Volume 670 Week 65 - Wednesday 16 February 2011 
Volume 670 Week 65 - Wednesday 16 February 2011 
[Volume:670;Page:16805] 
Wednesday 16 February 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2.20 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
New Zealand Defence Force—Death of Private Kirifi Mila in Afghanistan 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move without notice a motion on the death of a New Zealand Defence Force soldier in Afghanistan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That the House express its deepest sympathy to the family friends and colleagues of the New Zealand Army soldier tragically killed in a motor vehicle accident in Afghanistan overnight and to his three injured colleagues. 
It is with great sadness that I stand here to mark the death of New Zealand Army Private Kirifi Mila who was proudly serving in Afghanistan. Yesterday at approximately midday local time a patrol vehicle of the provincial reconstruction team in Bamian rolled off a road and down a cliff in the north-east of Bamian. New Zealand Army Private Mila tragically was killed in the accident and three of his colleagues were injured. I understand that the most seriously injured soldier has undergone surgery after being evacuated to Bagram. I wish the three injured soldiers all the best for a speedy and full recovery. Our thoughts are with them and their families. 
Private Mila is the second New Zealander to be killed while on service in Afghanistan since the first deployment of provincial reconstruction team efforts in 2003. This follows the loss of Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell in August. Private Mila was a popular courageous and committed member of the New Zealand Defence Force. He had just turned 27 years old and was deployed to Afghanistan last year after joining the New Zealand Defence Force in 2006. His brother is also a serving member of the New Zealand Army. To lose such a fine young man is simply heartbreaking. Private Mila will be mourned by his family his friends his mates in the provincial reconstruction team the wider Defence Force family and all New Zealanders. 
This Government deeply values and respects the commitment and sacrifice of our Defence Force personnel who work in New Zealand and abroad. Yesterday’s accident is a stark reminder of the difficult and dangerous conditions our Defence Force personnel face every day in order to help the Afghan people. This is a sad day for New Zealand. Members in the House stand alongside the family friends and colleagues of Private Mila as we mourn this terrible loss. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the Labour Party we join with the Government in expressing our condolences our sympathy and our love to the family of Private Kirifi Mila and express the sense of loss that our country shares with them. Tulouna le aiga o maota e fia o Samoa. To Kirifi’s family we offer our support and our sympathy as they mourn his loss and likewise to his friends and his colleagues in the New Zealand Defence Force. The Defence Force itself is a family and they will be feeling deeply the sense of grief at the loss of a friend and a colleague a friend who his colleagues say was so full of life and of character. To Kirifi’s comrades who were injured in the accident and to their families we offer our sympathy and our wishes for a speedy recovery. 
At this time we should reflect with gratitude in this House on the young men and women who serve our country in deployments overseas particularly in difficult and dangerous environments such as Afghanistan. It is a sad reminder of the fact that when this House makes a decision to deploy our service people there are real risks that they may suffer injury or death. 
I again offer to Kirifi’s family including his brother who is also serving in the Army our deepest sympathy and our gratitude for his service to our country. Kirifi ia manuia lau malaga ia soifua—may you have a safe journey to the heavens. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I too want to extend our heartfelt sympathies and our aroha to the friends and family of Private Kirifi Mila who was a victim of a tragic accident on a routine patrol and who was within just a few short months of finishing his tour. Losing a loved one is always devastating but it is especially so when one is lost so young and in the prime of his life and when he is one who chose to selflessly work on the other side of the world in a community that has been devastated by war and by terror. The provincial reconstruction team of which Private Mila was a part was supporting and working with communities in Afghanistan to rebuild and to reconstruct their homes and their communities and ultimately their lives. Our thoughts are with his family and his friends and his colleagues at this time and with those who remain injured and their families also. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I wish to express our deepest sympathy and sincere condolences to family to friends and to colleagues of Private Kirifi Mila who was killed last night while on a routine patrol in Afghanistan’s north-east Bamian province as well as to his three injured colleagues. This tragic accident again highlights for us in this Parliament the dangers faced by our serving men and serving women the world over be they in a war zone like Afghanistan or peacekeeping. It is difficult for us to comprehend the grief that those who knew him will be feeling. We rightly acknowledge the contribution and sacrifice of our servicemen and servicewomen; so too should we recognise the contribution made by their families and their friends back home. They see these brave men and women—their friends husbands wives and children—travel to places they can scarcely comprehend all in the name of freedom of making others’ lives better. They do so without knowing what may happen to their loved ones without knowing whether they will ever see them again. The families of Kirifi Mila his injured colleagues and all our brave men and brave women serving our country around the world deserve our heartfelt appreciation and deserve our respect. For what higher calling can there be than to be prepared to stand up for the cause of freedom and to make others’ lives better? Kirifi Mila rest in peace. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Aue taukuri e. Kei te hotuhotu te manawa kei te tangi te ngakau kei te heke te roimata. E te uri o Hamoa e te w’anaunga o Te Moana Nui a Kiwa e te ringa kaha o Tumatauenga ’aere ’aere ’oki atu ra e tama. 
[ 
Oh the tragic loss. The heart sobs I grieve and shed tears. To the descendant of Samoa kin of the Great Ocean of Kiwa strong arm of the God of War depart go return oh son 
.] 
The Maori Party shares with all parties in this House the grief that has fallen over Aotearoa today with the sad loss of Private Kirifi Mila in the faraway lands of Afghanistan. We recognise the pain that such news brings to the greater armed forces and in particular to his colleagues in the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment based at Burnham Military Camp. Private Mila was known as a colourful character a popular member of that team who will be greatly missed. 
The loss of Private Mila while he was travelling as part of a four-vehicle humanitarian patrol in Afghanistan was revealed to us while the Prime Minister of Australia the Hon Julia Gillard spoke to us in this House of the Anzac spirit. We think of that spirit now and of all those who have fallen serving on our behalf on foreign shores. 
Finally our thoughts return to his family and in particular to his brother who was serving by his side in Afghanistan and we offer our aroha to his colleagues who were injured in the same accident. The death of a loved one is always hard to bear but to be so far away at such a terrible time brings with it an even greater sense of tragedy. Our most sincere sympathies go out to the family and to the wider community of the armed forces on this day of such sadness. Ua malie toa malie tau—to honour a fight a fight well fought. Tena koutou. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 This is another of those sad occasions when Parliament and parliamentarians both as an institution and as individual members of New Zealand’s democratic heart come together to both mourn and honour another of our fallen soldiers. The fact that Private Kirifi Mila was not killed in combat is of no more or less consequence than if he had been. He died serving his country in the interests and well-being of people in a far distant country whose well-being and lives are under constant threat. He was part of the New Zealand Army’s provincial reconstruction team which is helping to provide security and to rebuild schools and hospitals in Bamian Province in a country that is amongst the poorest in the world. I have been part of a Cabinet of a Government that made decisions to send our military forces into harm’s way and at times like this that is a heavy burden to carry—not of course as heavy as the burden carried by the families and loved ones involved. Today our thoughts are with Private Mila’s family and friends and also with the three other personnel who were injured. They were all brave soldiers—and the three who have survived are brave soldiers—prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice as their contribution towards building a better world. We honour them for that. No words are adequate but our deepest condolences go to Private Mila’s family on this sad occasion. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I join with other colleagues who have spoken to record my condolences and sympathy to the family of Private Kirifi Mila on their sad loss and to express the hope that his colleagues make speedy and thorough recoveries. It is inevitable at a time like this that questions will be asked as to why this happened why these young men were placed in a situation where they could face a threat to their safety. Whatever words are offered in response are not adequate to deal with a family’s grief with the grief and sense of loss of friends and colleagues and with the grief that a nation now feels. I suppose the only thing we can say by way of some consolation is that this was a young man proudly serving his country; this was a young man with a positive future and by all accounts a very optimistic outlook doing his duty for his country as he saw it. If there is to be any consolation drawn from that it has to be the consolation of service and commitment and dedication at the highest level. I simply say to his family and friends as they approach the difficult next few days and weeks that although there will be times of great loneliness and sadness as they come to grips with the reality of what has happened they can take some strength from the fact that the nation holds their son and loved one in high esteem. The nation regards his sacrifice highly and the nation will be there to support them in their hour of need. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
State-owned Enterprises—Financial Returns 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in respect of the payment of a dividend by a State-owned enterprise that the Government expected to receive a return from them because “if we don’t how do we pay for our doctors and hospitals and the likes”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: In taking $700 million in dividends from the three State-owned enterprise power companies last year how much of that dividend went to pay for social benefits to the communities such as doctors hospitals and the likes? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Given that the Government collects revenue through a huge number of ways—personal and indirect taxation other forms of taxation levies and charges—it is impossible to know exactly but it is possible that it was all of it. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If those power companies which all of us as Kiwis own right now are so profitable that the dividends cover not only reinvestment back into generation but also huge social dividends to the community why does he intend to flog off the shares in those companies so that the profit goes to private interests and to foreign companies instead of back into the community? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it is the Government’s intention to use the proceeds of those initial public offerings to actually invest in other assets that the Government would have to fund through the Government bond rate or potentially to put into other aspects that are generating income. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did Treasury advise his Government that even the partial privatisation of those companies would within 10 years result in the cornerstone shareholder being a foreign multinational company? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Under the model that has been proposed by the Government although we are seeking further advice on it I do not think that that would actually be possible because 51 percent will be controlled by the Crown and therefore the cornerstone shareholder will in fact be the Crown. There will be other investors of course but given that Kiwi mums and dads will be at the front along with the 1.6 million KiwiSaver accounts plus the Crown entities that will invest the largest shareholder will be the Crown. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that Treasury was wrong in saying that a cornerstone shareholder could be a foreign multinational company notwithstanding that he was holding 51 percent of the shares? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Treasury did not say that. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Could the Prime Minister explain to the House and to the Hon Phil Goff why 50 percent increases in productivity among reformed State-owned enterprises were more important to New Zealand than dividend considerations and that dividends naturally flow from an increased level of productivity while prices fall? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because the majority of electricity generation assets in this country are owned by the Government. Therefore if those businesses are not as efficient or as effective as they can be then New Zealanders ultimately pay more for those services than they should do. If we look at the Labour Government between 1999 and 2008 we see that not only did it not maximise its returns but prices went up 72 percent under that Government so we certainly know that that model has not worked so well. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Contrary to what the Prime Minister has just answered is it not correct that Treasury told him that there was little evidence that privatisation would lead to improved financial performance from the State-owned enterprises; if so why risk privatising them when the past experience has been that Air New Zealand was run into bankruptcy and New Zealand Rail was asset-stripped? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is funny that the member should mention those. If it is such a bad model can he explain firstly why he did not buy 100 percent of Air New Zealand when he had the chance and secondly can he explain why given that we bought KiwiRail we are now having to put $4 billion into fixing it up? 
Parity with Australia—Reduction in Child Poverty 
2. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does the Government’s commitment to closing the gap with Australia include reducing child poverty? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment):  
The Government is certainly committed to lifting— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: She’s out of the country. There must be an Acting Minister. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Actually that is a good point. I am the Acting Minister. She is out of the country. I say thanks to Mr Hughes. That was his most useful contribution this year. The Government is certainly committed to lifting after-tax wages and employment which will have a positive impact on rates of poverty. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware that Australia does more to reduce child poverty than New Zealand does including having a universal family tax credit better paid parental leave and a higher minimum wage? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am not sure that the first part of the member’s statement is correct. The advice I have received is that Australia does not publish income poverty levels reflecting as I understand it a longstanding debate in Australia as to how to measure poverty. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why does the Minister’s Government penalise children whose parents lose their jobs by cutting off their Working for Families support when in Australia the equivalent family tax credits are available to those families in or out of work? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I would not agree with the first part of that question. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister bothered at all that the Human Rights Review Tribunal has said that the in-work tax credit is discriminatory causing significant disadvantage to those children concerned? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am aware of the statement but I understand that this very matter is currently before the courts. Therefore under Standing Orders 111 and 371(4) it would be inappropriate for me to comment. I understand that the matter is set down to be heard by the courts in early September. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the Minister was bothered. The Minister was not asked to comment on the case but simply on the facts. Is the Minister bothered about this or not? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Both members will desist. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: If you insist? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said “desist”. The member asked whether the Minister is bothered about an issue like that and the Minister has responded by saying that the matter is before the court and he does not feel it is appropriate for him therefore to comment on it at all. That then is the end of the matter as far as this House is concerned. The Minister must be the sole judge of the public interest in that regard. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Could the Minister explain to the House why child poverty is higher in New Zealand no matter what measure is used than it is in Singapore despite the fact that the New Zealand Government spends over 40 percent of GDP compared with Singapore’s 17 percent? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Broadly I can. The Government believes that the best way out of poverty is paid employment. Presently there are 222000 New Zealand children who are dependent on beneficiaries and that is precisely why we set up the Welfare Working Group to look at those very issues. 
Metiria Turei 
: Would the Minister not be embarrassed to be driving around the country in a $200000 brand-new BMW when one in five New Zealand children lives in poverty? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Well there are many uncomfortable situations that members of Parliament find themselves in every day and I have to say that whether I am able to carry out my duties as a Minister in a vehicle purchased by the last Government is not material to how I do my job. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is she prepared to set targets and a timetable for the elimination of child poverty in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sure the Minister is doing everything she can to ensure that any deadline or any target is met to ensure we lift as many children out of poverty as possible. 
Australia Economic Relationship—Investment Protocol 
3. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress has the Government made on strengthening New Zealand’s economic relationship with Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Today Prime Minister John Key and Australia’s Prime Minister signed the Protocol on Investment to the New Zealand - Australia Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement. It builds on existing goods and services agreements and will cut red tape and compliance costs for investors on both sides of the Tasman. It provides additional safeguards for the $36 billion that New Zealanders have invested in Australia which is the largest overseas destination of New Zealand investment. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the work done by the previous Labour Government in beginning the investment protocol negotiations. 
John Hayes 
: What changes will occur under the investment protocol? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the case of New Zealanders investing in Australian business assets the screening threshold increases from A$231 million to just over A$1 billion. In the case of Australians investing in significant New Zealand business assets the threshold rises from NZ$100 million to NZ$477 million. The protocol ensures that in most instances New Zealanders will be treated equally with Australians investing in their own country and gives them more certainty that their investments will be protected and will not be treated unfairly. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In respect of the potential for energy assets to be sold to Australia given the new threshold does he agree with John Key who said that options for narrowing the wage gap with Australia are limited and that “we can sit around all we like if we want and worry about a potential partial float … [but] that is not going to make the New Zealand economy go faster and … we’ll continue to lose New Zealanders and that’s just not sustainable.”; if so why is he continuing to consider a partial float if it will not grow our economy or keep New Zealanders here? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is working on a wide range of fronts to undo the damage done by the previous Government and to build stronger economic opportunity in New Zealand. We are making significant progress and the investment protocol signed today is just another small step along with hundreds of others this country needs to take in order to close the wage gap between New Zealand and Australia. 
John Hayes 
: What changes will occur under the investment protocol? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The provisions of the protocol preserve our ability to take measures that could affect investors differentially. Those include fulfilment of obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi; protection of human animal or plant life or health; and management of a balance of payments crisis. Furthermore if the Government decides to move to a mixed-ownership model for certain State-owned enterprises the protocol includes a specific provision that preserves the right of the New Zealand Government to give preference to New Zealanders in respect of State-owned enterprises. 
John Hayes 
: What categories of investment are covered under the investment protocol? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One important category that is not covered by the protocol is investment in land. Investments in sensitive land will be treated under the Overseas Investment Act in the same way as any other investment so the thresholds and categories have not changed in respect of land investment. The protocol applies specifically to business investment. 
John Hayes 
: Under the investment protocol what policy flexibility do we retain? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand retains policy flexibility on those matters that we regard as important to our sovereign interests: in particular the Treaty of Waitangi dealing with a balance of payments crisis and also the ability to provide a preference for New Zealanders investing in State-owned enterprises. 
Vulnerable Citizens—Number 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has the “underclass” as he called it increased or decreased since he became Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The member will be aware that just as the Government does not collect statistics on hard-working Kiwis or those on “the other side of town” to whom her party leader refers neither do we keep a measure of the number of people who could be described as belonging to an “underclass” in New Zealand. However I can report that this Government has through a number of policies tackled the problems that under Labour simply removed hope and opportunities from the lives of those people. 
Hon Annette King 
: If this Government has as the Prime Minister claims tackled issues the previous Government did not why are we seeing headlines like “3607 ask for help to live” with a city missioner saying that a new level of poverty is emerging as incomes stay the same and prices rise? Has she got it wrong as he has been saying that everybody is better off? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is worth remembering that wages on average have gone up about 16 percent and prices have gone up 6 percent which is a net increase of 10 percent. It is worth contrasting that figure with Labour’s really pathetic performance where over 9 years wages went up in real terms by only 3 percent. It is true of course that there is a recession and we have had a Labour Government that cared so little about education standards that it did not mind whether people who left school could read or write properly. Some of those people have not had the skills and the recession has tossed them out of a job. 
Hon Annette King 
: If he is accurate in his claims why did the Salvation Army in its state of the nation report—which he uses when it suits him—say that demand for food parcels continues to break records and that food poverty now being witnessed by the Salvation Army is nearly twice what it was 4 years ago? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is true that the global recession has seen more New Zealanders on a benefit and that obviously has an impact. But it is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly one can pay one’s bills. That is true because the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit actually pay for food rent and other things. Some make poor choices and they do not have money left. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can he explain to the House how spending tens of thousands of dollars on a Community Max programme to catch 38 horses for Tame Iti’s dowry and then letting them go has helped to reduce the “underclass” in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know the details of that Community Max scheme but I can say that overall the programme has worked: 70 percent of all New Zealanders who went on Community Max are no longer on a benefit. I claim that to be success. When I look at the Labour performance what has it done when it comes to those people? Nothing other than carp on about it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who is the Minister responsible for the implementation of Community Max and is Simon Power the Acting Minister at present; if so has he been adequately briefed on the programme before making comments on it? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Minister for Social Development and Employment. 
Moana Mackey 
: What impact does he believe New Zealand’s ever-worsening housing shortage will have on the ability of struggling families to access affordable and appropriate housing given a national shortage of 70000 dwellings predicted further shortages of 25000 dwellings over the next decade a growing Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list of nearly 11000 an estimated 20000 Kiwis now classified as homeless and more than 80 Auckland families moving into overcrowded housing situations every week? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly house prices if anything have been either falling or remaining flat so there is actually no indication of a housing shortage. Secondly if someone actually wants to buy a house two things make a fundamental difference to that. The first is after-tax income. This Government has cut taxes so after-tax income has risen. The second thing is getting inflation under control. This Government has got control of inflation and therefore interest rates have stayed low. They are all the reasons why New Zealanders can get into a home. The third thing is that this Government has not focused on building new State homes; it has focused on getting more people into those homes. That is why we have implemented a number of policies that have made a difference in that area. 
Moana Mackey 
: Can he confirm that he does not believe New Zealand is facing a housing shortage? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can confirm that house prices have either been falling or going sideways. Generally in a market where there is increased demand prices rise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have been trying to work with our team on asking straight questions. That question was very straight. It asked for an opinion on whether there had been a housing shortage. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s an opinion. You can’t seek an opinion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Of course we can seek an opinion—we have been able to for the last 5 years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There should not have been an interjection from the Leader of the House on a point of order. I heard what the member said. The point of order raised was not unreasonable. Although the question did not really seek an opinion it asked the Prime Minister whether he could confirm that there is no housing shortage in New Zealand to which the Prime Minister said he could confirm something else. That is not really addressing the question. I do not expect the Prime Minister to give any particular answer but he really should address the question in respect of how the question related or did not relate to a housing shortage. The Prime Minister in answering should give some indication of what he understands in respect of whether or not there is a housing shortage. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: In some parts of New Zealand there will be housing shortages as the population increases; in others there will not be. Overall prices have either been falling or staying the same which does not indicate a shortage. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that new housing starts are currently at the lowest rate in 45 years and that consequently the Registered Master Builders Federation is predicting a major housing crisis within the next 18 months? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first point is correct. The low rate indicates that there is not an overwhelming demand for housing at the moment. If there was there would be a long list of people piling in. It reflects what is actually happening which is that the Government’s policies are working. We are rebalancing the economy away from being one that is solely driven by housing to being one that has a more diversified investment portfolio. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Maori Statutory Board 
5. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What did he mean when he described the Maori Statutory Board as “inherently divisive” and said it should never have been included in the legislation setting up the Auckland Council? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I meant that the Auckland Council reform was designed to ensure that Auckland had a good governance structure and met good governance principles of being democratic effective and efficient. When the issue was discussed by Cabinet in 2009 I recommended against having a Maori Statutory Board as it did not meet those principles. It was my view that the Auckland Council would be in the best place to make decisions on how it engages with Maori and mana whenua and how to involve them in the council’s decision making as provided for in the Local Government Act and Resource Management Act. Cabinet decided instead to go with the Minister of Maori Affairs’ option of having a statutory board. As I predicted that option has been divisive as we have seen with Aucklanders’ reactions over the last week. 
Rahui Katene 
: How is it inherently divisive to have an appointed Maori Statutory Board to deal with the management and stewardship of natural and physical resources? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: It is inherently divisive because we have seen the debate over the budget and the functions that has occurred between the council and the statutory board and the fact that they are seeking a declaration. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with the purpose of the Maori Statutory Board outlined in the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act that the board must “assist the Auckland Council … by promoting cultural economic environmental and social issues of significance for mana whenua groups; and mataawaka of Tamaki makaurau; and ensuring that the Council acts in accordance with statutory provisions referring to the Treaty of Waitangi.” and if not would he not consider it to be inherently divisive to oppose legislation that Parliament has already debated and passed? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When will the Minister accept accountability for having voted for the legislation which contains an unworkable model and an obnoxious level of rate rises for Aucklanders for a very narrow group of privileged iwi leaders? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: In fact the rate rises as provided for by the accounts audited by the Auditor-General show that they were greatly reduced—[ 
Interruption 
]. Well no; I am explaining. The rates were going to be over 6 percent and the audited accounts showed that it would be under 4 percent so they were reduced. Also there are significant reductions in water charges averaging over 20 percent across Auckland and I am happy to take responsibility for those savings. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he take responsibility for the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act which comes under his portfolio which he introduced to the House and which he voted for; if not why not? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is worth your while considering whether the last two questions have relevance to the question that was asked which was very specific in asking about the inherently divisive nature of the Maori Statutory Board. 
Phil Twyford 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I am in a position to deal with the matter. I accept that the previous supplementary question asked was a fair way from the mark but I believed that it gave the Minister such licence in responding to it that I did not want to deprive the Minister of the opportunity to have some fun in his answer. With regard to this particular supplementary question what I do not know as Speaker is whether the legislation to which the questioner refers may or may not be the legislation that deals with the issues in this question. Therefore it seemed to me as Speaker to be appropriate to leave it up to the Minister to deal with the question as asked. If it does not relate to the primary question the Minister is perfectly capable of responding that way and it seemed to me to be better to leave it directly for the Minister to deal with when I as Speaker cannot know the facts of the matter. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes of course. I am happy to point out because I think that member may have missed it that I took a paper to Cabinet saying that the statutory board was not something I supported. That was made public in December 2009. I am surprised that Mr Twyford has only just caught up with it. 
Student Loans—Prime Minister’s Statement 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 My question has been transferred to the Minister for Tertiary Education and asks: how will he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Darren Hughes is a former shadow Leader of the House and as senior Opposition whip he knows that he cannot do that when asking a question. I am sure he would now desire to ask the question correctly. 
6. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: How will he “build better value out of the interest-free student loan system” as he stated was his Government’s intention in his statement to Parliament last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 Could I take the opportunity to welcome the member to his new role which I understand was an accidental appointment. The Government remains committed to interest-free student loans but also believes that such a generous loan scheme should carry strong mutual obligations on those who benefit from it. This year— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I’ll do you a deal: I’ll do the jokes. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: He does not want to hear Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just cannot hear the answer. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I do not think that member wants to hear it either because he is the accidental— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to please start his answer again without the prelude to the answer because I did not hear the detail of it. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: That’s what he was like when he was on talkback radio. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I ask Shane whether he is ready. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government remains committed to interest-free student loans but it also believes that such a generous loan scheme should carry strong mutual obligations on those who benefit from it. This year the Government has introduced rules on requiring reasonable academic progress a commitment from new residents to the country before they can access the scheme a maximum number of years one can access the loans and actions to chase down debts owed by borrowers who are overseas. We will be evaluating further options along these lines as part of a value-for-money drive which has so far seen the savings contribute to an additional 8200 university places this year since 2008. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Was John Key right to describe interest-free student loans as “fiscal insanity” and to say that “National would oppose such a policy with every bone in our bodies”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is well known that the student loan scheme is very generous and I think that was what the Prime Minister was referring to. In fact the student support scheme in this country is possibly the most generous in the world. Therefore it is appropriate that it carries reasonable obligations. Under the previous Government we were writing off something like 49c in every dollar of student loans. We have so far managed to get that under 45c in the dollar and we are working to get it down further as well. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What is the Government’s view of the recommendation of the Savings Working Group that the Government reintroduce interest on student loans; and can he rule out his Government introducing interest on student loans in the unfortunate event that National is given a second term? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member’s listening skills need improvement because in answer to the primary question I said that we remain committed to interest-free student loans. I have also said so in response to media questions and the Prime Minister has also been reported as saying that as well. Perhaps we could have a little more research from the new spokesman on tertiary education. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: How can New Zealanders trust a promise from National not to reintroduce interest on student loans given that it is the same party that said it would not increase the rate of GST? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think we can see from opinion polls in this country that this Government is actually trusted by New Zealanders. They understand that we are doing a good job of managing the economy and managing areas such as tertiary education. They continue to give the Government their support and we continue to see that support. 
