from all the different communities will come together on the 25th to remember that day. I think it is important to acknowledge that the day does remain a day of commemoration. To be honest I do not expect any of those people in my electorate standing there at the memorial to say: “Oh Simon you know I wish we had an excuse for another day off.” It is not going to happen.We do not need this piece of legislation. What we need as I have offered and suggested before is a free and frank conversation. If we want more holidays then let us have that discussion. Do not use Anzac Day. Do not use Waitangi Day. Just remember of course what we began with. My colleague David Bennett fine chairperson that he is has noted that New Zealand already has an incredibly good deal on holidays in comparison with other countries in the world. We are a great country. We already have our systems well in place. I do not support the passage of this bill. I ask the members of the Opposition to stand with a lot of Kiwis who have written to me and others I am sure to say leave Anzac Day as it is. Leave Waitangi Day as it is. Let them remain as days of commemoration. I am proud and happy to not support this bill and in doing so support our veterans.SUE MORONEY (Labour): What a privilege to be the last speaker before an exciting vote is about to take place on this bill the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill. The New Zealand public is about to get a taste of what it would be like to have a good pragmatic Labour Government in place by seeing the sorts of pragmatic bills that would make a difference to hard-working families in New Zealand. They can watch this debate this afternoon and go “Yes that’s what we’d get under Labour. That’s what we’d get under Labour.” because very soon the Government is about to be defeated. The Government is about to be defeated in about oh 5 minutes’ time. I think I might take a short call just to make sure it gets defeated a little bit earlier.It is not before time that that Government gets defeated in its mean-spirited approach towards working families. That can be the only reason why the National Government is actually putting itself in the position of being defeated on a bill because it so does not want to give families the opportunity every 7 years to have the statutory holidays that they get every other year. How mean-spirited is that?I think this bill demonstrates absolutely for the New Zealand public the big difference in having a Labour Government in place where Labour clearly backs working families and clearly backs the idea that we want families to be able to spend more time together that we want workers to be well supported and that we are not mean-spirited enough to come up with a myriad of bizarre arguments about why every seventh year we would rob working families of 2 days off that they get every other year. There can be just no good argument for that. I think that National has demonstrated that again today that there is in fact no good argument for it.On Anzac Day and Waitangi Day New Zealanders will commemorate those days two times every 7 years in the same way that they do every other year. The fact that they are getting the right to have those 11 statutory holidays stay in place is not going to alterthat. What it will do is it will mean that they will actually get an opportunity to have those 11 statutory holidays. We have already had that debate in New Zealand. The law has already been passed that says that we have 20 days of annual leave and we have 11 statutory holidays every year. It is only a quirk in the legislation that actually stops Anzac Day and Waitangi Day being celebrated in exactly the same way on those two times every 7 years. It is mean-spirited for the Government to argue and actually risk a defeat in the House over trying to rob working families of those two holidays. It just shows how out of touch it is with ordinary New Zealanders and it is getting more and more out of touch every day.I do feel a sense of connection to this bill because the day—Hon Member: Oh it’s your bill now? Oh that’s right.Darien Fenton: No she’s a Labour MP.SUE MORONEY: Yes it is because I am a Labour MP so I feel a very strong sense of connection. But the first reading of this bill happened to be on the same day as the first reading of the other bill that defeats the Government and that is the bill to extend paid parental leave by 6 months. These two bills started out their journey together. This bill is coming to fruition an awful lot earlier than the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill but as long as we get paid parental leave extended to families as well I do not mind the wait.But I am really really excited to congratulate two colleagues who have worked very very hard on behalf of working families in New Zealand to make sure that this legislation gets through this House and to make sure that that entitlement goes to those families. One is David Clark whose name this bill is in. He has done a fantastic job. He has been up and down New Zealand raising the debate and making sure that he is advocating very strongly for working families as you would expect any good Labour MP to do. Then there is our deputy leader Grant Robertson who actually drafted the bill initially. He relied on the good luck of David Clark who obviously has got the luck of the Irish—Grant Robertson: He’s blessed.SUE MORONEY: —he is blessed; he is indeed blessed—and who was able to get that bill out of the ballot and get it on to the Order Paper. I was so impressed with his ability to do that that I have on several occasions asked Dr David Clark to come to the races with me on the weekend to see whether I could actually pick up on some of that luck but he has not actually obliged with that yet. But I am picking that in the year 2016 when Anzac Day falls on a Saturday or when Waitangi Day falls on a Saturday I might very well call him in on that and we will go to the races on a Saturday and then we will have a holiday with other working families on the Monday and it is all going to come together.I am not going to take up any more of the House’s time on this because I want to get to that really exciting vote that will show New Zealanders what New Zealand can look like under a Labour Government. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Holidays (Full Recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes61New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: In accordance with leave granted earlier in the day the House’s afternoon business is completed so the House will stand suspended until 7.30 p.m. when it will deal with members’ order of the day No. 2. I will resume the Chair at that point. Bon appetit.Sitting suspended from 5.49 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment BillThird ReadingLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koutou katoa. I moveThat the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. My observation in my time in the House has been that there are few occasions when the public gallery is full to overflowing. This bill has seen a full gallery at the first and second readings and again tonight. My only other experience of that has been Treaty settlement legislation recording the agreement reached between Māori and the Crown. In both instances the parties affected are minority groups that have been marginalised. They have been dealt with unjustly under the law. Steps are being taken to right the wrongs they have suffered and it shows me that this process matters. Having Parliament recognise and address injustice and unfairness matters to those affected by it. It is the start of the healing process.This third reading is our road towards healing and including all citizens in our State institution of marriage regardless of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity. Although our focus has been on Aotearoa it is important to remember we are one country that is part of a global community discussing marriage equality. Twelve countries have already been through this process. The US President has declared his support unequivocally. The Queen has recently signed a Commonwealth charter that explicitly opposes all forms of discrimination which she describes as emphasising inclusiveness. The UK led by its Prime Minister has introduced legislation.But marriage equality is only one issue. There is still a lot of work to be done to address discrimination against our lesbian gay bisexual transgender and intersex—or LGBTI—communities. Closer to home many of our Pacific neighbours still criminalise homosexuality; so too do the countries of our new migrant communities. We need to understand these heritage identities and how they contribute to this debate. As the indigenous people of Aotearoa we can acknowledge that takatāpui have always been part of our history and culture and that is the case for many indigenous people around the world. Fa‘fafine ‘akava‘ine fakaleiti and mahu vahine are words that go back in time to identify our lesbian gay bisexual transgender and intersex communities. They are part of our Pacific heritage and need to be acknowledged.And we need to learn from history. Marriage laws have continually been used as a tool of oppression. The Nuremberg laws in 1935 prohibited marriage between German nationals and Jews. The South African Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act prohibited marriage and sexual contact between races until they were repealed in 1985. Forty US states prohibited interracial marriage. Women lost all property rights and their identity upon marriage. Excluding a group in society from marriage is oppressive and unacceptable. There is no justification for the prohibitions of the past based on religion race or gender. Today we are embarrassed and appalled by these examples and in every instance it was action by the State. This is not about Church teachings or philosophy. It never has been. It is about the State excluding people from the institution of marriage because of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity and that is no different from the actions taken in these historical examples.Principles of justice and equality are not served if the key civil institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only. In the landmark Ontario decision Justice LaForme wrote: “Any ‘alternative status’ that nonetheless provides for the same financial benefits as marriage in and of itself amounts to segregation. This case is about access to a deeply meaningful [social] institution—it is about equal participation in the activity expression security and integrity of marriage. Any ‘alternative’ to marriage in my opinion simply offers the insult of formal equivalency without the … promise of substantive equality.” Ever sinceBrown v Board of Educationin 1954 the “separate but equal” doctrine has been seen as segregation and contrary to achieving equality.I want to emphasise again what this bill does not do. It does not legalise criminal offences. In fact it is clear the definition proposed in this amendment is a union of two people only. It does not force any minister or celebrant to marry a couple against his or her wishes. Section 29 remains in force and has been strengthened by the Government Administration Committee amendment. It does not change adoption laws. Gay couples have adopted children for many years but the law has not recognised that parenting reality. Children of same-sex relationships have not been allowed to have both parents’ names on their birth certificate. The injustice and pain of this was made clear by an email I received and I am able to share it with the House.It reads: “My partner and I had been together for 7 years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born my partner’s name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother. When our daughter was 13 my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mum was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mum dying? Instead I applied for and was granted guardianship. When my daughter turned 18 the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship despite me having been her parent all her life. We talked it over and I applied to adopt her. Fortunately all this happened before she turned 20 because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mum no longer legally exists. This is just so ridiculous and so wrong. If your bill had been law when my partner was still alive then we could have married and our daughter would have both her parents recorded as such.”Under this bill both women could have been spouses and recorded on their daughter’s birth certificate. Without this bill that is a privilege limited to heterosexual married couples only.In our society the meaning of marriage is universal. It is a declaration of love and commitment to a special person. Law that allows all people to enjoy that state is the right thing to do. Law that prohibits people from enjoying that state is just wrong. Those who celebrate religious or cultural marriage are absolutely unaffected by this bill. That has never been part of the State’s marriage law and it never should be.There is another similarity between this bill and Treaty settlement legislation: the quality and tone of the debate within this House. I believe that is the result of our effective cross-party working group with Tau Henare and Kevin Hague. Conrad Reyners national spokesperson for the Campaign for Marriage Equality was also involved and with Cameron Jackie Rawa Tony Natalie Kurt and Andrew has kept the issue alive and relevant. I am also grateful to Megan Campbell Shaun Wallis and David Farrar for their support and work with MPs and my executive assistant Mereana Ruri for helping coordinate this activity. I would also like to acknowledge the leadership across the House from the Prime Minister who expressed his support early on as did the leader of the Labour Party David Shearer and we have seen leadershipby John Banks Peter Dunne Hone Harawira Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia. I also acknowledge the Greens who from the outset have taken a supportive position as a party. For them it was not a conscience vote but a manifesto commitment.There are many individuals and groups within our communities and churches who have continually addressed the facts and made it real. I particularly thank the youth wings of all political parties and student unions around the country. The messages have remained positive. I am very proud to be a member of a community that has stood up to be counted with such dignity and reason. A personal thanks to everyone who has contacted me by email and through Facebook particularly Craig Young and those in the community offering support and often just saying thanks.Finally ngā mihi aroha ki a koutou te whānau and to my darling Prue thank you for your work and for sharing this journey with me. Nothing can counteract the very real negative consequences of not passing this bill but nothing could make me more proud to be a New Zealander than passing this bill. It is an honour to represent your country and the people of New Zealand. I am proud to be a member of this 50th Parliament which will continue New Zealand’s proud human rights tradition. I thank my colleagues for simply doing what is fair just and right. Kia ora.Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next speaker I am aware that a number of speakers have arranged to have split calls. I ask just that that be revealed to the Speaker as the call is taken initially.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): I too will be taking a split call with my colleague Jami-Lee Ross. It is sort of the young and the vibrant versus the old and the boring.Hon Ruth Dyson: Which one’s which?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Members of the House will be forced to choose which one is which.I want to first of all congratulate Louisa Wall on this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and I want to say that the good news about spending years in this Parliament is that you learn to deflect all of the dreadful sort of fire and brimstone accusations that people say are going to happen. I have had a reverend in my local electorate call and say that the gay onslaught will start the day after this bill is passed. We are really struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We do not know whether it will come down the Pakuranga Highway as a series of troops or whether it will be a gas that flows in over the electorate and blocks us all in.I also had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting coming from someone who has taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life.Hon Amy Adams: Cel-i-bacy.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Cel-i-bacy—OK. We will go with celibacy OK. I have not done it so I do not know what it is about.I also had a letter telling me that I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity and that was a bad mistake because I have got a degree in physics. I used the thermodynamic laws of physics. I put in my body weight and my humidity and so on I assumed the furnace to be at 5000 degrees Celsius and I would last for just on 2.1 seconds. It is hardly eternity—what do you think?I also heard some more disgusting claims about adoption. Well I have got three fantastic adopted kids. I know how good adoption is and I have found some of the claims just disgraceful.I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school.However a huge amount of the opposition was from moderates from people who were concerned—who were seriously worried—about what this bill might do to the fabric of our society. I respect their concern; I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might to do to their families and so on. Let me repeat to them now: all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring nuclear war on a foreign State. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agricultural sector for ever. We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised and I cannot see what is wrong with that for neither love nor money—I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed.I understand why people do not like what it is that others do. That is fine; we are all in that category. But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill right now. I give you a watertight guaranteed promise. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back at you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in your bed. The world will just carry on. So do not make this into a big deal. This bill is fantastic for the people it affects but for the rest of us life will go on.Finally can I say that one of the messages I had was that this bill was the cause of our drought—this bill was the cause of our drought. Well if any of you follow my Twitter account you will have seen that in the Pakuranga electorate this morning it was pouring with rain. We had the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign—it has to be a sign. If you are a believer it is certainly a sign.Can I finish—for all those who are concerned about this—with a quote from the Bible. It is Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of the musicalCats but never mind. The quote is Deuteronomy 1:29: “Be ye not afraid.”JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I thank my colleague Maurice Williamson for allowing me to share his time in the third reading debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Tonight I am voting for love for equality for opportunity and most of all for freedom. I am voting tonight to give all New Zealanders the same opportunity that I had when I married my wife: the freedom to marry the person I love. It is a very simple concept but one that has been denied to so many people for so long.We are all fortunate that we sit in this House of Representatives and have a democracy that values individual freedoms and individual rights a democracy that values New Zealanders having the ability to determine for themselves what they do with their own lives. Many arguments can be made both for and against same-sex marriage but when I was considering how I should vote on this issue the question was never why same-sex couples should be allowed to marry; the question was always why on earth they should not be allowed to marry and that I cannot explain.I cannot explain why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to marry. It just seems daft to me that we could deny two people the right to marry simply because they love someone who is of the same gender. I have yet to hear anyone put forward a rational and a principled reason why it is necessary to deny two people the right to marry simply because of their sexual orientation. It is wrong.Recently on a local Botany Facebook website a constituent made the wise observation that “Marriage is about love. Love between two men or two women is equal to the love of a man and a woman and therefore they should have equal rights.” and that is what it all boils down to. No one needs to be dismayed or disappointed because two loving people might soon be able to get married. No one needs to feel threatened or saddened because something that is different and something they are not used to might take place around them. The reality is that unless you are in a same-sex relationship andconsidering getting married you are not affected by this bill in any way at all. Nobody gets hurt when gay couples say they are married but gay couples who do want to get married are harmed when they are arbitrarily stopped by the State from doing so and from expressing their love in the way that they want to.This also is not an issue that should be a referendum issue. I do not fear a referendum in any way; I simply do not believe that it is right to determine an issue that affects only minorities by way of a referendum. If that was the case I doubt that New Zealand would have given women the right to vote when it did that this country would have legalised abortion when it did or that this country would have decriminalised sex between two consenting males when it did. Minority rights issues are not referendum issues.I want to briefly talk also about the question of children because it is a common theme that some opponents have been raising. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that every child must have a mother and a father. I know that it is a touchy subject but as someone who actually grew up without a mother and without a father I think I am somewhat qualified to speak on the issue. A child does need both male and female influences in their life but those influences do not necessarily have to come from their biological parents. What is most important is that a child is raised in a loving and caring environment. What is most important is that the people who are raising that child give them a home that is safe warm educating and nurturing. If that environment just so happens to be a same-sex marriage then that child is just as fortunate as every other loved and cared-for child.The time for this legislation has come. I believe that the author of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill Louisa Wall and the Government Administration Committee have arrived at a sensible point—the sensible point where marriage equality will soon be extended to all New Zealanders in a way that in no way impacts on the rights and freedoms of anyone else. Tonight Parliament is doing absolutely the right thing and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): In 1977 Harvey Milk was elected as the first openly gay city councillor in the United States. It was a landmark moment in the representation of minorities in politics. Tragically Harvey Milk was assassinated by a fellow councillor just 11 months later. He was a strong advocate for the rights of gay people but also for all minorities. Before his death he spoke of the importance of his being elected because it gave hope to young gay people that there was a better tomorrow for them compared with the discrimination and bullying that they were getting in their home towns. He noted that this hope was not just important if you were gay; it was important if you were poor or black or disabled or old. As he put it: “I know that you cannot live on hope alone but without it life is not worth living. And you … and you … and you … Gotta give em hope.” He told the story of the young gay man from Altoona Pennsylvania who rang him after he was elected simply to say thanks for what he was doing.Well in New Zealand in 1986 there was a 14-year-old young man sitting in Dunedin who read the newspaper about the law to decriminalise homosexuality and he cut out of the newspaper the names of those who voted for and those who voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. And that gave him—me—hope that maybe his life would be all right. There were 49 people in favour of the law that day. To Annette King Phil Goff Trevor Mallard and Peter Dunne who are still here today thank you for giving me that hope. Interestingly there were 44 votes against the bill that day as well. The good news is that today there are a lot more MPs in Parliament than there were back then and I want to thank MPs from all the parties who are voting in support of this legislation today. This is a true MMP conscience vote. It has made for some unlikelypolitical bedfellows—note the word “political” in there. I want to pay tribute to Tau Henare and Jami-Lee Ross in particular. It is quite likely that is the only time I will ever say that sentence so I will say it again. I want to particularly pay tribute to Tau Henare and Jami-Lee Ross in particular and to all members of the cross-party working group. All members from around this House who are supporting this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill are doing the right thing. I also want to pay tribute to the Campaign for Marriage Equality LegaliseLove and the thousands of others who have got us to this point today.As it was then in 1986 with homosexual law reform and again in 2003 with civil unions it is a Labour MP who is moving this important social change. Today I congratulate Louisa Wall. There is no doubt that we can all see how it is that Louisa made it to the top on the sporting field—“straight up the guts” determination. One of the many many emails that MPs got in the early stages of this bill was from a person bemoaning what would happen if the bill passed. After several paragraphs he reached his triumphant point: “And who will teach the children about rugby and netball?”