Youth Guarantee—Student Results 
7. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has she received about the initial success of the Youth Guarantee for 16 and 17-year-olds? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports about the success of the Government’s Youth Guarantee. I recently received information from the Eastern Institute of Technology which stated: “Student success last year was strong which was very encouraging. Preliminary work on academic outcomes indicates that Youth Guarantee students did as well as or even slightly better than the wider student body. This is a great result given that many of them could be classified as at risk of not achieving academically.” This Government is committed to addressing the chronic gap between those succeeding and those being failed in our education system and this is proof that it is working. 
Louise Upston 
: Has she received any reports about how popular the Youth Guarantee courses at the Eastern Institute of Technology are proving to be? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. I have been told that in 2011 demand is even greater with huge support coming from local schools families and students. The Youth Guarantee courses at the Eastern Institute of Technology have proved so popular that they have now reached maximum capacity despite this Government funding even more places for them. The institute is now having to wait-list many of its Youth Guarantee applicants. 
Louise Upston 
: Has she had any feedback from any other Youth Guarantee providers? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes. I visited NorthTec at the end of last year—it has successfully embraced the Youth Guarantee programme—and in talking to the students I found that they were very motivated. Many of them had been at risk of dropping out or had already dropped out of the education system and they are now considering taking up apprenticeships or further study in courses like tourism hospitality fabrication and welding. This Government is absolutely committed to supporting those young people who are at risk of dropping out of the system and that is why we are funding nearly 4000 places this year under the wider Youth Guarantee. 
Early Childhood Education Fees—Minister’s Statement 
8. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Why did he tell  
3 News 
 on 31 January 2011 that prices to attend early childhood education centres would not go up? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I understand this is referring to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister was referring to the fact that early childhood centres have received a 2.4 percent cost adjustment have high staff turnover and have had 8 months to adjust their businesses for the funding changes. So there is no reason for early childhood centres to put their prices up. The Prime Minister also went on to say that “a lot of the sector is totally unaffected”. This Government is spending more on early childhood education than any other Government and we have reprioritised funding to target those children who need it most rather than just doing what the unions want. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call Sue Moroney for a supplementary question I warn her colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard that a further interjection like the one he made which I heard so clearly will have him leave the Chamber. He will not make that kind of interjection. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has he been informed by the Minister about Victoria Childcare— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that the question has been transferred to the Minister of Education and that is perfectly proper where there is no particular reason for the question to be answered by any particular Minister. So it has been transferred to the Minister of Education and the member should word her question—her supplementary question at least—recognising that fact so that it does make some sense; otherwise the question risks making no sense. If the Minister simply says that the question makes no sense I have no choice but to rule it out of order. I invite the member to word it in a way that makes sense. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister informed the Prime Minister about the Victoria Childcare and Education Centre in her own electorate of Gisborne where fees went up by $14 per child per week in October 2010; the Central Otago Kindergarten Association which had to increase fees by $18 a week for 3-year-olds; the Newlands Childcare centre in Wellington where fees have increased by $25 per week; or any of the many other centres where fees have had to increase because of her funding cuts? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have repeatedly said in this House and outside that this Government is spending more money on early childhood education than ever before—$1.4 billion. We are spending that this year on early childhood. I have also stated that these are individual businesses and like many of the businesses throughout New Zealand they make their own decisions. But the Prime Minister and I are disappointed if centres have taken the option to raise fees for parents. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did the Prime Minister say that fees were not going up? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Prime Minister did not say that. 
Hon Members 
: He did. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: He did not say that. He said they did not have to go up because we had given centres 8 months’ notice and a 2.4 percent cost adjustment and there was already high staff turnover. So there was no reason for those centres to put their prices up. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did her Government choose to spend $5.9 billion on tax cuts for the 10 percent of wealthiest people in New Zealand in Budget 2010 instead of keeping $400 million of funding in place for early childhood education to stop these fee increases from happening? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is very easy for that member to forget what her Government did with early childhood education which was to increase spending three times without any commensurate increase in the number of children starting school who had received early childhood education. That is not acceptable to this Government when in some areas one child in five is unable to attend early childhood education services. So we have reprioritised funds to make sure we address those issues whereby children are unable to attend early childhood education. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister seen with commentary on early childhood education funding changes? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I will read out an email and I want to make sure the House understands that this is not my language; this is the language in an email. I have seen an email to the member who asked the questions previously Sue Moroney from an early childhood education manager. It says “Dear Sue I am afraid you write a lot of c-r-a-p. It does you and your party no credit. Labour brought in the so-called 20 free hours but ignored industry advice as to how much money was needed and gave too little to cover costs. In the meantime misleading public scaremongering such as you are doing is driving families away from childcare.” That member who asked the previous questions needs to think about those children who are missing out on early childhood education rather than about how much money is going into the pockets of their New Zealand Educational Institute mates. 
Allan Peachey 
: Has the Minister seen any reports from early childhood education centres to parents regarding funding? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes; I have seen a recent note to parents from Crackerjacks Preschool in the Waikato. It says: “There has been a lot of negative reporting about the funding changes for ECE centres. As stated last year our fees will not be increasing in the foreseeable future and we will not be cutting our services or reducing the quality of our care. Our two centres have actually benefited from the funding changes. Over the whole of New Zealand this has been a good move and one that will lead to increased quality and funding for a larger number of centres. The loudest complaints are coming from centres that have accessed huge amounts of money for several years and have become accustomed to spending that amount.” 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your guidance about whether correspondence to a Minister forms part of the official papers that the Minister is now quoting in the House; if so we would request that she table those two documents because on the first one she did not identify the source it had come from. She just asserted that these things had been said. Presumably as they have been received they are part of her official documents and we would like those to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is an interesting point of order. The issue raised is whether correspondence received by a Minister is an official document. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I would like you to deal with Standing Order 367: “Documents quoted by Minister” which states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to table the document.” I would argue that this is an email relating to public affairs in respect of her portfolio. She directly quoted from it; therefore she should table it. 
Hon Simon Power 
: In my short time in this House my experience of the use of this Standing Order relates to official advice that has been provided by officials or indeed to a document that could be sourced to an official source but not to correspondence to a Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard. I must confess that I am uncertain because the Standing Order being quoted of course does not make the particular point that the Hon Simon Power referred to yet I am familiar with the accepted practice.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I must say I am uncertain as well because I think this is the first time I can remember that the Standing Order has been tested in this way. I would like to draw your attention to the Official Information Act in trying to decide what is official. There is no doubt in my mind that that document is one that could be sought and obtained under the Official Information Act. The Minister has released on many occasions—and no doubt you did too when you were a Minister—correspondence under that Act. If we are trying to work out what is official that detail could be a factor. I will say—and I do not know whether my colleagues will thank me very much—I am not absolutely certain that the Standing Order was meant to be used to capture this sort of document. Then again I think if the Minister has done the proper thing and checked with the sender of the email that it could be used in the House—which of course we all would do—at that point in my view it then becomes official if she has checked that information properly; therefore it should be tabled. 
Hon Simon Power 
: The point the Hon Trevor Mallard makes is an interesting one. The difficulty with taking that point to its logical extreme is that any note that a Minister has that they may be reading from in question time—which as the former Minister knows can be requested under the Official Information Act—would fall into that category. That would mean that question time could easily descend into a farce if all notes that were available to Ministers fell into that category. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have enough information now to rule on the matter. It was an interesting point of order raised and I appreciate the members’ contribution to it. Perhaps I should have been a little more familiar with some of the previous Speakers’ rulings on the matter. What was said about the traditional practice is I think supported by other Speakers’ rulings. If members look at Speakers’ rulings 136/2 and 136/3 they cover what has been considered in this House to be an official document which does not include letters to Ministers. Specifically Speaker’s ruling 137/1 begins: “A letter written to a member by someone outside the House …” and states that that letter is not an official document. But I also come back to ruling 136/2 which states that: “An official document is a document connected with the government of the country or a document which has passed between officers of the Government and Ministers or between one officer and another.” Clearly such an email as the one in question does not meet that standard. I think it is an interesting issue that has been raised but I would not depart from those Speakers’ rulings without some consultation with members with regard to the wisdom of widening the current practice. I think I therefore should rule that the Minister is not obliged to table those emails under the current Speakers’ rulings. But I fully accept that it was an interesting point of order raised. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to say thank you. I think your ruling is right; it would be a bit dangerous. 
Crime Organised—Police Operations Targeting Drugs 
9. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What actions have been taken by the police as a result of the Government’s focus on tackling organised crime and the drugs trade? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 This Government has introduced a raft of new policies aimed at tackling organised crime. As a result the police are cracking down on criminal activity particularly by gangs. In their latest operation the police dismantled a large-scale methamphetamine supply chain. So far 31 people have been arrested and 32 vehicles over $140000 in cash firearms computers drugs and drug precursors have been seized. I would like to congratulate each and every one of the hundreds of officers who took part in this highly successful operation. Those are exactly the results this Government is looking for. 
Shane Ardern 
: What other reports has she received on the efforts of law enforcement authorities to target organised crime? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am very pleased to report that in 2010 the police and the Customs Service seized 30.4 kilograms of methamphetamine. This is an impressive increase of 46 percent from 2009. The methamphetamine was estimated to have a street value of about $30 million and would have caused an immeasurable amount of misery in our communities. In addition the latest figures from the police show that $36.9 million worth of criminal assets have been restrained under the new forfeiture law passed in this Parliament. This Government has given our law enforcement agencies the tools to do their job and they are delivering. 
Ministers—Confidence 
10. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When the Hon Pita Sharples called on the Minister of Local Government to resign if he could not accept the decision to set up the Auckland Council’s Maori Statutory Board was he correctly reflecting the requirement of paragraph 5.26 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which reads: “Any public disassociation from Cabinet decisions by individual Ministers outside the agreed processes is unacceptable.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. We have made it clear to Mr Sharples’ office that when he makes comments of those regards he should not be doing them as the Minister of Maori Affairs. That is exactly the point he was making but he incorrectly put it on his ministerial letterhead. 
Phil Twyford 
: Did the Hon Rodney Hide satisfactorily apply paragraph 5.30 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which states: “Once a decision is reached by Cabinet … [Ministers’] statements should reflect the fact that a collective government decision has been made” when he said that the Auckland Council’s Maori Statutory Board should never have been included in the legislation and that he always assumed National would stick to its principle of one law for all and in the event it decided to go against his advice? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes because he made those comments in this position as leader of the ACT Party. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does the Prime Minister share the view of the Minister of Local Government of no confidence and great doubt and does he along with his Minister seek to dismiss the Maori Statutory Board? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Could you repeat the first bit of the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Shanes Jones to please repeat the question. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Does he share the view of his Minister of Local Government of no confidence and concern about costs and does he seek to have the Maori Statutory Board dismissed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No but I do have some concerns about the proposed $3.4 million given that the Auckland Transition Agency made it clear that it expected the costs to be in the order of $400000. To me $3.4 million seems excessive and I think that is why the Auckland Council has moved to reduce that number to $1.9 million. I share its view that that number in terms of funding costs for the statutory board should be lower. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he hold the Hon Rodney Hide responsible for Part 7 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Act? 
Hon Simon Power 
: Parliament passed it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes Parliament is responsible. Mr Hide is responsible as the Minister of Local Government and when he is acting in the capacity as Minister of Local Government I believe he has upheld his obligations. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question tries to go to the heart of what question time is for. It asked whether the Minister is held responsible for the content and the effect of legislation that is passed in his name. That is the intent of this question. The Prime Minister has not addressed it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should know that this House really is responsible for legislation it passes. I think the Prime Minister gave a pretty serious answer. I do not think he tried to play around with the member’s question at all; he certainly did not try to attack the member. I think the Prime Minister actually could have played a lot looser and faster with such a question had he chosen to but he chose to try to treat it with respect. I think that was a reasonable answer. 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue at hand is that the Minister of Local Government has refused to take responsibility for the content of this legislation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; the member is now seeking to debate an issue. He asked a question and I believe the Prime Minister treated the question fairly seriously. The Prime Minister could have treated the question fairly flippantly had he chosen given the nature of the question. He chose to treat it fairly seriously and I think that is not unreasonable. But now for the member to try to debate the matter by way of a point of order as to what the Hon Rodney Hide may or may not be responsible for is not the purpose of a point of order. If the member has further supplementary questions he is welcome to ask them. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why would the Prime Minister be entitled to answer flippantly a question about the responsibility of one of his Ministers? That is what the Speaker just said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The simple fact is that legislation is passed by this House so the nature of the legislation is a matter for this House. Of course the administration of the Act is something that the Minister is responsible for but not the Act itself. This Parliament is responsible for legislation and the Prime Minister could have given a newish member of the House a bit of a lecture on responsibility for legislation. He chose not to. He chose to try to give a reasonable answer to the question. The questioner asked something to do with a matter that this Parliament is responsible for not the Minister and that is the end of it. I cannot help with that. The member could have worded his question differently had he wished to pursue the matter but this House is ultimately responsible for bills that it passes to become Acts. Ministers are responsible for their administration. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree with both of the last points you made. The House is ultimately responsible for bills as they are passed and Ministers are responsible for their administration. But Ministers also as part of that process have a responsibility for recommending to Parliament amendments and Supplementary Order Papers. The Minister sat in the chair for a very long time and I think you Mr Speaker are drawing a relatively long bow to say that Ministers do not have responsibility for their actions as leading legislators on particular bills. I am of the view that a Minister is responsible for the Supplementary Order Papers that he moved for the bill as Rodney Hide did. The fact that Parliament—in the end by a majority a relatively small majority—agreed to that does not absolve him from the responsibility that he took in moving those Supplementary Order Papers which now have proven to be slightly disastrous. 
Hon Simon Power 
: It is an interesting point except for the fact that if for example an amendment was tabled during the Committee stage in another member’s name and passed the Minister would still have responsibility for the bill—but the House determined what was to be in that bill before it proceeded to the next stage. So in the end it is the House that ultimately retains responsibility for the content of the bill. Once it leaves the House or is signed by the Governor-General—whatever the correct terminology is—the Minister is dead right as I respectfully suggest so are you Mr Speaker in the sense that the operation of that legislation is then directly a matter for the Minister concerned. 
Methamphetamine—Border Seizures 
11. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What recent reports has he received regarding interceptions of methamphetamine or P at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Great intelligence work by customs officers has resulted in the interception of a woman internally concealing 40 pellets of crystal meth or P inside her body. The P weighed 570 grams in total. Skilled customs officers targeted the woman a South African national as a potential drug smuggler when she arrived at Auckland Airport just over a week ago. The woman had travelled from Durban via Dubai. The P she was hiding internally was worth somewhere between $300000 and $600000. 
Melissa Lee 
: What other success has the New Zealand Customs Service had in the fight against drug smuggling at our borders? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Since September last year the Customs Service has caught seven drug mules or swallowers carrying internally drugs including cocaine methamphetamine or opium. Our customs officers are skilled and vigilant and I send a very strong message—[ 
Interruption 
] The Labour Party does not seem to think this is important but it is. Our officers are skilled and vigilant and they will persist in stopping these peddlers of evil from bringing drugs into our society. Just last year alone the Customs Service intercepted 18553 grams of methamphetamine at our border—an outstanding result. 
Working for Families—Equal Treatment of Vulnerable Children 
12. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does Working for Families treat vulnerable children equally regardless of the source of their parents’ income? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: I understand that this is the very matter that is before the courts presently. This is the nub of the issue that is before the courts. Therefore as I said earlier in response to Metiria Turei’s supplementary question to question No. 2 under Standing Orders 111 and 371(4) I believe that it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this stage. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question did not concern the in-work tax credit—which is the matter I understand that the Minister considers to be before the courts and therefore cannot be commented on—but was specifically about Working for Families. It was not about the in-work tax credit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whether it is in the public interest to answer a question is a matter for the Minister to decide not the Speaker. The Minister’s judgment is that this question links sufficiently closely to a matter that is before the court that he has decided it is not in the public interest for him to answer it in the way it was asked. Only the Minister can make that judgment not the Speaker. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does she agree that every child deserves the best possible start in life; if so why does she persist with a policy that makes it harder for the children of beneficiaries to have this start than other children? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The answer to the first part of that question is yes. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will she consider adopting the Australian approach and make family tax credits available to families whether or not the parents are in paid work so that children are not penalised if their parents lose their work? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I am sorry but I am in a bit of a bind because that question does go very close to the issue that is currently before the courts and I would be reluctant to fuel that discussion for counsel on either side by making a comment in that regard. 
Questions to Members 
Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill—Submissions Received 
1. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Commerce Committee 
: How many submissions were received on the Financial Markets (Regulators and KiwiSaver) Bill? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee) 
:  
I am advised that 35 submissions were received. 
Clare Curran 
: How many submissions were heard and when were the hearings held? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Eighteen submissions were heard and the hearings of evidence were heard first on 25 November second on 1 December and third on 9 December 2010. We still expect the reporting date to be 28 February. 
Environmental Protection Authority Bill—Submissions Received 
2. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: How many submissions were received on the Environmental Protection Authority Bill? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
:  
We received 38. 
Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill—Submissions Received 
3. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Health Committee 
: How many submissions were received on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee) 
:  
The Health Committee has received 149 submissions on the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Can the chairperson advise the House whether he is satisfied that the committee has sufficient time to hear and consider— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a matter for the committee as to whether it is satisfied it has time. That is not a matter for the chairperson to be questioned on in the House. 
Biosecurity Law Reform Bill—Submissions Received 
4. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee 
: How many submissions were received on the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill? 
SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee) 
:  
Thirty-nine submissions from organisations and individuals have been received by the committee on the bill. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Is he satisfied that the committee has sufficient time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we are not going to have chairs being asked that. It is a matter for the committee itself. 
Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill—Status 
5. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill) 
:  
The bill is awaiting the Committee of the whole House stage. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will he support an amendment to his bill at the Committee stage that requires shareholders to hold a secret ballot before a lockout—an equivalent requirement to the one his bill places on unions? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No. 
Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill—Purpose 
6. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill 
: What is the purpose of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill) 
:  
Democracy. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why does this bill place restrictions on the practices of unions but no equivalent restrictions on the activity of employers? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: That member can bring forward a member’s bill about that issue any time she wants to. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I indicated to you that answering “democracy” to the primary question in a fairly random manner was a proper answer but that one— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. I thought the member’s first answer was fine. He was asked what the purpose of the bill was and he claimed as the member in charge of the bill that democracy was the purpose. However I invite Darien Fenton to repeat her supplementary question because I think the answer should attempt to address it rather more than his previous answer did. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why does his bill place restrictions on the practices of trade unions but place no equivalent restrictions on the activity of employers? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Because the bill is about only unions and secret ballots for union members. 
Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill—Proposed Changes 
7. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill 
: Does he intend proposing any changes to the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill during the Committee of the whole House stage? 
Hon TAU HENARE (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill) 
:  
Yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will he support an amendment to his bill at the Committee stage that would insert the requirement for a secret ballot for strikes to be included within a union’s own rules rather than being prescribed by legislation—an amendment that would grant unions the freedom to run their organisations according to the rules democratically agreed to by their members? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No. I will introduce Supplementary Order Paper 195 in my name which will be available to members and the public via the parliamentary website. The Supplementary Order Paper makes amendments to ensure that the rules of a society seeking registration as a union contain a provision about the process for holding secret ballots. It also contains some transitional provisions in relation to this. 
Question Nos 8 9 and 10 to Member 
Questions postponed. 
General Debate 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Gerry Brownlee said on Newstalk ZB last week in respect of the Canterbury earthquake that people were being impatient. He was right. The Canterbury earthquake like the lack of planning and strategy from this Government is a very down-to-earth practical example of the fact that the Government is a shambles. There is no plan for the people of Canterbury as there is no plan for the people of New Zealand. 
Let us look at the evidence around that proposition. Early childhood education centres around New Zealand are cut to the bone yet the Minister of Education stands up day after day as we present example after example—Swannanoa Preschool has received a $100000 cut—and says that there is no cut. We have 158000 New Zealand citizens—Kiwis—unemployed. One in four young people leaving school is going on the scrap heap. 
Where is the plan around that problem? The only plan articulated by the Government was the Job Summit. Do members remember that? Then we had a cycleway. Then New Zealand was to be a financial hub for the world. Then we had the clanger: Gerry Brownlee the man who is interested in earth movements of all kinds suggested mining in national parks. I say that the Government’s programme has more cracks and gaps in it than the Canterbury earthquake or a cheap version of the  
Borat 
 movie. That is what I say. 
Gerry Brownlee and the other Ministers get up every day and say that the people are being impatient and should settle down. I say to Mr Brownlee that the people of Canterbury are impatient not only for a plan and a strategy but for any sort of coordinated managed effort in respect of their crisis. He should tell his colleagues that every New Zealander who is unemployed every mum and dad who is facing a $25 to $80 a week increase per child in the price of early childhood education and every early childhood education centre that is facing hundreds of thousands of dollars of cuts like the 34 in my patch facing nearly a million dollars of cuts are by God impatient. They are impatient for any sort of action. 
They are also impatient to know how far the asset sales programme that those members have articulated will take New Zealand. They are impatient to know that given that it was tried last time by that crew over there when they were in Government. They were told that everybody would be better off as National flogged off assets willy-nilly but they were not. They are impatient to know why National is doing it again. They are impatient to know why mum and dad Kiwis—according to that crew over there benevolent Government that it is—will be first in the queue to buy back what they already own with their own money. They are impatient to know the logic around that. 
The people of New Zealand are impatient to know how foreign interests that gained 51.8 percent of Contact Energy when it was sold off will be prevented from eventually gaining our assets. The people of New Zealand are impatient to know where the revenue streams will come from as the Government flogs off revenue-earning assets. The Government talks about purchasing non-revenue earning assets like for instance schools. It is a great thing to build a school; we built heaps of them. But Gerry Brownlee as the resident genius should tell me—and the people of New Zealand are impatient to know—how a school can generate revenue as opposed to say a State-owned power company. Many schools of course are in the disaster zone of Christchurch. That man Gerry Brownlee stands as a stark example given his lack of action in respect of the crisis in Canterbury of the inaction the shambles the lack of planning and the lack of strategy exhibited across every portfolio in this Government. 
I say to Mr Brownlee that he is right: people are being impatient. People are impatient to know how they will get a job especially the 158000 unemployed Kiwis. They are impatient to know how they will get a job how they will make ends meet and where these mum and dad Kiwis will get this windfall of cash so as to be first in the queue to buy back assets that they already own. According to National these 158000 unemployed New Zealanders and others have tons of dough! They are impatient they want a job they want action and they want a plan. I say to Mr Brownlee that he should try to deliver one. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 First I would like to take a moment to extend my sympathies to the family of Private Mila and the other families involved in the incident in Afghanistan. Private Mila will be sorely missed and I wish those injured the speediest recovery possible. 
Today is a special day in the Australia - New Zealand relationship. Australia and New Zealand have one of the most open economic and trade relationships of any two countries. Australia has a population that is five times the size of New Zealand’s and the thing that should give pause for thought to every member in this Chamber is the fact that the Australian economy is seven times the size of New Zealand’s economy. Australia is the most important trading partner we have and it is New Zealand’s closest neighbour. 
It was a real pleasure to hear the Australian Prime Minister speak in this House this morning. It was also pleasing to hear her observe as have almost all Australian Prime Ministers before her the importance of Australia being an open economy and the recognition of the importance of the economic reforms of the 1980s and 1990s—painful though they were for both countries—in giving Australia the prosperity that it enjoys today. Indeed the enduring consensus on economic policy in Australia is undoubtedly one of the strong reasons for its continued economic success. 
I have to say that that contrasts with some of the economic debate that this country sticks itself with from time to time. Here what describes itself as the fraternal party of the Australian Labor Party seems to be starting to advocate 1970s-style Fortress New Zealand policies as some way of attaining economic nirvana. That is undoubtedly not correct. 
Australia knows that a lot is to be gained by encouraging foreign investment. It has the economy and the income to show for it. Therefore the easier we can make it for companies to operate in both countries by removing unnecessary barriers the greater the opportunities for business to have confidence to make substantial productivity gains and to take up new opportunities that will help to underpin growth and jobs. That is incidentally something the former trade Minister Phil Goff used to believe in and work towards. Now sadly in this House in the last 2 weeks he has been using xenophobia to make cheap political points about German and Australian investors just as the previous speaker did in this general debate today. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at the accusation that members on this side of the House have been using xenophobia. Some of us find that accusation deeply offensive. 
Chris Tremain 
: Surely this is a debating point and not one that the member should take offence to. To call a member xenophobic is hardly a criminal offence in this House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want to take any more time on this. I will ask the member to withdraw the comment but I do not want to be too pedantic about ruling out words; we can all take offence at all sorts of things. Members must be very careful not to accuse another member of being racist and I guess one could claim there is a connotation here. So I ask the member to withdraw but I will not rule out words forever because offence might have been taken on one occasion. If the honourable member would withdraw that word please. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I withdraw and say that the member is now using criticism of German investors and criticism of Australian investors a number of times as did the previous speaker in this House. 