. I think we might have that one covered Lou eh? I am proud that this bill is being promoted by a Labour MP and supported by the vast majority of our caucus because fundamentally it is about Labour values: fairness justice and community.At its heart this bill is about family and strengthening families. There are few parents who do not think about their children’s weddings. They are social occasions that mark a change in the relationship of parents and their children. They can make a dent in the bank balance but they are pivotal moments. The importance of this bill to strengthening families was beautifully articulated in the submission made by Gus Hodgson to the Government Administration Committee and I will quote him briefly: “This bill means that my parents can support all four of their sons if we marry the person we love and who loves us not three out of four. My parents have four sons. They love us equally. Likewise this House should demonstrate an equal love for its public too.” Angus went on: “My mother once told me that she doesn’t have any criteria for the people her sons might fall in love with. She would welcome any person into her home if they love her son too. That was an incredibly powerful message for me to receive.” So when this bill passes it will be a victory for families.I want to briefly mention those people who brought us civil unions. They were an important step towards fairness and equality. They gave recognition to relationships an alternative to the institution of marriage and equal rights under almost every law. I am proud to have been part of that campaign and I salute the hard work that went into it. I want to particularly recognise Lianne Dalziel David Benson-Pope Tim Barnett Katherine Rich and others for their work on that bill.Today we take further steps towards equality. That value of equality is a fundamental value for me and for the Labour Party. We believe that we are all born equal and that it is our job to ensure that equality exists in this world. It is the same value of equality that underlies this bill that also motivates me and Labour to fight every day for the 270000 New Zealand children who live in poverty. It is the same value that says that allowing someone to be paid $13.75 an hour to look after our grandparents is morally wrong. It is the same value that says that every person no matter who they are or where they were born has a right to an education that will allow them to achieve their potential. Equality a fair go for everyone is at the heart of Labour values and the heart of this bill.This bill is also about inclusion. Quite simply we will not succeed as a country or a society if we continually find reasons to exclude people. The only place that takes us to is division and hatred. Why on earth would we want to stop a couple who love each other and who want to make a commitment to one and other from doing that? Whywould we want to exclude some people from a cherished social institution? As David Do said in his moving and eloquent submission to the select committee this is an issue for people of all ethnic backgrounds. This is what he said: “Speaking as an Asian New Zealander it might be easy to think that in this debate Europeans are the only ones who want marriage equality and Asians and Pacific Islanders don’t. I just can’t accept that. I know it’s not true and it goes against our history and the values we are proud of as New Zealanders.” David went on: “There are many Asian New Zealanders right now who feel trapped because of issues with their culture religion upbringing or family circumstances along with their sexual orientation. It can be an incredibly difficult situation to be in but this Parliament can help change that.” Tonight we take further steps towards the inclusive society that New Zealand can and should be. This legislation makes us a better country. Many supporters of the bill have stressed that in the end this bill is about love and that is not a topic that politicians get to talk about very often. Former Prime Minister Norman Kirk used to say that New Zealanders wanted a job a place to live someone to love and something to hope for. Well we cannot guarantee you someone to love but I think we are putting the right incentives in place.As we have seen with previous advances in the recognition of the rights of New Zealanders there have been shrieks and howls about how society would end when women got the vote and when homosexuality was decriminalised and in the end as Maurice Williamson has eloquently told us the sky has not fallen in. I respect the right of people to hold different views on this legislation. People with religious beliefs have continued to have the freedom to exercise those. This should continue and it will. Nothing about this legislation will affect anyone else’s marriage. Husbands will still call their wives their wife and vice versa. I will let you all in on a secret: we have all been calling our partners husbands for years. Normally it is when I am being told off.I want to pay tribute to the thousands of New Zealanders who have worked to get support for this bill. It has energised and politicised many people. At an event in Auckland last weekend a straight Pākehā woman in her 30s said she made her first ever submission to Parliament in favour of this bill. Tonight is a victory for those people their friends and their families. But for all the victories that there are to celebrate when this bill passes—the victory for families for fairness for equality for inclusion for commitment and for love—there is to my mind a greater win. If there is a 14-year-old young man in Dunedin who is watching this like I did 27 years ago and he is wondering how he will cope with being a bit different from his mates and he is going to struggle a bit over the next few years today goes some way to fulfilling Harvey Milk’s plea. This bill is not going to solve all his problems. It is not going to prevent him from being discriminated against. It is not going to prevent him from getting hurt. But it will do something of huge value because what we will do in this House tonight is give him some hope. Because tonight hope has won.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First believes in the use of public referenda and we have for a long time. Some will recall that in 1997 we put a referendum to New Zealand voters on a savings regime similar to those of Australia or Singapore. Sadly it was voted down and 16 years later we are broke and in the clutches of foreign banks and foreign money. We could have just rammed a bill through Parliament but we went and took it to the people and those are our bona fides on the issue of a referendum.We have spent the better part of a year debating Ms Wall’s bill and sadly the public are not much the wiser for it. In fact there has hardly been a debate. What we have had is a small yet vocal minority telling the rest of New Zealanders that this is a law change that everyone wants and that anyone who disagrees has got to be a bigot. Then on the other side of the so-called debate we have got those who would like to see the Statepolice themselves police morality in the bedroom. The truth is that most New Zealanders sit somewhere in the middle. That might be tawdry and uncomfortable but it is the way a society works.Some support the change; others do not. But their reasons for supporting or opposing it are never as sensationalist or extreme as some on either side would have us believe. No one really knows what side the majority of the public opinion sits on. Some claim as Ms Wall and her supporters have that there is a huge groundswell for change. Well is that true? If so how do we know? As far as we are aware the issue never came up at any of the meetings that we held in the 3 years out from the last election. Nobody lobbied us and no journalists called to ask where we sat on the issue. There were no words spoken on the campaign trail about same-sex marriage whatsoever.It is not the issue—and Ms Wall has every right to draft a bill and present it to this House—but a lot of the bile in this issue would not be present had the process been different. It came upon us this bill out of the blue. The manner of this bill’s emergence the process by which it got before Parliament needs to be publicised. It is why many fair-minded Kiwis feel confused. They are confused because Ms Wall and her supporters have not told them how it happened. Why did they not go to the last election in the campaign and say up front: “We will introduce same-sex marriage.” instead of using some woolly language like: “We will review relationship and property law.”? Who up in the gallery thinks that that is what they wanted? The only explanation has to be that they were afraid. They were afraid that their party supporters might not like it. We can make all the pretentious glorious statements tonight but in the end it is what the people think.In fact Ms Wall sad to say was not even up front with her own party. The normal process in the Labour Party—Hon Member: Come on.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I am coming on with the facts here—is for members’ bills to be taken to the Labour whips’ office for the Labour whip to lodge after the bill is approved by the Labour caucus. That is the process every party follows and it has to be followed because the system will not operate without it. But Ms Wall did not follow it. It is a fact. They can make all the statements they like now but the first the Labour leader’s office knew of it was seeing it on the list of bills lodged. That is a fact. So tell us why the Labour whips’ office and caucus were not told first before the bill was lodged—Hon Lianne Dalziel: It did go to caucus.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am getting it from the best of authority that that is what happened. From—[Interruption] Yes after the event. That is true—after the event.Moana Mackey: We were there.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So you were in the whips’ office? No you were not and that is a fact. My evidence is that of somebody who was and it suggests that the Labour Party was hijacked on this issue.Ms Wall what do the people of Manurewa think? What do the people out there in South Auckland in Manurewa think? Well there is utter silence now but this is about democracy and representation. That is why so many Labour supporters are telling us that they support our referendum stance—because they feel they have never been asked that somehow they have been left out; even more think that somehow they have been cheated.This is supposed to be a democracy. This is supposed to be a place where the people’s voice matters. This is supposed to be a Parliament where one would be proud to face up to their caucus and say: “I think this bill should come before Parliament.” Oh no no I am sorry; that is what they are saying now because they could not say anythingelse in the same way that many National members over there are going to vote for this bill knowing full well that the so-called protection for religious dissidents whether they are celebrants or otherwise is not in this legislation. If a Church deems someone’s objection to be wrong then that person could be punished. That is all they asked for. Is it too much for that to happen?That is why we call this House the House of Representatives representing not ourselves but the people. Here we are as a Parliament about to circumvent any expression of public opinion yet again. Why? Do they think that if the public is asked they might lose? I do not know but I am prepared to trust the public. I do not wish to hear from polls; I want to know exactly what the public think. OnCampbell Live tonight I think the poll that it had strange as it was—and I do not think it is remotely scientific—had 78 percent saying no and 22 percent saying yes. What say it is wrong by 20 percent? The question is this: what do the public think? And why are there so many people in this Parliament prepared when it suits them to circumvent the public’s will when all the bile and venom of this issue would not have been in Parliament had we asked New Zealanders: “Well what do you think?”