Today a very important investment protocol was signed between our two countries which sets a higher threshold for trans-Tasman investment so that it does not have to go through a screening process. This will do much for the confidence of New Zealand businesses growing in Australia and in the two countries where they will have a combined domestic market in the order of 25 million people. It is this sort of work that will help New Zealand companies to grow that will create jobs and that will give companies the opportunity to create a stronger economy in New Zealand. 
It is interesting that this should occur on a day like today when Fletcher’s our largest listed company which is very active in Australia has recorded an improved result. It just goes to show the potential of strong economic growth and a tighter economic market between our two countries. That is what this House should be focusing on. The opportunity today is to focus on that because we need this country to grow much more strongly and working closely with Australia will allow us to do so. I salute the investment protocol that was signed by our two Prime Ministers today. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is interesting to follow on from Steven Joyce. I just note for the record that Phil Goff as trade Minister for New Zealand helped to create hundreds if not thousands of jobs by signing free-trade agreements and negotiating free-trade agreements like the one with China. That is far more than that hollow man over there will ever do. He can stand up in this House and crow about his focus groups and what he learns from them but the real work of being in Government of being a trade Minister like Phil Goff was of actually helping to create jobs is not what that Minister is doing. He is part of a Government that has overseen 158000 people being unemployed—158000. That is what he has overseen. Once again from Steven Joyce we have heard the theme of this Government: that someone else is to blame. 
There is always someone else to blame. Today the Prime Minister stood in the House and said beneficiaries were to blame. They were making a lifestyle choice; that is what the Prime Minister said today. The three women who came to the electorate clinic that I held in Wellington Central on Saturday who were all in their 40s or 50s all out of work all desperate to get a job and all trying to redevelop their skills to get a job are wondering what the Government is doing for them. They want to know what the Government is doing for them to help to create jobs for them. But no Mr Key stood in the House today and said they were to blame for being unemployed and they were making a lifestyle choice. I say it is not a lifestyle choice for those people and Mr Key would know that if he actually talked to people on the ground. 
But Mr Key himself has come up with something else today for which someone else is to blame. This is the purchase of the BMWs. The story has moved on three times today. Firstly it was Labour’s fault because it had locked the Government into a contract whereby it had to purchase a new set of BMWs. Of course that turned out not to be the case. In fact it was an option to renew the contract so it was not the case that Labour had locked the Government into a contract. The Prime Minister moved on and said it was the Greens’ fault when actually it was Bill English’s. But the Prime Minister moved on and said it was the Greens’ fault because they were interested in a fad called lowering carbon emissions. Apparently the fleet of BMWs was to have lower carbon emissions. Apparently lowering carbon emissions doing something about climate change is a fad so it is the Greens’ fault. 
But then the third story was that it was the fault of the Department of Internal Affairs. Apparently Mr Key is “furious” with the Department of Internal Affairs except that that is fudging the story a bit because the part of the department that is responsible for the purchasing of those cars is Ministerial Services. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: He should read the papers. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Who is the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services? That would be the Prime Minister. So in actual fact if Mr Key is blaming the department he is blaming Ministerial Services and he is the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. As Mr Mallard said Mr Key is clearly not reading his papers. If the Prime Minister wants to take some responsibility for this fiasco it is in his basket. He is the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. He cannot blame the department he cannot blame Labour and he cannot blame the Green Party. 
That is the problem with this Government. Although it has no plan there is always someone else to blame. It is not good enough. The State sector is being fingered as the area to blame because apparently it is bloated and inefficient. Yet Standard and Poor’s has said today it does not regard the State sector in New Zealand as being bloated and inefficient. Kyran Curry its analyst said in the  
New Zealand Herald  
today: “Generally we look at the Government in New Zealand as being relatively small and compared to its peers it’s quite efficient.” That is right. Standard and Poor’s the rating agency that the Government puts so much investment in says that actually it does not do anything. The State sector is not bloated and inefficient. But once again from this Government there is always somebody else to blame. 
We saw that again today from Anne Tolley on early childhood education. Once again the increase in fees is the fault of the kindergartens and the early childhood centres or it is the fault of the parents. But it is not. It is the fault of this Government for taking money out of a vital sector. Once again the Government says someone else is to blame. Anne Tolley says she is not to blame for taking money out of the sector; it is the centres’ fault for putting up their fees. It is not. It is the fault of this Government which has absolutely no plan for this country to grow the economy and no plan for jobs. Once again Government members stand in the House and try to find someone else to blame. It is time for this Government to look in the mirror. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 This is a sad day for our nation. It is also a day of celebration of firsts and of greatness. Let me acknowledge a fallen New Zealand soldier overseas. I join others in the House and the various party leaders who made speeches earlier. This is a sad sad moment. But it is also a day of celebration and firsts. It was an honour and a pleasure to hear the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard speak to the House. 
Today was the first time a leader of a foreign Government has spoken to the House—using the word “foreign” and the word “Australia” just does not seem to work—and it was a pleasure to hear the way she delivered her speech the content of the speech and her acknowledgment of the realities of the position of both our countries. Sure New Zealand is small and Australia is much larger but that presents opportunities to both of our countries. We acknowledge our shared past our shared whakapapa if you like in many many of the historic moments around our country. 
However I must say “Open the Gate Mate”. That was the catchcry of the Aussie apple protests that began in 2005 and picked up on 90-odd years of protests before that. The angle was not particularly acknowledged. Hawke’s Bay is a large apple-producing area as are Nelson Otago and areas of the Wairarapa etc. The apple industry is a very large industry for New Zealand. It employs many low-skilled people and of course some higher-skilled people along the way. The point is that New Zealand apples could not get into Australia. 
I will not relitigate the various debates as I think members know them very well but I acknowledge the Australian Apple Access Group from the Hawke’s Bay that with its partners in Nelson got the momentum and the ball rolling again. I still recall jumping on the steam train to come down to Wellington from the Hawke’s Bay to march on Parliament in May 2005. Good friends of people in Hawke’s Bay got the message to the Government of the time to start some action. Some action did start to happen to be fair. Attention came to the issue and to the inherent unfairness of it. The gate is now open mate. 
I acknowledge fully Prime Minister Gillard’s comments in the House and elsewhere about the issue. I would like to quote the headline from the  
Australian 
 newspaper which reported on the Australian Prime Minister’s speech because it captures it all: “PM applauded as she declares apple war truce in historic speech to New Zealand MPs”. We have to look forward. The agreement creates huge opportunities for the apple industry and for New Zealand. 
The investment protocol which the Hon Steven Joyce was just talking about brings the opportunities of a 25 million purchaser-consumer market on the doorstep of New Zealand and another of our primary products will now be accessible over there probably by next season with a bit of luck. 
The point is that it is not a fight; it is a partnership. It is about seizing the moment and seizing the opportunity. The global umpire of world trade the World Trade Organization has made a ruling and the Australians have accepted it and now we are both working hand in hand to seize the opportunities of the moment. Parallel to that is the investment protocol and the work that Simon Power is continuing. As the Minister of Finance acknowledged earlier today much of the work was begun under the previous administration. We freely acknowledge that fact although it does raise the question as to why various other speeches made by the Leader of the Opposition seem to be contradictory. Some time back Mr Goff essentially said he would renegotiate CER I think and here we are today celebrating a growth of CER. 
Anyone who ever doubts the worth of CER to New Zealand and to all of Australasia should imagine New Zealand without CER. Imagine how many jobs would be lost where our interest rates would be and how vulnerable our finance sector would be particularly following recent events. Today is a celebration of our mateship and comradeship with our good friends and colleagues in Australia. As both Prime Ministers alluded to we are almost family. 
I look forward to our Australian friends and family enjoying New Zealand apples alongside New Zealand wine and I look forward to welcoming them as we continue our discussions and negotiations towards having one open domestic airline market if in fact we can get there. The goodwill shown by both leaders today—and across the House to be fair—points towards a very positive future indeed. Thank you on this very great day of celebration. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 This week it has all unravelled for the Government. This week we have seen that all the eggs the Government had in terms of an unemployment plan not only were few but also were broken. In the face of unemployment at 6.8 percent which represents 158000 people the Labour Opposition demanded from the Government a plan. Indeed the 158000 people in the dole queue demanded a plan. The 52000 people who have joined that queue since the Government came into office demanded a plan. The one in four young people—the school-leavers who have not even had a chance to enter the workforce—being left on the scrap heap because there are no jobs demanded a plan. We cannot forget the 12 percent of unemployed 20 to 24-year-olds which represents a good chunk of young graduates who have left university with skills that they are willing and wanting to use. They also demanded a plan because they too are waiting for work. 
What did we get in the face of those demands? First came the excuses. Every time the unemployment figures came out and shocked the Government just a little by increasing the Government claimed that figures tend to be volatile and to move around a bit. Second the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett who is AWOL currently claimed that the unemployed just needed to take a positive attitude if they wanted to find work. Today we heard the Prime Minister claim that some people on the benefit are making a lifestyle choice in the way they exist. Finally at some point in the debate we heard the Government acknowledge the real issue that was at play: Kiwis want work but there are no jobs—there are no jobs. That is the real reason that 158000 Kiwis are currently seeking work. 
It is time that instead of making excuses the Government starts doing something about it. Our expectation was that after 2 years there would be a plan. What have we seen instead? We have seen a series of gimmicks. I do not use that turn of phrase lightly. At first there may have been some hope that something concrete could come out something like the Job Summit. We also saw the cycleway idea. I am the first to acknowledge that I do not have a problem with the concept of a cycleway. In and of itself I think it is a positive thing but it would never have been the answer and it has proven not to be the answer to a growing unemployment issue in New Zealand. In fact we have seen a grand total of 214 jobs created out of the cycleway. It is just not good enough. 
What was the other option the Government gave to us? It was a youth unemployment package: Job Ops and Community Max. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research told us that the Government deserved a C on that package. Why? Because it would at best assist 8 percent of young unemployed people. 
What have we seen for the 8 percent of young unemployed people who have had some contact with those schemes? Well let us look at Community Max. Work and Income claimed it would be a chance to upskill young people and move them into jobs. At a cost of $100 million in total for Job Ops and Community Max I would have thought we could expect that at the very least. But when we scratch the surface what do we see? Some projects have delivered what it was claimed they would deliver; others have proven to be a dismal failure. If this was indeed a chance to upskill our young people why was Work and Income not checking that the subsidy it was giving to providers to train people was being appropriately used? The general public would expect that if we are spending $18000 to put fewer than six people into a job where text messages are being sent we would see some outcomes. What skills is a young person getting for a future career by sending text messages all day to defendants reminding them of court appearances? Absolutely none. If we are to spend over $300000 on a gardening project we should at least upskill the young people who are in that project. Instead we see half of them without jobs at the end of it. 
The Government has claimed that 70 percent of people on Community Max have not presented at Work and Income again or gone on to main benefits again. That is an absolute distortion of the truth. Seventy percent of people have not walked through the Work and Income door again but that does not mean they are employed. We know that 40000 young people in New Zealand are not in employment education or training. Community Max participants have joined that dismal number. Where is the plan? 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 Firstly I offer my condolences on the loss of the New Zealand soldier Private Kirifi Mila. My thoughts and prayers are with the soldier’s family and friends today and for the next weeks which will be hard for them. 
I would like to respond quickly to the Wellington Central member of Parliament Grant Robertson who earlier in this debate said that National did nothing for growth and to get New Zealand ahead. When filming of  
The Hobbit 
 in Wellington was at risk we did not hear a word from that member. He was silent on what was happening with  
The Hobbit 
. If he is really serious about getting some industry into Wellington he has to stand up and back what is happening within Wellington and  
The Hobbit  
is absolutely crucial to Wellington and to keeping Peter Jackson in Wellington. 
Today we saw a part of history. Today the forty-ninth Parliament of New Zealand had the privilege to witness the first address by any foreign leader in our House of Representatives. Today New Zealanders from around the country were able to watch live as the Prime Minister of Australia the Hon Julia Gillard spoke in this very debating chamber. Australia and New Zealand were together in our debating chamber; we are two nations whose histories are innately entwined and today we became two nations whose futures together are boundless. Today history was made and the National-led Government’s vision for an even closer friendship relationship and union with Australia was born. The ongoing development of a trans-Tasman single economic market and a seamless operating environment for Australian and New Zealand businesses are the ends that our Government is working towards and today that was the vision Prime Minister Gillard committed to. The relationship between New Zealand and Australia has always been one of great importance to us. 
In her speech the Prime Minister said that Australia and New Zealand were island nations that nobody owed a living; if we gained any advantage in the world it would be because we fought for it and earned it. Today as our Prime Minister signed the Investment Protocol to the Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement the National-led Government achieved a milestone fundamental to that fight. Enhanced economic relations between our two nations are fundamental to National’s goal of a single economic market for our nations. For over 30 years New Zealand and Australia have pursued greater economic integration and partnership. We believe that a strong economic relationship between our two countries will benefit both of us. Julia Gillard talked in her speech about the cross-pollination of ideas and innovations between our nations and in particular between our countries’ business sectors. She said that we would be able to share the wealth of knowledge in businesses. We would be able to learn and we would be great. As we worked towards the common goal of a single economic market our economies would be able to complement each other with our strengths and pull each other up from our weaknesses. 
At the end of last year I attended the HER Wellington Businesswoman of the Year Awards. There were fresh ideas innovation and recipients who through their hard work and passion were leading the way in their fields. The winner of the supreme award Camilla Welch owner and general manager of a label-making and printing business in Petone was selected for her personal drive and business sense. She proved that business excellence and environmental friendliness can be mutually rewarding. Tourism agriculture film—New Zealand has the knowledge to lead the world in many fields. But as John Powell once wrote the only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing. The easier we make it for companies to operate in both New Zealand and Australia the more we will learn and the greater the opportunities for business will be. Refreshing ideas innovation and expertise underpin long-term business growth in New Zealand and underpin a strong economy for our country. 
Like most New Zealanders I have experienced firsthand how the unique relationship between our nations allows Kiwis and Aussies to lead successful lives in each other’s countries. For the past 25 years my sister has lived and worked in Australia. At any other time in history taking my family to visit her or for her to visit me could have been a completely different story. But today it has never been easier. We visit each other continually back and forth across the Ditch. Australia is our closest ally and the idea that people can move work and live across the Ditch is often taken for granted by New Zealanders. People in many countries cannot do this with the ease we ourselves do it. For business and investors to enjoy such a seamless transition is a goal of our Government. As Prime Minister Gillard stood in front of our colleagues today she said that New Zealand might be a small nation but we were one with a bold vision of its place in this world. 
HILARY CALVERT (ACT) 
: 
 Earlier today we saw a rare show of respect in this House between the people of New Zealand and our closest neighbour. But where is the respect from this House when it comes to allowing the people of New Zealand the chance to have their say? 
This House will soon be debating the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill. The way this bill has been dealt with to date is a travesty of justice. It shows why the public has lost its respect for politicians. In 2004 the Labour Government took away the rights of Maori to go to court. The hikoi that concluded outside this Chamber was the largest New Zealand has ever seen. The opposition to that bill from Maori and non-Maori alike spelt the end of that Labour Government. The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill continues the injustice and the nation has again mobilised against it. Submissions to the Maori Affairs Committee on the bill were overwhelmingly negative; 5000 written submissions and 500 oral submissions left the committee in no doubt that this bill is fatally flawed. The committee’s response was to shut down debate and it surprised this House by reporting back early. The committee recommended no changes to the bill yet the Minister in charge of the bill has clearly indicated that changes need to be made. Officials recommended that 89 of the 124 clauses in the bill be changed. They recommended an average of four changes per clause—a total of more than 380 changes. The bill was reported back to the House with none of those more than 380 changes. As the bill stands it will still allow for backroom political deals without public scrutiny. It will still not clearly spell out that access to the foreshore and seabed will remain free. It will not respect any of the submitters who gave up their time to participate in a democratic process. 
This is the House of Representatives and in it we need to respect people. The people put us here and the people decide when we leave. That is democracy; we disrespect it at our peril. The Attorney-General has promised that he will seek to make changes through Supplementary Order Papers. Those Supplementary Order Papers will be presented to us without notice at the Committee stage. Backroom deals hasty changes and improper process are not the hallmarks of a respectful relationship. We would not be accused of treating our neighbouring countries this way and we should not treat our own people this way. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 The people are waiting for a plan. They are waiting for this Government to come up with something concrete something realistic about youth unemployment. They are waiting for an acknowledgment that particularly in Auckland there is a housing crisis but it does not appear from the Prime Minister’s comments in question time today that he even accepts there is a problem. They are waiting to hear when this Government will do something about the number of apprentices that are being laid off. They want to know when this Government will come up with a plan to grow the economy and get us out of this mess. 
But while people are waiting for a plan the people in Auckland over recent weeks have been handed a fiasco and a shambles. We have seen that shambles in the creation of the Maori Statutory Board on the Auckland Council put in place by this National Government. The board will appoint unelected Maori members to council committees where much of the work of council is done and those members will be given full voting rights. That is an abuse of democratic principles. What is worse is that the Maori Statutory Board according to the most recent estimates will end up costing the Auckland ratepayer up to $1.9 million a year. That is an outrage and Aucklanders are angry. They do not understand why the Government has done that. They are being hit in the pocket to fund that undemocratic Maori Statutory Board. 
Let us recount a bit of the story that will explain how we got there. Back in 2009 Rodney Hide threatened to resign at the prospect of dedicated Maori seats on the Auckland Council. Unfortunately the Prime Minister did not accept that offer. The Prime Minister did a shabby deal with the Maori Party to instead insert a Maori Statutory Board into the Auckland Council. He bypassed a perfectly good proposal for democratically elected Maori seats on the Auckland Council and instead put unelected people there. Then at the behest of the Maori Party at the select committee a deal was done—a shabby deal—to give the members of those council committees appointed by the unelected Maori Statutory Board full voting rights alongside councillors who had been elected by the people of Auckland. That is an outrage. The columns of the  
New Zealand Herald  
are full of it and Aucklanders do not like it. 
I see that TV3 has just launched a new satire series. It is a comedy series designed to send up Rodney Hide’s super-city. But TV3 does not need to make a comedy and it does not need to make a satire; it should just come here and listen to Rodney Hide in this House because nobody could write this stuff. This is the self-styled “Minister for Ratepayers”. He is the fallen perk-buster. Yet what has he done? He has stiffed the Auckland ratepayer for $1.9 million a year to fund his statutory board. He claims to be the great apostle of the one person one vote principle. He claims to be the great champion of democracy. Yet what has he done? He has imposed on the people of Auckland an unelected board with decision-making powers as members of council committees. That is wrong. 
There is a reason Aucklanders do not like it and we have heard over the last few days some interesting voices. Mike Lee the former chairman of the Auckland Regional Council has called this an appalling fiasco. He has said that Key and Hide should fix it. What has Cameron Brewer said? Cameron Brewer is not exactly a leading light of the left on the Auckland Council. What has he said? He has said that the Auckland Council has been let down by poorly drafted legislation. Mayor Len Brown is trying to make the best of a bad deal. He is trying to work with the statutory board and abide by the terms of the legislation. What is Pita Sharples the Minister of Maori Affairs and Rodney Hide’s ministerial colleague saying? He is saying that Rodney Hide should either stand by his legislation or resign. 
But we saw in the House today that Rodney Hide has no intention of resigning. Rodney Hide has refused to take responsibility for this mess and this fiasco. It is in his DNA. We have seen it before in the House. We saw it when he took his girlfriend on a trip to London Toronto Portland and Los Angeles and spent tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money. There was a week of news interviews door-stopping in the corridors of Parliament and embarrassing revelations before Rodney Hide finally backed down took responsibility and paid back some of that money. We saw it with his withholding of information for years about David Garrett the ACT Party’s former law and order spokesperson. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a pleasure and an honour to speak today. Today is a historic day for the House of Representatives of New Zealand. As has already been noted by other speakers the Prime Minister of Australia is the first world leader to address this Parliament albeit outside sitting times. It was an honour to hear her words of encouragement. It was an honour to hear what having a relationship with New Zealand means for her and her country. 
Australia is our closest ally. She spoke about Australia and New Zealand being family. She spoke of the history that was forged on the battlegrounds of Gallipoli and around the world. Of course the history was also forged in our similar cultures—in the culture we share with Australians—and on the sports battlegrounds. 
Today is a day of celebration but it is also a day of sadness. We heard that another member of the New Zealand Defence Force sadly lost his life overnight. It is a sad day when we lose defence people in foreign lands but we salute Private Kirifi Mila for his service to this country and we certainly salute him for the service he gave to democracy and freedom around the world. 
We heard today that the partnership—Closer Economic Relations—between New Zealand and Australia has been enhanced. It has been enhanced through an investment protocol. The investment protocol is critical because as we climb out of the global economic recession it is important that investment continues to flow to our New Zealand businesses. When I visit the businesses in the Maungakiekie electorate—spanning from Onehunga in the west to Mount Wellington Penrose and Panmure the heartland of manufacturing and industry in Auckland—they say that the keys to their success will be the upskilling of people but also access to capital. The investment protocol for New Zealand and Australia ensures that more funds will flow to those businesses and that there will be more investment opportunities and more jobs and food for our people and for New Zealanders around the country.  
The protocol is more than an economic agreement as we have heard from the Prime Ministers of both New Zealand and Australia. We heard from Ms Gillard that it is about highly mobile and educated populations. It is about having capable and effective armed forces harnessed in partnership. We have committed to working with the Australians in a range of different areas including defence. Our own Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key referred to Australians and New Zealanders establishing friendships and leading successful lives in each other’s countries. Having lived in Australia and having forged a number of close relationships with Australian people I concur with our Prime Minister.  
I will share with members a little story. Over the Christmas break I visited Australia. I visited a friend of my mine a brother and someone I consider to be a family member. He is suffering from cancer. [ 
Interruption 
] If Mr Twyford thinks it is funny for me to tell a personal story then I feel sorry for him. I visited my friend. I have known the bloke for over 15 years. He is married to a New Zealander. He has a New Zealand - Australian child. I consider him a brother. Our passion for our families for sport for business and for the Australian and New Zealand way brings us together as friends but also as brothers. I wish him well: Mark Robert Copping.  
Finally I will make a statement in Samoan about our fallen soldier. Ua vala’auina e le Atua le uso le Susuga a Kirifi Mila. E momoli atu ai o matou alofa’aga ma tatalo mo le ’aiga fa’anoanoa. Ia pa’i atu le ’a’ao fa’amafanafana o le Atua. Ia manuia ma maua le filemu. Soifua. Thank you. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party welcomes the enduring friendship between Australia and New Zealand. We were pleased to have the Prime Minister of Australia Julia Gillard address our Parliament in a special session in a way that did not undermine a long-held parliamentary convention. It is interesting that because of the same parliamentary convention we will not allow the Queen or the Governor-General to address our Parliament in the Chamber when it is in session yet most parties were only too eager to abandon the convention for the sake of Julia Gillard. 
It is also interesting that many members of the House have waxed eloquent about the warmth of our relationship with Australia and about how much we respect and admire Australians yet in the same Chamber our co-leader Dr Russel Norman is subjected to constant abuse by many members of the House particular by those on the National side simply because he is an Australian. I do not hear members shouting abuse at members who originate from England India or Sri Lanka but it is almost as though it is a sin or a crime for Dr Norman to be an Australian. He has to tolerate that level of abuse in the House. What does it say about our real respect for Australians? I learnt from the Prime Minister of Australia that one of our foremost Prime Ministers Michael Joseph Savage was an Australian. I wonder whether he too was subjected to similar abuse for the crime of being an Australian. 
The Green Party strongly supports building closer relations with our kith and kin across the Tasman. I doubt whether any politicians in the House have closer relations than we do with Green MPs in Australia. We have joint sessions and we have made joint submissions to Food Standards Australia New Zealand so we are very committed to having strong political and other ties with Australia. We acknowledge that we have more special ties with Australia than we do with any other nation but we want our relationship with Australia to be a partnership between two equal nations. We do not want to become effectively the seventh state of Australia or a country that is more and more controlled and dominated by Australia. 
Already most of our banks and many of our key institutions are owned by Australian businesses. The agreement today for further investment liberalisation will speed up that process. Lifting the threshold for Australian foreign investment that does not require any regulatory approval or scrutiny from our Overseas Investment Office will simply mean that more and more of our companies—and of course any future assets that the National Government puts up for sale—will end up in Australian ownership. The Government’s pledge that New Zealand investors will get the first crack at buying shares in any future sell-off of State-owned assets is simply a hollow pledge—pure spin really—because everyone knows that there is no way to prevent those shares from being sold offshore after a certain date. So on a day when we welcomed the Prime Minister of Australia into our Chamber I think it is appropriate that we reflect on our growing political as well as economic subservience to Australia. 
Some may sneer at that statement but the truth is that we have already forged one relationship—the treaty that set up Food Standards Australia New Zealand—whereby we are completely subservient to Australia and we have the same status as Tasmania. A previous National Government signed up to a deal in the mid-1990s whereby we ceded our sovereignty over food labelling and composition to Food Standards Australia New Zealand. That organisation is based in Canberra was set up under Australian legislation and is chaired by an Australian Minister for Health and Ageing and serviced by an Australian ministry. We have one vote out of 11 on the governing council—I repeat; one vote out of 11. That is hard to believe and when I point that out to New Zealanders they are outraged by it. 