.Shortly we go to Anzac Day. It is about democracy and it is about an inclusive democracy that they were fighting for not just one vote every 3 years and that is my point. We are prepared to respect as a party in New Zealand First that we have many divergent views within the party. We respect that. That is why we are prepared to all compromise and say as one group: “Well let’s ask New Zealanders for after all they should be the final arbiters.” This is a rule not for us; it is a law for them.We object to the people being taken for granted. We object to the view that because we are here and we have temporary hold of the reins what Joe Public thinks is of no import whatsoever. For those who wish to ignore this message then let me give this clear warning: there is a day of reckoning coming electorally. The manner of this vote tonight—laugh now and cry later. The manner of this vote tonight is a game-shifter and it will be reflected in the next election results. There are some issues that dissipate and there are some issues that stay around a long time. All around New Zealand tonight and in the next few days people will be saying: “Well if that’s the way they think—that our view does not matter—then I will never ever vote for them again.” If one looks at the huge social and economic issues this country presently faces and the desperate need for better solutions to them then some in this House have seriously sacrificed their colleagues and their party for a narrow undemocratic—worthy or unworthy I do not know—expression. When the political wilderness years come do not say you were not warned.Hon TAU HENARE (National): I will be splitting my call with the Hon Nikki Kaye. I did have a speech prepared but that speech from Winston Peters shot it to bits. Here are the bona fides on the New Zealand First referendum of the 1990s. The National Party said no to a bill. That is why we went to a referendum and when we went to a referendum 82 percent of the country said: “No Winston. We don’t believe in you any more.” That is what it said. It never went through caucus. It never went through caucus. And that speech that I heard tonight was the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard—the biggest shyster speech I have ever heard.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You heard what the member said. He must be looking in the mirror. But he must apologise.Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are you saying such an expression is parliamentary?Mr SPEAKER: Sorry?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are you saying that the expression he used is parliamentary?Mr SPEAKER: I am certainly not ruling it out as unparliamentary.Hon TAU HENARE: So it is OK for New Zealand First to have bills in the ballot. That is democracy. But when Louisa Wall puts one in the ballot that has to go to a referendum! How the hell is any country in the world supposed to operate in a system like that? Who decides whether or not there should be a referendum? Him? I hope not. I hope not because we would still be in the 1880s.I feel sad that I was a member and even a deputy leader under that man. I used to look up to him. But I tell you what: that speech tonight is nothing more than pandering to the 10 percent on either side of this argument. It is nothing more than pandering to those racist rednecked people who just love to get on the email.I want to say that I have been appalled with some of the behaviour of those for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and of those against it because I for one do not think that those who are against the bill are homophobic just because they are voting against it. It is their right to vote against it and I will back my colleagues who vote against it all the way; I just do not agree with them. And they are going to lose tonight.However to quickly run through what I was going to say it is time. The sky did not and will not fall in. How does it affect me or anyone else in this House and in this country? It does not. It just does not. Think about it for a minute. If the institution of marriage is so sacrosanct then why the hell are so many people getting a divorce? I do not say that in a facetious manner. If it does belong to the Church as I have been told by so many people on the email then why do we have legislation outlining who can and who cannot? If there was no legislation I would back the Church 100 percent. But it is not the Church’s. It actually belongs to the Government. It actually belongs to this Parliament. It is a creature now of Parliament. It is not a creature any more of either the Bible or the Church.Lastly I want to say that it is actually about the equality of opportunity. All we are doing—we are not forcing anybody to do anything in any way shape or form. What we are doing is offering people the opportunity of equality and either they take it or they do not. That is up to them. It is not up to me. It is not up to any one of us in this House.I want to thank my cousin Kath who unfortunately died some months ago. She would have been here yelling from the rooftops and I seriously mean that she would have been yelling from the rooftops because that is what she was like. I hope she is finally proud of her cousin and I am sure she was in other ways.Finally a message to all LGBTI—and I finally got that out. My message to you all is welcome to the mainstream. Do well. Kia ora.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety): Tonight I hope that we pass this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill so that same-sex couples can finally marry in New Zealand. It is time that we passed this bill. It has been nearly 30 years since we passed the Homosexual Law Reform Act. Three decades later—20000 submissions—121 MPs tonight have the power to finally vote to give all New Zealanders the freedom to marry the person they love. This change will be hugely positive for our country. There are so many stories that we have heard over the last 6 months of people desperate to marry of young people taking their lives because they have never been accepted and of people in relationships for 30 years desperate to have that properly recognised in law. This bill is not just about equality and freedom for people to choose whom they want to spend the rest of their life with. It is also fundamentally about human dignity real acceptance and good old-fashioned love. For people who are currently married we have already heard that nothing will change. Weddings will still happen. They will still be expensive. There will still be honeymoons cakes and stag dos dresses and rings and the odd drunk uncle. Butmarriage is more than that. It is a huge commitment and it is something so many young people want. Passing this bill actually means that young gay and lesbian New Zealanders can have the same dream that other young New Zealanders have.I am proud to be the MP for Auckland Central. I represent Grey Lynn Ponsonby Rocky Bay—a huge gay and lesbian community. But do you know what? You may think that is why I am voting for this bill but actually I support this bill because it is the right thing to do. I support this bill because it is absolutely the right thing for our country. I support those MPs in conservative electorates who have stood up and are voting for this bill because they also think it is the right thing for our country. I want to acknowledge Chris Auchinvole and Paul Hutchison. They have shown us in this debate the true power of conscience. When Paul said: “I … cannot construct a strong enough intellectual moral health or … spiritual argument against it.” he struck a chord with so many New Zealanders because he showed us openness and he showed us compassion for people. Our Parliament can be very proud that this vote is actually less about political divides and more about religious and generational divides. We have a lot to be proud of in our country. We must acknowledge that the freedoms that we have are not the same freedoms that other countries have. As Louisa has said there are 55 countries in the Commonwealth that still criminalise homosexuality. That must change. The world will be watching New Zealand tonight. Let us vote to show it that our country values freedom for all of our people.Louisa thank you for your commitment to the cause. You have worked across party lines. You have personally helped ensure that this debate has been more constructive and more positive than in the past. Thank you to you Kevin as well for your contribution. Thank you to Tau and Jami-Lee Ross as well. I want to acknowledge the other liberal Nats who have walked before me for their contributions. Katherine Rich and Marilyn Waring thank you as well. It is lovely to see you here tonight. Megan Campbell Shaun Wallis your tireless efforts will not be forgotten. Georgina Beyer and Tim Barnett I acknowledge you as well here tonight.This bill is about strengthening families. The difference to people’s lives will be real and positive. This is about the daughter who asked her mother yesterday: “Can I finally be the flower girl at Auntie Emma’s wedding?”. The answer is yes. This is about the young man who has not yet come out to his friends having the courage to do so. This is about the couple who have been together for 30 years finally getting the chance to say “I do.” This is about a large group of New Zealanders holding their heads a little higher when they walk down the street. Colleagues it is time that we passed this bill. It is the right thing to do. Please vote for freedom. Please vote for this bill.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is time. In one of the many messages that I have received on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill one man said: “My partner and I have been together for 30 years. It would be great to celebrate our anniversary with a wedding.”I mentioned in the first reading that I have been together with my partner Ian—who is here tonight with my son Thomas—for 28 years now nearly 29 years. And I could not help but reflect on our journey during that time. When we got together our relationship was against the law. The message sent by the law could not have been clearer. We were outsiders. We did not belong. The debate over Fran Wilde’s bill was extremely toxic. A lot of people said a lot of very unpleasant things about us and of course predicted that the bill would spell the end of New Zealand society. I will be eternally grateful to Fran and her colleagues to George Gair for standing up for what was right.I remember travelling to Auckland’s North Shore to protest against one of our opponents Pastor Richard Flinn who called publicly for homosexuals like me to be putto death. Over the years I have campaigned hard for the right of our communities not to be outsiders any more and to assume a full place in New Zealand society. With every new reform the same group uses the same strategy of raising fears of terrible consequences that always fail to materialise.There would be few New Zealanders today who would support re-criminalising sex between men. The cost of being outsiders is enormous. The stigma associated with our “inferior” status is associated with substantially higher rates of suicide depression HIV risk violence and other risks to our health and well-being. One submitter called Vinnie wrote: “If there was greater acceptance when I grew up I would not have tried to kill myself. I potentially would not have missed out on years of a quality relationship with my family. I would not have lost 95 percent of my friends when I told them I was gay.”Another person called Robert said: “I have lived my life partly in private until the last decade or so when acceptance of gay people in our beautiful New Zealand has increased. I have no doubt that the bill will be passed and I am pleased for it to be happening in my lifetime. While I am not in my younger years it will still allow me and my partner to marry and have equal rights. I have longed for this for a very very long time. My only sadness is that both of my parents have now passed and it would have been such a huge joy to have them at my wedding.”Opponents of this bill have been talking about two conflicting ideas of what marriage is about. The idea they have is the conjugal model in which the point of marriage is to enable procreation. They say that we supporters have a partnership model in which marriage is about celebrating and reinforcing the love two people have for each other. They are right. That is what we believe. Sure children are important for some marriages but more than anything else marriage is about affirming reinforcing and celebrating the love that two people have for each other. It is also about joining two families together and recognising the value of that commitment to our whole society.That is why this bill is about so much more than achieving equality under the law which is a basic human right that has been denied us until this day. It is about saying these lives matter. Our society is big enough for us all. With this bill our Parliament stretches out its arms to my communities and says: “Our society is big enough for you too. You belong unequivocally and without having to compromise who you are.”When the debate started I thought that all of the people like Richard Flinn had thankfully gone. The early comments from opponents were refreshingly free of fire and brimstone. There is no doubt that New Zealand has grown up over the past 27 years as we have become a more modern vibrant and pluralistic society. But as the debate has worn on we have seen a re-emergence of a hard core whose opposition to this bill has lost its veneer of reasonableness. Their problem with this bill is that they believe that we gay and lesbian people are morally inferior. They do not want to include us as full participants in New Zealand society. They recognise correctly what full legal equality—this signal—means and they do not like it.That is why we have seen people with placards declaring that gay people are mentally ill and less than human. That is why we have seen Family First’s campaign firstly of fear and misinformation and latterly of standover tactics and blackmail. That is why we have seen the Catholic Action Group just like Richard Flinn writing to all MPs and telling us that homosexuals are worthy of death and then describing in great detail the eternal agony we should expect to experience in hell. They have tried to attract more people to their cause by scaring people with imaginary consequences—people will marry their pets ministers will be thrown in prison and people will not be able to call each other husband and wife any more. Just like every time before those fears will not be realised.The consequences of this bill will be that same-sex couples will marry. Transsexual people will no longer have to divorce. Prejudice and violence will be undermined. The world will be a better place for lesbian gay bisexual and transgender New Zealanders and absolutely no one at all will be any worse off. As Brian Donnelly a great New Zealand First member said: “Your own candle will burn no dimmer if you help to light ours.” That is what has happened in every country—now 12 countries—that has legalised same sex-marriage before us.Here are some words from Alicia another young New Zealander: “Imagine you are me for a second or any other queer teenager in New Zealand or maybe you are a bit younger 15 or so just starting to come to grips with who you are. All around you your family and religious community perhaps even your friends are buzzing with talk about a bill which affects you more than you dare to let on. What they say makes it clear that if they knew who you were what you really are they would not accept you. There is a reason so many of us have considered suicide an acceptable way out at some point and this is it.” She then says: “What your support of this bill has meant is immeasurable. I watched the first reading live and I was in tears by the end of it. For me your support was overwhelming confirmation that I am no less of a person in the eyes of those who lead our country because of my sexuality regardless of what my parents or my church want to say about it. Your support told me and many teenagers like me that no matter what those around us say we will be equal under the law.”History is a funny thing. When all those imaginary risks fail to materialise they will be forgotten entirely. When that fog recedes history will also forget all of the quibbles like saying: “There ‘s a better way to achieve the same thing.” which allow some MPs to vote against this bill whilst still saying they support fair and equal treatment.There is no longer any room for nuance or middle ground. Instead what history will record is whether you voted for inclusiveness equality under the law and pluralism or against them. What it will record is whether you chose to stand with Vinnie Robert and Alicia or instead chose to stand with the Catholic Action Group extremism threats and blackmail. Please be brave tonight so that you can be proud of your vote later. Tonight please stand with me stand with us and stand with justice fairness and love.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): I love my job but every now and then it really rocks. This is one of those moments that every now and then we have in this House when I know in my very being that I am doing something good something right something life changing. Tonight is one of those moments.I too would like to acknowledge the former MPs who are in the House tonight—Marilyn Waring Katherine Rich Georgina Beyer and Tim Barnett—each of whom in their time in this House has supported the values that this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill represents. It is good to have you here all of you on this occasion and I pay tribute to you.In my inaugural speech to Parliament in 2005 I railed against our tendency as a nation to drive some people to the margins of our society and then despise them for being there. I talked of the lazy notion of political correctness and of how that label was used dripping with sarcasm to denigrate and destroy anything that was inclusive compassionate tolerant or forward-looking. Tonight I am here to help include the marginalised equalise the law for the outlaws and put one more nail in the coffin of legal discrimination in New Zealand.I want to thank my colleague Louisa Wall for the opportunity to do this. I pay tribute to her for her courage her strength and her leadership throughout this issue. She has been supported by a large team of enthusiastic supporters and helpers both inside and outside this House and I thank them all as well from the bottom of my heart.I come at this issue from a simple starting point. There are no grounds in this country on which discrimination under the law should occur on the basis of one’s sexual orientation or gender identity. We all sit somewhere on the sexuality continuum: some closer to one end than the other some in the middle and still others at one point at one time in their lives and at quite another point at other times in their lives. I have seen examples of all of these up close and personal.The injustice of discriminating before the law against someone because of who they are—not because of what they do but of who they are intrinsically—is wrong and we are past it in 2013. Those famous words of Shylock inThe Merchant of Venice come to mind: “Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands organs dimensions senses affections passions? fed with the same food hurt with the same weapons subject to the same diseases healed by the same means warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is? If you prick us do we not bleed? if you tickle us do we not laugh? if you poison us do we not die?”. And I would add: “And if we are not equal before the law are we not lesser beings?”. So I come at the issue of marriage equality simply on the basis of equality before the law.I am gay but I do not wish to get married. I have never wanted to get married. It does not mean that I do not cherish the relationship I have with as much ardour as any married person. But I do not want not to be able to marry because the law discriminates against me—that is the point for me.This position has been driven home for me by working closely for years with a group of young people in Nelson called Q-Youth. This is an alliance of straight gay and transgender young people and adults who began at Nayland College many years ago to build a safe and supportive environment for young people who were questioning or wrestling with their sexuality. It includes adults who are parents teachers counsellors professional people—and me—who all want the same thing which is for these young people to grow up in safety free from discrimination free from bullying and free from violence and unsafe practices so that they can be who they truly are. I want to acknowledge in particular Seb Stewart who was a mentor to many of these people and Tabby Besley and Joseph Habgood who are in the gallery tonight and who have offered much in the way of leadership along with numerous other wonderful clever and brave Nelson young people.Through that work I met many questioning young Nelson people who had all suffered to a greater or lesser degree because of being made to feel like an outcast—an outlaw. Some had cut themselves. Some had punished themselves with drug and alcohol abuse. Some had become mentally unwell. Some had attempted suicide. Some were hugely supported by their parents; they were the lucky ones. Some were rejected by their parents; they were not so lucky.Equality before the law is the start. If there is a benign legislative regime there will be over time different behaviour and greater acceptance. Laws alter only behaviour not attitudes but attitudes come eventually when people see that the sky has not fallen and that their own rights are not diminished by extending them to others. But when one is growing up like these young people in Nelson from whom I have learnt so much one can sense discrimination and a lack of acceptance at 500 paces. It sits on your shoulder like a vulture waiting for you to fall and to be pecked to death. Little by little stroke by stroke young people are diminished and reduced unless they can find a safe place to be.So this law is not really about me as a lesbian woman at all. It is about creating a just and tolerant society which is safe for our young people to grow up in. For those who have a different world view from mine can I simply say that I would stick up for your rights to equality before the law as well.Finally I return to my inaugural speech in this House. At the end of it I referred to my daughter and said that I hoped that whenever the time came to leave this place I would leave our society improved in some measure for her sake. She was born to two mothers and two fathers. She has never lacked for love support guidance and care. In fact it is possible that she has had twice as much of it than most children in a two-parent family have. She has been and remains a great joy to all of us. She deserves a world where her family is as accepted as anyone else’s. She said to me of course as she was proofing my speech tonight that her world would have been very different growing up if there had been social acceptance around our family. She does not regret it for herself but she does wish it for other people—she is a good girl.Our actions here must always be about the future. We leave this world to others especially our young people. Let us make it a better fairer kinder place than we found it. Let us pass this bill.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): I will split this call with Te Ururoa Flavell of the Māori Party.The privilege we have to be in this House is counterbalanced by the need to stand up and be counted. I am one of a handful of members who was here in the very early days of these debates. After three decades and 10 Parliaments I have had time to reflect—to reflect on what I said and to reflect on what I did. If I knew then what I have since learnt I would have acted differently. I see this as a debate more about human rights predicated on the basis that we are all entitled to live our lives to the fullest extent of human happiness while respecting the rights and beliefs of others.I believe that all New Zealanders should be free to pursue their own happiness. ACT’s principles of freedom and choice go to the heart of this particular issue. Freedom gives each individual the right to determine for themselves their happiness for their own lives. I want my political career and public service to recognise the value and potential of every New Zealander.My gay friends know that my vote is not needed to pass this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill but they tell me that my support is important to them. I received a text from a friend who had heard that this bill had my support. The text said: “Thanks Banksie. This bill won’t have any impact on your marriage but it will mean a great deal to me and my relationship.” I think that sums up the argument very well.I know many people are opponents with strong views on this issue. I respect that. I hope my comments tonight give an insight for my friends who do not support this bill and cannot understand why I have charted this course. I respect their right to hold their views and uphold their right to practise their faith. In turn I expect those people to let me hold my views and practise my own faith.When making this decision I had to ask myself whether New Zealanders have more freedoms as a result of this bill. Yes. Will freedom of religion be preserved? Yes. Will anyone’s freedoms be taken away by this bill? No. Would the God that I believe in think any less of me for voting for this bill? No. That is why I support this legislation.