The problem with our membership of Food Standards Australia New Zealand is not just that it is dominated by Australia and we have one vote out of 11 but that in joining up with Food Standards Australia New Zealand we gave up our jurisdiction—the jurisdiction of this Parliament—over all of the issues that we ceded to that body. We cannot pass laws in this House about food labelling or food composition. I discovered that when I introduced my Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill. I went to the Clerk who said I could not say Parliament should introduce GE labelling or mandatory country-of-origin labelling. The Clerk said our Parliament has no jurisdiction over these matters. We have ceded that to the Australian-based body where we have one vote out of 11. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I will carry on from what Sue Kedgley the previous speaker was saying. I will talk a little about the brotherhood of men and women in Australia and New Zealand and I will touch on one aspect the previous speaker mentioned. It is not the case that we do not like Russel Norman because he is an Australian; we just do not like his politics. 
I will talk about some of the things that link my family to Australia. Some members may know what is on the A$10 note. If members ever have an A$10 note they should pull it out and look at it one day. On the A$10 note is one of the most famous socialists in Australia we could ever have met Dame Mary Gilmore. Dame Mary Gilmore was a journalist a literary writer for many years and a poet in Australia. She was one of the most famous journalists and writers in Australia and she was a very well-known socialist with the Australian Workers’ Union as I am sure some members opposite know. One of the neat things about her being on the A$10 note is that it shows us some of the links between our country and Australia that are to do with aspects other than those we have traditionally talked about relating to sport and our defence forces. 
I will talk particularly about some of the changes that have been signed off today. Those changes are in the field of business. One of the things that have been announced today is that New Zealand businesses will be able to invest up to $1 billion in Australia. There has been a lot of worry and concern about Australian companies investing in New Zealand but having New Zealand companies being able to invest up to $1 billion in Australia is a very good thing. I will give members a couple of examples. Right now a very large New Zealand company in the building products area is in the process of taking over a very large Australian company. That transaction is worth about $700 million or $800 million. Ordinarily such a transaction in a simple sense would require some sort of approvals but with the signing of the protocols today such transactions do not need such bureaucratic approvals and can go ahead in a more efficient manner. That is a classic example of the benefits of Closer Economic Relations and the extension of the protocols between our two great nations. 
We heard Jacinda Ardern talking earlier about some of the issues around skills. She said she was worried about wasted skills in terms of teaching people how to use text messages in jobs. Well I ask whether that member wants everybody to sit on a production line doing nothing and learning nothing for the rest of their lives. Teaching young people skills is one way of getting them better higher-paid and more productive jobs which is what our Government is about. 
We heard Clayton Cosgrove bleating about earthquakes and talking about worries arising from earthquakes. Well one of the great things about the links between New Zealand and Australia mentioned today by Prime Minister Gillard is the fact that down in Canterbury where I live many Australians are helping to rebuild our houses. They are helping to inspect houses and are providing us with skills we did not have. We did not have sufficient skills and expertise in Canterbury immediately after the earthquake. Australia did and many Australians have been busy working and helping with the planning and rebuilding for Canterbury. That is a wonderful step forward. 
At Pike River on the West Coast Australians have been providing many resources and skills. That is a wonderful example of the joint nature of Australia and New Zealand. The fact that Australians came over and provided us with resources that we did not have access to shows the wonderful nature of the link between Australia and New Zealand. 
Of course there are also wonderful things to do with sport—in particular the wider aspects of sport. Sport is a very global business these days and the ability to buy trade and sell professional sports teams is increasingly part of the nature of the world of business transactions. Russell Crowe a Kiwi whom we lent to Australia and of whom we are probably proud is a major owner of the South Sydney Rabbitohs. It will be possible to buy into other major sporting franchises that are likely to appear. 
Over time we are likely to see more and more examples of Australian and New Zealand businesses becoming increasingly intertwined. More jobs and expertise will be created and trade between the two countries which is currently something in the order of $21 billion will be able to grow. It has been at over 8 percent per annum over the last decade and it will continue to grow after the signing of the Closer Economic Relations protocol. 
We have heard fear and loathing from Opposition members about having Australians coming to invest in New Zealand. Well I ask them what is wrong with Australians bringing expertise and skills into New Zealand. What is wrong with that? Australians bring new skills and wealth into our country which helps to employ New Zealanders. That is a good thing. Having productive jobs and investment is a positive thing. We did not hear that from Ms Ardern earlier on. She did not think training made a lot of sense. For her training people in new skills seemed to be a complete waste of time. 
Finally I say to the Australians out there that we like them but we do not love them. I deal with a lot of them and increasingly the ones I meet when I am travelling round the world— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: “I’ve been everywhere man.” 
AARON GILMORE 
: Shane Jones has been everywhere man. Mr Jones is a classic example of one of the Australians who has done well. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora ano tatou. Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. I have been told there are 40 weeks left until the day that the National Party and its discredited friends come over to this side of the House into Opposition. It will not be a clean transition. The most recent speaker Mr Gilmore will not be a part of that group. The No. 1 reason is that he will disappear like the much-vaunted assets he skites about when he stands in Christchurch—because there is no place for him on the list. We know that in order for the scintillating intellect of Mr Paul Quinn to be preserved and projected forward Aaron Gilmore has to go. That is a small but largely irrelevant piece of information. 
I come back to Mr Hide. Rodney Hide is the man who threatened to resign. He is the man who said he would not be blackmailed into resigning if Maori became members of the super-city council. Today we have seen dodging hiding concealing and camouflaging. That has been the style of operation from Rodney Hide. He introduced legislation reforming altering and adjusting the structures around the Auckland City Council and did not vote against the inclusion of a Maori Statutory Board a board that has turned into a fiasco. That board is costing a great deal of money—too much money it would appear to the Auckland ratepayers. 
I ask who is responsible. Not Mr Hide! I ask at what point Rodney Hide will explain to the ratepayers that he is responsible for the increase in their rates in Epsom or explain to Auckland ratepayers or his electors how Dr Pita Sharples outsmarted him. That may seem both a physical and an intellectual impossibility but the reality is that the person with bragging rights here is Dr Pita Sharples despite his having suffered considerable public injury for being ineffectual and for not bringing forward what ought to have happened to elected Maori representatives on the super-city. Taihoa I say to whanau in Tamaki-makau-rau—help is on the way! 
The Prime Minister said after the hikoi that nothing was set in stone. I bet that if he had the opportunity to say a similar thing now he would not use the word “stone”. “Concrete” comes to mind in so far as Mr Hide is involved because that man will not be back. He has misled Auckland he has dislocated the small number of supporters he had there and he has gone for popularity which has diminished. When that man comes under pressure he refuses to step up to the plate and take responsibility whether it concerns overseas trips or Mr David Garrett. Now it is the Maori Statutory Board. Rodney Hide was a key part of the architecture group; he refuses to admit it and he refuses to accept any responsibility. 
The person who is the most cunning of all in this I have to say is John Key. John Key needs to keep sweet with the Maori Party in order to govern again. That is why he is making only very mild remarks about the discredited Maori Statutory Board which does not have enough representatives from the great bulk of Maoridom in Auckland. But wait! Help is on the way: there will be two elected Maori representatives. We will not have committees that are just adjuncts which may actually cost a great deal of money that is not transparently arrived at. 
The board will pass slowly into history when we are in power and when our model comes to pass with two directly elected Maori representatives from the Maori roll. That model was originally demolished by Warren Cooper who was part of the dinosaur discovery that emerged from the earth when the Christchurch earthquake spread further down the South Island. One of his enduring features was to have tossed out that particular innovation which had been introduced in the time of David Lange. Help is on the way for Maoris in Auckland. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 
Second Reading 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 on behalf of  
David Bennett (National—Hamilton East) 
: I move  
That the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a second time 
. It is my great pleasure to open the second reading of this debate on behalf of my colleague the member for Hamilton East— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am doing this now in the spirit of helpfulness rather than have the member start the speech all over again later on. I think the member meant to say at the beginning “On behalf of my colleague David Bennett I move”. Otherwise of course he cannot move the motion. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I guess that the member is technically right. Speakers’ ruling 24/3 states “if the member … has the authority …”. Whether that has to be stated is not something I have given consideration to but it may be helpful if the member just assures the House he has the authority. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I thank the former member for Hamilton West. On behalf of the member for Hamilton East I move that the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill be now read a second time. The city and its representation just gets better and better. It is my great pleasure to open the second reading of this debate. The member for Hamilton East as has been noted by the former member for Hamilton West is the sponsor of this bill and Parana Park is located in his electorate. 
I believe we bring this legislation to the House with the full support of the Hamilton City Council and I think the citizens of our fast-growing diverse and beautiful city. Parana Park is located on the eastern side of the Waikato River in Hamilton and because that taonga marks the boundary between the electorates of Hamilton East and Hamilton West it is literally just a stone’s throw from the constituency that I am privileged to represent in this House—or at least a stone’s throw for those who have a better throwing arm than I do at the moment. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: They shouldn’t throw stones. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: They throw peaches—they actually throw peaches on the river but that is another story. [ 
Interruption 
] I did not think this bill would be so controversial. The purpose of this bill is to vest Parana Park in the Hamilton City Council as a recreational reserve subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The bill will repeal the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act of 1958 which was passed when Mr Mallard was in his middle age and beginning his first campaign in the electorate. Those of us whose children have grown up in or near Hamilton or who are young enough as Mr Mallard will be to have childhood memories of playing in Parana Park will know what a wonderful attraction it is for Hamiltonians. When my children were little they used to love playing in the park especially on hot days when they would run in and out of the shallow pool or push their dolls and buggies while my wife and I enjoyed our walks along the river path that winds through the park. It may sound a little bit sentimental but these memories linger in the minds of children and are what great family memories are made of. My family has passed many happy hours in Parana Park. 
Grant Robertson 
: Tell us more about that. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I know that Mr Robertson was also pushing his dolls and buggies around in Parana Park many years ago. It was always a pleasure to see him there and we would welcome him back any time. 
The area is equally well known now for its civic importance with poignant war memorials; the cenotaph which is the focal point of Anzac Day ceremonies; and an attractive park setting that is often used for public gatherings. The most recent of those events sadly was a very moving memorial service held last November when the tragic news that 29 lives had been lost in the Pike River mine disaster became known. That was an occasion that I and everybody present will never forget. 
Those are just some of the reasons why Parana Park is such a special feature of our city but it was not always available for its current purpose. The passage of this bill will enable the Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage and administer Parana Park. It will also enable the council to proceed with possible future development plans for the area. The existing empowering Act does not make the area a reserve or provide any special protection for Parana Park. It gives our council the power only to lease the dwelling on the site and to allow other uses for it because the council is constrained by the provisions prescribed in the last will and testament of a great Hamiltonian the late George Parr. 
The land now known as Parana Park and its dwelling was gifted in 1929 by Mr Parr a farmer and the son of a former mayor of the city to be used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. About a quarter of a century later it had become apparent that the house was not suitable for use as a convalescent home but as Mr Parr had wanted his property to be held as a children’s playground the decision was made that the council should manage it as a park for the benefit of local citizens and visitors to Hamilton. 
The 1958 empowering Act was passed by this House under the guidance of one of our greatest MPs the late Dame Hilda Ross to facilitate that outcome. By that time the paddling pool that I mentioned earlier and an outdoor barbecue were in frequent use and many trees had been planted to enhance the beauty of the riverside setting. More than half a century later the park is as beautiful and as popular as ever. 
We are amazingly fortunate in our city not only to have a picturesque and well-used park adjacent to the heart of our city but also to boast what are arguably New Zealand’s finest botanical gardens within walking distance of Parana Park. I am sure many members of this House have enjoyed visits to the Hamilton Gardens and Parana Park and if any members have not I invite them to do so because they are missing a treat. As the annual Hamilton Gardens summer arts festival gets under way I suggest that now is the ideal time to plan that visit. The varied performances are always of an extraordinarily high standard and they are greatly enhanced by being held in such a stunning setting. The finale a sunset symphony performed by the Trust Waikato Symphony Orchestra attracts thousands of appreciative patrons and is always a world-class crowd pleaser. 
It is something of an indulgence to be able to stand in this House and extol the attractions and beauty of the delightful city of Hamilton. I am confident that members of the House will welcome and support this measure so I close by thanking members of the Local Government and Environment Committee for their close consideration of this bill. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It was a pleasure. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I thank Mr Auchinvole and Dr Calder—two fine members. The committee has reported the bill back with some minor but worthy amendments recommended including an amendment to clause 6 to indicate that the reserve be formally known as Parana Park and to reinforce the fact that the Hamilton City Council be the administering body of the reserve. I thank my colleague David Bennett for his work in sponsoring this bill. On behalf of our mayor Julie Hardaker our city councillors ratepayers residents and future generations— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Name them all—name the councillors; run through them. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I could certainly do that. That member would like me to name the councillors; I am happy to do that for him. He would remember many of them well—people such as Peter Bos Daphne Bell Marijke Westphal and Martin Gallagher is one he would remember particularly well. I am delighted to see my predecessor there. There is Gordon Chesterman who is now the deputy mayor. 
Chester Borrows 
: Chesterton—no relation to— 
TIM MACINDOE 
: No his name is Chesterman—not the great poet but a great man nevertheless. But I am aware of the fact that the whip is sitting here thinking that perhaps I should— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Name the rest. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Ewan Wilson—I tell Mr Mallard that I will name the rest for him later. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no this is a test. 
TIM MACINDOE 
: I think I have done pretty well there. I thank all those councillors. On behalf of the present and future generations of Hamilton I thank all members of this House even the unruly bunch opposite me at the moment in anticipation of their support for this most important local bill. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise to support the second reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill 2010. I congratulate the member who has just resumed his seat Tim Macindoe on correctly anticipating that there will be support from Labour for this bill. I tell the member that that was well-anticipated. It could be the pinnacle of his career—great anticipation. I also congratulate David Bennett the MP in whose name this bill came forward. It may well be the pinnacle of his career to date to have brought this bill forward and sponsored it. I think the member opposite who spoke before me was correct in saying that David Bennett is the sponsor of this bill. It was drafted I would think by the Hamilton City Council and brought forward in David Bennett’s name so congratulations to David Bennett on doing that. 
Chester Borrows 
: A hardworking MP! 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well he is getting close to getting legislation through this House after his 5 years in Parliament; he really is getting somewhere now. I think it was also very gracious of David Bennett to allow his colleague Tim Macindoe to move the second reading of the bill in his absence. Obviously it was not quite important enough for him to be here for but it is important none the less. 
Parana Park is a really important asset in our city of Hamilton. It is widely used by all manner of people in all age groups. It has recently been used to host the city walks and the Hamilton half-marathon starts in Parana Park. Go By Bike Day was another recent event that started in Parana Park. We can see that the park is hosting all modes of transport and healthy modes at that. It is also annually the place where we hold the very important Anzac Day ceremony and commemoration. It hosts many Hamiltonians and people from the broader Waikato. I have certainly been to many other events there. I have been to weddings in Parana Park. One of my favourite events that I have attended in Parana Park was the celebration of May Day. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was Macindoe at that? 
SUE MORONEY 
: I do not recall Tim Macindoe being there at the celebration of May Day. May Day is of course the day on which we celebrate workers’ rights right around the world. It is an international day that has been recognised by the local unions which host a family picnic to commemorate May Day and to think about how we are doing in this country on the issue of workers’ rights. On 1 May members might be able to imagine if they have visited Hamilton Parana Park resplendent in its autumn colours around that time. It would still probably be warm enough to get out and have a picnic as people have done on May Day and the park looks absolutely a picture nestled there beside the Waikato River and with the autumn leaves. It is quite a stunning environment to be in for such an event. 
The history of Parana Park is also incredibly interesting. I think it represents the type of history had by not only much of the Waikato but in fact much of New Zealand. The park sits on land that is raupatu—confiscated land. It is land that was confiscated from Tainui in the 1860s. In that regard it is quite similar to large tracts of land in the Waikato. So this prime land right beside the Waikato River which had been used as an entrance and exit spot for transporting goods up and down the river was confiscated from Tainui in the 1860s. In 1866 it was granted—quite a quaint word when one thinks about it—to a man by the name of William Moule. He was granted not just Parana Park but 400 acres. Part of those 400 acres is the land that has become known now as Parana Park. I say it “has become known now as Parana Park” but because of the work of the select committee it will now formally be known as Parana Park. So the legislation will reflect for the first time the name by which Hamiltonians have known this piece of land for decades. I congratulate the select committee on doing that. It may seem like quite a small step. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Isn’t that going over the top? 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is not going to change the course of history. It is not necessarily going to make anyone’s life better but we have a piece of land that we have traditionally known as Parana Park. It is now going to be formally recognised by that name in statute. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? That’s outrageous. I think I’m opposed to it now. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I do not think we can oppose it on those grounds I tell Mr Mallard. Really not to recognise it by the name it has been known by would not be correct and I do not think the people whom I represent would be in favour of that. The select committee members used the opportunity to make sure that the name is now recognised in statute and I thank them for that. 
Since the land was granted to William Moule in 1866 it has changed hands twice which again reminds us about the travesty of justice that occurred during that period of time. The land was taken from its lawful owners quite unlawfully in the 1860s and then sold twice—for private profit I would imagine—before it landed in the very kind hands of George Parr. George Parr gifted this land to Hamilton so he was a very visionary man. He was in his 60s when he made this decision. I can only imagine the type of man he was. We know he was a farmer. He was a son of a former mayor of Hamilton so he obviously felt strongly about civic duty. He was very involved in politics; he was involved in the liberal politics of the time. I imagine that although I may differ with George Parr on some of his views on many things I think there are many things we have in common. For example it is clear that he had a strong love of children because the very reason he gifted this land—this very special area—to Hamilton was to make sure that the welfare of children in the city was looked after. He actually left the land to be developed as a playground for children and he left the building to be developed as a convalescent home for children who were ill. So he clearly valued children and put children at the heart of his thinking. Although I may have differed with him on many other points of view valuing children is something I strongly believe in as well. 
Another thing I think we may have had in common is that he was a visionary when it came to issues about transport. George Parr was a visionary and he was a train enthusiast. Even back in those days and I am talking about the 1920s— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Remember them? 
SUE MORONEY 
: —no I do not remember them—George Parr was advocating for a train service between Kawhia Raglan and Hamilton. 
Phil Twyford 
: It’s an idea whose time has come. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It is an idea whose time has come and I wonder what he would think of the fact that one of the debates still raging in Hamilton today is whether we ought to have a passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland. I think if George Parr were alive today he would say: “You’re debating what? Why don’t you just get on and do it?”. That is what I think the practical man in George Parr would have said. I am with him on that because I am the MP in Hamilton who is advocating for that service to be established against the wishes of the other local members. I think I know where George Parr would put his vote in that instance. 
I take this opportunity to congratulate the Hamilton City Council on pursuing this legislation because they have obviously seen a need to have more flexibility in their use of the land—in particular wanting to be able to lease the dwelling on that land. I am sure we will see that put to good use in future. Without any further ado I commend the second reading of this bill to the House. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is very pleasing to hear the previous speaker Sue Moroney being so positive in the whole approach to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. 
This bill vests the area known as Parana Park as a recreation reserve. In the first reading speeches members mentioned as have previous speakers today that the park is also used for Anzac services and for occasions when the community wishes to put on a particular memorial activity and indeed it is next to Memorial Park. 
Today is a day of great celebration and at the same time a day of great sadness. We have the Australian and New Zealand flags in Parliament flying side by side but sadly at half mast in honour of a soldier who lost his life during active service. Parana Park is one of hundreds of places in New Zealand where we remember and revere the memory of those we have lost and it has a very significant part to play in the life of Hamilton. 
Now I come to the bill. I too acknowledge the efforts of David Bennett in bringing this bill forward. I commend his colleague Tim Macindoe the other member from Hamilton for bringing the second reading on his behalf. I also thank members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who certainly applied themselves diligently to this bill as has been my experience during the 5 years I have been here. They have always attended themselves with particular diligence to city council member’s bills. 
The Hamilton City Council and other submitters made five submissions in total. One question in particular that came up was the official status of the park. Should it be an historic reserve or should it be a recreation reserve? There is special historic significance attached to the park and that was clearly enunciated by the submissions we received. However in the council’s view the recreation reserve is the best fit for the purpose. To quote from the council submission: “…a historic reserve classification may result in unintended consequences which could impact on the continued enjoyment of Parana Park as a children’s playground.” The committee carefully considered the submissions and was satisfied with the recreation reserve classification none the less it still required the council to recognise and manage its obligations under the Historic Places Act 1993. We concurred with the view that the council put forward. 
This is not a controversial bill. It is small but significant. It is significant to the people of Hamilton and it is significant to respect the origins and the purpose of the park. It has been a pleasure to be associated with the bill. I join with the earlier speakers from this side of the House and indeed the speaker from the other side of the House in commending this bill to the House for passing. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill which has been taxing the abilities of the Local Government and Environment Committee for some time now. It is a great pleasure for my fellow committee members I am sure to see this bill progress to the second reading debate. It is a relatively uncontroversial bill that we are happy to support. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I don’t know! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well Mr Mallard questions whether in fact it is uncontroversial. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There was a good report to caucus on this. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Well I will have to see about that. It has been very pleasurable if a little soporific to hear the colleagues from Hamilton recounting good times past at Parana Park. It is clearly a great asset to the city and the citizens of Hamilton and it is good to see this legislation pass through the House. The bill tidies up the legislative basis for Hamilton City Council’s ownership and administration of the park. 
I make a comment about clause 5 which makes the Parana Park land no longer subject to the conditions of the will of the long-deceased George Parr. This is really an empowering provision that greatly simplifies the situation for Hamilton City Council. It repeals the existing legislation and vests the fee simple in Hamilton City Council. So this is really an empowering clause. I think that it is fair to observe that it stands in stark contrast to the general thrust of local government policy under this Government which is one would have to say disempowering of local government and local communities. Over the last couple of years we have seen many many examples of that. 
The tendency of this Government is to take power away from local communities and put it in the hands of its handpicked friends. We saw it in the Auckland super-city where the fundamental thrust of three very big complex pieces of law passed in this House was to take power away from the elected representatives of the community and vest it in handpicked corporate boards who in the case of Auckland will be responsible for managing some three-quarters of the city’s assets and resources. We saw it again in the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill passed towards the end of last year. That legislation took power away from communities. It took away the right to be consulted on a number of important issues for the community. For instance services that had been delivered by councils could be contracted out to the private sector—something that many New Zealanders care about. It is an issue that is important to people. That law change took away the right of communities to be consulted. There are many other examples of that. 
However it is worth reflecting that the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill the simple uncontroversial bill we are debating today makes life easier for Hamilton City Council. The bill gives the elected representatives of the community of Hamilton more power to serve their citizens in managing this important community asset and that stands in contrast to the general thrust of local government policy under this Government. 
Clause 6 states that the council is to hold this land as a recreation reserve and provides that the land will be subject to the Reserves Act which is incredibly important legislation. It reflects a deeply held conviction by New Zealanders that parkland is somehow special that it is an asset that we hold in trust for future generations and that our communities cannot be liveable unless we have adequate recreation land available to people whether it is sporting reserves native bush or beaches the volcanic cones in Auckland or lakes and streams. 
Assets like Parana Park are vital for the well-being of our kids and our families and we hold them in trust for future generations. That belief that value runs very deep in the New Zealand community and that is why people are fundamentally suspicious of this Government’s agenda around the privatisation of publicly owned assets. 
We have seen it in Auckland. We have seen it in the intense public reaction against Rodney Hide taking away the right of Aucklanders to decide in a binding referendum whether the ports of Auckland should be privatised. He took away that right that existed in law for Aucklanders to decide in the referendum whether the ports of Auckland should be privatised. We saw it with water which is another asset that has a special sacred place. New Zealanders think that water is too important to be privately owned and driven by the profit motive and what did we see last year? We saw Rodney Hide open up the municipal water supply to private ownership and private control through public-private partnerships—legislation deliberately crafted to encourage private ownership. 
I contend that in the public mind parkland like Parana Park is accorded a special status. In the hearts of New Zealanders it is not just parkland that deserves that special status. There are many other assets that traditionally we own and manage in the public interest. This Government does not seem to understand that and is hell-bent on opening up those precious assets to privatisation and private control. 
Clause 9 is also very interesting. It deals with the powers of the Registrar-General of Land. The clause authorises the Registrar-General of Land to make such entries in the land transfer register as are necessary to give effect to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. It is a seemingly innocuous provision that delegates a very specific power to a public servant. It is perfectly normal that the Registrar-General of Land is empowered to administer and make the changes that are necessary to give effect to the bill. But that is very unlike many other changes and policies that this Government has implemented in local government that muddy the division between public servants and elected officials. 
It is one thing for this bill to empower the Registrar-General of Land to make these quite minor administrative changes but it is a whole different thing for this Government to give important political and decision-making powers to unelected officials which is exactly what has happened in Auckland with the creation of the Maori Statutory Board—it is quite a different thing. No one would object to the Registrar-General of Land being given those specific powers because that person is a public servant and it is a very minor thing that he or she is being asked to do. But that is quite different from the management of huge publicly owned assets and resources being handed to hand-picked corporate boards in Auckland by this Government. 