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Can I thank my Treaty partner “Hone” Banks for allowing me to have his final 5 minutes. In case there is any doubt we are talking about the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. This is not the first time that Māori have encountered controversy around the concept of marriage. In 1888 the Supreme Court of New Zealand made a decision that has been described as “doubtful legally and deplorable socially”. That doubtful and deplorable decision was to reject the customary marriages that had existed mai rānō and to assume that the marriage law of England took precedence. In fact the colonial law from another land was considered of such importance that the children of Māori customary marriages were then described as“illegitimate” yet so significant was the status of customary marriages amongst our people that they continued to be recognised for the purposes of succession to Māori land until 1951. So when opponents of this bill criticise a change to the definition of marriage as contravening our sacred traditions I would have to say “Whose traditions are we talking about?”.I want to bring a specific contribution to this House as a proud uri of Ngāti Rangiwewehi Te Arawa waka—yeah! In 1849 Wīremu Maihi Te Rangikāheke of Ngāti Rangiwewehi shared his knowledge of our Atua in a publication calledNgā Tama a Rangi. It is one of those stories I want to bring to the House with me today. You sir may well have heard the story about Hinemoa and Tūtānekai a story of love glorified by Victorian settlers with all the markings of romance. According to tribal law Hinemoa swam to Mokoia in the middle of Rotorua to be with her true loved one—everybody say “Ah.”Hon Members: Ah.TE URUROA FLAVELL: But I am going to add an extra part to the story and tell you instead about Tūtānekai and Tiki. Before Tūtānekai married Hinemoa he had a close male companion Tiki. In a manuscript by Te Rangikāheke Tūtānekai says to his father: “Ka aroha atu a Tūtānekai ki a Tiki ka mea atu ki a Whakaue: ‘Ka mate ahau i te aroha ki toku hoa ki a Tiki.’” Translated: “Tūtānekai loved Tiki and said to Whakaue: ‘I am stricken with love for my friend for Tiki.’” Later Tūtānekai refers to Tiki as “tāku hoa takatāpui”. So from the wisdom of Ngāti Rangiwewehi a new word was coined: “takatāpui” defined in theDictionary of the Maori Language compiled by the missionary Herbert William Williams in 1844 as “an intimate companion of the same sex”. “Takatāpui” is now used universally to describe people who might otherwise describe themselves as gay lesbian transgender bisexual or intersexual.This history is set out by a Māori academic—not of Ngāti Rangiwewehi but nevertheless—Dr Clive Aspin in his analysis ofHōkakatanga—Māori sexualities. This research tracked fast forward to the early 2000s with the Māori Sexuality Project undertaken at Auckland University. Many of the respondents to that research were able to recall examples of their kaumātua and kuia talking about people they knew who had same-sex attraction. These people held traditions of importance and status within their whānau and hapū. According to Dr Aspin they were not rejected or marginalised and were considered to be valuable members of their communities.Talking about our history our shared history in Aotearoa is really important. We all know another painful history of discrimination of prejudice and of homophobia expressed by other members in this House tonight—of young people in such agony about the way that they live their lives that suicide becomes the only option of people living in fear and shame scared of the harassment that they have all too often experienced. Some of the lobbying that every MP has endured over this last 9 months has shown us the ugliness of stigma that has been hurled at Louisa Wall. Ki taku tuahine ka nui te mihi ki a koe.[I acknowledge you greatly my sister colleague.]So I urge all of us to think deeply about the universal values of aroha of commitment of whakawhanaungatanga of trust of faith and of hope—kaupapa tuku iho. As this third reading comes to an end I think about tamariki and mokopuna who now know that they do not have to hide the fact that there are two mums in their household about parents who want to know that their son can marry the man of his dreams and they can be all out and proud on their special day and about all of our whānau takatāpui who celebrate tonight as a day on which history is made—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts): Thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this debate on the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I will be splitting my call with Jonathan Young MP for New Plymouth. I want to say that today I was pleased to get a text from my good friend Gerard Langford who texted me and said: “Mate I know this is a big day and I know we see these things differently but all the best for today.” I said: “Thanks Gerard you are the gay friend I cite most often.” The fact is that my good friendship with Gerard and his partner Rangi has led me along a line that has got me to change my view in respect of gay things. I believe that people who love one another should be with one another and should commit to one another publicly because I believe that relationships between two people who love one another should be strong should be publicly committed and will enable our community to be stronger.I also believe that the true discussion here is about the equality the legal equality of relationships whether they be heterosexual or whether they be homosexual whether they be marriage or whether they be civil union or whether they be de facto. I believe that they should be equal and I think it is a shame that amongst many people who are within our community they are not. I think that that is really to our detriment. I would like to think that people would be able to look across relationships within our community and see that that is right that people who love one another should be able to commit to one another. I am also of the opinion that those people who have come out and argued from a strident faith perspective that this is a wrong vote are wrong in themselves.I also believe though that we should be having a debate tonight about what marriage is and what marriage is not. I will be voting against this bill because I think we should be having the larger debate and that debate is about what marriage is and what marriage is not. I believe very strongly for instance that two people who are married who are in a heterosexual relationship should be allowed to be able to do that. I do not believe for one moment that two people who are of the same gender and who commit to one another in any way at all detracts from the 34-year marriage that my wife and I enjoy. I believe that this debate should be about what marriage is about. If that is about the equality of legal status of relationships within our society then we should be having the courage or the balls or whatever it is to have exactly that debate.I am concerned too—and I have had discussions this week with members across the House and Louisa in particular—about for instance the status of those civil celebrants and those celebrants of organisations such as the Anglican and the Methodist Churches who have not taken a stand or a position in respect of this particular bill or gay marriage in effect. They should be able to rest in the confidence that the Human Rights Commission has given them that they will be able to refuse the opportunity to wed gay couples who present themselves for marriage on the basis of their own opinion and their own belief. It is important to state that now although it may be very dry and unemotional to be able to do that because in terms of statutory interpretation in times to come it will become important that this Parliament is resting on the advice it has had.Having said that I would like to just acknowledge this: I came to this House as a fairly ignorant person out of the provinces in order to represent the constituents of Wanganui who elected me to Parliament. I am pleased to note that I have established a number of relationships and I have changed my mind in respect of those relationships. I am grateful for the privilege of having friendships and associations. I have the love and the friendship of a number of people who are in a range of relationships; whether they be homosexual or heterosexual means nothing. I believe that this debate—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. His time has expired.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you for the opportunity to stand and speak in this debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It is not often that debates in this House and around this country engage the hearts and minds in the way that this debate has. I believe it is because it touches issues deep within the core of people’s being. It is to do with our most important relationship. It is to do with family. It is to do with children. It is to do with all the important things that we do everything else for.Here we are in this powerful expression of the democratic process with different views on an issue with so many emotions. I believe that in this debate it is not as clear as many people think. I think that there are views and issues that many people New Zealanders in our communities are struggling with are wondering about and they are looking to this House tonight. I believe that our society is probably more divided than this House is on this issue.Everyone has a right to their view a right to express it a right to agree or to disagree and I hope in a civil society a right to be respected because of or despite their view. It is appropriate that diverse opinions be expressed in this House tonight. In this House disagreement is the air we breathe but it is how we disagree that is important and by and large this debate has been calmer than many other debates in this House.Tonight I expect that this bill will pass despite my vote which some will know has not supported its transition through the House thus far. For a long time now I have been very supportive of civil unions for all the reasons that people are perhaps now applying to the marriage debate. I can empathise with how a couple may want to have the legal recognition or some institutional formality or support for their relationship to give them that sense of perhaps even permanence it may bring or support. And on the occasion of that is a celebration that a wedding can bring. I believe that everybody wants to celebrate their relationships. Your relationship is your business and I have been happy to support that.I think I was happy when the Civil Union Bill came through because in a sense it was a new legal recognition that was a mirror of marriage but it also maintained the age-old institution of marriage. I do think that in societies traditions are important and have a place. A tradition is a convention a belief or a behaviour that stands the test of time. A tradition is the institutional memory of a society. It is not to be cast off or cast away quickly or easily because it is the touchstone of a value that perhaps younger minds may not fully understand yet enter into because it is there. Traditions are what we use to guide people I believe into the things of life that have been proven to work. Those might be the very sentiments while we are debating this bill.But what we are debating I believe is not necessarily about love because love is not legislated. I loved that campaign; I thought it was pretty good Grant. It was a great idea about legalising love but I do not know whether you can do that. I know the angle you are taking I know what you are talking about but I think the human heart is too rampant and too romantic to be contained and boxed and denied. I believe that people will pursue that which brings them meaning and fulfilment in life. Essentially the value of marriage which this society upholds is that you become my one and only and we commit to the best of our ability to make this an exclusive and permanent relationship. That is the reason why I supported civil unions because I believe that in that sense—and I know that perhaps many people say we need to move on—there is a sense of recognition exclusivity and permanence that comes to relationships. My view is that history and tradition have invested significant meaning into the term “marriage” and I believe that we need to retain its present definition. Thank you.