This Government does not seem to understand that there is a very important distinction to be made between the powers of elected officials who are accountable to the community and to the people who elected them which is why the community in Auckland wanted to see democratically elected Maori representation and the handing over of political power and wide-ranging powers to hand-picked corporate boards which seems to be a particular penchant shall we say— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Penchant! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Or “ponchont”; it depends which side of the tracks one went to school on. I think this bill highlights some very interesting issues about this Government’s discharge of its responsibilities in the whole area of local government. I am glad that we are able to stand up here today and support— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I remind members that we are debating a bill pertaining to Parana Park and that there are Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings that limit the scope of what members can talk about in the second reading debate. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins with every other party in this House in supporting this small but nevertheless very significant piece of legislation the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. In particular we would like to join the tributes for George Parr. It is interesting that we are here in this House 80 years on thanking George Parr for his extraordinary generosity and far-sightedness in designating and gifting this land to the people of Hamilton. Many people leave gifts leave legacies but what a magnificent legacy it is to gift a park to a city. Actually when I think about it I realise that any great city in the world is distinguished by its park. When we think of New York we think of Central Park. When we think of London we think of Hyde Park. When we think of Christchurch we think of Hagley Park. When we think of Auckland we think of the Auckland Domain. When we think of Wellington well we have the Wellington Botanic Garden and now we have Waitangi Park— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And the Basin Reserve. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —and we have the Basin Reserve. But I do want to mention Waitangi Park because when I was a Wellington city councillor there was a proposal to build five-storey townhouses all over Waitangi Park. I and many other councillors fought vehemently against the covering-over of Waitangi Park with townhouses. Finally we won and now we have this small but wonderful park Waitangi Park in Wellington as well. 
What would our cities be like without parks? This is particularly the case today as our cities—and I am thinking of Hamilton City too—are becoming increasingly congested and increasingly spread with suburban sprawl. In Hamilton where I spent quite a bit of my time when I was growing up—my grandparents and all my relatives lived there—there was a lot of open space. There was lovely open space around the lake but now all of that open space—or most of it—is gone and there is just suburban sprawl. So for the people of Hamilton I say thank heavens for the vision of George Parr and thank heavens that he gave Parana Park and that this park like so many other open spaces in Hamilton and other cities has not been built on and is not covered in townhouses or suburban sprawl. He was a very great visionary and I hope he is remembered in Hamilton and honoured for this great gift. I agree with my colleague from Labour about what a visionary he was. 
Again it is worth remembering in the context of our tribute to George Parr his vision for public transport—his vision not only in leaving this magnificent park but also in his understanding of public transport. He was a huge advocate for a train from Hamilton to Kawhia—a great visionary rather like Sir Dove-Myer Robinson. If only the people of Auckland had listened to men like Sir Dove-Myer Robinson and George Parr. Members can imagine what Auckland would be like if we had listened to Sir Dove-Myer Robinson that great visionary. We would have had light rail or a mass transit system right through Auckland but instead Sir Dove-Myer Robinson’s vision was defeated by National in one of its many manifestations when it came in and forced the abandonment of the plans for a public transport system in Auckland. 
Unfortunately the vision of George Parr for a train from Hamilton to Kawhia was also not implemented; it was opposed by developers at the time. He had a vision also for a canal and members can imagine what a much better place Hamilton would have been if that vision had been implemented—if Hamilton had had not only Parana Park but also a canal and a rapid train linking Hamilton to Auckland. 
The other thing about parks is that not only are they wonderful places to have recreation—and many people have been sharing their memories of all the important things that happen in Parana Park—but also they are of course the lungs of the city. As cities become ever more congested with cars and houses and even more built up these green spaces these rare little jewels of green spaces are the lungs of the city as well as places for people to have recreation. 
My colleague Phil Twyford was talking about what a pleasure it was to be talking about something positive—a positive piece of legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee of which I am a member has been able to consider—and about what a sharp contrast that is to most of the other legislation we have had to consider which is all about getting rid of local government and its democratic rights in New Zealand. Mr Twyford was focusing on Auckland and on the fact that with one fell swoop we got rid of eight democratically elected and well-functioning councils in Auckland and replaced them with a super-city. 
But I am not sure why Mr Twyford omitted to mention given his penchant for talking about these issues the getting rid of Environment Canterbury. That would have to be the worst the most blatant taking away of power that has happened to local government in New Zealand. I remember an American who came to a big public meeting we were holding in Christchurch when the people there were so upset about this matter. He said that it could not happen in America; a local council could not just be wiped out like that. 
So it is a relief that on the Local Government and Environment Committee we have had at least one bill that is completely positive which is about giving to people and to local communities rather than about taking away from them their rights and their democratic ability to vote etc. It is fantastic that we can join with every other member of this House completely unanimously in supporting the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. We hope that Parana Park will remain for another 80 years as a precious piece of open space in Hamilton and that all the other magnificent parks around New Zealand such as Hagley Park and the Domain will forever remain as this one is—protected for recreation and as the lungs of the city and as an area not able to be encroached upon and built on as so many parks have been. Thanks. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill as a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee on behalf of the Maori Party. 
Tim Macindoe 
: And a good one. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: I thank the member. When I stood to speak to this bill in the first reading on 16 June last year I ended with the statement: “It is therefore in the interests of the iwi and mana whenua that we support this bill to bring their stories to the fore.” So it was with pleasure that I read the submission from Waikato-Tainui Te Kauhanganui Inc. which made explicit the connection between Parana Park and the Waikato-Tainui settlements. I believe that some of the statements made in that submission form an important part of the record on this bill in that they place the understanding around Parana Park firmly in the context of its location abounding the Waikato River and the Gibbons Creek as riverbank. I want to bring us back to the vision that Waikato-Tainui have for the Waikato River: “Toku awa koiora me ona pikonga he kura panihia o te matamuri.” This means: “The river of life each curve more beautiful than the last.” 
I think about the more recent history associated with the land around Parana Park. The land was originally intended to be the site of a children’s convalescent home and playground but in 1958 legislation was passed to enable the council to administer Parana Park more effectively. The trusts of the last will and testament of George Parr required that the house situated within Parana Park be used for a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital and that the remainder of the land be used for a children’s playground. But the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958 changed all of that. Half a century later the House is again considering legislation this time to vest Parana Park in the council as a recreation reserve. I would presume that in this record the mayor and councillors are in themselves fulfilling the vision for the Waikato River of trying to make each curve more beautiful than the last. 
The submission from Waikato-Tainui points out: “The world is not static but continues to evolve over time” and they recognise the actions of the council being necessary to free it “from the existing restrictions in its administration of this land.” But they also make the interesting point that there is a moral obligation on the council to shape its administration towards the original intentions of the gift bequeathed by Mr George Parr in 1929—that is for Parana Park to be centred around children. Waikato-Tainui suggested that in doing so the council would also in turn be supporting the Waikato River settlement purpose to restore and protect the health and well-being of the Waikato River and all it embraces for generations to come. The Maori Party strongly supports the recommendations from Waikato-Tainui and agrees with them that there is a moral obligation on the council to administer Parana Park for the benefit of children in line with the wishes of George Parr. 
We noted also the submission from Laura Kellaway who supported the legislation being modernised as long as it reflected George Parr’s desire that it be focused on children. She spoke with the authority of someone who is both a Hamilton resident and a former user of Parana Park as a child. Her submission included a range of photographs showing children at play. 
The focus on children was also referred to in a submission from Gerard Kelly from the Waikato Tree Trust. I remind the House that there were only five submissions received on this bill. Because the majority of them refer to children I suggest that that sends a very strong message to the council about the preference of the community for how this park is to be used. 
The Maori Party believes that providing space for our tamariki and mokopuna to enjoy the great outdoors to flourish in the beauty of Papatuanuku and to appreciate the awesome wonder of the Waikato awa is indeed worthy of our support and to this end we support the second reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 For the reasons outlined by the mover of the second reading of the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill ACT is very happy to support this bill. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I too rise to support the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill sponsored by our very excellent MP for Hamilton East David Bennett. Parana Park right next door to the Hamilton Gardens is a great asset for the people of Hamilton. It is used for community gatherings family occasions local events sports and recreation. It is used for walking biking playing and just lounging around. It is a very beautiful part of the city it is well used and it is well loved. 
I would like to reflect on Rahui Katene’s comment on its use by children. I do not know whether Hamilton celebrates Children’s Day. I know we celebrate that in Christchurch and it would be very nice to see a Children’s Day event at Parana Park. I am sure that George Parr would like that. 
This bill is to allow the Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage and administer Parana Park and under the Reserves Act the council will be required to complete a management plan for the reserve that will ensure that it is conserved maintained and developed for the future use of coming generations. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee examined the bill closely and with minor amendments such as the enshrining of the name Parana Park recommended that it be passed into law. I am sure that George Parr 80 years on would be pleased to see so many Hamiltonians especially the children using and enjoying his wonderful gift to the city. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I initially was going to make a relatively brief speech on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill in support of it but there have been a number of comments made that have frankly given me a few concerns about the bill. 
Probably of all the members in the House I would be amongst the two or three who know Parana Park the best. 
Hon Member 
: Have you been there? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have certainly been there many times on occasion with children and often on Anzac Day. 
In fact it was the place where we marched in Hamilton for Anzac Day. It was always interesting. We started on the west and marched to the east. We always broke time going over the bridge in order not to shake it too much. There was some anxiety about whether it would fall down if we did not and then we went back into time again when the team was over the bridge. 
I remember to this day the messages given by the Reverend Clarke who was I think the parson for the RSA. He did not hang back. He was not someone who was forever promoting peace. He did not talk a lot about peacekeeping; his line was “blessed are the peacemakers”—“blessed are the peacemakers”. It made quite an impression on me. 
I remember in particular as some members might getting some urgent messages as I was leaving an Anzac Day service at Parana Park. We used to know it as the Anzac memorial in those days rather than as Parana Park because that was the day that the then Prime Minister had made some comments on the East Coast of the United States about New Zealand’s relationship. At the time they seemed quite important but one or two of his colleagues especially Dr Bassett were not particularly pleased about them. 
But one of the questions I have of the member in charge of the bill concerning his reply goes to something that occurred to me only recently. I hear he is going to effectively fix in stone— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The names of the councillors. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No not the names of the councillors but the name Parana itself. I ask the member the origin of the name. I know there is the Paraná River in Argentina. I think it is the biggest river in Argentina and I wonder whether— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s not related to the fish you know. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No it is Paraná with an “a” not an “i”. The member might be a biting fish but the Paraná River as I understand is the largest river in Argentina. I am digging way back into my geography. 
I wonder whether George Parr had some relationship with Argentina whether his family had visited on the way and that was the reason that it was named Parana Park. 
I say thank you to my colleague Sue Moroney for highlighting to me the fact that we are putting Parana into legislation and effectively putting it into stone. I do have some anxiety about that. What happens if for example the New Zealand Geographic Board after proper application by the tangata whenua from Kirikiriroa decide to give it again the name that it was also known as which is Putikitiki? The area around the creek and the area slightly north is known as Putikitiki. Why are we saying here that it should be known as Parana and not Putikitiki? Is that appropriate for legislation to do? No Putikitiki is the name of the area immediately around the Anzac memorial. It has been known that way for quite a long time. It was certainly used by the elders when we met there on occasions. I just wonder why if we are legislating for the first time this name into the records of Parliament and saying effectively that it cannot be changed we are not giving an alternative use— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Because Hamilton City Council presented the bill and it was the name of the bill that they selected. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is fine to say that Hamilton City Council presented the bill in this form but we are Parliament. We make the decisions as to what legislation we pass and to the name of it. The member might think he is still a city councillor or a what was it? A district councillor? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: A community board member. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A county councillor; that is right. He thinks he is still a county councillor but now he is a parliamentarian. 
It may be that the people of the Hamilton City Council are OK but they do not dictate to us what we pass. They have a right to make a suggestion. But to say to that member that we are a mere rubber stamp for any county council that comes along—well I just do not understand why the National Government is prepared to give up the sovereignty of this Parliament to every county council that wants to wander along. I asked Georgina te Heuheu to have a think about it and ask whether as Associate Minister of Maori Affairs she was consulted on the shifting of the name in legislation away from— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Does the member want an answer to his question? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The answer is that this followed the normal legislative pattern. We called for public submissions. There were no submissions on the name. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What the member says is that he will make legislation better only if someone suggests it to him and he will not think for himself—he will not think for himself. A chair of a select committee tells us he is an unthinking rubber stamp for legislation. No wonder the people of the West Coast are saying: “Keep him in Wellington. Get him high on the list. We don’t want him coming back here.” 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Give him a sports car. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: He has a sports car in Wellington but I think it is fair to say that for the 6 months before the sports car was parked downstairs the Queen Street tractor was parked downstairs. That member very very rarely focuses on the West Coast and does not listen to people— 
Phil Twyford 
: That’s because he’s never there. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We can tell from the location of his vehicle where he is. 
I will go back and say that I know this park relatively well. I will visit it. I have looked at Parana Park. I examined it from a bar across the river relatively recently and I thought: “Well that is Parana Park.” I remember there was evidence every now and then on Anzac Day that it was often used for late-night activities which were not what one would describe as ideal activities for children. Unfortunately many of the participants left evidence. The point we got to in the end was that the council used to do a sweep around the park before Anzac Day to make sure that the evidence of the activities of the night before was not left on the ground in the way that it had been on a number of occasions. 
We are prepared to support this legislation at this stage but I think it is important that my successor in Hamilton West whose name I have lost—what is his name? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: McIntyre. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is important that Mr McIntyre inform Mr Bennett whose name I do remember that support is not guaranteed for this legislation at its later stages because we are concerned that as part of this bill we are putting into concrete a name that the tangata whenua have not indicated they support. We want to know what the Kingitanga think of this because there is a danger that we are about to promote an evil in this legislation. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I will make just a couple of comments in response to some of the Opposition members’ comments. Firstly we heard from Mr Twyford who spoke a lot about Auckland local governance but failed to recognise that Parana Park is in Hamilton—“the Tron”. That is the first point I would like to make. 
The second point I would like to make is that everybody spoke really nicely and said they supported the bill until we heard from the piranha—the “Pi-rana”—of the Labour Party who chose to throw the baby out with the bathwater on probably the least contentious piece of legislation before this House. He managed to find something wrong with it. He suggested that we change the name of Parana Park. I am sure the constituents of Hamilton would be a little bit disturbed to read in their newspaper tomorrow that the New Zealand Labour Party has advocated changing the name of Parana Park. 
Can I briefly acknowledge the local members: David Bennett who has brought this legislation to the House and Tim Macindoe the excellent member for Hamilton West. I acknowledge the great work they have done to bring this legislation to the House. Even the Greens have supported it. We know that Labour members are staying on the fence at this point but we hope that they will be able to support this legislation. 
Obviously it is great legislation in that it ensures that the park becomes a reserve which means that Hamilton City Council will have much greater power to ensure that the public have clear entitlement to this reserve to ensure that they have a complete management plan around the park and to ensure that public interest in the reserve will be protected by the Reserves Act. 
I am very pleased to support this legislation. I am very pleased to be part of a Government that is protecting reserves and supporting the people of Hamilton. Thank you. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill and to congratulate— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We passed a Palmerston North one for you remember. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Yes I was going to come to that and I probably will at some point in time during this speech. I am very congratulatory towards David Bennett. Members will know that I am a big fan of David Bennett. 
Grant Robertson 
: He’s given you some of your best lines. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: He has given me some of my best lines. I do not know what he is doing for Hamilton but certainly in the House he is very articulate about what the Government’s agenda is and he did a much better job than the Prime Minister in articulating that last week. 
I say: “Well done!” to David Bennett for bringing this local bill to the House. I also congratulate Tim Macindoe on his speech today. It was a fine contribution even though Parana Park is not in his electorate. It is a stone’s throw away as I learned from his speech—and that was excellent to know as well. 
We may have discovered a slip-up with the issue of Putikitiki which I certainly was not aware of earlier and I am pleased Mr Mallard has raised it. We may find that a Supplementary Order Paper comes to the House and is discussed during the Committee stage—[ 
Interruption 
]—and obviously Mr Auchinvole’s contribution on that would be useful. The Local Government and Environment Committee has done a lot of hard work on this bill and I see that it has made a number of amendments and it is very possible that I could examine those very closely later in this speech. 
I am happy to admit that I have not spent an awfully large amount of time in Hamilton. I think my most recent visit to Hamilton was with my colleague Sue Moroney and we spent a good day there. We visited one of the private hospitals and we held a public meeting about alcohol issues as that was before the Alcohol Reform Bill was brought to the House. It was a great day and we had lunch by the lake. What was the name of that lake? 
Sue Moroney 
: Rotoroa. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Lake Rotoroa—not to be confused with Rotorua. It was a very pleasant day. To be fair I think that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It used to be called Hamilton Lake when I was there. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: You see this issue of how we name things is important. Indeed if that name had been put in legislation it might have been a very controversial decision to make and Mr Mallard might have put forward a Supplementary Order Paper on that one as well. But Hamilton is a fine city. Most of the time I have spent in Hamilton has been spent in trying to navigate my way through it on the way to Auckland. 
Grant Robertson 
: Just like the slogan: even the river runs through it. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right. In a lot of ways the citizens of Palmerston North see—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I was going to say that the citizens of Palmerston North see the citizens of Hamilton as kindred spirits. Hamilton is an inland city with a river running through it a university and a major— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: We didn’t use to look at it that way. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well obviously Palmerston North people are a little more charitable than Hamilton residents and former Hamilton MPs but we have a lot in common with the city of Hamilton. 
Sue Moroney 
: Much maligned. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Well Ms Moroney says we are much maligned but let us not dwell on that too much. We know what we have going for us and both cities are fine regional hubs and the residents of both cities are proud to live there. From that point of view I am very happy to speak on this bill. 
What I like about this particular bill is that it clarifies and reinforces public property rights and the concept of the importance of property rights. In this case it covers council land but it also raises the issue of how we view property rights on Crown land and other publicly held land. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The spectre! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Mr Auchinvole has used an interesting word. I want to clarify the word that he used: the spectre of publicly held land. Was that the word the member used? Crown land does seem to be thought a bit of a spectre by this Government. I compare this bill with another current Government order of the day which we will come back to tomorrow the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill which undermines the property rights of the Crown and the concept of public property rights. 
Colin King 
: Stop being dopey! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: I am looking forward to Mr King finishing his contribution. I was listening very closely to his speech. 
Colin King 
: This is a very important subject and it shouldn’t be trivialised. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: It is not being trivialised at all; it is a very important subject. I am comparing this bill which reinforces public property rights with another bill we are debating this week which completely undermines Crown ownership of land and the value of Crown land and that is the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. That bill ensures a transfer of wealth from the public the Crown to private landholders which is the exact opposite of this bill which ensures the property rights of the public. 
When we think of what George Parr did in terms of vesting this land in the public interest we see it was to transfer the wealthy ownership of that land from a private individual to the public notwithstanding of course the fact that earlier in this particular piece of land’s history it had been confiscated and taken from a group Tainui gifted to an individual landowner then onsold at a profit no doubt between landowners before it was returned to the public. 
That occurred much in the same way that we are now seeing publicly owned land almost given away by the Crown for a very reduced rate to landowners—who may be New Zealanders but may also be foreigners—who then onsell that land at a massive profit with those windfall profits going to a small number of wealthy landowners rather than to New Zealanders at large. Again it is a transfer of wealth away from the many to the very very few. It is no surprise that this bill is not a Government bill because that is not the way this Government operates. It does not operate in the interests of the broader public; it operates in the interests of a small number of very wealthy people many of whom are from overseas. 
But this particular bill the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill reinforces and reassures the public ownership of that property. Of course this is not a Government bill. It has come from the Hamilton City Council because the council obviously has a much greater interest in protecting public property rights than this Government. The council is obviously working for its people—the residents of Hamilton—in a way that as is very obvious this Government is not working for New Zealanders at large. 
This is an important bill because it tidies up a number of matters—and these things happen over time. We saw a similar situation with assets and money that were vested in Christ’s College. The use of those assets had changed over time and this is a case where the use of a particular public asset has changed over time. 
Originally Mr Parr’s vision was that it would be used as a children’s park with a paddling pool and an open-air theatre. Importantly the building that was there was used for a children’s convalescence home but of course in the 1950s it became obvious that the building was no longer suitable for that use so the legislation was updated at that point and this bill is a natural progression from that change that was made in the 1950s. The Labour Party is very keen to see this sort of tidying-up happen and we are very keen to support this bill. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on the Hamilton City Council (Parana Park) Land Vesting Bill. I am delighted to observe that it enjoys wide support around the House. Such support has inspired the shadow Leader of the House with a fit of bonhomie so much so that his contribution was spiced with a mélange of malapropisms and lessons on South American geography. I thank Mr Mallard. 
The land and house were originally gifted as we know in a very very generous bequest by Hamilton farmer George Parr to be used as a children’s convalescent home for patients from Waikato Hospital. In the 1950s it became apparent that the house was unsuitable as a children’s convalescent home and it passed in 1958 to the Hamilton City Council. The Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act was duly passed to enable Hamilton City Council to more effectively manage Parana Park. 
William Pitt made the comment that parks were the lungs of London. No such grand claims have been made about Parana Park but it is a much-loved area of recreation. The purpose of this bill is to vest Parana Park in Hamilton City Council as a recreation reserve which will mean it is subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. Obviously that will require repeal of the Hamilton City (Parana Park) Empowering Act 1958. 
Parana Park is currently used for passive recreation activities and this would continue. The benefits to managing the land under the Reserves Act are that the public will have clear entitlement to use and enjoy the park as a recreation reserve the council will be required to complete a management plan and the public interest in the park will be protected by the conditions the Reserves Act imposes on the council as the administrative body of the reserve. The council will be required to manage the area in accordance with the Reserves Act which provides for the preservation and management of recreation reserves. I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 8 December 2010. 
Clause 2 Commencement ( 
continued 
)  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I do not know whether I can say it is a pleasure to take a call on this particular bill and this particular clause but I certainly am happy to do so. We are debating clause 2 which is the commencement clause. It was amended by the Education and Science Committee so I think it is good to debate at some length whether the amendment would be a good idea. 
The select committee’s amendment was that the Act come into force on 1 January 2012. The reason the select committee made that amendment was that most of the members of the committee were concerned that students associations and institutions would need time to prepare for a change such as this one. As we are now are in 2011 and the select committee decided in 2010 that the commencement date should be 1 January 2012 I think there are good grounds for supporting the amendment on the Table in my name. My amendment omits the words “1 January 2010” and substitutes the words “1 January 2013”. 
Everybody is well aware that on this side of the Chamber we oppose this bill in principle because we believe that it will in effect destroy students associations. That is the evidence we have from Australia and I have not seen anything brought before the House that tells us that it would be any different in New Zealand. We believe that students associations play a critical role in the health and well-being of students and in their academic progress and we believe that this bill should not proceed. But as we are in the position of looking at a commencement clause we need to give the affected associations time to adjust to the change. 
As I said in 2010 it was thought that the commencement date could be 1 January 2012. We are now in 2011 and I believe we need to look at moving the commencement date further out to 1 January 2013. I know from talking to students associations at their conferences over the summer break that they are already—certainly from the university end—beginning to talk to institutions about what they would do if this bill were to pass. Those discussions will take time. Those discussions will be difficult. One of the criticisms this side of the Chamber has of this bill is that it puts in the hands of the institutions what services students will get. 
When we were campaigning against this change in the 1990s we used to have posters that asked whether people wanted the vice-chancellor to choose the music for orientation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Probably not. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: No and in the case of some vice-chancellors I know I would not want them to do that although Steve Maharey would be the exception. He is a man with impeccable music taste. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is—it is very good. The point is that students associations will no longer have control of the services that are provided. Students lose control and the institutions will decide whether there are services via the agreements they might have with associations or whatever they provide themselves. I do not believe that a commencement date of 1 January 2012 is sufficient for the necessary discussions and negotiations over this matter to take place. I think it needs to be extended out to 1 January 2013. 
Should the Committee not wish to take up my suggestion of 1 January 2013 as the commencement date there are a number of other dates through the period of December and perhaps even further back than that. If the member in charge of this bill the Hon Heather Roy is serious when she says she does not want to destroy students associations then she should at least look at how this legislation could be phased in to enable those students associations to have some kind of ability to get ready to prepare themselves and to perhaps make agreements with institutions. 
On that point I say that the big concern we have on this side of the Chamber is not so much about university students associations. Although they will have the problem of no longer being able to have students control student affairs most of them are large enough that I am sure the institutions will contract for services with them. But that will not happen in polytechs. That will not happen in most of the polytechs around New Zealand. Those polytech students associations will not survive and I do not believe they will be contracted for services. So they need even more time to prepare themselves for this bill and they need a commencement date that is far further on than 1 January 2012. 
Polytech students are transitory by nature; they usually come in for only 1 or 2-year courses and sometimes for courses that are a lot shorter. The infrastructure of the students associations is not built up in the way that it is inside university students associations. They of all people need a longer period of time for the institutions and the students associations—where they are still going on polytech campuses—to come up with a plan that means student services are still provided. At this stage we cannot guarantee that. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I also speak in support of the amendment to clause 2 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. The original commencement clause states: “This Act comes into force 1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” The Education and Science Committee saw fit to change that date to 1 January 2012. My understanding is that the intent of that change was to increase the length of time between this Act’s receiving the Royal assent and its coming into force. Of course we find ourselves in a difficult situation now. As Mr Robertson pointed out this bill has taken some time to make its way through Parliament. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: As I was saying before the dinner break the amendment put up by Grant Robertson is to amend clause 2 by omitting “1 January 2012” and substituting “1 January 2013”—that is to delay the commencement of the bill by 1 year. Clearly the clause needs to be amended. I think that goes without saying because the select committee recognised that the original wording of the bill which was for the bill to commence 1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent posed some difficulties for students associations universities polytechnics and private training establishments. It could mean that the change would potentially come in midway through a semester with all the difficulties that that would bring with it. The select committee also recognised that students associations and their tertiary institutes would need a significant period of time in which to make the adjustments in order to start working on the service agreements that many of the students associations are working on with their universities and polytechnics for the new regime of voluntary student membership. 
The select committee recognised that issue and wanted to make the period of time longer. Well because of the time it has taken for the bill to progress through the House the period of time is shorter. It is less than 1 year until 1 January 2012 which restricts the amount of time in which the changes can be made so the intention of the amendment made by the select committee has now been lost and in fact the opposite is now the case. 
There is absolutely no doubt that the commencement clause needs to be amended and the only amendment we have before us on the Table is the one to change the commencement date to 1 January 2013. It seems to me to be a sensible amendment bearing in mind that Labour is opposed to the bill and we will be voting against it throughout the process. If the bill goes ahead in order to make it workable the amendment has to be made. 
The benefit of the commencement date being 1 January is that it is a clear date. Most universities these days still have summer schools so the universities and students associations will still be operating but it is a time when things are fairly quiet. It will not be during normal semester time. Therefore it gives the universities and students associations the opportunity to make the changeover on 1 January. It will not come up on some arbitrary date. It will not come up midway through the year. But it does deliver on the intention of the select committee to give students associations and tertiary institutes additional time because a lot of work is required from both organisations to make the adjustments to the proposed new regime—not least to the service agreements around services such as health centres orientation events coordination and probably advocacy services. A lot of negotiation will be required to ensure that advocacy services even though they are probably being funded by the university remain at arm’s length from the university and exactly how all that gets organised will take quite a lot of negotiation. 
There will also be the matter of costs and the fact that the universities polytechnics and private training establishments will be increasing their service levies. No doubt it will take some time for the university and polytechnic councils to make the decisions around what those service levies will be. There is also a range of other issues that need to be accounted for. I suspect there is some risk that the Government needs to take into account which is the fact that the amount that will be borrowed against student loans will have to increase because the service fees will be increased. There is also the potential for other fees to increase as well. That will mean students will need to borrow more against those student loans. The Government will have to ensure that it is in a good fiscal position to be able to lend that money. We know that the Government is looking pretty hard at student loans at the moment. There is some consideration of reintroducing interest charges on student loans and obviously the Government sees those loans as something of a risk. 
The increased fees that will result from the changes that have to be made in the period between when the bill receives the Royal assent and when it commences are quite substantial. Not only will the universities polytechnics private training establishments and students associations have to figure out what it all means for them but also the Government—and I imagine quite a few ministries and departments as well—will have to figure out what it means for it. Quite a lot of work needs to be done and frankly trying to squeeze it all in before 1 January 2012 is just not feasible; it simply is no longer feasible. 
The Minister Heather Roy says she does not want to see students associations collapse and that that is not the intention of the bill. As I have said Labour questions that statement but if that is the Minister’s intention then increasing the length of time between the bill receiving the Royal assent and its commencement makes a lot of sense. It gives everybody a little more time to make the adjustment. I see Louise Upston having a bit of a smile and a laugh about that— 
Louise Upston 
: She is actually a member not a Minister. It is important that you address the right person in the chair. I just thought I’d correct you on that one. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: OK. I see Louise Upston is having a bit of a smile about that— 
Louise Upston 
: No just factually correcting you given that you were not on the select committee and do not actually understand what occurred. But that’s OK. Carry on. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: The more the member wants to say on the bill the better. We will just debate it further. Quite a lot of work needs to be done and it needs to be dealt with. It is actually quite serious. I think we are all trying to make the bill which is a bad bill functional. We are trying to make it work so that it does not absolutely obliterate students associations. Although personally I do not think it will make any difference for the students associations at polytechnics it may be just enough to help the university polytechnics tread water. The current situation whereby they would have only until 1 January 2012 does not allow for that at all. It means a lot of things will be rushed probably some of those service agreements will not be exactly what they should be and the universities will not have time to figure out their fee structure either. 
The amendment is pretty simple. I do not think it is overly controversial. It comes back to the original intention of the select committee’s change to allow students associations more time. I submit that the amendment should be a pretty easy one for the Government to support. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. The Maori Party has been greatly concerned about the intention of the bill. It basically ensures that no tertiary student is required to join a students association. But we believe that the underlying purpose of the bill is to erode students associations. It is well known that the current system allows students to opt out of membership. The bill proposes that students be required to opt in. 
The context of the bill is that students associations and their representatives including Maori student ropu and their representatives have often been strong advocates within tertiary institutions and the wider sector for high-quality academic standards adequate Government investment and the maintenance or reduction of course fees. Students associations and ropu have challenged user-pays education since its introduction in 1990 and instead argue that education is a public good and should be funded as such. 
Surely we are not about to suggest that we should be afraid of people having the opportunity to challenge that in a healthy democracy. The current legislative framework is both flexible and inclusive. It allows for both voluntary and universal membership of students associations. This framework also allows students to be the decision makers on whether their association is voluntary or compulsory through transparent democratic referenda. In short there is no widespread criticism of the status quo. 
In light of all these criticisms we have drafted a number of amendments to reinstate the rights relating to effective and meaningful representation to ensure that student voices are heard. I acknowledge Grant Robertson for his initiative in putting forward amendments that replicate the amendments that we are proposing. We are certainly happy to support the changes that he has put forward. 
My amendments are focused on three key areas. The amendment to clause 2 will provide sufficient transition time to minimise disruption to the tertiary sector and services on campus. If as we think is inevitable the National Government supports this ACT Party bill then the immediate consequence is that the sector and students will be at a significant disadvantage due to the short time window for transition and implementation. There is a very strong case to be made for increasing the lead-in time of the bill to minimise potential disruption. The amendment does not change the intent of the bill. 
The second amendment establishes a new section requiring information to be provided by the institution to both prospective and enrolled students about any students association at that institution for the purposes of informing those students of the services provided and of how to be a member. 
We seek to create a new section 229CC “Representation”. The bill as currently drafted places most of the control of student representation and advocacy in the hands of the tertiary education organisation. Students the primary funders of student services will be increasingly forced to shift funding from students associations to tertiary education organisations through student services levies. Students should have the right to effective and meaningful representation to ensure their voices are heard. 
Finally I thank the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations Te Ropu Akonga o nga Whare Wananga o Aotearoa for its persistent support and encouragement to do what is right for students. We share with it concerns about the negative impact that this bill will have on students tertiary institutions and the wider sector as services and facilities come under threat and important advocacy and representation on student issues are put at risk. We hope that these amendments will receive the support of the Committee that they will improve the bill that they will protect student choice and that they may better ensure that services can continue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Before I call the next member I remind members that clause 2 is the commencement clause. Debate should be confined to issues related to the commencement date. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. 
It is great to be here debating this bill. I missed the beginning of the Committee of the whole House stage with a new baby all the way back in December so I am glad that we managed to keep some of this bill alive to be able to debate it tonight. I had the great privilege of sitting on the Education and Science Committee to hear the hundreds of submissions on this bill. So I had a great insight into what will happen on 1 January 2012 when this legislation commences. 
Tonight I think there is a whole host of arguments that need an airing and need to be put on the floor of this Chamber. I am looking forward to discussing some of the amendments I will seek to have passed tonight. Although the Greens will not support the bill as it currently stands we think our amendments have a lot of merit and should be passed. 
This bill if it passes its third reading will come into effect on 1 January 2012. When is that date? It is right after the 2011 election. What we are seeing is an agenda from that side of the Chamber to force through this bill and delay the negative impacts it will have on our students associations our students and our universities and polytechnics until after the election. People will cast their ballot not knowing the impact of this bill. To be frank although this bill is interesting and fascinating it has been the domain of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations politicians and lobbyists and it has not reached the public. I think that if the public knew what would happen when this legislation commences on 1 January 2012 they might have a second thought when they are in the ballot booth. 
This is a bad bill plainly and simply. It is an extreme bill. It is simply an ideological solution in search of a problem. On the select committee I did not hear from anyone as to what the problem was that we were trying to fix. The ACT Party has somehow convinced the National members who do not have to support the bill to support it. Even at this late stage in the proceedings those members do not have to support its passing. 
Today we had the honour of having the Australian Prime Minister in our Chamber. Maybe we should have asked Prime Minister Gillard what we could learn from the Australian experience. When this legislation commences on 1 January 2012 we should take the lessons learnt from Australia because we are not doing this in a vacuum. We have seen an experiment across the Ditch on what happens when we force a voluntary student membership model on to students associations. We should have asked Prime Minister Gillard why her Government is now changing the Australian legislation in order to find out whether we are likely to have to change our legislation after this legislation commences. We should have asked Prime Minister Gillard why Australia had to pour $120 million extra— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Commencement. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Chair—the commencement. 
We have to ask why Australia had to pour $120 million extra into its tertiary sector after its legislation commenced. We should be asking that legitimate question because I have not heard from the Government benches or from the Minister about what those members will do for a transition programme or how much extra money they will have to put into one because our associations will suffer once this legislation commences. 
I have a whole host of extra things to say. I have some great amendments that I look forward to speaking on. When this legislation commences I say it will be bad news for New Zealand. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am looking forward to the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill commencement clause and on when the bill should come into effect. I will raise three main points in favour of deferring the date upon which this bill comes into effect the first of which is about the fiscal risk posed to the Government by this bill. This bill does not just have an impact on students. The impact it will have on students will flow on to tertiary institutions and flow on to the Government. I will explain that impact. It is one of the reasons why I think this bill needs to be delayed. Dealing with the flow-on impact of the decisions that will be made as a result of this bill will take longer than the 9 to 10 months in which this bill effectively allows for decisions to be made. 
If students associations become completely voluntary and their ability to raise a compulsory levy—a universal levy—from students is removed then universities polytechnics and other tertiary institutions will want to continue to provide many of the services that they currently provide. They will have to pay for those somehow and they will have to pay for them either by increasing student fees or by finding the money from somewhere else. Should they choose the option of increasing student fees or levies the flow-on impact will be more student loan borrowing. It will have a flow-on impact on student loan borrowing which will flow into greater fiscal risk for the Crown which will ultimately increase the cost of the student loan scheme. 
I believe that this bill will increase the cost of the student loan scheme by more than the amount currently paid in the existing students association levies because—as I intend to argue later on in the debate—I do not believe that tertiary institutions can provide for the same cost the services that students associations currently provide. It will cost the institutions more. That is the first argument. The first argument for deferring the commencement date is that even if we go ahead and make students associations voluntary we need to make sure that all of the fiscal risks are adequately dealt with in implementing this law and that it has been sufficiently worked through. 
The second issue and I think it is quite a complex issue relates to the assets that are currently held by students associations. In some cases students associations actually hold a significant number of assets—many millions of dollars’ worth in the case of one or two associations. If we pass this bill which makes students association membership entirely voluntary then the question of who is accountable for those assets of who has the responsibility for and the ownership of those assets becomes a very vexed issue. For example the incumbent executives of an association may ultimately have total control of those assets without accountability back to the universal wider membership base that they had. 
I am talking about millions of dollars’ worth of assets. These issues will take some time to work through. I think we need to take some steps to protect those assets so that a small group of students do not end up capturing those shortly-to-become-voluntary membership organisations and basically asset-stripping them which is a very real possibility. We could see a small number of people stripping assets out of students associations and I think we need to avoid that. Once again I say I am opposed to the bill but if the bill is to be passed then we should take all the steps we need to to ensure that it is passed responsibly. I do not think we can do that in the period of time that this commencement clause will allow. 
The third point that I will raise concerns the matter of whether this bill is widely supported and the question of whether the commencement date allows time for democracy to take its course. There is a general election on 26 November. The overwhelming majority of submitters to this bill I am told by my colleagues on the Education and Science Committee were opposed to it. Those people may choose to exercise their rights at the general election and vote against this current National-ACT Government. They may choose to elect a new Government and that new Government should have the time should it wish to preserve the universal nature of students association membership. This bill as it is at the moment would require a new Government that wished to do that to push an amendment bill through all stages under urgency. That is not something that the National Government is unfamiliar with but it is something that an incoming Labour Government would be less likely to wish to do. We actually believe in the democratic process of Parliament and in doing things properly. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Oh so Labour has never operated under urgency? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We do not intend to rush a bill like this through after the next election when we return to Government. The New Zealand public are getting fed up with this Government already. 
Those are the three main arguments that I have for deferring the commencement date of this legislation: we need to deal with the fiscal risks to the Government; we need to protect the many millions of dollars’ worth of assets that students associations currently hold; and we need to make sure that all New Zealanders are given the opportunity to have their voices heard. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can I just be clear: I am not resuming my call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No no. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: This is a new call? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You are on your second call. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I am on my second call so I am at liberty to seek the call again at the end of 5 minutes. Is that correct? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Yes. Any member can take up to four calls. You have had one. 
Hon MARYAN STREET 
: I can have two consecutively. Thank you very much Mr Chairman; I wanted to clarify that. 
As the Committee is aware but as people who have tuned in just recently may not be we are debating clause 2 which is the commencement clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. This clause states simply that “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2012.” I would like to support the amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to substitute the words “1 January 2013” but I consider that to be a lesser position than the one I would ultimately prefer. I had the privilege of sitting on the Education and Science Committee for some time when I had responsibility for that shadow portfolio and I listened to many of the submitters who came before the select committee. The select committee also travelled around the country listening to submitters and it was under the good chairmanship of Allan Peachey that in fact the committee travelled to hear people. However we come to the commencement date now and the member’s bill states that it will come into force on 1 January 2012 when in her original version it was “1 year after the date on which it receives the Royal assent.” But those words were struck out by the select committee and we have the amendment that “This Act comes into force on 1 January 2012.” 
There was not one submitter who came before the select committee and whom I heard who wanted this bill to commence at all let alone on 1 January 2012. I understand there was one submitter whom I did not hear personally—one submitter or one submission; I am not sure whether the submitter appeared in person—who supported the bill. I understand that Whitireia Community Polytechnic submitted that it was in favour of this legislation and of making membership of students associations voluntary because it had had a bitter and unpleasant experience of its particular students association. I cannot blame it for feeling bitter and unhappy about the way in which that students association conducted itself. But that is not the malaise that this bill is trying to address and that it seeks to address from 1 January 2012. That is not a malaise that afflicts all students associations. To have one submitter with a very particular objection to the way in which its students association was run become the cause célèbre for this legislation that is now designed to commence on 1 January 2012 is insufficient cause for this Parliament to pass bad legislation. 
So I support Rahui Katene’s amendment to push the date out to 2013 but as a lesser option because there is no date that is appropriate for the introduction and enactment of this legislation. It is very poor legislation; it is derived from an ideological position for which there is no practical or pragmatic requirement. The date of 1 January 2012 will simply be the date on which a bad piece of legislation comes into effect. Not only is it bad legislation but it is legislation that nobody or almost nobody wants. Almost nobody wants it. My colleagues have detailed some of the potential pitfalls in relation to the enactment of this legislation effective 1 January 2012. They have enunciated quite clearly some of the real dangers from the loss of ownership of assets built up over years from student fees. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the commencement clause. The reason is that sometimes the commencement clause might be seen as not particularly important but when we are talking about the scale of change seen in this legislation the clause in fact becomes critical. There is only one reason why a commencement clause with a date at the beginning of next year would be forced through and it is that the massive changes that will occur in our tertiary institutions and students associations cannot be undone by future Governments. We sincerely hope that at the election this year this commencement clause will not matter because we will be in a position to revisit this issue. I am very grateful that our election will be held before 1 January 2012 so that we may have the opportunity to do that. 
I do not think we should underestimate the scale of change that will be happening in the very short time period this commencement clause allows for. It is in that light that I congratulate my colleague Grant Robertson on his amendments to move the commencement date out to allow for students associations to prepare for the scale of change that is coming. It is not just so much as preparing the students for what it will mean for them but it is giving students associations the time to organise alternative methods of funding if that is what they have to do. If they will need to go out and look for philanthropic donations to keep running some of these services that students have come to expect and to value then a commencement date of 1 January 2012 simply does not allow for that—it simply does not allow for that. I believe that that is entirely deliberate. 
I completely endorse what my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway said that it is too late for our polytechs. They are not going to be able to survive in terms of their students associations and their services. But for universities that provide much larger-scale services and that have more students etc. a commencement date that allowed more time for students associations to preserve those services would seem to be fair and reasonable if we wanted the preservation of those services. If we actually wanted those services to fall over so that future Governments or future legislation could not reinstate those services because they had gone and we could not get them back then a commencement date that is very soon such as the one found in this legislation would be the path we would go down. 
I ask the member in the chair Heather Roy why she will not allow students associations to have a longer time to prepare for this change a longer time to try to save some of the services. I ask why she will not agree to a commencement date of even a year further out as my colleague Grant Robertson proposed in order to make sure that if this legislation goes through these services will not be lost because of having such a short period of time in which to adapt. A commencement date at the very beginning of next year means that students associations will not have time to attempt to find alternative sources of funding for their services to set up different arrangements or to have democratic processes on campuses. Students associations could say that the Government has said they could not have compulsory membership and perhaps they could set up some other kind of student cooperative or student funding mechanism in order for their services to survive. 
This issue is apparently some kind of great philosophical problem; the biggest problem facing New Zealand which needs to be solved is that we have compulsory student membership despite the fact that of course students can opt out of that if they want to. I ask the member in the chair why she will not just give a commencement date in this legislation that allows for students associations to adapt to preserve those services and to find alternative sources of funding. I do not believe that that is an unreasonable request unless our primary goal is to have those services fall over so they can never come under the ambit of compulsory student membership again. It is no surprise that members on this side of the House feel very strongly about this issue. We feel very strongly about the preservation of those services. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rahui Katene to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 January 2012” and substitute “1 January 2013”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Grant Robertson has a typescript amendment to clause 2. I have ruled that out of order as it is of the same substance as the previous amendment. Under Speaker’s ruling 113/6A the other 31 amendments which substitute dates for “2012” are also out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit “1 January 2012” and substitute “1 year from the date of Royal assent”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 5; Progressive 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 Principal Act amended 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to be on my feet to take a call on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and on clause 3 of this bill. I am a member of the Education and Science Committee which heard the many many submissions on this bill. It is a very good select committee. 
Clause 3 is about amending the Education Act—amending the Act that is supposed to enhance public education for the people of this country. It is the Act that is supposed to promote educational opportunities for people in this country but here we are with legislation that will actually make educational opportunities more difficult for students. The reason it will make educational opportunities more difficult for students is that despite what the member sponsoring the bill says it will put paid to student representation and it will put paid to the student voice. On this side of the House we believe that a strong student voice and strong student representation are absolutely important for making sure we have good quality education services in New Zealand so I find it very ironic that the Education Act is being amended by this particular bill because I am sure we would find that the objective of that Act is to promote quality education. In the bill we have in front of us we find that the legislation will do the opposite. 
If anyone is in any doubt I will just take some time to read a little bit from one of the very good submissions we heard the submission from the Waikato Student Union. I think its submission was particularly powerful because the union had been through voluntary unionism. It had been through voluntary unionism when it was voluntary to have voluntary unionism. This bill proposes to make it compulsory to have voluntary student union membership but Waikato went through the process voluntarily. The union went through it: it took its own ballot and it decided membership would become voluntary. 
That happened in 1996 and in 1997 it spent the whole year planning what it would need to do to actually retain a student voice under voluntary membership. So it did things at that point. The membership levy revenue was $593000; it was reasonably healthy. That was before the union went to voluntary union membership. The union created a working party to plan and manage the transition for what it was about to undertake. It started selling assets in 1997 in order to become voluntary. It sold off campus movies. It started asset stripping its own union in order to make that change. I could read out all the bullet points because there is a lot of detail about what it went through in the year before it got there but the bullet point that really makes my heart break is the final one: all staff were made redundant effective 31December and that was before the union even went to voluntary student union membership. That was in preparation for going to voluntary student union membership. So in the year of 1998 when the union’s membership became voluntary it literally had no infrastructure in place to make sure there was a voice for students to ensure that the education of those students was improved—as I believe the Education Act actually envisages. I am sure that the Education Act was put in place to make sure that we had the best possible education system in New Zealand not a second-rate one not one where students did not have their voices heard and not one that has been proposed by this bill. 
I think that being on the Education and Science Committee while an enlightening process was actually quite disturbing because about 98 percent of the submissions that we heard were against the Education Act being amended in this way. Submitters came forward and said to us that they did not want the Education Act amended in this way at all; 98 percent of submitters said that so the majority of the select committee has gone against the wishes of those submitters in amending the Act. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill amends the Education Act of 1989. The question of course is how it amends the Education Act 1989 which is dealt with in the substance of the bill. But the wider question is whether there are unintended amendments to the Education Act 1989 and whether there are flow-on impacts to the wider Act that are not being adequately considered. The reason I raise this question is that the Education Act is a very substantial document. As a former president of a students association— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Two-term president! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: —two terms actually—I used to have a copy of the Education Act sitting on my desk. 
Louise Upston 
: Oh that’s really sad mate! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know. I can assure Louise Upston that I have read it from cover to cover. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Another one stuffed under his mattress! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I did not go quite that far. One of the roles of the students association was to ensure that the institutions complied with all of the requirements of the Education Act and ensure that the students received all of their entitlements under the law. So one of the issues I have with this bill and the way it amends the Education Act is the unintended consequence of that. Basically it lets the institutions off one of the safeguards currently in place to protect students and to protect those attending any sort of tertiary institution by having a strong students association that can advocate on their behalf. Of course the bill makes a number of changes to the Education Act. It extends wider than just the membership of students associations; it extends to the membership of a tertiary institutions council for example. So there are changes to the way institutions will be governed under this law. 
The question is the unintended consequences. Are there unintended consequences of this legislation on the principal Act that it amends? I argue that there are some unintended consequences and that in fact we need to consider very carefully whether the spirit of the Education Act is being adhered to and whether other safeguards are being put in place to ensure that students’ rights are being responsibly adhered to by institutions. I know as the president of a students association and as a member of a university council that I had a few arguments with the vice-chancellor and the management of the institution that went all the way to the university council to the governance level of the institution as allowed for under the Education Act. At one particular meeting we won and the vice-chancellor lost because the other members of the university council the lay members thought the case we put forward was sufficiently compelling for them to overturn a decision the vice-chancellor had made with regard to academic grievances. Institutions have to have a process in place for dealing with academic grievances and this is allowed for under the Education Act. The university council was not satisfied that the vice-chancellor had done an adequate job and we were able to overturn the decision. We could do that because under the Education Act there was universal membership of students associations and that gave us that ability to put forward quite a compelling argument and to argue it all the way through the university system right up to governance level. 
In conclusion I think one of the things this House should be aware of when it amends the Education Act is whether the amendments go wider than was originally envisaged. I argue there is quite possibly a strong compelling case to suggest that they do. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on clause 3 of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I apologise to my colleagues who were also seeking the call because I know that a lot of Labour members take this bill very very seriously and are keen to put their views—[ 
Interruption 
] Sorry? 
Shane Ardern 
: Some of them might even have had some speech notes. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh there is always a chance of that. A bit of preparation does not hurt I tell Mr Ardern. I am always keen to do a tutorial on this particular legislation before we speak on it. 
I want to follow on from the comments of former student president Hipkins who regaled us with stories about his copy of the Education Act that he kept so close to him. 
Chris Hipkins 
: How many terms did he serve as president? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Oh no—you see I was never up at such lofty heights; indeed it is unfulfilled ambition in that respect. If it were not for the fact that night schools have been cancelled in this country I could do a bridge course to get myself back into a university. But sadly this is not the case. 
The principal Act though is the 1989 Education Act; Mr Chairman you need to be aware of this because that is the clause we are debating at the present time. I saw by that look on your face that you were confused where the Committee of the whole House was at the present time. That Act is the legislation that of course our entire system is founded on and built on. One of the key phrases in that legislation that all members of Parliament should be very much concerned about and have their minds focused on is the role of universities and tertiary institutions to be the “critic and conscience of society”. Those are very lofty words. New Zealand legislation is not often given to lofty concepts. We are very practical people and we write our legislation in terms of what we want to see happen. We do not always write into law such aspirations as that one but when the original 1989 Education Act was re-formed into the way it is now there was a big debate about that—about whether that aspiration should stay. To act as a critic and conscience of society goes to the heart of the independence of our tertiary sector and my concern here— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek some clarity from you and some assistance. It seems to me that we are debating clause 3 which is the principal Act being amended; therefore I wonder whether we should be detailing the amendments to the principal Act rather than the broadest term of the principal Act which is not under debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member raises an interesting point of order. This is functionally a debate about why the principal Act needs to be amended. It does not bring the whole principal Act into it. We have skirted into some stuff that was not part of it but I think the member was getting back to the point at the time. But I am monitoring very carefully what is being said and members will note that I have a response if we do stray too far—if we stray at all actually. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Thank you Mr Chairman and as always we are so grateful for the procedural expertise of Mrs Goodhew who no doubt is co-authoring the next edition of  
McGee 
 such is her expertise in this matter. 
The point about the Education Act 1989 is that it has to sit in a consistent way for any subsequent amendment. The argument the Opposition is putting forward is that this bill undermines one of the central themes of that principal Act in a way that almost introduces a foreign concept to the Act. The point I was trying to get to was that the responsibility in the principal Act in addition to its broad theme of being a critic and conscience of society is its requirements as set out in its clauses to ensure quality across the education system—and I do not have the numbers here but it is in the 200s from my memory. Our contention is that this amendment bill runs foreign to the Education Act 1989 by undermining the students associations’ role in the way that it will do and the role that Mr Hipkins discussed in terms of the associations’ ability to monitor and advocate on behalf of students for the educational quality of particular programmes in tertiary institutions. This amendment to the principal Act renders irrelevant some of the aspirations goals and objectives of the Education Act 1989. 