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): It is my intention to split this call with Mojo Mathers from the Green Party. Taloha ni. It is a privilege to take a call in the final stageof the debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. This is a historic moment not for just this Parliament or the lesbian gay bisexual and transsexual community but also for our country.I want to take this opportunity because there is more than one Pacific perspective in this House and in our country. To my fellow Pacific members of Parliament I respect your choice. To those in the Pacific community who oppose this bill I respect your beliefs. I hope that you respect and understand my choice and my strongly held beliefs. The belief driving my choice and my opinion is more prevalent among but not restricted to younger Pacific Islanders. It is in no way meant to be disrespectful or a challenge to our elders. In fact in my mind my strongly held views derive from the strong Pacific values that have been passed on to me by my parents and family.I am proud to support this bill. To me it speaks to the heart of the values of what being Pacific in New Zealand is. Those are values of family love inclusion equality respect and having pride in who you are. Our parents grandparents and great-grandparents came to New Zealand to give their families a better life. Vital in that was that they came to these shores and got a fair go were treated equally were not discriminated against and were given the respect that every New Zealander deserved. As we know that was not always the case. There were battles battles were won and the Pacific community is now proud and vibrant.Our gay community is also proud and vibrant. They too have battled and like all other Kiwis they deserve the full enjoyment of the values of family love inclusion equality and respect. I know there are strong religious veins in the Pacific community and I respect that and the views that they have but many young gay Pacific Islanders have found this debate difficult. Many have grown up and maintain strong religious beliefs. They have told me one of the hardest things in the public debate has been hearing that the God that they worship seems to see them differently. My God does not.I hope that our community can embrace that there are many in our families who on a daily basis struggle to be openly who they are. For cultures whose very survival relies on pride of identity cultures and language and being proud of who we are we need to let out youngsters know that in every respect they should be proud of who they are and that we are proud of who they are.Locally can I thank all those who respectfully gave their opinions both for and against. In particular can I thank Pastor Ken Roach from the Porirua Elim Christian Church. We both discussed dissected and disagreed but it was always respectful. The Government Administration Committee led by the Hon Ruth Dyson strengthened this bill to address many issues that church leaders like Ken held. It made it clear no minister or religious celebrant is obliged to marry a couple if doing so would contravene the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of a religious body or organisation.I would like to thank Louisa Wall who worked from the outset to ensure respect for religious beliefs despite the fundamental differences of opinion. Before I conclude I would like to acknowledge Kāpiti Mayor Jenny Rowan and her partner Jools Joslin who I understand are somewhere in the precincts of Parliament. They have been at the forefront of this long-running issue because the courts denied them their right to marry. Well Jools when this bill was pulled out of the ballot I remember seeing you at Coastlands mall and you said “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Well tonight seeing is believing.I am going to end like Maryan Street the way I ended my maiden speech with a quote from William Penn that I hold dear. It reads: “I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore there be any kindness I can show or any good thing I can do to anyfellow being let me do it now and not defer or neglect it as I shall not pass this way again.” Tonight this House will do that.MOJO MATHERS (Green): I would like to start by expressing my heartfelt thanks to every member of the House who votes for the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill tonight. Your vote will mean a great deal to me to my family and to thousands of other New Zealanders. My family has been fortunate to have a beautiful rainbow thread that has woven itself in and out of most of the generations on both sides and it has created artists and teachers dreamers and doctors to name just a few. This wonderful rainbow thread has been continued in the youngest generation and is reflected in my beautiful brave loving daughter. Last year she went to her first formal with her girlfriend. They looked absolutely stunning in black and gold with gold make-up. It was with immense pride that I watched them walk into that formal hand in hand openly declaring their love and affection for each other. They had a wonderful evening and we have many lovely photos to remember it by.For me one of the highlights of being a mother is when my daughter snuggles up to me on the sofa and shares with me her hopes her dreams her aspirations for her future. Like countless other young women she hopes for love marriage children a good job and a house with a white picket fence. All of these options are available to her older sister. When this bill passes tonight which I hope it does it will give both of my daughters the equal opportunity to marry the person they love. No mother could be more proud of her daughters than I am and to see them have equal rights before the law is very important to me. I know from the wonderful emails that I have received that there are many other parents around the country who want their children to have the same right to marry the person they love.I also have loved ones from the wider rainbow community for whom this bill will make a real difference. It will make a difference for them whether or not they choose to marry because it will affirm that they have equal rights before the law regardless of their sexual orientation. When I was growing up I witnessed bullying and taunting of young people suspected of being gay. It was a terrible experience and profoundly distressing. Since that time I have seen significant cultural change in attitudes towards gay people and I have seen fear being replaced with love bullying replaced with acceptance rejection replaced with tolerance. I find it incredibly sad that opponents of marriage equality speak of this cultural change as if it is something to be afraid of. For me it is something to be embraced with open arms so I will be voting for this bill as an affirmation of the rights of rainbow youth and the hope that one day every young person in New Zealand will feel safe and confident about their sexuality free from fear and bullying.Every member in the House who votes for this bill tonight will be voting for love tolerance and acceptance. On behalf of my family and thousands of other New Zealanders thank you thank you thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): I planned to split my call with Chris Auchinvole. It is a great privilege to have the responsibility to exercise a conscience vote on this landmark Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I want to once again acknowledge all those who have submitted and written on this bill from both sides of the debate and thank them for their passion energy efforts and sincerity. Thank you Louisa Wall for your fortitude and those whom I have heard from young and old from all walks of life from all religions in Hunua and around New Zealand. Thank you to so many parliamentary colleagues.At one of my electorate meetings a highly intelligent crusty salt of the earth farmer urged me to vote against the bill but he later joked that over the last few generations the sequence of events has gone like this: in the first instance parents such as himself usedto tell their daughters not to come home with someone from a different religion then not to come home with someone from a different race then definitely not to come home single and pregnant and today then not to come home with someone from the same sex let alone marry them. He encapsulates the fact that society has evolved enormously within a few generations just as marriage has been evolving as a civil and religious institution throughout human history. In New Zealand we do not have such a clear separation between Church and State as some jurisdictions and I agree with the argument that the best way to protect religious freedom is to ensure separation of Church and State when it comes to equality under the law. With this legislation significant safeguards are in place to ensure that marriage celebrants clergy in particular remain free to choose according to their convictions.As a former specialist obstetrician and gynaecologist extremely poignant experiences for me were the rare occurrences where at the birth of a baby when the parents instinctively asked: “Is it a boy or a girl?” I had been literally unable to tell them. This has been because of ambiguous genitalia or a unique physical abnormality. It may take some weeks to fully assess a child have genetic testing carried out and assign a sex. Even that may be later changed. This illustrates the dramatic new knowledge available in the modern world to better understand the spectrum of physical genetic and social expression of gender and sexuality that was simply not possible in the past. I ask anyone on either side of the debate whether they would not hope that their newborn could be brought up in a society that is both tolerant and as caring about their child’s status and aspirations as any other child’s—a society that is inclusive fair and committed to respecting one another.It is a sign of huge change that today 65 percent of marriage ceremonies in New Zealand are solemnised independently of the Church. When it comes to marriage as Rev. Margaret Mayman puts it the overriding message of Christian faith is that we are all called to practise justice and compassion and to welcome those who are marginalised and oppressed. The biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves provides the mandate for marriage equality. The ethical criterion of a marriage relationship is to do with the quality not the orientation of the partners. In the first reading of this bill I said that despite trying hard I could not construct a strong enough intellectual moral health or even spiritual reason to vote against it. I am now quite convinced that at the end of the day the strength of any human union is about love tolerance giving forgiving sharing inclusiveness commitment and fairness irrespective of gender. These are universal qualities that have no boundaries.