If Government members do not get that then there is something wrong with them because this is a major change in the ability of users of the education system to ensure quality in the system. We hear a lot from Government members opposite about how primary schools should not be under the control of teachers—because of course what would teachers know—and that at primary level it should all be about what is best for the consumer. Yet here we are through this amendment to the primary legislation—the principal Act the Education Act—taking away from consumers at tertiary level the ability to be able to deliver to them a consistently high-quality tertiary education. The undermining of our students associations is something that we are very very worried about. 
These are not light decisions for the Committee to have to consider. If the Committee passes this clause it alters the Education Act and that is a major piece of social legislation in our country. I know that our Labour members on the Education and Science Committee put quite a lot of thought into what that would mean and that came up in their minority report—I cannot find the correct reference to the services linking back into the Education Act; I am sorry but I cannot find in my notes where it was—but the main point is that we do not believe that the change in this clause is consistent with the objectives of the Education Act. It is the job of the Committee to consider this law but also to defend the principal Act. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 Like my colleague Mr Hipkins I am also a former students association president. Unlike Mr Hipkins I did not have my own copy of the Education Act under my bed. Obviously I was not working hard enough. But I have managed to get my hands on a copy of the Act and I will argue two points really. One point is that this bill is contrary to the principal Act which the bill amends. It is contrary to the provisions relating to tertiary education in section 159AAA. Also if we look at section 229B of the principal Act—the Act that is being amended as noted in clause 3—which relates to initiating change relating to compulsory membership of students associations this bill is actually unnecessary. 
The objectives of provisions relating to tertiary education are that we develop a tertiary education system that contributes to the development of cultural and intellectual life in New Zealand and responds to the needs of learners stakeholders and the nation in order to foster a skilled knowledgable population over time. It will come as no surprise that I want to focus on the area of responding to the needs of learners and stakeholders because that is actually what the students associations allow universities polytechnics wananga or private training establishments to do. 
Students associations offer a voice for the students and they also offer a single point of contact for the tertiary institution to ensure that it is responding to the needs of learners and stakeholders—those particular stakeholders. By undermining students associations—and let us be honest that is what this bill actually does because if we did not want to undermine students associations then the Government would have agreed to our amendments on the commencement date so that is clearly the goal—and making it more difficult for them to operate this bill is contrary to that requirement that the institutions are able to respond to the needs of learners and stakeholders. If we have no organisation that represents those students then we have no way of the university actually being able to understand the views of all those stakeholders. There are thousands of students at most universities and there is no way that the university will want to waste time trying to survey those students to get an idea whether it is responding to their needs. It needs the students association to be the conduit for that point of view. 
In that way I think this bill is quite contrary to that particular part of the principal Act. But I think the main point is that this bill is completely unnecessary. If we look at section 229B which relates to initiating change relating to compulsory membership of students associations it states: “(1) The students of an institution at which membership of a students association is compulsory may request the council to conduct a vote of all students at the institution on whether membership of the students association should continue to be compulsory.” If it turns out that the result of that referendum is that most of the students at the university want membership of the students association to be voluntary then it goes voluntary—the job is done. There is absolutely no need for this bill whatsoever. Indeed the contrary proposal is true. If there is no students association at a tertiary institute or at least if there is no compulsory one and the students request a referendum on that question and more that 50 percent of the students want to introduce a compulsory students association then that can happen too. It can happen only if there is a petition with 10 percent of the student vote. 
That is actually far more legitimate than what we have right now. This bill has come about only because a tiny tiny very narrow section of the student population—that is ACT on Campus—has lobbied the member in the chair the Hon Heather Roy and managed to get her to push this legislation through. There were no petitions from 1 percent 2 percent 5 percent 10 percent or 20 percent of students in tertiary education. There was no call for this. It is currently stated in legislation without any need for change at all that any changes to the status of students associations can be initiated only if there is— 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will put the closure. The question is that the question be now put. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am surprised that the closure motion has been accepted although I do not want to cause problems by challenging the Chair. The Greens have a perspective that I want to hear. The Green members have sought the call every time. They have not had a call on this clause. I seek leave for you to review your decision. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have been listening very carefully to the debate and looking ahead at what is in the bill. The purpose clause and the requirement as to the constitution of councils are largely what the debate so far has been about. This is a very narrow debate and the points about which members have been debating slot into the debate on clause 4 and clause 4A particularly. I am persuaded by the quality of the debate. I have listened to it and I have accepted the closure. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Clause 4 Purpose 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I call the honourable—oh not the honourable—Chris Hipkins. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Give it time Mr Chair; I have been here only a little while. I am very happy to talk about the purpose clause clause 4 and clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. Clause 4 states: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” There is a huge amount of material. This is where we get down to the guts of whether this bill is desirable. 
First of all the question becomes under the purpose clause whether this bill is actually required—whether it is actually necessary. Its purpose is to uphold a student’s right to freedom of association. First of all let us look at whether the provisions in the current Act infringe on a student’s right to freedom of association. I put forward a pretty compelling case that in fact they do not and that they do not compel students to associate. One could mount a convincing case—and I am sure that one of my colleagues will do so further down the track—that being a member of a wider collective body such as a students association even if someone has to be a member does not actually infringe on a student’s right to freedom of association. This is in much the same way that the compulsion for me to pay taxes to the Government does not infringe on my rights to freedom of association either. We will address that argument as we get further down the track. 
But the question that I will turn my attention to particularly at the moment is whether students have no option other than to join a students association as the law currently stands. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that that is the case; in fact it is definitely not the case. Under the law passed by the then National Government in the late 1990s stewarded through the House by Tau Henare who was at the time a member of New Zealand First and supported by people such as Deborah Morris in order for there to be universal membership of a students association all of the students at that institution had to participate in a vote to say they wanted there to be universal membership of that students association. Those votes took place at the beginning of 1999 and only two university students associations opted for voluntary membership: the Waikato Student Union which was already voluntary—and in a subsequent referendum there students opted to go back to a universal system of membership—and the Auckland University Students Association. Those were the two voluntary ones. 
At all of the other universities—and we will talk about polytechs and institutes of technology shortly—all of the students voted in quite large numbers to retain a universal system of membership. At Victoria University where I was a student at the time from memory about 78 percent of those who voted in the referendum voted to retain a universal system of membership. One of the arguments put forward by those in favour of voluntary membership is that those who vote in students association - related activities are a small number and are not representative of the wider student population. In fact more than half of all of the students who were enrolled at Victoria University voted in that referendum on whether there should be a universal system of membership for the association and 78 percent voted in favour of having that. 
There is a provision within the Act that if students become dissatisfied with their association having a universal system of membership they can call another referendum and they can make the membership voluntary. They have that ability at the moment. Having watched the Victoria University students association in the last 3 or 4 years I think there were probably a few instances where many students may have felt compelled to call such a referendum because I do not think the behaviour of some of the elected representatives at the Victoria University students association in the last few years has been particularly acceptable. Actually one of the disciplines that the referendum option puts on students associations is that if they become unresponsive to their members if they lose touch with what their members want then they know that the members can take away their ability to continue to levy them and can remove that universal membership provision. 
That is already there under the current Act and it was an Act passed by a National Government. National’s position going into the last election was that it would not change that. Paul Hutchison went around the country saying National would not change this legislation. This is another broken promise from National—a bit like its promise not to increase GST. National members promised that they would not touch this legislation but they bowed to the pressure from the ACT Party to do just that. That is the second point that I raise. 
The third point that I will raise given all of those arguments is whether if there is a universal system of membership at a students association there is an ability to opt out. If a student feels so strongly offended by the notion that they are associated with the students association at their institution—polytech university or otherwise—can they opt out? Under the current law yes they can opt out. So to say that the current law infringes a student’s right to freedom of association simply is not true; a student can opt out now. I would say to Heather Roy the member in charge of this bill that those provisions could actually be strengthened. There is a legitimate cause to say that under the old law that existed before the current law it was almost impossible to opt out of a students association and one of the changes that happened in the late 1990s was that the provisions were strengthened somewhat. I think they could actually be strengthened a bit more without going the whole hog and having totally voluntary student membership. In some cases individual students clearly do not want to be members of an association and they could opt out. 
The difficulty that I have with this bill is that it goes all the way to the other extreme and makes it almost impossible to have a large-scale students association at a tertiary institution that is largely reflective of the composition of the students at that institution. I think that a students association without the ability to claim representative status will have all of the good work that it does eroded. Many of the things that students associations do simply do not get noticed and the associations will not be able to do them under a voluntary regime. 
Another one of the arguments put forward by the proponents of voluntary membership is that some students particularly those involved in activism on political issues such as voluntary student membership typically come from a right-wing perspective whereas a students association would be arguing in the old-fashioned terms from a more progressive left-wing perspective. Those students would say that a students association does not represent them and ask why they should have to join that association. I think that argument is a red herring. First of all those students can participate in the process and if they can get themselves elected to the students association executive they can change the policy of that association. Students associations actually operate on a very democratic basis; it is not hard to call a general meeting. It is not hard to get elected to a students association executive; I managed to do it four times— 
Moana Mackey 
: So humble. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I know. It is not hard to do that. 
Of course the candidates who put up the argument that they do not agree with the politics of the students association never manage to get themselves elected because students actually largely believe in the position put forward by students associations. It is a position that is supported by the majority of students at the institutions and that is reflected in the fact that they vote for the executive and for people who espouse those views. When I was the president of the Victoria University students association we did surveys to get students’ views on things—and I am not talking about small-scale surveys; I am talking about surveys of large chunks of the campus population—to make sure that the views we were putting forward on students’ behalf actually represented what they thought. Overwhelmingly they favoured the arguments that we put forward around lower-cost access to education and so on. 
We know that the National Government does not like the arguments put forward by many students associations because it made all sorts of promises up and down the country that it does not intend to keep. I remember a very famous promise that students associations have continued to remind this Government about: the promise made by the then National spokesperson on education to abolish student fees altogether. That was made in 1990 by National’s then spokesperson on education Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith who went up and down the country and signed his name on those pledges at every students association in the country. The students associations got him to pledge to do that and they continue to remind him time and time again that he broke that promise and that they are now paying much much higher fees increasingly so every year. 
Students associations have played an important role in keeping both National and Labour Governments honest. I was the president of the students association at Victoria University when the previous Labour Government was elected to office. It would be fair to say that we did a little bit to try to keep that Government honest and to push for policies that advanced student interests further than that Government might have been willing to go. It is good for us that the previous Labour Government respected the position of students associations even though it did not necessarily agree with what we were arguing for. It was unlike the current National Government which would prefer to do away with students associations altogether rather than to listen to the position that they put forward on behalf of their members. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora. It is good to be part of the third largest party in Parliament and to take a call on this very important bill the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—I am losing a bit of weight from jumping up and down constantly. I will put my cards on the table. I have never been a student politician. Unlike Mr Lees-Galloway or Mr Hipkins I have never been a student executive member or president but I still have some important views that I want to pass on about what we are doing tonight. 
The whole purpose of the bill the whole crux of the debate is freedom of association. I want to touch on what this bill is amending which is the Education Act. I want to bring forward the principles of that Act which are about building a smart and prosperous economy. This is what every single member in this Chamber wants to build for our country. It is about informing Kiwi citizens and Kiwi kids as they grow up and also about being a critic for our Parliament and our society. Our Government has made a whole host of changes in this sector over the last 2 years which have made tertiary education less accessible less affordable and for those students who cannot go to university because there are not enough places downright impossible. It is dumb economically and it is not part of the step change for building a smart prosperous economy. Why are we amending this Act in the name of freedom of association? Why are we being such an outlier? I am looking at information about students associations from the Ministry of Education which states the countries that have voluntary student membership—Australia. We know that Australia is changing because voluntary student membership just has not worked. Which countries have compulsory student membership? I can see the United Kingdom Sweden Norway—a whole list of other countries. Why are we doing it in the name of freedom of association? 
The basis is a fundamentally flawed argument. We are talking about one narrow-minded ideological interpretation of what freedom of association is. We are talking about students’ freedom of association but we have not talked about what students want. Luckily a UMR Insight poll of the general public has found that 77 percent of respondents support students having the choice. Only 16 percent support the Government having the choice and 6 percent had no view. The clear message from students is that they want the choice. The irony of this bill is the ACT Party supported by National is taking away students’ choice to organise themselves. The real reason of course is that the tiny ideological minority ACT on Campus and Student Choice could not get a few members to form a petition. They could not get the 10 percent needed for their members to argue with their student body. 
We are amending section 229A of the Education Act which shows that freedom of association is still provided for under the current status quo which I call the compromise agreement reached more than 10 years ago and is the current environment we exist in. Currently students can opt out. No one is compelling a student to join a students association. I would like to point out and put it on the table now that frankly some of the comments from ACT on Campus about sexual violence have been quite tasteless— 
Sue Moroney 
: And a disgrace. 
GARETH HUGHES 
: —and a disgrace. They are the worst examples of the arguments for this bill. Currently section 229A(6) of the Education Act gives students the opportunity to opt out. Section 229A(5) also gives students the opportunity to be exempt from paying membership fees on the grounds of hardship. The fact is their freedom of association is currently protected. 
We know that students associations are not like the crochet club they are not like a political party and they are not like a union. Students associations are their own unique body more akin to a council or a nation in the sense that members come together pay their taxes and have a democratic say. This bill is trying to protect freedom of association but instead it is doing the exact opposite and taking away students’ choices. I think one submission of the thousands we saw at the select committee deserves to be read again and if I can seek leave to table it I would ask members opposite to read it. It is the Human Rights Commission report. I think when we look at the conclusion it says plainly and simply that the purpose of the amendment is not achieved through this bill. The Human Rights Commission in its submission said that the commission considered that sections 229— 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak to the purpose clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. We actually have something to discuss here rather than hearing the delaying tactics that the Opposition have engaged in on the last two clauses and during the rest of the part of the day that we have just had. The purpose clause is very clear: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association”—and that is the crux of the matter—“by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” 
There have been all sorts of discussions about freedom of association and whether it exists on campuses. Opposition members clearly think it already exists. They talk a lot about the provisions in the Education Act as it stands at the moment that refer to an opt-out provision. But to be frank the opt-out provision is a farce and nothing more than that. It is a farce—not because it is not spelt out in the Act; it clearly is as people are saying. It is a farce because students associations over a large number of years now have steadfastly ignored what should have been a right. They have not taken the opt-out provision seriously. They have refused in many cases to even engage with students when they ask to opt out. They have refused to engage with students when the fee is to be given to a charity. The students association gets to choose the fee not the students themselves. 
Despite the fact that over time— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Change that bit. Don’t destroy the whole thing. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: The member clearly has not listened to this part of the debate because over time things have been strengthened and not capped at all. We are in favour now of having true freedom of association for students. Why are students the only sector in our community that is immune from freedom of association? In the workplace in 1993 compulsory unionism was abandoned. Of course unions are the funders of that side of the Chamber. But guess what? The sky did not fall in. 
It is saddening to sit here and listen to former presidents of students associations—Hipkins and Lees-Galloway. Unfortunately the Hon Darren Hughes as he said did not quite make those lofty heights although I seem to recall from campaigning that there was a role with a student council at Horowhenua College. Would that be right? Did he join voluntarily or was he compelled to be a member? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I was drafted by the people; I had no choice. 
Hon HEATHER ROY 
: There we go. Did he put his hand up to do it? I suspect so. But it is saddening that these former presidents of students associations do not have any confidence in what the students associations currently provide because they have already conceded there will be devastation when this bill passes. What it will do is prevent students associations from being the focus. It will be about the rights of individual students to choose what organisations they wish or do not wish to belong to. Freedom of association is about the right to associate with any organisation one wishes and what goes with that right is the right to dissociate from any organisation that one wishes. That is true freedom of association and for too long students have had the right to real freedom of association taken away from them. As things currently stand students cannot study at a tertiary institution if they do not join a union. They get to choose the tertiary institution to study at but they cannot study there if they do not join a union. That in this day and age is completely wrong. 
The purpose of this bill is very clear. It is about allowing students the only group in society now that does not have this right to have real freedom of association. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I start by saying to the member in the chair that it is a bit galling to be told that we are not allowed to debate things in Parliament. That might be the way the National-ACT Government runs things but it is not the way the Opposition sees Parliament running. It is not our fault— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I bet they have debates in their caucus. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I bet those members do have debates in their caucus particularly on the fact that Paul Hutchison and the National Party promised at the last election that they would not vote for this legislation and tonight they are. I am sure there are debates on that. 
I say to the member in the chair that it is not our fault National and ACT members are sitting opposite like dried arrangements not taking a call. We would love them to stand up and debate this bill instead of sitting there muttering under their breaths. I recognise the efforts of the Hon David Carter who has had two successful closure motions out of two tonight. That is a very good evening I say to the Minister. Perhaps a press release to acknowledge all his work and success this evening would be in order. 
I will concentrate on two things in this purpose clause: one is the inaccuracy of the purpose clause as it sits and the second is the fallacy of the purpose clause. This purpose clause is not about upholding students’ rights at all. This purpose clause is about the fact that opponents to students associations cannot even get 10 percent support among students to force a referendum on campus so they have come to Parliament to pass legislation that a party that sits on 1 percent in the polls wants passed. One percent of the population of New Zealand is forcing this legislation on 100 percent of the students. 
If students want voluntary student membership they have to get only 10 percent of students to call for a referendum. That is clearly impossible apart from in those universities where they have had the referenda—and we have talked about Waikato University which went voluntary then went back because it was such a disaster. The ACT Party which is sitting on 1 percent support has said that it does not think the students at Waikato know what they want. ACT does not think the students at Waikato are able to hold a democratic referendum and decide for themselves. The 1 percent party will tell them what is best for their organisation their university and their students’ association. It is astonishing from the party that claims to be about freedom and personal rights. 
We have a bill here that is in this Chamber only because through democratic processes ACT has been unable to kill off students associations and student membership of those associations. I think that is an embarrassment for this Committee of the whole House. The member in charge of the bill should be ashamed of it and members of National and ACT who are voting for this legislation should be ashamed of it because this is not what students want. 
If there are issues with the referendum provision and if ACT Party members on campus are finding it too hard to find 10 percent of students to force a referendum we can change the threshold to 5 percent. We could have done that. If as the member Heather Roy said the ability to opt out is too difficult why is she not addressing that? I know that students associations came to the Education and Science Committee and said that they were happy to look at making the opt-out processes easier if that was the big burning issue that was requiring this sledgehammer legislation to be forced through Parliament. 
I find it astonishing that the party of small government the party of not having the State involved in everything has now come to Parliament in order to get the Government and the New Zealand Parliament to pass a bill because it has not been able to argue its case on the campuses of New Zealand. I think that is embarrassing for the member in charge of the bill and I want to hear from a National member about why National has changed its position on this legislation and why it has broken the promise made at the last election that it would not support this legislation. Any National member will do. Sandra Goudie was very loud before; she is now ignoring me and that is fine. They all have their heads down working very very hard because they do not want to have to answer— 
Colin King 
: Oh come on Moana. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Maybe Mr Colin King can answer the question as to why National has broken its promise on this issue. The fact is that the purpose clause states: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 The purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is completely incorrect in terms of what its outcomes will be. It states: “The purpose of this Act is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” In other words the bill makes it compulsory for students to have voluntary student membership of their students associations. 
I look forward to debating the purpose of this bill not only here in this Chamber but also out on the streets during the general election in Hamilton. I will be contesting the seat for Hamilton West against Tim Macindoe and I know that the students at Wintec will be very concerned about the passage of this bill. They will know that Tim Macindoe voted to take away their freedom to decide whether they have a students association on their campus. They will know that Tim Macindoe has said that students cannot make this decision for themselves and that the Government will dictate to them that they cannot have a vibrant students association on their campus. 
On the other side of the river Sehai Orgad Labour’s candidate for Hamilton East will be thrilled to debate with David Bennett the purpose of this bill because the students at Waikato University know what it means to have a voluntary union. They know that the purpose stated in this bill does not match what the outcome will be. When the Waikato Student Union went voluntary—voluntarily—in 1996 it was asset-stripped and it had no infrastructure left at the end of that process. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: That sounds familiar. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It does sound familiar; it sounds like John Key’s plan for the entire country. It happened at Waikato University. I will go through a few of the facts because a very very fine submission was put forward by the Waikato Student Union. It told us that in 1996 it had membership levy revenue of $730593. That is what it was collecting in student levies which meant it could have a very robust organisation. In 1997 that revenue fell to $593000 and that was before it even went to voluntary student membership. In 1998 the first year of voluntary membership for the Waikato Student Union its membership levy revenue fell to $23253. 
One can see the immediate impact that this bill will have on the voice of students right throughout this land. It will be forced on them; it will not be voluntary. The students of Waikato volunteered to make that decision and they realised after 3 or 4 years that they had got it badly wrong. They had a vote and decided to become compulsory again because they knew what the impact had been. They lost their student representation on the university council at Waikato University. They lost all of the assets that many generations of students had saved up for including student radio campus movies and a whole range of other things which they will never ever get back. The radio station they had and the frequency they broadcast on have been sold for ever and they will never get that frequency back. The Waikato Student Union also made all of its staff redundant so it had no one in a paid position who could provide professional advocacy for students on the issues they faced. 
In the second year of voluntary membership the union’s membership levy revenue fell to just $3442. For goodness’ sake the local bridge club would operate on more money than that every year and any other club— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The stamp collectors. 
SUE MORONEY 
: It would cost the stamp collectors more than that to operate their club. The entire student membership levy revenue fell to $3442 and I think at that stage students realised that they had made a bad mistake. The final year of voluntary student membership was in 2000. They returned to universal membership in 2001. They voluntarily and collectively made a decision because they could. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I will speak on the purpose clause of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. I believe that the purpose clause will have a very chilling effect on student government for tertiary institutes in New Zealand. Effectively the Committee of the whole House is being asked to legislate over the top of rights that students currently enjoy and that have existed for them in law for the last 12 or 13 years because some members of Parliament have decided they do not like what students associations do. Those members have a chilling agenda to try to stop the ability for students associations to advocate for students across our tertiary institutes in New Zealand and to take away from students the rights they currently enjoy to change any aspect of student government. 
The purpose of the bill is not the words written in the purpose clause of the bill. The real purpose of the bill is firstly about adopting and pursuing a right-wing agenda to try to end student government and make it a far less effective force in New Zealand and secondly—on a more personal level—about being nice to Heather Roy. The National Party members like many Labour Party members believe she was treated absolutely shoddily by the ACT Party and the bullies in that organisation. When this bill was in the name of Roger Douglas the National Party MPs were totally dismissive of it. They thought it was a step too far. They thought some changes could be made to the current legislation—and Labour and Green members have been open about debating that aspect of it but we do not want to throw the baby out with the bathwater—but after seeing the way Heather Roy was treated last year by the blokes in the ACT Party all of a sudden the National Party decided to be nice to Heather by supporting her bill to undermine and try to end student government at tertiary institutes around New Zealand. 
Heather Roy is a nice woman but she is not so nice that she should be the person responsible for getting rid of student government at tertiary institutes across the country just to make her feel better. We will take her for coffee; we will buy her a glass of wine. We will do whatever she likes. We will all sit around and say how much we think Rodney Hide is a terrible person. We will join in on that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: “Kumbaya”. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Mallard suggests we could sing “Kumbaya”. That is all fine; we will do that. But to make the member feel better by supporting this law whose purpose clause undermines student government across our tertiary institutes is just plain wrong. 
I ask the member in charge of the bill some questions. I ask her whether she believes in her heart of hearts that the kinds of services that all students get to enjoy now which have been built up over 100 years of fully participative student government across our universities and polytechs would exist if her bill had been law 100 years ago. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: It’s hard to predict. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: She has such faith in her legislation! Of course the answer to my question is no. Generations and generations of students in polytechs and universities have benefited from the work of students associations that have been built up due to the fact that everybody is part of them. For a number of years students all had to belong to a students association—no question about it. But since the 1990s they have not all had to belong to a students association. Students have had the ability to trigger referenda as other colleagues have said. They can vote on the issue—I will come back to that point. Students have had the ability to object to being a member of a students association and to not participate if they object to being a member. That ability is in the legislation. 
On both of those areas there is room for debate. Grant Robertson has put forward amendments to try to find a common ground certainly with ACT and more latterly with National as it changes its position. For a while National honoured its election commitment not to bring in or support legislation like this bill but it has forgotten about those commitments. 
All it takes is 10 percent of students to trigger the referendum in order to pursue the sorts of things Mrs Roy tells us are important to her. Ten percent is not much. Admittedly I know that 5 percent feels like a mountain to the ACT Party at the moment. I can see that ACT members might look at that 10 percent figure and think it is almost mission impossible. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Especially with Rodney leading them. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Let us not be mean about Rodney; let us leave that to the people of Epsom. I think that getting 10 percent of students to sign a referendum is not difficult at all. In our tertiary institutes students already have the ability to choose. That choice is what this bill is taking away. 
In a weird back to front way this National-ACT Government is putting its nanny State political views on to students. It wants to try to destroy student government. It cannot come out and just ban it because World War II was about that kind of thing so instead it will put in place every possible impediment to student government being a success. I think that is plain wrong. The purpose clause of the bill should reflect the real desire of the right-wing rabble. Helpfully for the Committee I have put forward three amendments to the purpose clause. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Darren Hughes really hit the nail on the head. The real purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill is very very clear. The purpose is to suppress the student voice suppress student activism suppress student politics and kill off student life so that when the National Government—next year if it is re-elected—rolls out its next round of anti-student anti-democratic cuts such as removing the clause on interest-free student loans there will be no students left to protest and demonstrate against it. That is what this bill is about. It is about trying to suppress democracy and kill off student politics so that when the Government rolls out some of its awful policies there will be no students left to demonstrate against them. 
Like others in this Chamber I was a member of the student executive of Victoria University; I was a member for 2 years. It was the most politicising experience of my life. But that is what the Government does not want. It does not want to have a student executive that politicises people. I got on to the executive as a rather naive young woman of 18 and I became quickly radicalised. We had marches on Parliament—of course in those days it was a political place—and we had anti - Viet Nam protests. It was very exciting. It was certainly the highlight of my days at Victoria University and it radicalised me. That is what the bill is intended to suppress. Admittedly some student unions are not very political at the moment but they have the potential to become so. The Government wants to kill off that voice and suppress student life so there will be no one left. Like getting rid of all those councils in Auckland and like getting rid of Environment Canterbury it is just another way of suppressing democracy and suppressing dissent in New Zealand. 
Students are extremely poor so if they are given a choice whether to pay voluntarily to join the student union the chances are they will not. They would probably rather spend the money on a keg of beer or on paying for their accommodation. When this bill goes through the student union will slowly wither away—like the Communist State—and with it student life and many of those wonderful services that student unions provide: the student gym health services student representatives on the university councils and all of those things. Those things are integral to student life are part of the whole campus and give the campus vibrancy but will slowly disappear. 
I remember going to Victoria University in the 1990s at the height of Rogernomics. I went around the campus and it was as dead as a dodo. I did an interview for a magazine and there was nothing. The only club that really had any members was the tramping club. There was nothing else. It was just awful. People said it was boring it was dull and there was no student life. That was the effect under Rogernomics. That is what will happen again under this legislation. Mr Hughes talked about the chilling effect that will happen on our campuses. There will be no one left to protest against the appalling policies that the Government has on the back-burner ready to roll out after the next election. 
There is no need for the bill. As others have said there is already freedom of association. Students can have a referendum but they do not want the bill. It is yet another example of the Government bulldozing through its changes and refusing to listen to people particularly to the students. It is causing cynicism and alienation amongst New Zealanders that a Government is successively ignoring the wishes of the people—87 percent of students do not want this bill. Students want a student union. They do not want the bill. They do not want this so-called freedom of association bill. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 There are a number of proposed amendments to clause 4 the purpose clause. Before I address them I really must come back to some of the comments the member in the chair made. She told us when she took the opportunity to speak on the clause that for her it all hangs on the ability of students to opt out of students associations. As a former students association president I have to say again—as Chris Hipkins said—that I have some sympathy for that position. I think the situation is currently a little bit nebulous and that there is some opportunity for students associations to shirk their responsibilities. Students associations came to the select committee on the bill and said they were prepared to work on it and were prepared to look at some options. In fact really if the purpose of the bill which is stated in clause 4 is to “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.” then that is all we would need to do. That is the one amendment the one change we would have to make to the principal Act to achieve the purpose in clause 4. But the fact is as we all know that is not actually the purpose of the bill. The purpose is to kill off students associations. 
How will the bill achieve that? An issue that I do not think has been addressed much—or at least the reason why there is so much concern from this side of the Chamber that has not been addressed exactly—is that students are faced with their course fees and tuition fees then further down the list there will be a student services levy and then further down the list there will be various other fees. If at the bottom of that list there is an optional fee for a students association that they have never heard of they do not know what it does they have no material to understand what it does and they do not understand the benefits of being a member of they will say they are paying so much already that they will save themselves $100 $200 or whatever it is the students association is asking for. They will opt out of it. They will say no thank you very much. They will arrive at the university and they may or may not then discover that they would have preferred to be a member of the students association. 
I can say I would have been one of those students. I was not particularly impressed when I saw the part of my invoice that stated that I was paying for a students association because I did not know what a students association was. I did not come from a family— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s because you came from King’s College. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: That is right; the member hit the nail on the head. That is exactly why I did not know what a students association was. I needed to learn a few things. In fact Massey University had its referendum. Ten percent of the students at Massey managed to sign a petition—the university managed to get more signatures than the ACT Party is able to get in an election—and it had a referendum. By the time the university had the referendum I had changed my view because I had had an opportunity to see what the students association did. I was particularly fond of the extremely low gym fees but I enjoyed orientation as well and I quite liked the paper. I did not often listen to the radio station but I certainly was aware of the advocacy service and I thought maybe some day I might want to use it. That was a long time before I became involved in the students association. That is exactly the response that students right across the country have. 
Going back to the purpose of the bill which states that it is to “uphold students’ rights” if it was upholding students’ rights then this would have been a change that there would have been an outpouring of emotion for. There would have been petitions and letters to parliamentarians and there would have been a huge campaign for students to have the change but there was not because people actually respect and understand what students associations do. The purpose of the bill is to pander to a very very narrow small section of the student population at the expense of the bulk of the students associations. It is something for the few at the expense of the many—the vast majority of students on campus. That is the actual purpose of the bill. Students associations do a lot of good for their students but the member in the chair seems to want to overlook that completely. 
We have a number of amendments to clause 4. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 Listening to the debate on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill I get the feeling that it is basically an ideology looking for a problem. In a sense it is not really a problem; it is simply an ideology that is trying to create or manufacture a problem in order to change legislation that at the moment is working particularly well. 
When it comes to the purpose of the bill—and I will address it specifically—I think the member who put forward the bill Heather Roy has characterised the problem wrongly. She kept calling the students associations unions as she might refer to a union such as the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union or the Service and Food Workers Union. Students associations are simply not that sort of organisation. Students associations are not like those kinds of organisations; they are associations that have two basic fundamental roles. 
The first role is financial. A number of members spoke earlier about this issue. If the finances are not paid then the resources that students enjoy at the moment will not be available to them. The services they have at the moment will not be available to them. Iain Lees-Galloway brought up an interesting point that in a sense there is a tipping point. If everybody contributes a range of services are available whether or not they use them. As soon as those services start withering away the ability to understand the importance of those services for students associations starts to diminish. In a sense it is then a self-fulfilling prophecy that the students associations will wither and die. That point is extremely important. 
The second role is representational. I was not part of the students association or one of the elected officials at university. In fact I found them to be pretty dull to be perfectly honest. I was much more enamoured with the gym the orientation the fact that I could go to a health service the fact that I had an advocacy service and the fact that I had a newspaper. All of those other services attracted me to the university. But also I had a students association that was able to go out and represent me and my interests at a higher level. I did not necessarily always agree with the students association but nevertheless it represented the body of students. 
I think this comes to the crux of the mistake that Heather Roy has made in interpreting the purpose of the legislation—that is students associations are not unions; they are associations. We pay a tax or a levy for services we enjoy and if we do not pay that levy—if we all do not pay that levy—then the services deteriorate to a point where we actually do not get any value out of them. The example of the University of Waikato was brought up. A $700000 budget went down to a $3000 budget. A $3000 budget can provide an absolutely insignificant degree of service. Nobody understands its value and therefore students will not opt to contribute to it any further. 
The conceptualisation of the bill is completely wrong. Even if I am generous and accept that the ACT Party has the conceptualisation wrong I still believe that it is really about politics and ideology before it is about the welfare of students. It is not about the freedom of students; it is about the ideology of the ACT Party and it is more about Heather Roy existing after she was ousted from her ministerial portfolio. I very clearly remember her saying on the  
Close Up  
television programme that she was really looking forward to getting into this particular bill because that was the end of her life as a Minister. That is the reason we are here arguing this matter today. 
I know for a fact that National was willing to consider some compromises over the legislation that would have ensured that it endured beyond another Labour Government. As soon as another Labour Government comes in this legislation will be gone. 
This bill is a piece of ideology. It is a piece of politics. It is looking for an issue a problem that simply is not there. It is simply not in existence. As a result of that the real losers from this bill will be students who will lose their students association. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill this unfortunate bill that seeks to undermine a system that has worked very well for a very long time. I have had the occasional pleasure and occasional pain of studying and teaching at three institutions—at two universities and a polytech—and I have observed at firsthand that students associations have been a fundamental touchstone and a significant base ensuring a good experience for students in our tertiary institutions. This bill will diminish that. This bill undoubtedly will reduce and diminish the quality of the student experience in our tertiary institutions. 
The alleged purpose of this bill which is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association is a fairly dubious proposition but in seeking to protect students’ rights allegedly what it will actually do is reduce the likelihood of students getting a good educational experience while they are enrolled at a tertiary institute. The almost certain unintended consequence as I have said is the diminishment the degradation of that critical experience. It is a life-forming experience not only in terms of students—young people and not-so-young people—gaining a tertiary qualification but also in terms of their gaining experience refreshing their attitudes and understanding world views. The richness of a tertiary education will be undermined by some of the elements of this bill if this unfortunate bill is passed. 
We have heard a great deal this evening about the negative impact on students and that is entirely appropriate because it will be very real and will be felt by students but the institutions equally have cause to be worried if this bill is passed. Clearly the institutions rely on funding to survive and thrive and part of that funding has a student achievement component. We know that institutions can lose funding if they do not get sufficient pass rates—if students do not stay engaged and enrolled in the courses that they begin. Eight institutions are suffering funding cuts this year because they have failed to meet the standards imposed by the student achievement component of the overall funding of the tertiary sector. 
There are three ways in which we can endeavour to retain students and thereby protect the income of the institutions. Clearly the academics have a key role in ensuring that students remain engaged have a positive experience and stay within the sector. Academics are now struggling with the demands of the Performance-based Research Fund the obligation to research—to publish or perish—even if that research often does not serve any particular practical end. At the same time that academics have been obliged to do more research they are also experiencing increased teaching loads. In my experience all academics—and I have talked to a lot of them—are finding that they have an increased demand to teach more. They are having to spend more time in front of students as well as having to deal with more expectation of research. 
Academics are also being obliged to undertake administrative tasks because the general or non-academic staff at the institutions have had the axe taken to them in recent years as well. The whole sector is creaking. It is under stress. This misguided legislation with the likelihood that it will diminish the student experience and reduce the likelihood of students staying engaged with their studies is also likely to lead to a reduction in funding for the institutions. After all who else does that leave? The academics have no capacity to engage with their students at a higher level than they are now doing. They are facing larger classes more research requirements and more academic expectation. They have no capacity to provide that one-on-one support that can and often does make the difference between a student succeeding and completing a degree or a course or not succeeding. The general staff do not have that capacity either. 
We must not forget that the general staff are critical in the student experience and do a great deal of often unrewarded and unrecognised work in terms of protecting student interests. Effectively that leaves the students associations which have a long history and dare I say it a very proud history of providing the range of services and experiences to students that keeps them engaged and increases the likelihood of their success. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I was not planning to take a call tonight on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill but I heard the member in the chair Heather Roy speak a little earlier and it sparked something in me that caused me to want to make some comments. It was the comment she made on the issue of coercion. 
In Heather Roy’s view students are being coerced to pay funding that they do not want to pay. My mind was taken back to last year and the difficulties within the ACT Party which saw that member go home for a couple of days and then reappear at a press conference sitting very uncomfortably alongside the leader of the ACT Party. She was being asked to confirm whether she was really happy to be sitting there alongside that member and I guess effectively she was being forced to say through gritted teeth that she was. If ever I thought that I had seen an element of coercion going on it was watching that coverage that night. I felt for that member at the time because I think she is a good decent and honourable member but if ever I thought that there was coercion going on I saw it on my television screen that night. 
When we talk about freedom of association I think we also have to acknowledge that where there is a balancing of rights it comes between the rights of individuals and the rights of the collective but it is not simply an issue of the rights of individuals über alles. I think people will generally acknowledge that collectively they can gain things if they work together if they come together and if they pool resources together. If we want an example of that within our economy we could look at Fonterra which is effectively a collective where people come together and pool their resources. Collectively that company is a $10 billion export company and is upheld as an example by some members opposite even though it might sometimes seem a little bit too collective and maybe even—to use the “s” word—socialist in its intent. It actually works well in the best interests of its members and it works extraordinarily well in the interests of New Zealand. 
We can put up against that the issues of narrow self-interest that I think this bill represents in respect of a handful of people with connections to the ACT Party who say that they do not want to fund any of the activities of students associations but would rather look after themselves. Well that is all very well but obviously students have the option already in existing legislation. If they want to they can force a referendum—although that does not seem to be happening on much of a basis—and therefore that mechanism provides them with some protections. 
I know the realities of what students associations can provide because I spent 8 years as a member of the council of the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. I sat on the council of a small polytechnic straddling across the two provinces of Marlborough and Nelson. The students association had to provide services across about 2500 equivalent full-time students or “EFTS”. Many of those people were part-time students. There were lots of sole parents—mums coming back and doing some training part-time. There were lots of short seasonal-type courses. There was not that much in the way of degree courses. Often people were there for only 6 months or a year on a diploma course or a foundation course. Usually 2 years at most was the time that people spent there. But those students needed access to services. They needed to know that if they had a health issue they could go to a subsidised doctor service. They needed to know that if they had issues with sexual health there was somebody who could provide them with those kinds of services. Those services came through the student association. 
I ask a question of members opposite who have indicated they will support this bill. If we look at the current pressure upon the tertiary sector for educational funding we are told there are no spare dollars currently available for any services across the whole panoply of Government. Yet here we are by inherently suggesting that by doing away with the current compulsory regime with the option for referenda effectively we are likely to see this bill used in one or two instances I suspect to try to force those votes and disestablish students associations. What does that mean? Does that mean that in these very difficult financial times we will see student services close down? If that is the situation what will it mean? Will it mean in fact that the Government will have to stump up and provide extra resources because students simply will need to have access to those provided services in terms of things like Student Job Search student health services and the like? 
I think one other important point to recognise is that students associations often give young people their first taste of democracy. It can often be the first time they have stood for a representative body. 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The typescript amendment in the name of Grant Robertson is ruled out of order as it is inconsistent with the principles of the bill. I refer members to Standing Order 292(2). 
The next amendment is in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes: a typescript amendment regarding not providing for referenda decisions. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This amendment you read out is in my name but the amendment I submitted referred to omitting the words that you mentioned and substituting the words “remove the right of students to decide whether or not their student association membership is compulsory by not providing for referenda provisions.” You said just now “decisions” and I want to know whether my amendment has been changed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No it has not. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Did you misspeak? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I did not misspeak. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: Did I mishear? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member did not mishear. I summarised and in contracting the amendment to its very essence I may not have used the same words just like the member when reading it out. I was just making sure; I could simply have said “a typescript amendment in the name of Darren Hughes” and left it at that. But people would have wondered which one it was so I gave a brief descriptor so that members were aware which one it was. You have now clarified it. Is everybody clear? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No offence has been taken? The member is quite happy to support his own amendment? All right we will put the question. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations” and substitute “remove the right of students to decide whether or not their student association membership is compulsory by not providing for referenda provisions”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations” and substitute “undermine students’ associations and reduce the services they provide for students”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Darren Hughes to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit “uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations” and substitute “to increase student fees by removing value-for-money services provided by student associations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 57; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand Labour 38; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1. 
Clause 4 agreed to. 
Clause 4A Requirements as to constitutions of councils 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask whether you could please give us the  
Reader’s Digest 
 version of the clause 4A debate. I think there is a bit of confusion. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: No there is none at all. It is just a matter of form. Normally when the question comes up the Chairperson says: “The question is” and then we go on to debate it. There is no problem. We are debating clause 4A. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 I was hoping that the member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill the Hon Heather Roy might have taken a call on this particular question first of all to explain its meaning to the Committee of the whole House. It is not enormously clear why the Education and Science Committee has recommended that this clause be inserted. The commentary on the bill makes a reference to the need for new clause 4A to be inserted which would make a consequential amendment to the principal Act. But there is no rationale for why the Education and Science Committee chose to make the change at this time. It would be useful if the member in charge of the bill could let us know the rationale for that change. 
To put an uncharitable view on what that change might mean it is a continuation of what Labour considers to be the chilling effect on student government across our tertiary institutions in New Zealand which is being made to pursue an agenda that the political parties concerned have not been able to achieve in any other way. New clause 4A takes away the rights of student governments to use their own process to put in place their representatives on the councils of universities polytechnics or other tertiary institutes. Those are the institutions the bodies or the vehicles that govern how an institution will run. Critically from the point of view of most students they are the body that will determine the fees that are paid by students. Therefore it is very important that students are represented and well represented on those councils. But in this bill we have seen a change to the way those individual autonomous institutions are able to select their council representatives. That is how it looks. 
I ask the member in charge of the bill to speak to this issue and let us know what she intends by that change and just as critically why it is necessary. You see all these independent autonomous institutions already have their own processes in place for how they ensure students are represented at council level. Mostly it is through a very well-established relationship with the student government which this bill represents a direct attack on. 
National is now supporting this bill having promised at the previous general election that it would not support it. Here we are tonight debating clause 4A which National members are right behind in lock step with the ACT Party—both wings of the ACT Party. There is a unity in that sense on this issue. We need to know why they are trying to change the way autonomous institutions are able to make up their councils. Left unexplained it seems to be just another attempt to reinforce this Government’s opposition to student government. 
Students have the choice to shape student government now. Students can at any stage using the provisions of their constitutions make a decision to call a meeting to alter their election provisions for selecting their representatives. They can call a meeting to change the philosophy of their own student government and to change how they want it to run. They are also of course as other members have said in a position to change that arrangement if 10 percent of students sign a petition saying they want to have a referendum on the way their student government is made up. If that happened they would already in existing law be able to change the way their representation is selected. But here we see in addition to a bill that throws the baby out with the bathwater the Government introducing this clause in the select committee in order to determine how the councils are made up. 
This could easily be part of a wider agenda. The architect of the existing compromise Tau Henare has walked in to watch his finest work being destroyed by his own colleagues. Politics is a strange old thing. We need to know exactly why Government members have gone down this path. They say that the current arrangements of student government are anti-democratic because there is an element of compulsion to those arrangements yet they are not prepared to participate in the debate to discuss it. They want to ram the legislation through. They have had all of their hard workers moving closure motions because they are not interested in debating this issue. By their own actions in the Committee tonight they have shown exactly what their agenda is in pursuing this legislation. I am concerned that the councils which control huge amounts of taxpayer money are having their make-up changed by the member’s insertion of clause 4A and I think the Committee needs a thorough explanation from the Hon Heather Roy about why she has decided to do that. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on clause 4A of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill which changes the constitutions of tertiary institution councils. I think it would be quite useful at this point for the Committee to understand in greater detail how the existing legislation has been put into effect. Under the existing law a tertiary institution council includes students staff alumni business employers and representatives appointed by the Government in the case of universities. The Government has changed the rules in relation to polytechnics and institutes of technology. I will deal primarily with universities because those are the councils I am most familiar with. 
A university council has between one and three student representatives between one and three staff representatives and a variety of other representatives in statute. Under the existing legislation the student representatives are nominated and appointed by the students association. In the case of the Victoria University of Wellington Students Association there are two representatives on the university council one of which the students association has decided through its constitution will be the president of the students association. That person is of course by definition elected by the students at the institution. 
The second position set aside for students at Victoria University is elected by the student populace at large in an election administered by the students association. At this point I point out—and I am looking forward to hearing Tau Henare’s views on this issue; he seems to be very eager to take a call—that the election at large administered by the students association is a very cost-effective and cheap way of getting the student representatives elected to the university council. Students associations run those elections. All students are eligible to vote in them already so adding another slot on the ballot paper to elect another representative position is a very cost-effective way of getting a student representative for the council who is elected by all students and therefore is representative of the student body at large. 
I believe quite firmly that an election administered by the university would probably have a lower turn-out than an election administered by the students association. As evidence for that I look at the alumni representatives on the councils. There is a very very low turn-out in the elections for the alumni representatives on university councils in comparison with the turn-out for the election of student representatives in students association elections. So I think it is really important that we understand how that works at the moment. 
Other institutions work a little bit differently. Massey University for example I think has three student representatives on the council; I think it had an extramural representative when I was involved a representative from the Maori students and the president of the Massey University Students Associations Federation. The federation of the students associations of Massey University allows it to incorporate the student representatives from the different campuses where they have separate students associations—[ 
Interruption 
] What was that? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No not you; the dark one. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Oh right—discrimination that is what that is! There are different rules depending on which institution we are talking about and I think it is important that we understand those. Under the amendment put forward by Heather Roy to the bill the elections of student representatives will be solely the responsibility of the tertiary institutions concerned. It does not actually prescribe how they will conduct those elections. It simply says they will have to conduct the election in accordance with the statutes made by the council. Of course the council could make a statute saying that it will have an election and only the people the vice-chancellor picks will be eligible to stand in the election. Under this legislation that would be perfectly acceptable. I think that would be totally outrageous but it would allow the council effectively to hand-pick which students it wanted to be represented on the council and therefore severely diminish— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Yawn! 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I say to Mr Henare that I know it is late and he wants to go and have his little nap but he will have to bear with us a little bit longer. 
I think one of the really important parts of having the students association appointing or nominating the student representatives to council is that it is very democratic. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I spent some time on the Education and Science Committee for the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and I am trying to remember when we discussed clause 4A. It seems to have come out of the blue and I do not remember being informed about it by officials being given any background on it the select committee having any kind of debate on it or any submitters coming to talk about it. 
Clause 4A seems to be an anomalous clause that does not relate to the alleged purpose of the bill. It seems to be the exact opposite of what the ACT Party claims it is because it is actually interfering in the political process. The ACT Party’s claim about the bill which I do not agree with at all seems to be that we must not interfere in political process. 
The Green Party is at a loss to understand where the clause fits in the bill. The clause seems to be more to do with a bill we debated at the select committee some time last year—I think it was the Education Amendment Bill (No 2)—which was about changing the polytech councils. The clause seems to be more to do with deciding that the role of students will be limited because the ACT Party does not want the influence of students over councils at universities and tertiary institutions. We have a major problem with that approach. We are very surprised the ACT Party members are supporting the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill in one breath and then in the next breath going on and on about freedom. 
Some of the submitters who came to talk to the Education and Science Committee talked a lot about their freedom. They were talking only about themselves. They had no concept of the freedom of other people but they certainly seemed to be obsessed with the idea that they did not need students associations because they were free spirits and students associations did not matter. They had no ability to empathise with or show any imagination towards other people who might have needs. 
Clause 4A is all about the constitution of councils and it does not seem to fit logically or coherently with the overall ethos of the bill if there is one. The Green Party is at a loss to see why clause 4A has been done this way. Maybe it has something to do with inconsistencies with the Education Act or maybe it has something to do with the way legislation is drafted but the clause does not seem to have much to do with the coherent clauses and the fundamental purpose of the bill which we have just debated. I cannot see how the clause is linked with the principal purpose of the bill. It certainly seems to me like political incorrectness gone mad on every level. That is really a good description of the bill and possibly what it should have been called. But we are not here to debate the name of the bill; we are talking about clause 4A. 
I do not have a lot more to say about clause 4A except that I would like to be able to say that we had a robust and coherent debate on it at the select committee that everyone who was there understood the clause that it was discussed intelligently and that we stand behind it. But in fact we did not we do not it was not and it will not be. 
We in the Green Party would like to know why one would dictate how many students could be appointed to a council. Why would ACT members if they are interested in freedom talk about there being “at least 1 but not more that 3 persons who must be appointed following an election (conducted in accordance with statutes made by the council)”? That sounds extremely Draconian. It does not sound like freedom. It does not sound like the students are getting to make choices. It sounds as if the system at the moment which has worked perfectly well is going to be changed so that the councils on the tertiary institutions will have all the power. Well guess what they have all the power now. They have a huge amount of power. 
We have a vulnerable student body that has lost access to universities in huge numbers. When I sat on the select committee and listened to submissions from Maori organisations Pasifika organisations disability activist groups and people concerned about all kinds of issues I heard that the last thing they wanted was for the councils of their organisations to have more power over them. They wanted students to have the right to collectively organise to advocate for themselves and to be able to elect representatives to participate in things like councils. 
I am at a loss to see how clause 4A usefully contributes to the idea that students have rights and that students are valid participants in the governing bodies of their organisations. If we want to disempower people why are we not honest about it and say that this bill is about disempowerment that it is about breaking down the opportunity for students to organise politically and that under clause 4A it is about breaking down the opportunity for students to choose freely their own representatives in the manner they want? If ACT members want to be honest then they should talk about what the bill is really about instead of writing clauses that do not make it clear and do not help the public have any understanding of why the National Government has supported ACT on the bill. 
The Green Party is appalled that we have actually undermined students in so many ways in the last 2 years. Students have been undermined ever since Roger Douglas brought in user-pays. The situation is getting worse by the day and now ACT wants to take away students’ fundamental rights not only to have their needs looked after in terms of services and clubs but also through clause 4A in terms of how those services and clubs are appointed. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I agree with the previous speaker Catherine Delahunty to a certain extent. Clause 4A seems to be an odd clause to have included in the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill. It would be interesting to know what the member in the chair actually thinks of it given that it was included by the Education and Science Committee. But I want to talk from my experience at Massey University about why I think this particular clause simply will not work in real terms when we think about it in practical terms. At Massey University there are a number of different campuses and each campus has its own students association. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill and no progress on the Employment Relations (Secret Ballot for Strikes) Amendment Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.