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): In the second reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill I along with my fellow members of the Government Administration Committee discussed the submissions we received and how we approached the points raised. This is a process I believe in—a process of listening considering and reaching a conclusion based on persuasive argument rather than personal reactive response. This process is over. Now it is time for us as a Parliament to cast our final votes on this bill and allow our part in this debate to come to an end. As politicians we are here to legislate but it is only society that can determine how decisions made by this Parliament affect and are absorbed into our social mores. As the former Republican governor and current United States Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman wrote in an article outlining the conservative support for same-sex marriage: “Marriage is not an issue that people rationalise through the abstract lens of the law;”.This debate that we have been engaged in has highlighted a divide in opinion amongst this nation between young and old between secular and spiritual and even between members of the same faith and the same family. This type of divide is not new nor should it be something that we avoid or dismiss. We have faced many issues ofconscience in our nation’s relatively short history. I think we have grown stronger by facing them together not always as adversaries but as fellow members of a small and empathetic nation that often gives fine examples to the rest of the world. It is because of this shared history that I have the faith that we can seize this opportunity to have discussions around the issues raised by this bill in our homes our churches and everywhere honest thoughtful debate is respected.This bill is not a panacea but it is an opportunity. If it is to pass—and we should pass this bill—that is just the beginning of a change process and I think everyone will acknowledge that. It is just a beginning. As an older person I would ask that the younger generation—epitomised of course in my colleague Nikki Kaye—show some patience and consideration for those of my generation who will need time to adjust to a change that will be very very new to us. By the same token we cannot move forward as a nation if we older ones ignore or reject the heartfelt pleas for respect by the lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community and the younger brigade. We need their acceptance just as they are entitled to our acceptance.These impassioned pleas come through loud and clear when you examine the submission process. There were stories of children too scared to talk to their parents about their sexuality for fear of punishment or worse for fear of total rejection. We may not always agree with our children’s decisions and as any parent will tell you it is our job to worry but to create an environment where your child cannot even talk to you about the issues affecting their life is unconscionable.There are those on both sides of the bill who concentrated on their own point of view to the neglect of any consideration of other points of view. It is necessary if this bill passes—and we should pass this bill—for groups to reconsider individual standpoints. I feel particularly in respect of the Churches that there is a need to pick up the somewhat tattered and torn banner. The banner of Christian love is somewhat tarnished but if it is picked up with hands of every generation of whatever ethnicity or gender identity that human bodies individually glory in then their spirits can restitch restore and make the banner resplendent and to God be the glory. Thank you.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is my intention to split my call with Moana Mackey.I am proud and privileged to speak in the third reading of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I want to see this bill passed into law tonight.I want to acknowledge the thousands of people who submitted on the bill. We heard some very powerful stories at the Government Administration Committee. We heard stories from young gay and lesbian New Zealanders who felt so strongly that passing this bill would be a recognition and acceptance of them. For that reason alone I support this bill. I want to live in a society that is respectful and tolerant where diversity is recognised and cherished and where love and commitment are supported. This bill helps to achieve that aim.The bill does three primary things. It allows same-sex couples to marry it ensures that where a person has transitioned from one gender to another and remained married throughout that significant change they can have their marriage recognised in the law and it extends to same-sex married couples the current provision of allowing a single person to adopt a child.The bill ensures that our religious freedoms for celebrants are maintained. We in the select committee applied a belt and braces approach to ensure that the law is beyond doubt in backing the rights of marriage celebrants to decline to marry a couple should such a marriage not be in accordance with their beliefs. The Marriage Act has since 1955 said that celebrants can do that presumably to protect celebrants from being forced to marry heterosexual couples of different religions or—heaven forbid—marrysomebody who was divorced. We have maintained that protection for celebrants under the law.This bill removes section 56 of the Marriage Act. Some people may not be as familiar with that section as I am so let me share it with you. That section of the Act says that it is an “Offence to deny or impugn validity of lawful marriage”. We have taken that section out of our law. We are not proposing that more people denigrate other people’s marriages but we just do not think that that section sits sensibly within a human rights framework.The issues of religious freedoms of celebrants being able to decline to marry a couple and the view of someone in relation to another’s marriage have all been the subject of gross misrepresentations from opponents of the bill and I resent those misrepresentations. They have been made by just a small group of opponents but they have spread these lies about the bill widely and they have upset people and made people anxious about things that are just not true. I think that lying in a debate about something as important as this is immoral. I want to pay tribute to the opponents of the bill who told the truth about their reasons for opposition. Sadly that was not the case for all opponents. So just to clarify no celebrant will be obliged under the law to marry any couple—heterosexual or same sex.The bill does not rewrite the marriage vows. Vows of marriage will be written by the couple getting married and the celebrant as they currently are. It will not be illegal to call your husband your husband—phew—and it will not be illegal to call your wife your wife. You will still be able to have “bride and groom” on your marriage certificate if that is what you want to have on it.I spoke earlier about the gay and lesbian submitters on this bill. For many presenting a submission—not just on any bill but on a bill about their right to marry about their life—took huge courage and I want to pay a massive tribute to all those who came along. Some of those submitters particularly the older ones told us of feeling rejected and different. They told of the fear of coming out to their family and friends of denial of their own sexual orientation and of living their life as a lie. They told of being bullied and feeling suicidal of not being part of their own community. This law is not going to change our world overnight we will not wake up tomorrow and find ourselves in a totally tolerant and inclusive society but this will be a lawful recognition of the value of those loving relationships. It is a step forward in recognising the value of love in our law.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): It is an honour and a privilege to be able to speak at the third reading of this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill tonight. I want to congratulate my friend Louisa Wall on her role in bringing this important bill to the House. I have had a lot of calls at home today from the media asking why I support this bill and the answer is simple. I am voting in favour because I cannot find any compelling reason why law-abiding taxpaying Kiwis in committed loving relationships should not be able to access the legal and social benefits of marriage purely based on something they cannot change: their sexual orientation. I am voting for this bill because I believe that it will do a lot of good. Just as important I am voting for this bill because I am utterly and completely convinced that it will do no harm to marriage to society or to anyone else regardless of how they may feel about the issue.I want to thank all those who took the time to submit to write to us to Facebook us and to email us. I certainly respect the deep feelings held on both sides of the debate and want to thank members of this House as well as members of the public for the largely respectful way in which the debate has been conducted although the person whosent me an email today describing me as “an evil God-hating reprobate” may want to re-evaluate the effectiveness of their engagement strategy.I sat on the Government Administration Committee for the consideration of this bill and I was also a member of the committee that considered the Civil Union Act back in 2003. I am encouraged by how dramatically the tenor of the debate has shifted. The vitriol that was evident back then has not occurred this time around. I also welcome the belated support for that legislation from those who now argue that civil unions are an appropriate recognition of same-sex relationships that they provide adequate legal protection and that they are not a second-rate option. But as one submitter told the committee civil unions are not a second-rate choice if they are your first choice. And although I respect the beliefs of those who oppose the bill on religious grounds I strongly believe that although it is the role of the State to protect freedom of religious expression—and this bill reaffirms that—it is not the role of the State to uphold one group’s religious beliefs over another’s.The bill is also in the best interests of the many children currently being raised by same-sex couples. I could not in good conscience vote against a bill that would ensure that all children in this country are able to benefit from the stability that marriage provides simply because some may disagree with the relationship their parents are in especially when concerns that have been raised that a same-sex family might impact negatively on children are not borne out by independent peer-reviewed research.This debate is not about special rights for some; it is in fact the very opposite. It is about acknowledging that something that used to be seen as so scary immoral and different that my mother felt compelled to be an active member of a group called HUG—Heterosexuals Unafraid of Gays—is in fact completely normal. This is not about gay marriage; it is about marriage and bringing marriage into the 21st century. Gay lesbian bisexual transgender and intersex people will not be any better or worse at marriage than us straights. They will face the same challenges the highs and lows the successes and the failures.My late grandmother always had a wonderfully uncomplicated approach to life. At one point she became quite taken with Brendan the partner of one of my best friends from high school Peter. She told me that she would not be at all disappointed if Brendan were to become her grandson-in-law. I said to her “But Grandma he’s gay.” to which she responded “Well your grandfather wasn’t the easiest person to live with but you make marriage work.” And she was bang on. If it is the right thing to do then regardless of the difficulties or downsides you make it work.Unfortunately for her I decided that marrying Brendan was not the right thing to do but her point remains. Yes marriage is a responsibility as well as a right. Yes it may not always go to plan. Yes there may be bumps along the way. But you make it work. And I know that thousands of Kiwis right across the country tonight are hoping that Parliament passes this legislation tonight so that they can be given that opportunity. I will be proud to cast my vote tonight for marriage equality. I am now going to sit down so that we can take the vote and pass this bill into law.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 77Adams (P)DelahuntyHuo (P)RossArdern JDunne (P)HutchisonSageAuchinvoleDysonJones (P)Sharples (P)Banks (P)FaafoiJoyceShearerBarryFentonKayeSimpsonBeaumontFlavellKey (P)StreetBennett DFoss (P)King ATremainBennett PGenterLees-Galloway (P)TureiBlueGilmoreLittleTuria (P)BrowningGoffLogieTwyfordCalderGoldsmith (P)MackeyWagner (P)Carter (P)Goodhew (P)Mahuta (P)WalkerClark (P)GrahamMathersWallClendonGroser (P)MoroneyWilkinson (P)Collins (P)HagueNorman (P)WilliamsonCosgrove (P)Harawira (P)ParataWoodsCunliffeHenareParkerCurran (P)HipkinsPrasadDalzielHoromia (P)Robertson GTeller:DeanHughesRoche (P)MallardNoes 44Ardern S (P)King CO’Connor STirikatene (P)BakshiLeeO’Rourke (P)Tisch (P)BorrowsLole-Taylor (P)Peters (P)Tolley (P)Bridges (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)ProsserWilliams (P)Brownlee (P)MacindoeRobertson RWoodhouse (P)ColemanMartinRoy (P)YangEnglish (P)McClay (P)Ryall (P)YoungFinlayson (P)McCully (P)SabinGuy (P)McKelvieShanksHayesMitchell (P)SioHeatleyNgaroSmithTeller:Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)StewartUpstonBill read a third time.WaiataSitting suspended from 9.43 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)